Three faces of Reese…..look how different her chin, eyes, nose and skin looks on these 3 covers..
I post about re-touching often here. How much I hate it. How damaging I think it is for all of us women and girls (and guys) who overtly or subconsciously compare ourselves to the fake images we see. Invariably, in the comments that follow such a post, I’m told to just ‘get over it’. Some fashion mag editors, when they’re asked about the practice dismissively insist ‘it’s just fantasy’, ‘people know what’s real and what’s not’.
To that, I say bullshit. And it seems that one of the world’s most famous fashion photographers, Peter Lindberg, agrees.
The New York Times reports:
cover of Elle, or wonder how the shape of Reese Witherspoon’s chin, dimples and eye color could change so drastically from her
angelic Marie Claire appearance in February 2008 to her polished Vogue cover in November to her kittenish Elle pose this April.
But as retouching has become more blatant and bizarre, sometimes resulting in bodies that defy the natural boundaries of human anatomy, a debate over photo manipulation has spilled into public view, with Mr. Lindbergh, one of the world’s most famous image makers, leading the charge against the practice.
“My feeling is that for years now it has taken a much too big part in how women are being visually defined today,” Mr. Lindbergh said in an e-mail exchange. “Heartless retouching,” he wrote, “should not be the chosen tool to represent women in the beginning of this century.”
Last month, Mr. Lindbergh stirred the pot by creating a series of covers for French Elle that showed stars like Monica Bellucci, Eva Herzigova and Sophie Marceau without makeup or retouching (see those images here). The issue struck a nerve with readers in France, where health officials were already campaigning for a measure to force magazines to note when and how images are altered. But editors of American publications, who last year resisted such a proposal within their trade group, the American Society of Magazine Editors, have also noted a backlash against images that appear manipulated to push an idealized standard of beauty.
It now seems fresh, even exclamation-worthy, when a magazine presents an unvarnished image. Last month, for example, an issue of Life & Style took the unusual step of declaring that a cover photograph of Kim Kardashian was “100 percent unretouched,” as if it had done a great service to the cause of pseudo-celebrity journalism. And People, in its “100 Most Beautiful” issue this month, included images of 11 celebrities “wearing nothing but moisturizer.”
“Fashion magazines are always about some element of fantasy,” said Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour, “but what I’m hearing from readers lately is that in fashion, as in every other part of our lives right now, there is a hunger for authenticity. Artifice, in general, feels very five years ago.”
Five years ago? So when will the fashion and advertising industries catch up? And until they do, I won’t shut up. Not until women who look like plastic aliens stop being held up as the ideal.
Top Comments
Just a simple question, which pic of the three would you like to meet? Which girl is real enough that you’d like to know her, or watch her in a movie?
Which girl is so gorgeous that you hate her, your boyfriend loves her, and your mum finds her appealing ‘cos she’s lovely, and has that quirky nice personality?
Which girl has flaws, ‘cos that’s why she’s your best friend?
Which girl is real?
Why, it’s Reece Witherspoon, the girl in the left pic, ‘cos she’s just like everyone else.
It’s a shame that ‘Marie Claire’ and other über glossies dictate what our preferences are. They prefer that we see Reece as a plastic doll, they prefer that we see ourselves as plastic dolls, (well, not me, but you get the idea) because that sells more glossy magazines.
Glossy, plastic magazines. At fifteen bucks a throw, that’s not much gloss for the toss, is it?
Reece doesn’t care, she’s paid. The mags are laughing all the way to the bank. And you stand there at the checkout and consider buying this, as Tim calls it, sh**. I ask you, is the beast feeding upon itself? It would seem so. The more you buy, the more you complain, then the more they publish, and then the more you buy, the more you complain, and then the more they publish…
And like the Titanic, the glossies will go on and on…and the more you buy…
I bet Picture and Ralph wish they had the same retention rate. Trouble is, us guys can’t remember which mag we bought last time, let alone remembering to buy it again next week. We don’t however have the same problem with knowing the way to the pub, or the back roads home that the cops’ll miss.
Call us tacticians.
Gigdiary, thanks so much for your positive feedback.
David, I agree. I'm not into airbrushed images of waxed chests and chiseled abs. So fake. So boring. Also, where's the voyeurism if all the 'imperfections' have been retouched? That's no fun.
As for porn, at the risk of getting too off-topic (or graphic), I was simply referring to the fact that the majority of it is so icky and detached and fake and confusing for young people who see it and don't know what to make of it. Personally, I'd much rather watch a hot couple going at it (including kissing, closeness and passion) than all these studs and bimbos and gynecological camera angles and money shots. And I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable about the chance of underage boys and girls stumbling across it (which they will) if this was the rule and not the exception.