I don't normally do this, but in the last couple days I've been directed to several fascinating articles or sites that you, the discerning reader, might oughtta check out.
Those of you who share an appreciation for the Nordic features will appreciate this article about how mankind went blonde. Favorite quote:
"...north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males."
Not so much has changed, I'd say. The bad news is that natural blondes are headed for extinction. A WHO study predicts the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.
But the good news is that regardless of your natural appearance, a few dollars can ensure that you look perfect in photos. Zellyn, who first posted the link, is right to say that ladies find themselves competing with what are essentially realistic cartoons. (Click "portfolio" then "before/after".)
Lastly, those of you interested in urban church planting will likely enjoy this NYT piece about Tim Keller. I know he's not rewriting christianity, or churchianity, but I can't help but like his ideas, especially about the city. Thanks to Chris for the link.
Those photos are amazing. I had no idea it was so easy. Who needs surgery? Just never go out in public, but circulate great photos.
Posted by: Chris at February 27, 2006 05:07 PMsince you posted the link to fluid effect, i've visited their site at least twenty times. i'm obsessed (particularly with that picture of nicole richie), and i'm not sure my obsession with the reality is really any better for me than my lazy, naive belief in the "fake" -- it's just the other side of the coin. one causes me to be critical of myself, the other causes me to be critical of others. either side of the coin exposes the same basic problems in our society (and specifically in me).
two other things i've noticed:
1. i don't think their retouching work is flawless; sometimes it is too obvious, too painted-looking. and also sometimes i can't really believe that the "before" is not the fabrication.
2. it's fascinating what gets retouched. it's not just the person's "flaws," but also things the viewer's eyes are drawn to that distract them from the beauty (a single hair, a shadow, a spot). which leads me to all kinds of questions about the nature of beauty -- it's natural existence vs. how we perceive it -- that i'll spare you for now...
that's a good comment, erin. if only your blogs contained such astute analysis. (kidding, of course)
you have to remember that they aren't necessarily trying to make people beautiful. they are also selling a product, and i would imagine the latter trumps the former when it comes to big celebrities. that stray hair, while beautiful in real life, might be the kind of thing that distracts someone perusing a magazine, for example, and mutes the visual effect. i think.
but i agree that they've mostly just taken out the interesting distinctives of each person's appearance, like moles and skin contours. (what would they do to cindy crawford now?) and this reminds me of a study that found that our brains determined that average was beautiful. i.e. the most beautiful faces were the ones with the least distinctive characteristics. hmm.
Posted by: abe at March 1, 2006 12:24 PM