You’re reading the About-Face blog, so I’m gonna guess that you’re interested in the various messed-up ways women and girls are portrayed in media, and how it can really damage our self-esteem and self-respect. Well, now there’s a movie about it! It’s the new documentary “America the Beautiful,” and you should really go see it.
I saw the documentary last night in San Francisco, and I almost lost my s*&# watching the editors of Elle Girl and Seventeen magazines talking about how they need to show the thin body ideal only, or they’re “out of a job.” Really — no care for the fact that you are contributing to eating disorders, self-hatred, and general depression in young women? And the answer: No, really, none at all.
And then there’s Gerren, a 12-year-old model whose mother lets her wear next to nothing on the catwalk, but won’t let her wear a bra to school because she doesn’t think it’s appropriate. Through my work with About-Face, I’ve spoken to more moms than I can count who give their daughters the very same mixed messages.
There are just so many pertinent, poignant bits in this film, one being that the whole thing flows really well and nails the problem of our culture’s beauty obsession in a way that no somewhat-smart woman can deny. And two being that it’s an African-American man who made the film and who includes many other African-Americans who truly have something to say.
If you look carefully, you’ll spot two About-Face posters in the film! (I wish About-Face had been around to be in the movie!)
Really, I could go on and on. But I won’t.
Bring your mom, bring your friends, bring your sister. Hey, bring your brother. Cuz guys need to know this stuff too. (Plus there are quite a few bits about men and their body image too.)
[Update 5/9/08: An article in AdAge today reports on a statement from Dove and the retoucher mentioned in the New Yorker article discussed below. See updates throughout this item. -J.B.]
Ah, Photoshop retouching, how you pain us, how you confuse us all. Reading a very amazing (and very long) article in the New Yorker (May 12, 2008 issue) today, I learned about the techniques and life of master photo retoucher Pascal Dangin. I encourage About-Face visitors to take the time to read the entire article, either online or in the magazine itself.
[The Dove ads: Lots of retouching? Really? Did you have to break our hearts?] [Update: Phew -- turns out there may not have been much retouching after all.]Â
My rose-colored glasses were cracked by this statement about his work on the Dove campaigns. From the article:
I [the article's author] mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women†in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?†he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.â€
Retouchers, subjected to endless epistemological debates—are they simple conduits for social expectations of beauty, or shapers of such?—often resort to a don’t-shoot-the-messenger defense of their craft, familiar to repo guys and bail bondsmen. When I asked Dangin if the steroidal advantage that retouching gives to celebrities was unfair to ordinary people, he admitted that he was complicit in perpetuating unrealistic images of the human body, but said, “I’m just giving the supply to the demand.†(Fashion advertisements are not public-service announcements.)
Of course they had some retouching done — but a LOT of retouching? Wait a minute. Aren’t they supposed to be “real” women?
[Update: Dangin says he did not work on the "women in their undergarments" ad, said, "In my experienced opinion, based upon what I have seen, it does not appear that the women had been retouched."
Turns out that he did work on the Dove Pro-Age ads, which were photographed by Annie Leibovitz. Per the AdAge article mentioned above:
In her statement, provided by Unilever, Ms. Leibovitz said, "Let's be perfectly clear -- Pascal does all kinds of work ... and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching, and there was not."]
In the article, Dangin comes across as an artist, but he’s still manipulating the public image. Then there are tons of other photo retouchers out there who, at the urging of their advertising and magazine clients, shave off too much hip, remove too much bulge, and create a Frankenstein’s monster. Case in point:
[Some bad image manipulation.]
The resulting image can have one of two effects: Girls, boys, women, and men can see the image and 1) perceive it as real, assuming that it is the way a beautiful woman should look, or 2) see it as a grotesque, malformed person. We make the choice, and the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty makes the point well: we often can’t tell whether an image is retouched. (See the irony here?) Will we continue to believe our eyes and try to get ever more “perfect”?
I don’t believe that photographers should never use Photoshop on their photos — everyone wants a pimple removed in their family picture for posterity or their MySpace or Facebook page — but completely changing a body to within a centimeter of its former self? And selling us a literally unattainable form of beauty we are told we must fit into? That’s where I draw the line.
Though I’ve only seen two episodes, I am hooked on “Ugly Betty.” It’s cheesy, dramatic, funny—all the key elements of a soap opera. It’s television shows like this one where I can’t decide whether I should boycott it or question the urge I have to watch it all day.
Betty is lovable. I can’t get enough of her. I relate to her because she is unlike most characters I see on television. However, the show plays on a lot of racial, class, and gender stereotypes, which in turn affect women’s self-esteem and body image.
Some of my feedback from the pilot episode:
Betty is smart, funny, ambitious, and confident. Her confidence strikes me, because usually when we see “nerdy” women on television, they are too wrapped up in their all-consuming geekiness to place value on hygiene or anything related to maintaining “femininity.” They try to accept their inherent geekiness with pride. Betty seems to know she doesn’t fit in. She doesn’t seem concerned with defining her identity within the standards set by her co-workers. Her niche includes women who are also Mode Magazine outcasts. They seem woman-centric and supportive of one another, which apparently isn’t valued at Mode. Why are the so-called “popular women” (a.k.a. fashionable and superficial ones) usually portrayed as catty, jealous, and competitive in mainstream media?
Here are a few more questions the pilot episode raised for me:
Why do ambitious women often get portrayed as catty, competitive, mean, superficial witches or innocent, nice, unattractive (by mainstream standards), clumsy, wool-wearing simpletons?
What are some stereotypes Hilda, Betty’s sister, perpetuates about Latina women?
And one more thing–Daniel was sexually harrassing his first assistant. Apparently if you are a beautiful and sexy (by mainstream standards) woman, you can’t expect to be taken as a serious professional. However, if you are geeky, and unattractive, you can expect to be respected…that is, after your boss feels bad for working you into the ground in an attempt to get you to quit!
If you’ve seen “Ugly Betty,” I’d love to know what you think. More to come…
And then there’s Gerren, a 12-year-old model whose mother lets her wear next to nothing on the catwalk, but won’t let her wear a bra to school because she doesn’t think it’s appropriate. Through my work with About-Face, I’ve spoken to more moms than I can count who give their daughters the very same mixed messages.
