Tuesday, 09 March 2010
-
Airbrushing... Harmless?
Tali's fantastic post on weight and age issues surrounding models in the fashion industry made me think some more about appearance and what kind of images are being projected to women on a daily basis in adverts and magazines. I just wanted to touch on airbrushing in the media and give some opinions on it and also to hear what you guys think about this subject. Whether you agree or disagree, all comments are welcome!
In some way or another, over the course of human history, women's appearance has been altered for artistic means. Painters often altered the dimensions of their subjects to create a more beautiful image that was fashionable during that era.
It seems that the manipulation of the female form in art or media continues to this day, however, things have got a lot more technical with the introduction of intricate airbrushing in the last couple of decades. But with all these 'improvements' being made to photographs of models and celebrities, it begs the question...where do we draw the line?
A lot of politicians have expressed the opinion that airbrushed photographs should be banned in material targeted at under-16's in order to protect their health and self-esteem. To me, this really makes sense because teenagers are particularly susceptible to feelings of depression and low self-esteem and I don't think that idolizing images of women with unattainable features is healthy. The majority of images we see nowadays have been doctored in one way or another and sometimes people end up looking completely different.
Images of Twiggy for Olay face cream and Jessica Alba for a Campari advert have both been criticized in the newspapers for being heavily airbrushed before publication. In the case of Twiggy, a lot of lines and wrinkles had been removed and Jessica Alba was made to look slimmer (as if she needed that!). The brands know that the average woman will compare herself to these images and aspire to reach the heights that this kind of 'digital' beauty demands...the only problem being that it's not real!
There are exceptions to the rule though and I recently learned that Michelle Mone, the creator of Ultimo lingerie, launched the advertising campaign featuring Peaches Geldof with un-doctored photographs, and she strongly believes that other brands should follow her more ethical lead. She was quoted as saying "A lot of adults appreciate how far images are digitally enhanced, but we need to protect younger generations, because these are the images they're striving to emulate. My daughter is only 16 years old and I would hate to think that she feels unnecessary pressure to be picture-perfect, when a lot of images have been Photoshopped to death. The problem is, it has become acceptable to airbrush to ridiculous lengths. Alot of people no longer know what a woman's body looks like, which is why, with our latest Miss Ultimo campaign featuring Peaches Geldof, we made sure that her natural curves and her tattoos were in there - all the intricacies that make her a beautiful young woman".Speaking as an 'average' woman I know myself that it's hard not to look at digitally enhanced photographs of models and celebs and not feel a little bit inadequate. But, what scares me is that these images are causing young girls to chase the illusion of a flawless appearance. I strive to achieve a flawless appearance through the use of makeup but to me, cosmetics are for enhancing your natural features, NOT completely changing them beyond all recognition.
Kate Winslet was famously outraged at GQ magazine when her photos were enhanced before they appeared on the cover. GQ's editor, Dylan Jones, said the photographs had been "highly styled, buffed, trimmed and altered...to make the subject look as good as humanly possible." Kate Winslet made it clear to GQ magazine and the media that she was not consulted about the digital alterations made afterward to lengthen her legs and flatten her stomach and she certainly did not advocate it. Go Kate!
Everyone wants to look good and it's natural to want to project the best 'version' of yourself. But when photos of models and celebs, who are already absolutely beautiful in their natural state, are being modelled on the media's perception of what is attractive and desirable, well, I think there needs to be a line drawn. I don't blame the celebs, as a lot of the time, magazines digitally enhance photos without their say so. I think society's overall perception of what is beautiful needs to be re-assessed.
Do you think that images should include a warning detailing what has been altered to promote more honesty about what has been retouched or do you think it would ruin the magic?
Guest blog submitted by Liparazzi
Post a Comment
- Back to lovelyish's Lovelyish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in lovelyish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)















Comments (113)
wasnt this already posted...?
I'm all for including the message.
Airbrushing is just part of the business now. However, I think it's really refreshing to see before and after pics. It makes normal girls realize how a glossy pic is retouched to look perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect, so don't thrive for that.
Haha. They had to make Keira Knightly's boobs bigger. That's a shame.
i really don't care about airbrushing, and i don't think there needs to be a disclaimer. most altered photos are trying to sell something - a product, a lifestyle, a persona, etc. people creating these images want to make the most visually appealing picture, even if it isn't real. realistic cgi doesn't come with disclaimers. i mean, come on. do we need a disclaimer across a movie screen to tell us we can't climb walls should we get bitten by radioactive spiders? should movies not edit out wires, lest we believe humans can actually fly?
@Jasper_Speaks@xanga - I agree with you.
I only support airbrushing to lighten/darken photos for effect or to take away things like pimples & red eye (since they do that anyway for normal photos). Doing a frankenstein makeover? No. I think we all know by now that things are changed before publication but they shouldnt go drastic with it. I'm super proud of women like Kate Winslet & Kourtney Kardashian for hitting back at publishers who doctored their photos & for loving their bodies as they are not as people think they should be!
I like the idea of including the message about the fact that the photographs are airbrushed, but personally, I think they should do away with all forms of digital alterations. As a person who is struggling to recover from an ED, it makes the process A LOT harder when I am constantly bombarded with stories about weight loss, dieting, and girls that look like no normal girl could ever look.
Unfortunately, I feel we have no one to blame but ourselves. Society, as a general rule, prefers to look at extremely pretty people, no matter how unrealistic they make appear. Therefore, the media bends to our whims and sells beauty. If society refused to purchase magazines that uses touched up pictures, then maybe magazines, movies, etc would change. After all, it's all about money, right?
i agree with the others, it's gonna be what they want it to be, we cannot change that and as much as those women fight for it, it's not going to change.
"I don't think that idolizing images of women with unattainable features is healthy." <YES!!!! THANK YOU!
Real women are beautiful; skinny, curvy, stretch marks, age spots, celluloite . . . you name it, a woman has it. It's complete bs that we're all expected to look like Victorias Secret models, never have pimples, never have an ounce of flesh that God forbid jiggles (except for our breasts, of course) . . . hell, some men are still under the impression that women don't even have bodily functions. (Ever been in a relationship long enough that you've been through the "accidential fart incident"? If you have, remind yourself of the look on your SO's face [in the pre- laugh it off phase]. Yep, I'm right, aren't I?).
We're human; let's portray women as the beautiful human beings they are instead of making them feel like their every flaw is going to be criticized every time they walk out of the house. Women should feel that they're allowed to have flaws: they should feel like it's ok to eat the amount of calories they need instead of half of what they need to maintain the figure society says they should have, they should feel that to have stretch marks after pregnancy is a normal part of life and should not be afraid to wear a bikini until they have plastic surgury, they should be able to not have to worsen and prolong a zit by covering it in a pound of make-up so people don't ask about their new third eye, and they should be able to eat a brownie without hopping on a treadmill for 2 hours immediately after to make sure they don't gain another fat cell.
There is beauty in every human being if people are willing to find it. Flaws are what make us each beautiful in our own unique way, and all airbrushing does is force us to conform to the same mold: skinny, with flawless skin and hair, and a J-Lo butt and C-cups (which is quite hard to find in the same package without plastic surgury). The realistic form of the human body has been thrown so far out of proportion that it's become truly pathetic; that which is unreal is considered normal, standard, and is pushing us to take unhealthy measures because society says that's what we should be, and could care less about the limitations of each individual human body. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes; why give it a universal mold to make us feel ashamed of what truly makes us beautiful?
To include a warning about airbrushing to individuals ages 16 and under is a step in the right direction, however, I think what we should aspire to is to ban airbrushing of the human body altogether. To remove red-eye and to use color and lighting effects is a matter of a professional finish which is different, but I say that regarding humans, that which cannot be covered with make-up (which should be used to enhance, not to alter) should be left alone. If we can live in a world where it's ok to be imperfect, where it's ok to have a zit that make-up can't completely cover or to have a bloated period day without wearing Spanx for fear of being seen as fat, maybe people would be more inclined to see what makes us beautiful inside so girls don't have to spend hours getting ready to look "presentable" enough to matter in the world. That's a change I'd like to see happen.
Thank you so much for this post, great job!
@nothng_less@xanga - Great comment! I agree 100%!
@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - Agreed.
i always knew what they did I guess I just didnt understand the difference. I love the before pictures, the raw body... I think everyone is beautiful and if they arent beautiful they have beautiful qualities... great post!
AIrbrushing is okay in small amounts - wrinkles, bags, bruises etc. But when you make the person three sizes smaller, change their skin colour or whatever, THAT'S when I have a problem.
@CapsizedHearts@xanga - stop being rude,
@Jasper_Speaks@xanga - I agree.
@russianmuse@xanga - I'd have to agree with this.
LOL they made poor ol' flat Keira more busty
A small warning message at the bottom corner of the ad (like how smoking adverts have "warning: smoking cigarettes are harmful to your health, ...blah blah blah") should be in place.
I think there should definitely be a disclaimer....as someone who went through an eating disorder and a TON of self-confidence issues, I can say that it plays a huuuuge part in the total despair for a lot of girls who just feel that that "standard" is impossible to reach. Which is is. Thanks for posting this :)
The before and after pictures always remind me of those children's "can you spot the difference" pictures. xD
@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - ROFL. That's going to be next. We have to think about the children you know.
______________
No, I don't think that there needs to be a disclaimer across ads, magazine photos, or anything else. I also don't think it would ruin "the magic" (whatever that means). Teenage girls with self-esteem problems are going to have self-esteem problems regardless of what they see in a magazine. If not the model in the magazine, it's going to be the girl down the hall who is skinnier, has bigger breast, is prettier, smarter or whatever else causing her to think she is inferior.
@Erika_Steele@xanga - To be honest Erika, I worked at a grocery store and was constantly bombarded by the end of the line magazines as part of our job was to stand at the end of the isle and call people to our lines, or if on uscan, we had to stand the opposing way, so as to see all these stupid magazines. I tried not to look, but it was literally unavoidable. These images made me feel awful, and after quitting there my self esteem improved. I already don't have a television, mostly because seeing shows and advertisements really did effect my body image. While I would still likely have problems, I guarantee that I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about myself if photos and such went unedited. While it's not realistic, for me it would be idea if they didn't airbrush out the flaws.
I understand everyone's struggle is different, but I thought I would just let you know my side of the story.Jessica Alba looks just as hott in both pictures. She's a babe with or without it.
I don't see anything wrong with airbrushing - and in some circumstances to get the feel of some contexts (ie. the Kiera Knightley example) it's needed for effect.
@CapsizedHearts@xanga - Yes.