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
Comments
69 Comments so far
loading...
I love the idea of having altered images having a ‘stamp’ on them, to say that they’ve been altered!! So many people don’t realise that images are retouched in the first place, let alone how much!
loading...
I can’t believe you lasted in mags so long Mia. All this shit would put me in an early grave.
loading...
Saw Diane Lane in a movie the other night and was really surprised that she actually had wrinkles. It’s a bit sad when reality is the novelty and not people ‘who do not age’. It made me feel better about myself, and about her.
loading...
I often suspect that pics of Victoria Beckham have been retouched to make her look thinner…. to back up the manufactured stories about “Worry over Posh’s skinny body!!!!”
I don’t necessarilyl want to look at pics in magazines of people all wrinkly or covered in cellulite, but there’s a difference between SLIGHTLY enhancing a photo and going totally OTT.
The thing that really gets on my goat is the way ads for mascara have OBVIOUSLY got the model wearing huge false eyelashes…. and we, the gullible public, are supposed to believe if we buy THAT brand of mascara, we’ll have lashes just like that!! Now, some of the ads have to print a disclaimer, saying if the eyes have been tampered with. One ridiculous ad says that the model’s lashes have been “photographed with lash inserts for consistency”. Consistency with WHAT???? might I ask?? That actually annoys me more than the photoshopping of models to make them look thinner.
loading...
All the pictures are bollocks and if it takes a warning on mags to let young women know so be it.
For the record Fatty now has a deformed arm and I call him my gimp
loading...
I’m with you Lozabelle. I saw this woman on the cover of last week’s Sunday Magazine in the Sunday Telegraph here in Sydney, and I thought, “Gosh, she looks a bit like Gwyneth Paltrow”, and then I realised it actually was her! She looked SO different. At the time I thought, ‘This is retouching gone wild’. It’s worse, of course, when they’re making people look thinner than what they are, and it’s also not nice when they make celebrities look larger than what they are so they can sell magazines. I think it would be great if you could ban retouching all together, but I just don’t see how you could police it. If it could be done, then great.
loading...
Maybe a warning on the front of magazines along the lines ‘this magazine is brought to you by the retouchers’ would work. Otherwise every photo would need a warning wouldn’t it?
loading...
Wow, I didn’t know they had that fine print haha, love that the ad is basically BS ha!
loading...
Retouching is getting worse. Its got to the stage now where I have to scan the cover for the headline to tell me who is on the cover because they have been retouched beyond recognition!
I would like to see a retouched warning on the images. Even though I know they are retouched, it would hold them accountable for so blatantly lying to us all. Especially for young women in the formative years of their body image and self esteem.
loading...
I LOVE this idea! It is not an instant or absolute solution but a BIG step in the right direction. Would love to see something like this here. It informs consumers, forces industry accountability, shows government support for body image issues and the outcomes that can follow. And can’t wait to hear more about the NBIAG recommendations….really looking forward to that post Mia.
loading...
I think this is a great idea – and if it reaches even one woman who is unaware, and has a negative body image as a result, then it’s worth it.
But I am sceptical, have the health warnings on cigarettes stopped people from smoking or new smokers from starting ?
loading...
I love skimming the fine print on those ads “Photograph shot with lash inserts” hahaha. 10x longer my arse!
But seriously, who thinks that mascara can actually add length to your lashes? It’s not physically possible!
loading...
Ha ha. Yes, so true. Mind you, when I was seventeen I would have done a hundred quizzes like this. (and to answer the question, no, he didn’t love me, boo hoo).
loading...
I think it’s a great idea. Yes, we all know they are re-touched photos, but a label telling you so would re-enforce that, so instead of just seeing a visual image of a media ideal, there would be a written reminder that it is not accurate.
loading...
Absolutely right! Real women have thighs, and tummies and wobbly bits… even if you are a size 10!
loading...
For sure! Studies have shown that increased media literacy amongst young people increase the resilience of their self esteem to images of impossibly (beautiful) people. I also think it’s a good way to make media and advertising a little bit more responsible for the images they put out in the world. Yay!
loading...
i think if you have to take a quiz to find out if he loves you, the answer should be quite obvious…
loading...
You know, I don’t think it’s possible to ever eradicate this attitude that fashion mags, designers etc have that they need to portray women as unrealistically perfect. What I do think, however, is that we can balance this attitude with a healthier one (which you do tremendously, Mia). More mags with real women in it! More sexy mamas with baby bellies on tv! Just more positive attitudes. Do you know what? There’s nothing sexier than a normally shaped women (with cellulite, jiggly bits, post-breastfeeding boobs and lumps and bumps) showing complete confidence in their body. Am I right? Three cheers for jiggly bits!!! (And this way, we don’t have to give up chocolate- it’s win-win!)
loading...
Hi Mia, just a question sort of related….how do makeup companies get away with their brazen lies in advertisements? E.g. mascara that makes you get 20 times the lashes, and it is obviously a digitally enhanced image? Basically, what they are showing is completely not true…and I know we all know that but still, how do they get away with it!?