Someone on Twitter sent me a link to a list of the most controversial mag covers of all time and on it was this one. I remember it well. Back in the nineties there was quite the media storm when someone everyone looked at this cover and said “WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR’S ARM”.
She had a baby girl yesterday so there’s that.
What I love is how many people would have signed off on that cover. The art director. The editor. The sub-editors. The publisher. The printer. And nobody, NOBODY said “You know what? We’ve re-touched this shot so much she now has a totally deformed arm.”
From memory, that same shot was bought by either Cosmo or Cleo (they blur, even for me, ESPECIALLY for me) and had to run with something over the deformed arm. To hide it. Not that there’s anything wrong with deformed arms (please do not write to me if you have a deformed arm or know anyone with a deformed arm). It’s just not ideal to make a person’s arm deformed with an air-brush.
You know?
The National Body Image Advisory Group is due to present our report and recommendations to the Minister for Youth & Sport, Kate Ellis in the next few weeks. It will include an outline of a proposed voluntary media code of conduct. Can’t say more about that yet. Watch this space.
But this week there is some interesting news out of France about re-touching and air-brushing. Reuters reports…
PARIS (Reuters) – French politicians want to stamp a “health
warning” on photographs of models that are altered in order to make
them more appealing; part of a campaign against eating disorders.
French parliamentarian Valerie Boyer, a member of President Nicolas
Sarkozy’s UMP party, and some 50 other politicians proposed the law to
fight what they see as a warped image of women’s bodies in the media.
“These images can make people believe in a reality that often does
not exist,” Boyer said in a statement on Monday, adding that the law
should apply to press photographs, political campaigns, art photography
and images on packaging as well as advertisements.
Under the proposed law, all enhanced photos would be accompanied by
a line saying: “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance
of a person.”
Digitally enhanced photographs have been at the centre of a string
of scandals; two years ago, Paris Match altered a photo of Sarkozy to
remove chubby love handles.
Luxury brands and fashion magazines have been accused of digitally
making models look thinner, enhancing their breasts, whitening teeth,
lengthening legs and erasing wrinkles.
Boyer said being confronted with unrealistic standards of female
beauty could lead to various kinds of psychological problems, in
particular eating disorders.
Breaking the law, proposed last week, would be punished with a fine
of 37,500 euros ($54,930), or up to 50 percent of the cost of the
advertisement.
Thoughts? Do you think something like this could work? Should it happen here? Is re-touching totally out of control and can you even notice it in magazines anymore or are your eyes just accustomed?
OTHER POSTS YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT…
I’m really worried about Gwyneth’s head
What if men’s penises were re-touched?
Why small boobs don’t exist in Hollywood
Keira Knightly – boobs by photoshop
It's Been A Week, This Will Destress Your Brain
The Quicky
Honestly, The Times We've Considered Leaving The Podcast
Mamamia Out Loud17-Year-Old Fletcher Crowley Became Paraplegic Six Months Ago
No Filter
Top Comments
I think it's funny when nipples are photoshopped out... I think it's even more hilarious when the picture is of a woman wearing a kinky costume/sexy lingerie that is completely sheer over the breasts, or has cut outs, or is made of netted material... OBVIOUSLY the nipples are going to show!!! WHY oh WHY would they photoshop them out!? Don't say censorship because it was in a sex shop and again at Sexpo one year that I saw these images on the packaging for various costumes!! Lol!!
As for the warnings about photoshop- I guess for me I can't see how they would work- a general disclaimer perhaps? I like the Girlfriend magazine "reality check" buttons that go on pictures saying something like "this shot took X# makeup artists X# fashion people etc. etc. to look this good" or "it took 10,000 photos to get this one cover image" they put things in perspective and actually relate it back to the reader's life. They also sometimes answer the why the photo was made/included the way it is.
Things need to be related to the viewer for it to have an effect. Like the smokers warnings on cigarette packets- when I worked in a supermarket alot of men would request "smoking when pregnant harms your baby" as the only warning on their cigarette packet because since men don't get pregnant they were desensitised to it. Women on the otherhand would specifically request not to have the pregnancy-related warning but were happy to have a warning about a gangrenous foot or a diseased lung since they themselves had not experienced lung disease/gangrene etc (yet) but had already had children. People would request the warnings that least effected them- some didn't want lung disease warnings because it was too close to home for them. I think for something to have an affect on people it needs to be related to them directly and put into their world perspective.
Something like "this image was created in a professional environment with access to technology A/B/C and fashions A/B/C" I think would have more effect on women reading Cleo/Cosmo etc. than something that said "photograph has been modified"... Relate it to us!! Don't keep it in the techno-loop!! If you don't regularly work with photoshop or the usage/creation of photoshop images the disclosure of the airbrushing is not going to mean much to you- saying "this woman isn't real without technology" says to me "she's not real!??! Is she an alien!?!? Does she really have four legs and a tail!?!?" It doesn't tell me how it was done or what was done or why it was done- that's what I want to know- THE WHY!?!?!
Sorry bout the rant peoples!! xoxo
Have you noticed the disclaimers on some mascara ad's?! "This was not achieved by the product. Individual results may vary" or something along those lines? So funny!!