Self’s Editor-in-Chief blogs about airbrushing
Yesterday I wrote about Kelly Clarkson and airbrushing; this morning, while sipping my tea and doing my news round-up, I came across a blog post written by Self’s Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danzinger. It left such a bad taste in my mouth that I couldn’t let it pass without comment!
Lucy lays bare the reality of women’s magazine cover shoots, which I’ve tried to pound home for readers over the years: the women are often like you and me. (“When the cover girl arrives at the shoot, she is usually unmade up and casually dressed, and could be mistaken for a member of the crew or the editorial team in many cases,” says Lucy.) There’s hair, there’s makeup, there’s lighting….yada yada. You know how it goes by now. I appreciate Lucy’s honesty–it would have been easy to release a simple statement saying, “Yes, we airbrush,” rather than taking the time to construct a thoughtful blog post.
What made me go all “Oh No You Didn’t!”, however, was the hypocrisy that comes later in her post, when she makes a case for airbrushing as inspiring women to want to be their “best.” (Of Kelly’s retouching, she says: “Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best.”)
No. She is missing the point. When our “personal best” is something digitally altered, something that doesn’t even exist–it’s a lie, a non-reality, an imaginary ideal. There is, in fact, nothing “personal” about it…and absolutely zero that has to do with the over-cited, under-recognized concept of a truly individual best. As Editor-in-Chief of a magazine women look to for fitness, Lucy has a rare chance to inspire, rather than towing the company–and industry line–and pushing these fake images as some sort of dubious empowerment.
Lucy admits that, after she finished a marathon and was photographed, she had the art department digitally slim her hips for the Editor’s Letter photo, saying, “I am confident in my body, proud of what it can accomplish, but it just didn’t look the way I wanted in every picture.” Later in the article, however, she proclaims enlightenment:
“Oh, and by the way, today I would let my marathon picture run unaltered…I’ve gotten more confident in myself. I know what my body can do (thanks to training for triathlons) and that means more to me than how I look on any given day…But I also know that there are times when you just want to be yourself, and that means no artifice….
Your job: Think about your photographs and what you want them to convey. And go ahead and be confident in every shot, in every moment. Because the truest beauty is the kind that comes from within.”
Except for when it’s from without…and could use a little airbrushing, apparently.
Pictures That Please Us (Self.com)
Tags: Kelly Clarkson, Lucy Danzinger, Self
9 Responses to “Self’s Editor-in-Chief blogs about airbrushing”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Personally I think we are so saturated with the superficialities of makeover-itis and a lack love of what is true and virtuous, that anyone who doesn’t look perfect is deemed unacceptable.
For me, I’ll take Mother Teresa’s face any day over a vacuous starlet’s face.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:34 am
My mom is photographer and I remember walking up on her editing a picture of me where she was opening my eyes more, making my nose smaller, my skin clearer and my teeth whiter.
It hurt worse than anything she could have said out loud.
I can’t read magazines anymore because even thought I know it’s all done up and airbrushed, it still eats at me.
Maybe because I don’t airbrush as well.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Kinda typical ’star’ attitude….she is lucky she has a choice over how her pics are shown. I’m sure it’s a slippery slope to Faceliftville when reality bites, the magazines aren’t interested anymore and the airbrushers get to work on someone else instead…
August 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
So true, I wanted to write “Amen” to the first part of the post but I didnt want to sound religious but it feels so appropriate to your/our side of the argument.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:59 am
isn’t this called: catering to the advertisers? if you want to sell magazines, you have to publish visually appealing photos in it, right? by no means am i condoning the doctoring of photos, but they do want to sell magazines.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I’m a makeup junkie, but I love it because it enhances what I already have and I don’t have to wear it if I don’t want to. The world won’t end if I’m not wearing concealer. What’s sad is how these airbrushes images are all we see and are what is force fed to us as beautiful. I feel bad for Kelly Clarkson that they felt the need to airbrush her. So what she’s gained weight!?! Great, it makes me feel good about the fact that I have too. And for Self to be a magazine about working out and a healthy lifestyle, it’s a bit sad that they felt the need to try to make her look her best, when her best was probably the original photo they shot. Sigh…will they ever get it?
August 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I’m especially disappointed because I’ve loved Lucy Danziger’s work since she was the editor of the now-defunct Women’s Sports & Fitness. I’d always thought of her as someone who champions the singular beauty of a healthy woman’s body, so for her to claim that airbrushing, of all things, brings out our “personal best” is particularly disgusting. At this point I’ve come to accept the reality of airbrushing, but let’s please all be honest about the duplicity and deceit in the practice rather than cloak it all in some kind of self-esteem shibboleth. She should be ashamed.
Salut,
Marjorie
August 15th, 2009 at 7:45 am
I couldn’t agree more. Have you not seen this viral video from Dove? Pretty powerful stuff in my opinion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gD80jv5ZQ
August 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Very well said, Nadine. I too am tired of the standard of beauty and “personal best” being artificially elevated to something unreachable, even for the celebrities who are airbrushed. It is ironic that the name of this magazine is “Self”, as there is more to “self” than unreachable, ridiculous external perfection.