My visual artefact

This photo was taken for marketing promotion of a new lipstick.  When we look at technology’s support to change someone’s appearance, people tend to prefer something less obvious, or a change which can’t be identified by others. Makeup is an easy choice for people to make a “temporary” difference.  This is not plastic surgery technology but makeup / skincare product development also involves advanced technology such as non-invasion skin tightening, BB cream and CC cream.

4 Replies to “My visual artefact”

  1. Hello Angela, that’s a really striking image. Just to check, is that your own photograph or was it the image used in the marketing campaign you mention? Having seen the quality of some of the visual work on display across the group I’m not assuming that this professional-looking image might not be your own.

    When I first studied the image, prior to looking at your accompanying explanation, I started to read a different meaning from it. The pictured women seemed to broken down in an almost mechanical way – clean lines – as if they were different component parts of a machine. And then there’s a kind of merging between the two women as they come to share the same segments of reflection. It seems unlikely though that this was the photographer’s intention!

    1. Hello James, thanks for sharing your views about my visual artefact. In fact, it was me with my colleague in the photo! I work in Estée Lauder group (the cosmetic brand MAC is under it) and I took this photo in one of their marketing campaigns.

      I hope this photo can also be a relevant example for block 1, despite that the photo is not directly related to digital or technology. This photo gives me the implication of ‘illusion’ when people claim to be more beautiful with makeup technology (even though I work in this industry 😅). When I have more understanding with our block 1 readings, I have a bigger question mark whether it is an absolute yes for technology bringing humans a better future.

  2. I discovered your blog site on google and verify a number of of your early posts. Continue to maintain up the superb operate. I simply additional up your RSS feed to my MSN Information Reader. Looking for ahead to studying extra from you in a while!…

  3. I am happy having stumbled across this artefact for two reasons:

    (1) I am currently trying tomfigure out at what point Posthumanism starts. Does applying lipstick constitute Posthumanism? We are altering ourselves (even if only temporarily), one might even say we are improving ourselves (which might be up for debate) and the technology involved is centuries old. So then Posthumanism would be as old as mankind. You see that this is a question and confusion on my part and far from an answer.

    (2) The picture reminded me of cubism, an art seen in the works of Pablo Picasso (painting) and Gertrude Stein (writing), who tried to capture the different perspectives of the world in art. Your photo consists of different fractures of the same “object”, thus redifining the way we see the object. You could say the object is deconstructed by the artist and reconstructed in the perception and interpretation of the viewer, which is basically a rather elaborate example of making meaning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *