Welcome to the first post of “The Different Sides of Beauty!” I’ve been
thinking about the topic of beauty for the past couple of months, and now I
finally have a way to express what I’ve been reflecting on.
thinking about the topic of beauty for the past couple of months, and now I
finally have a way to express what I’ve been reflecting on.
I have a question for you. Have you every typed in “beauty” in an image
search engine? Well, I have and what I found doesn’t really surprise me.
In four out of the five search engines I used (Google, Yahoo, Bing,
Aol, and Ask) I noticed that a majority of the images display air-brushed, light
skinned Caucasian women. A significant amount of those women have golden
blond hair and light colored eyes in shades of blue, green, and hazel. The only site
that doesn’t have rows upon rows of light skinned, blonde hair, and blue eyed
females is Ask.com. The first page I looked at had only two seemingly blond
women. It was interesting because in all the other sites they are all images of
“done-up” women, but on this site there are scenic views and references to books
and movies with the word “Beauty” in it. I was not surprised that I would
find a lot of light skinned and airbrushed images, but I was surprised that it
was only Ask.com that displayed diverse images of beauty. And I don’t only
mean diverse as in relation to skin color or ethnicity. A lot of the images are not
even of people; there are pictures of flowers, action shots, geometric shapes,
animals, and drawings.
What I’m trying to do is get people to notice the subtle manipulation
that the internet has fed its users. A majority of these websites are
displaying beauty as one sided. It is insisting that if you don’t have light
skin, don’t have blonde hair, or don’t have colored eyes, then you’re not
beautiful enough to be featured on our site under the category of “beauty.”
Am I the only one who’s noticed this? I hope not, but at the same time
I hope I got somebody who hasn't thought about it to thinking about it.
search engine? Well, I have and what I found doesn’t really surprise me.
In four out of the five search engines I used (Google, Yahoo, Bing,
Aol, and Ask) I noticed that a majority of the images display air-brushed, light
skinned Caucasian women. A significant amount of those women have golden
blond hair and light colored eyes in shades of blue, green, and hazel. The only site
that doesn’t have rows upon rows of light skinned, blonde hair, and blue eyed
females is Ask.com. The first page I looked at had only two seemingly blond
women. It was interesting because in all the other sites they are all images of
“done-up” women, but on this site there are scenic views and references to books
and movies with the word “Beauty” in it. I was not surprised that I would
find a lot of light skinned and airbrushed images, but I was surprised that it
was only Ask.com that displayed diverse images of beauty. And I don’t only
mean diverse as in relation to skin color or ethnicity. A lot of the images are not
even of people; there are pictures of flowers, action shots, geometric shapes,
animals, and drawings.
What I’m trying to do is get people to notice the subtle manipulation
that the internet has fed its users. A majority of these websites are
displaying beauty as one sided. It is insisting that if you don’t have light
skin, don’t have blonde hair, or don’t have colored eyes, then you’re not
beautiful enough to be featured on our site under the category of “beauty.”
Am I the only one who’s noticed this? I hope not, but at the same time
I hope I got somebody who hasn't thought about it to thinking about it.