Just wow.

[siercia]

You should go look at these links. It's no accident that we feel unattractive when we llook at pretty women in magazines.

Amazing to me, is that the two before pictures AREN'T that ugly, really. They're good-looking women, with normal bodies and flaws. They become these models of perfection. And after you go back and forth a few times, they start to look ugly. I knew models were usually airbrushed and whatnot, but this is beyond what I thought they did. Damn.

The Blonde

The bikini

Thanks to skreeky for the links.

Cross-posted to lessofme.

Comments

[rachelmichellek.livejournal.com]

Have you ever seen the woman who lectures about this topic, women and the media portrayal of women, airbrushing, etc? I can't remember her name. There is a film of one of her lectures that is available somewhere. We had her come to speak at Syracuse once...

[skreeky]

The video you're thinking of is called "Killing Us Softly" and it's been updated twice to reflect current ads and popular models. The first update was "Still Killing Us Softly" and the latest one I have (in the college library's collection) is "Killing Us Softly 3." The lecturer is Jeane Kilbourne. Distributed by the Media Education Foundation.

[rupie-zum.livejournal.com]

Oh my god.

Thank you for those links.

Do you think you could post this to thegirlproject?

[siercia]

Good idea! I've already done it.

Isn't it just staggering?

[rupie-zum.livejournal.com]

It's mind-boggling, it really is!

Re: oh no

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I agree! The "after" photo of the blonde was frightening! It was like one of those really scary clowns.

YIKES!!

Re: oh no

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Man, that's creepy.

[bossieboots.livejournal.com]

Wowza. Definitely why I stopped reading "women's" magazines, even my beloved clothes-filled Vogue. (Their "shape" issue last year pissed me off beyond all belief.) Did you see the issue of "Shape" magazine where Jamie Lee Curtis only let them photograph her for the cover if they showed what she really looked like on the inside before all the air brushing and photographic reconstruction?

[siercia]

I haven't! I think I'm going to have to look it up though. Do you remember what month it was?

[bossieboots.livejournal.com]

It was actually More magazine, in September 2002. The article is called "True Thighs" and is reported to be on page 90.

You can see a little of it (with annoying banner over the story) here:

http://www.lhj.com/home/Jamie-lee-curtis.html

EEK!

[tarecat.livejournal.com]

I donno if it's just the face the blond is making or what but to me when you scroll over her so you see the befor and after one after another. It's scarry. Liek some kind of horror movie transfomration. It's not that the girl befor the toutch up is unatractive, but the contrast of the befor and after is disturbing.

As for the chick in the bikini. That one makes me angry, because they took a woman that was extreamly atractive without the touchup and turned herinto something obviously unatainable by people. They made her skin look lighter and even made her boobs look bigger.
Though when you look at the picture pice by pice insted of ont he whole you see more flaws. Even though. The only thing I could see that I'd want to have changed were the circles under here eyes. Even that was a result of poor lighting ont he photographers part.

Though the uber close up of the belly button scares me. I've never felt the need to become deeply intimate with someones belly button lint.

[magnummom.livejournal.com]

Holy cannoli. Why even pay real women to be models at all, when you can create the digitally "perfect" computer-version.

I feel ill.

[rawrin.livejournal.com]

Another related article, Before and After:

http://www.dolfzine.com/page236.htm

[skreeky]

It's no accident that we feel unattractive when we llook at pretty women in magazines.

This is a pretty typical statement of the "media is deliberately being evil" attitude. On the contrary, if this wasn't what people bought into, they wouldn't do it. Chicken. Egg.

(Full discussion between me and siercia in the original entry's comments.)

[siercia]

I don't necessarily think that they're being evil. I do think they're being manipulative, and lots of people don't realize how much the images they see have been manipulated (Even you were surprised by these, right?). One of the ways to break the chicken and egg cycle is to make people aware of the manipulation - sometimes that makes it not work anymore. Of course, here, I'm mostly preaching to the converted already.

[skreeky]

I do think they're being manipulative
...but only with the motive of making you buy the product. If this nudges your social attitude and it ripples, that's a byproduct.

lots of people don't realize how much the images they see have been manipulated
True, and that's because...

make people aware of the manipulation - sometimes that makes it not work anymore
Yes. And at what point will we all realize it and become so jaded to it we don't care? See Greg's question in the other disussion about at what point models become unnecessary. I don't like getting into the why, but at what point do people give up on the part of the fantasy where this is a real attainable person, and not care if it's obviously faked? We live in the age of teenage boys' fantasies being about video game characters. Getting back out of the why, as soon as a marketing test shows there's no need for the pretense of reality, it won't even matter whether the artist's creation is indistinguishable from a photo. It's a toss-up to me which will come first - the ability to make it indistinguishable, or people not caring whether it's fake.

[solcita.livejournal.com]

Wow. That is... astounding.

[girlinthemoon.livejournal.com]

whoa. thought-provoking, for sure.