In my opinion, any day a magazine publishes an un-retouched photo of a woman it’s a good day.
A small but necessary step forward towards a more realistic depiction of women in the media.
Yes, of course it’s also a cynical stunt designed to sell mags but media companies are not charities so whatever.
If the result is an un-retouched image, I’m all for it.
But Marie Claire? I’m confused.
Not so much by the fact you chose to put Jennifer Hawkins on your cover. Why wouldn’t you? Jennifer Hawkins sells.
As The Telegraph reported yesterday…..
Naked, unretouched photographs of the 26-year-old model will appear on the cover of Marie Claire this month, in a bid by Hawkins and editor Jackie Frank to join the “positive body image” trend in glossy magazines.But the pictures owe nothing to the federal Government’s proposed “code of conduct” for magazines’ portrayal of women, Ms Frank said. “It’s had no impact,” Ms Frank said of the proposed voluntary code, launched by Youth Minister Kate Ellis last year with a budget of $125,000.
No impact? Really?
Ms Frank conceded Ms Ellis’s push “has brought the issue out on the table, but the Government actually really needs to look at itself. If it really wants to have an impact they need to get more serious about it”.
And this is the confusing part.
Last time I checked, neither the government nor the opposition were choosing models for magazine fashion stories nor were they authorising the extreme re-touching that turns real women into plastic aliens on editorial pages every single month.
That would be the editor’s job.
Any editor who claims to have no control over the images she ‘has’ to publish is being utterly disingenuous.
I know this because I have been an editor. I have made a million decisions about re-touching images and choosing the models for fashion stories. Many of those decisions I now regret. Others, I am proud of.
But here’s what needs to be made crystal clear: the editor is the gate-keeper of every image that appears in her magazine. She decides what is re-touched. She decides which models are used.
The only exception is when she chooses to publish pictures of international celebrities like, say, Kate Hudson or Elle Macpherson or Nicole Kidman.
Those photos – and the outrageous re-touching they’re subjected to – are controlled by the celebrities themselves and their publicists.
Top Comments
My flat mate had the misfortunate to work for Ms Frank. She came home one night telling a story of how Frank was going through a fashion layout with the fashion team and actually stated about one of the models in the layout "Oh, she's too fat, you'll have to do something about that. You can't use her". It seems Marie Claire will SAY they support one thing, but behind closed doors it appears they're just hypocrites only wanting their readers to believe they support real depiction. It's all a cover!
I found it odd when she (Hawkins) had the wardrobe malfunction,she made no attempt to grab the dress and cover herself, the whole thing had the feel of a publicity stunt and it certainly worked it was in ever new report for several days. Now this. The claim these images are not retouched is funny given the obvious cellulite problem she had in the wardrobe malfunction, how can I get that cure.