Yesterday the Marie Claire Australia cover was causing some interesting discussion online. If you're not familiar with the story they've put Australian model Jennifer Hawkins naked an un-airbrushed on the cover. The cover is supposed to make women feel good about themselves - but some questioned how a naked model is supposed to make regular women feel good about themselves, whether they're retouched or not.
To be honest the whole issue of weight/airbrushing/size zero bores me to death, so I wasn't going to post about this story (if you're bored too scroll down for a nice accessory report instead).
But then I saw this weeks Grazia cover (I haven't ventured out to buy it yet, but I will, I'm a Grazia addict) with the promise of 'naked!' Sadie Frost unretouched. And then annoyance set in.
I don't care if the models or celebrities in magazines are retouched or not, I just want a good picture. And I certainly don't like the way magazines are now bragging about the fact that they haven't airbrushed the images - as if they're doing us some great favour. Sure, airbrushing has got pretty ridiculous in the sense that sometimes you can't even tell who the person is any more, but that doesn't mean I want to hear every publication telling me they haven't retouched their images to make me feel better about myself.
I know I don't look like Jennifer Hawkins, I know I'm not a model, and I'm cool with that, and I'm sure most women are too. I am also not stupid enough to think what I see in a magazine is real life. So why is this still an issue?
I'm interested to know what you all think about this too, so leave a comment if you have time.
images from graziadaily.co.uk and thefashionspot.com
42 comments:
i agree with you. fashion is fantasy. everyone wants it not everyone gets it. it has been that way since well forever. but recently only there are hoo-haa about real girls and whatsoever. i find it ridiculous.
like models are suppose to be thin. that's the requirement of the industry. it's like working in a bank but you don't need to count money. every job has their own requirement. and i don't see a need why they have to breach about this topic just because it's fashion.
we envy fashion. that's what many people do. at the end of the day, you decide how you want to look at it.
wow that was a long comment. lol
In all honesty I don't care too much about the airbrushing issues, I read the magazines for the sake of the features and the fabulous editorials and i'd prefer to see more focusing on fashion rather than the social issues it causes.
They make such a big deal about how size zero is bad and the constant issues surrounding weight in fashion although I can't help but to think this is making it more serious. The more we are being made aware of models and how their bodies (unretouched) look seemingly perfect just makes us even more self conscious.
It's an unimportant thing considering all the amazing things happening in the fashion industry and the way it moves so fast, it's just a shame the body issues can't move as fast as the change of seasons.
Interesting post!
I don't think i have ever seen an unairbrushed picture in a magazine before. What certainly annoys me extremely as well is the talk about "real" women being threatened by the things they see in magazines etc. We all know it's not 100% real but who cares? Models should be thinner than the average woman in my opinion. A lot of people have problemts with that, which is a shame..
Nesli
i think its good now and then, just to remember what the difference is between retouched and unretouched. i don't buy into unretouched pictures making me feel better about myself, i just think its interesting to see how much photos have been touched up.
I totally get you- I am only inspired by nice pictures on good figures. We all hate to admit it but clothes look much better on slender figures
I agree..I don't buy magazines to look at 'real' women, I buy them to appreciate the creativity behind the looks. Hair, makeup and styling are all expressions of creativity, when these skills are combined it makes for interesting viewing. If I want to look at a 'real' woman naked I can stand in front of a mirror!!
I totally agree with you.
In France, Valérie Boyer, a member of Parliament, wants the magazines to put the mention "retouched pictures" below the pics that are airbrushed. I find it highly ridiculous.
The whole retouching debate is ridiculous. Images meant for publishing should always be edited (although NOT airbrushing the subject to death)... and this brings me to my favorite pet peeve: just use real models on magazine covers. They don't need a ton of airbrushing and liquifying, that's why they're models.
I love the Marie Claire cover! I've never seen anyone this size, and realised that they actually have little love handles too! I know I will never be a model, but I love to fantasize that one day I could be that gorgeous too, and this makes me feel 1000% better :-)
Un-retouching is kind of brave on behalf of the model. Mind you, their bodies are off the chain to begin with anyway.
Everyone is going psycho about this is Australia. It's annoying.
Totally agree with you, I just want a good photo regardless of how its been edited.
If people don't want their young children to get the wrong impression from such magazines then don't let them read them in the first place!
I completely do not understand, why the Marie-Claire Team should be hyped abt showing a picture of Jenn Hawkins - "untouched". like this is a big issue?? hellloooo SHE IS A MODEL?!?!? Her job is to look good in front of camera.
If it didint look decent (airbrushed or not) she shouldn't be getting paid.
Basically its a publicity stunt.. this issue will sell millions - cause its a s called "controversy" and i agree with your statement of how the magazines are supposedly doing US a FAVOUR by showing un retouched models.
Seems like they arent doing it to "promote" good body image but more so for THEM to feel better about themselves, as an industry and as a product.
Just give me my damned pictures, clothes and editorials.
:)
www.ampeddandangerous.blogspot.com
if i buy a magazine i wanna see pretty pictures! so u are rite wheter these pretty pictures are retouched or not i dont care! and i think the fact that a lot of pple care is that they cannot understand that magazines like movies are a part of a fantasy we want to escape to when we read it. Its part of the magic if they want to take that away i`ll just go and read the newspaper or something. =p
I am not interested in articles about weight gain or loss and I just turn the page when I come across it in magazines that should know better. I also am not too bothered whether a picture has been airbrushed or not but lets face it, we all know that most images if not all are tampered in some way. Otherwise why employ photo editors? About 15 years ago I watched a doc on Glenda Bailey who was then the editor of UK Marie Claire and I could not believe how long she spent going over a cover shot of a simply stunning model. She must have spent 15 mins of the programme getting the editor to remove minor blemishes and evening out the model's skin tone. Amazing!!
I agree with 'we don't care if its retouched or not, we just want good pictures' but they have to publish in the way that it's a first. They didn't do this before, so they want to announce the change, like V and plus-size models.
I don't really have an issue with air brushing in fashion editorials and I don't have an issue with models being thin (though I do with them being skeletal and the lengths that some agencies will go to keep models on their books that size)
However I think when actresses and other women are airbrushed in magazines to make them conform to a "model" ideal it can have a negative effect.
There was an FHM cover where Kate Winslets legs were lengthened and her waist made smaller. To me the implication was that she just wasn't attractive enough before. The article should have been about Kate, not the clothes like in a fashion editorial, so the air brushing was a direct reflection on what the magazine felt were desirable body characteristics.
I agree, I agree, I agree. All I care about is the pretty picture. Of course, I get annoyed when the face is photoshopped and rendered non-human like but the weight, body image part is no longer an issue. People these days are no longer blind.
I agree and disagree, in one sense You and I know that there is no use in aspiring to images in magazines but I have had enough friends with eating disorders ( and have refused the occasional cupcake, sandwich even lunch myself) to know that what magazines put out there alot of people aspire to, it would be naive to assume everyone is as unsuceptable as you are.
I don't think the issue is retouched or un retouched images. It is the very real issue of diversifying the a typical imagine of a size 6, 6 foot blonde beauty and start being real about what people look like. Once images and beauty become more real you will find that these 'uretouched' announcements will disappear. Alas, I'm not sure if this will ever happen.
They can smooth out the blemishes though, no one needs to see those.
MM x
i think that yes, people do tend to make an awful lot of fuss about these issues. but so many people (myself included) would love to look like models. I think that the pictures should look fab, but perhaps more real women could be used too? :)
I don't really give a shit either on this issue...if they look good and aren't too skinny I like to look. The whole point of magazines is to produce beautiful things...the creative department is creative for a reason...the certain "look" and aesthetic produced by the photographers, computer whizzes and stylists is highly sought out and is truly important to creating that certain je ne sais quoi that always seems to jump off the pages of my favorite glossies.
I give two shits and a hankie about airbrush or non-airbrush pictures. That's why I stay away from magazines that focus on weight and whatnot. Who cares. That's probably why I stay away from magazines like Cosmo and Maria Claire.
Why is this an issue, because sadly there are people stupid enough to believe everything they read. Sad but true.
Who cares about airbrushing!? People like what looks good - however that comes to be.
I agree with you 100%.
Fashion, beauty are a dreamworld.
Even though the word "model" could confuse some ppl who think we have to imitate them, that's a wrong interpretation!
I won't buy a magazine because the model on its cover isn't retouched; retouching them is admiting the have lil "defects", as everybody does.
But how would it help an unretouched model people to be self-confident?
I mean, we all know we are not models;
it doesn't mean that fat or ugly women have to walk on the runway, that won't make me feel better at all!
Great post, and I apologize for my terrible English! :S
xoxo, Chic and Chocolate!
God even if they aren't retouched then they just slap a load of make-up on them! which is still not the reality.
I think most people know, like you said, that what you see in a magazine isn't real life
xxx
I think that airbrushing has probably gone overboard, but I also hate that it's become such a "thing". It's really about the magazines selling more issues - it doesn't feel genuine at all.
Also, if someone's body image will be affected by unrealistic photos in magazines, it doesn't matter whether or not they've been retouched. For example, Jennifer Hawkins has an incredible body without retouching, and in some ways that's even more disheartening for a girl who wishes she could have those looks, you know?
xx Amy
http://talkfashiontome.com/
What you are failing to understand is that eating disorders and low self esteem are a HUGE issue and alot of that has to do with the way women are portrayed in the media. Perhaps it's not no retouching that women need but role models who aren't anorexic with perfect hair, teeth and breasts.
I love that Jennifer Hawkins had the courage to do this (just because she's a model doesn't mean she doesn't have body hang ups too) and do believe it's a step forward for women who are contsantly being told how to look.
i think a little bit retouch makes pictures better but only a little bit...and i dot understand about the fight over skinny models or curves as they come out lately...model needs to be thinner than normal women but that shouldnt be unhealthy and make other women sad...modeling is a job and its not for everyone like i cant be a doctor i cant be a model too...so whats the deal???
I totally agree with you. I want to see a good picture on a fashion magazine. To be honest, I wouldn´t like to see a fat woman with hundreds of overweight in a magazine, that´s why I buy them. So wtf with this issue? It´s so over for me.
Xo,
I did the same post today on my blog. I do know magazines are by no means a representation of real life (I worked for a popular Australian fashion magazine, so am kind of turned off alot of the mags). Even though alot of "normal" ladies out there know they are not a model, and won't look like Jen Hawkins, it would be nice to see more Monia Beluci's and Sarah Murdoch's un-airbrushed on the cover. Where they do have flaws women can relate too. It's the whole size issue too that V mag covered, it's refreshing. Honestly would make mags a whole lot more interesting then seeing what society dictates as "perfection" all the time.
Everyone is beautiful in their own way. I sure was not blessed with the body, skin, hair, or natural beauty of a super model, but I try to feel like on every day. Looks aren't everything. I don't need pictures of GORGEOUS un-airbrushed women to make me feel good about myself.
Truely, I think that confidence is what most attracts males.
Keep that in mind ladies:)
xoxo Isabella Clarisse xoxo
www.tasteoffashionkar.blogspot.com
I couldn't agree more about retouching, it's extremely boring. Photos in magazines are inspirational, aspirational, beautiful, thought-provoking and above all else, not always real. We don't criticize movies for their special effects, we celebrate them.
I'm bored shitless with this issue. People need to start taking responsibility for their own self-esteem issues and not blaming it on the fact that there are people more attractive than them walking around in the world. I have accepted that there will always be people (men/women) who are richer, thinner, younger, taller, blonder, whatever than I am. That's a fact of life.
Retouched models have a place in media. We should celebrate beauty but realise there's no one strict definition of it. The problem is not that the models are altered but that beauty is constantly reaffirmed as being the slender, thick haired, straight nosed, wide-eyed girl without one tooth out of line. Diversity is precious as fashion already knows. Retouching is fine, the same type of beauty bores me witless.
I don't understand how the 'unretouched Jennifer Hawkins' image is supposed to make readers feel better about their own body. Prior to this photo we could put perfection down to image retouching - to think that Jennifer looks this good without the help of modern technology puts even more pressure on women to fit a certain image.
Furthermore, how ironic that they congratulate Jennifer for her bravery in forgoing airbrushing - what about the professional make up, or the spray tan, or what about the hours she would log each week with a personal trainer to get her to look like that? Get real Marie Claire.
I'm with you! It's all a bit of a so what and yawn I'll flip a page.
I don't care, I don't think I'm a model and I'm a sucker for all the glitz and glam.
While think this whole focus on unretouching thing is a bit of a fad, I still think its a move in a better direction for magazines. While people who are involved in and love fashion know that models are retouched, many people, especially younger people, are not as aware of the machinery and mechanisms that construct these images. While we are on a whole becoming more culturally aware, there needs to be a greater focus on unveiling all that goes into constructing these images.
The answer is not necessarily to avoid retouching altogether, but make the process more transparent. I consider myself quite educated and fashion industry-aware, but seeing the cover with the nude Jennifer Hawkins allowed me to know just how much retouching goes on in a typical cover photo. My mind's image of what a nude supermodel looks like is now a bit more accurate (and not as far off as a nude me as I thought... though still quite distant!). Those who obsess over weight thinking that they need her specific body now have a more accurate representation of what that body looks like, and it is something that is at the least physically real.
While I agree that this topic gets a bit boring and sensationalist, I think it's better to view it as speaking to the broader public, rather than fans of fashion who are more aware of the process.
hi coco!! i'm a new and avid reader! i love looking to model pictures too as i appreciate their beauty instead of needing to relate or compare. but these images with no airbrusing of celebs only make me feel 'better' when i see a little 'flaw', like the little crease in jennifer hawkins' side. i know that sounds ridiculous and miniscule but maybe i'm not alone in seeing these labelled, unretouched pictures and looking at the person's body even more! but it does place a positive seed in my mind, but only compared with articles that say 'wow, how beautiful is this woman'. like say if i see lily allen on the elle cover, i think she's quite normal looking but still so pretty. but if i see helena chritensen on the cover, obviously pointing out how incredible she looks for her age, and makes me worry about aging, even though i'm 20! so i feel models are for art, but fabulous looking women who are presented as extraordinary are the ones that make me feel worried and ugly. hopefully it's just the start of the non-airbrushing fad and soon it will only be maybe a little note or logo rather than a front page headline. love your blog xxx
I thought the Grazia cover was good for trying to show those who do think models look as perfect in real life, that they're mistaken. I personally agree with you that it seems unrealistic to think people look that good in real life. I am also getting a bit fed up with the skinny bashing/size zero debate that goes on... and on. Whilst I don't agree that any unhealthy habits (under or over eating included) should be promoted - surely we can just accept that the fashion industry will always have slim models and sometimes it will be taken to extremes by those who choose. Nothing can be done to stop that - people can only be encouraged to be healthy - not forced. It doesn't put me off looking at magazines and loving fashion so I'm not going to whinge incessantly about it! Happy New year anyway! x
Iit really bores me to be honest. I do not care either way. As you said, I just want a good picture !
I agree, airbrushing can hide odd lighting and generally ina studio it might be cold, the first pic looks like her legs are all blotchy from the cold which is so not attractive and can quickly be touched up but is nothing to do with shape. its just sillllly, who cares if they're airbrushed, we'd all like a bit if a pic isn't how we'd like it, so pshhh..
Oh I disagree! I think it's a very relevant subject that SHOULD be discussed long and hard. I mean, you're fine with the idea of airbrushing because you're an adult...but a lot of younger girls read magazines and are influenced by the images they see.
Plus, is it really ok that fashion is only for thin women? shouldn't it be for all sizes....?
Great blog.
Post a Comment