Christina's curves seem less than curvy in the new London Fog ad.
Poems should be written about “Mad Men” star Christina Hendricks’ curves.
No, really.
The actress has one of those unbelievably beautiful bodies that only Botticelli could have dreamed up. The show’s costume department must have a field day dressing her up in vintage styles that showcase breasts, hips, and butt (all of which she has plenty of, thank you very much).
So why on Earth would London Fog feel the need to touch her lovely, decidedly unwaif-like body with even one click in Photoshop?
Jezebel put some unretouched photos side-by-side with the campaign’s final ad, and it definitely looks like some digital blasphemy has gone on.
The man (un-Photoshopped) curves of Christina's "Mad Men" character, Joan Holloway.
Whatever London Fog’s photo editors did, they managed to pare down Christina’s curves enough to make her look alarmingly like a typical Hollywood starlet.
Can we once and for all leave works of art alone, please? Otherwise, let’s just slap some extensions on the Mona Lisa, fit her with horsey veneers, and give her the Heidi Montag plastic surgery special. Sheesh.
Vaseline's Facebook app invites Indian men to try a lighter look.
Judging by Hollywood (and “Jersey Shore”), many Americans covet nothing more than the perfect tan. Imagine a Facebook application that allowed these tanning enthusiasts to tint their pasty profile pictures with a faux bronze glow.
No big deal? Now imagine a similar app inviting Indian men to lighten their skin.
If you just uncomfortably shifted in your seat, took offense, or spat an expletive at your computer screen, you’re not alone.
Vaseline’s new skin-lightening app for Facebook users in India is causing a ton of controversy. Created to promote Vaseline Men UV Whitening Body Lotion, the company argues the app is a harmless exploration of their new product. “Much like self-tanning products in North America and Europe, skin lightening products are culturally relevant in India,” the company said in a statement. “In India, men use these products to lighten and even out their natural skin tone and to reduce the appearance of spots while protecting their skin from the sun.”
While I absolutely don’t know enough about Indian culture to form an educated opinion on the matter, I do know that something about the concept irks me. And it has nothing to do with whether or not people choose to alter their skin color, but with how Vaseline is framing the decision.
The "Be Prepared" app invites users to upload a picture, lighten their skin, and "PREPARE your avatar for different occasions."
The text on their web site reads, “A fair complexion has always been associated with success and popularity. Men and women alike desire fairness, it is believed to be the key to a successful life.”
Whether or not anyone believes that seems irrelevant. I don’t need a company explicitly telling me (or my Indian friends) what to desire. The issue may be “culturally relevant,” but the company is still gleefully exploiting peoples’ insecurities and making big bucks off of them.
So is the app “unacceptably racist,” as Kunnath Santhosh, creator of his own protest page, alleges? Or is it just an international interpretation of beauty, no different from the GTL of “Jersey Shore” (that’s gym, tanning, and laundry for anyone not well-versed in the wise words of The Situation)?
A previous version of this blog was originally posted at tallanna.com.
Naked and un-airbrushed Jennifer Hawkins on the cover of Australian Marie Claire
In 2009, a light bulb turned on. (I sure hope it was a CFL.) Someone in mainstream media — new or old, internationally or nationally — an editor, an assistant, maybe it was a PR rep, realized that “Oh hey! Not everyone is a size 2, huh? All the other ‘beautiful’ people in this industry deserve a chance.”
Dove was way ahead of the game with their Campaign for Real Beauty (launched in 2004). But last I heard, Dove doesn’t drive home magazine sales. Sexy things do. And naked sexy things will sell even more magazines.
And suddenly, we embraced the body — naked (or nearly so) and often un-airbrushed — while we also further embraced the plus-sized.
A couple months before that, model Natalia Vodianova bared all on the cover of British Vogue’s June 2009 Body Issue, an issue that vowed to look at how women — yes, even women thinner and more famous than you — felt about their bodies and how they, too, obsessively watch their weight and wished their butts were perkier. (But wait, if even the “perfect” feel insecure, is there hope left for the rest of us?)
If all bodies are beautiful, shouldn’t we focus equally on the thin and not so thin? The short and tall? The curvy and boxy? Despite the valiant efforts, we can’t assume that occasionally swapping out rail-thin models for those with some meat on their bones will, on its own, make 2010 the year the fashion, beauty and advertising industries suddenly changed their minds.
These women — underweight or slightly overweight — are still models. The images we digest are the results of teams of makeup artists, hairstylists, wardrobe assistants, lighting specialists and creative photographers that none of us “real” people have at our disposal.
Fashion spreads, despite the model and her size, are still perpetuating parts of a beauty myth — the glowing, perfect skin, the undimpled thighs — and the message that you are not good enough the way you are. (And that products have all the answers!)
Designers’ samples are still size 4 … or smaller. Runway models are still hired as emaciated hangers that catch your eye and on which designers can hang their art.
Shedding light on the fact that different body types exist — sure, it’s a step in the right direction. But for maximum impact, to make the change that communicates my body and my self are awesome just the way they are, we have to be able to prove that a different message and image will make the industries more money than what they’re making now.
What sells the most — whether it’s putting women down or lifting women up — will eventually win in the end.
The cover of the November issue of The Australian Women’s Weekly
Something unprecedented has happened in the world of Australian women’s magazines: model, actress, and presenter Sarah Murdoch voluntarily appeared un-retouched on the cover of The Australian Women’s Weekly (a publication similar to U.S. magazines like Woman’s Day or Good Housekeeping). Her wrinkles are clearly visible, as well as some freckles and other skin discolorations.
Inside the magazine, the lengthy feature article discusses Murdoch’s home life, charity work, upcoming TV show, and her role in the National Advisory Group on Body Image. This advisory group is chaired by Mia Freedman, a former editor of magazines including Cosmopolitan, and various people from healthcare, the media and charitable organizations.
Last week, the group announced its recommendations to the government along with revealing Murdoch’s cover image. The recommendations include a voluntary code of conduct for magazines to show more diversity in body shape, mainly so teenagers can stop being forced to make unrealistic comparisons between these images and their own bodies.
When announcing the recommendations, Freedman said: “Some say these industries are built on dreams and aspiration. That’s fine. But who said dreams only come in size zero? Who said everyone aspires to be underweight?”
As is usually the case with magazines publishing “body-positive” images, the question of real change is raised: can these one-off anomalies actually forecast a change in the magazines’ behavior?
A flick through the rest of Women’s Weekly reveals the usual inconsistencies: ultra-retouched advertising for beauty products and fashion spreads, diets, and an article on swimwear for “all shapes and sizes” featuring a very small range of sizes of models.
The magazine’s editor, Helen McCabe, was quite open when questioned about whether she would commit to publishing these types of images as standard, saying:
I can’t possibly commit to that, I’m a realist… There are real business imperatives why magazines have gone this way. It’s a very competitive industry and I’m–at this stage–just taking a little baby step and seeing how this goes for now.
I applaud Women’s Weekly for publishing un-retouched images, and the advisory group for drawing attention to these issues. There has been significant positive support for the move and I hope that the magazine industry listens.
Murdoch covering her wrinkles on the larger-than-life cover.
However, I found it sad that at the magazine’s launch, Murdoch shied away from the blown-up image of the cover, and made self-deprecating comments about her wrinkles and spots. Could it be that these issues are more than skin deep?
It’s been a busy couple of weeks in the world of airbrushed images.
Kelly Clarkson’s obviously tweaked and airbrushed body on the August cover of Self sparked controversy and even provoked Self editor Lucy Danziger to speak openly about the magazine’s airbushing techniques. Danziger, who admitted to digitally shaving off her own unwanted weight in pictures from her first marathon, defended the practice, saying the Self staff altered Clarkson’s photos “to make her look her personal best” while also calling the photo the “truest we ever put on a newsstand.”
In other airbrushing news, some British politicians are fighting to ban digitally airbrushed images altogether after a recent ad of supermodel Twiggy, complete with flawless, wrinkleless skin, was compared to recent “everyday” photos of the aged supermodel. The politicians in support of the ban realize young girls are under pressure to live up to unattainable images they see on billboards and magazines.
Twiggy, next to her ultra-modified image
Perhaps it’s unrealistic to think a magazine editor who alters images of the momentous occasions in her own life won’t tweak the flaws in others. Maybe it’s unrealistic to think an entire nation can ban airbrushed images. But I’m just glad these media practices are getting press.
The more we know about digitally slimmed-down hips, flawless skin, and computerized toned bodies, the more we can resist their influence. Knowledge is power, so spread the news, whether it’s about that magazine cover in the grocery store check-out line or that billboard looming over Times Square—remind people that airbrushing probably contributed to that image.
Do you think airbrushed images can be limited? What would our world be like if magazines like Self couldn’t touch a photo after it was taken? What do you think about Kelly Clarkson’s cover shot, and how do you resist being influenced by unrealistic, Photoshopped images?
According to a press release [PDF] issued yesterday, Gisele is the new face, or rather, body, of London Fog.
Yes, these photos are very provocative and a bit ridiculous, considering the product she is modeling (I know I go out in the cold and rain like that all the time!).
But something else about the campaign struck me as discussion-worthy: Gisele is pregnant, but you would never guess by looking at these ultra-Photoshopped ads. Does London Fog think that pregnancy is unattractive and something to hide?
I found the press release comments regarding her pregnancy a bit strange:
Dari Marder, Chief Marketing Officer, London Fog, commented, “Nobody is sexier or more beautiful than Gisele Bündchen in nothing but a London Fog trench coat, even with her visible baby bump.
Because nothing is more gross than seeing a supermodel carrying her baby? Why couldn’t it be “especially with her visible baby bump”?
Marder added,“Although Gisele was photographed while pregnant, most of the shots have been retouched to respect her privacy during this wonderful and personal time in her life.“
I wonder whether the marketers or Gisele wanted to specifically edit out the baby bump to “respect her privacy?” It feels like what they’re really saying is: “the shots have been retouched so we don’t have to show the small amount of unattractive baby weight she’s put on at this early stage of her pregnancy.” I wish the case would have been, “to celebrate this wonderful and personal time in her life, the shots have not been retouched.”
The campaign’s press site features a few behind the scenes photos, as well as some other ads. Here are two to compare:
Behind the scenes photo from Gisele's London Fog shoot
Gisele in another London Fog ad. Can you spot the Photoshopping?
It’s not enough that in advertising most photos are endlessly retouched, often beyond recognition. But to have the chutzpah to use a mannequin in place of a real woman as part of the ad is ridiculous and insulting! Well, that’s Prevage, the new product from Elizabeth Arden
The obvious dividinglines around the major limbs of the body (for easy detachment and renewal, perhaps) are what caught my eye in the ad in the April 2009 issue of Vogue. Of course, such lines are never found on a real woman, but only on a mannequin.
The ad is seemingly innocuous and even pleasing to the eye:simple colors, simple lines, and a simple message. The text isalso simple: from a terse “total transformation” to a full statement, “I want firmer, smoother looking skin with no sign of stretch marks or age spots” to the actual name, “Prevage” which of course reads: “prevent age.” However, the psychological effect it has on women is anything but simple.
Vogue April 2009 Prevage Ad Text Detail
The tube of Prevage is strategically placed at the forefront and blown up to the size of the wom– er– mannequin. The advertisement states to the consumer that not only will this cream help with all the head-to-toe problems (come on, admit it, you’re just not perfect), but that every woman is plighted with such problems that need to be either prevented or taken care of ASAP.
Great, where do I buy a tube, or three, or, what’s the limit again? Finally: a solution to ALL our (women’s) peskiest problems! This is exactly how the advertisers want the consumer to react. But who allotted those problems?
Although a bottle of Prevage first appears as a salvation, they are not actually promoting a solution. What they are doing is making women feel damaged and shameful of being a functioning human being. How about this for a retort: “It is better to be a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”? Thank you, Confucius.
What I don’t understand is this: Are they saying that after using their ground-breaking cream a woman will end up looking as “perfect” as a mannequin? Or that the mannequin is the epitome of beauty, which a cosmetic surgery enthusiast can’t even live up to? To use Photoshop to take a blemish or two off a model is the rage, but to use a man-made statue as the promoter of a cream is just absurd.
I personally do not know of any men who have complained about crow’s feet or a stretch mark, or whatever else the cream is supposed to erase and banish from existence. But a perfectly lifeless girlfriend? That might raise a few complaints.
-O.V.K.
Olya Krapivina graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2008 with a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology. She has always been interested in people’s psychology and behavior. Journalism and writing have also been of major interest to her.
"(Lucky magazine) preferred her over this model, so we went ahead and pieced together a new girl." (click image to watch the video on NYTimes.com)
Jesse Epstein, the filmmaker who made the terrific short documentary “Wet Dreams and False Images,” is back with a video op-ed on the NYTimes.com. In it, she asks whether American magazine editors should be required by law to disclose how much they have retouched images in their magazines. Well, should they?
This guy retouches photos and tells about it in the video.
So why does it even matter whether magazines are showing retouched, fake women?
Here’s why: When the female body is edited beyond recognition (or created) by a photo retoucher, and women and girls see that as the ideal, chaos (and oh, self-harm) ensues for those women and girls. Examples:
cosmetic surgery carrying huge health risks (including death)
over-exercise (or “exercise bulimia”)
unhealthy, risky dieting
disordered eating behaviors (that may or may not mean a person has an eating disorder)
eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia (which, by the way, can cause death)
general, all-consuming obsession with appearance that takes our attention away from truly important parts of our lives
Know what I’m saying? Check out the video and let us know what you think. – Jennifer
By now, we’re used to hearing that the ads we see every day are somehow digitally altered. Unfortunately, that’s not always our first reaction to the barrage of taut thighs and doe eyes. Kudos to a Berlin culture jammer for explicitly (and creatively!) reminding us of the Photoshopping of subway billboards. This person has been adding stickers of Photoshop windows to the original ads to demonstrate that we are looking at the product of hours of retouching. Check out some examples here.
So what do you make of it? Would seeing this on your morning commute make you stop and think? Personally, I think it’s a great idea, and a good way of interrupting the images we tend to simply accept.
Given an advertisement and a blind eye from the authorities, what would you do?
Lest we think that the images we see in ads are the gospel truth, here comes the blog Photoshop Disasters, featuring the most egregious blunders in digital manipulation. It features the so-called flawless retouches that accidentally defy the laws of physics and/or human anatomy. Not only is this blog absolutely hilarious, it serves as a reminder of the extent to which every ad we see is edited.
My heart goes out to Ms. Summer. However, you will see much worse on the site: extra hands, people with eight-pack abs but no bellybuttons, even my favorite here (may be NSFW). It’s interesting to note that, although PsD is a site that is open to all types of ads, photos of Frankenstein women dominate the blog. I definitely recommend visiting this site as an affirmation that, no, no one actually looks like that.
