The tyranny of (airbrushed) perfection

6th April 2008

The tyranny of (airbrushed) perfection

posted in Body Image, Eating Disorders, Fashion, Feminist Topics, Pop Culture |

Readers here are probably familiar with the awful and scary Faith Hill photoshopping controversy that circulated the blogosphere recently. And of course, many of us have seen Dove’s Evolution video, which chronicles the transformation of an ordinarily pretty woman to billboard supermodel in under 60 seconds.

But you’d think a celebrity like Keira Knightly, who already fits a cultural mold unattainable for 98 percent of American woman, would need no additional digital manipulation to airbrush her into even more of an unrealistic perfection. Apparently not, according to This is London’s Evening Standard news.

The news organization reports that editors from top-selling “glossies” are to hold a summit to discuss a voluntary code on digital manipulation. The concern comes as the British Fashion Council demands magazines act after last fall’s Model Health Inquiry gave a “stinging” critique of the industry’s unhealthy size-zero culture. The move also comes at a time when eating disorder specialists issue cautions that cultural obsessions with extreme slimness are pushing more and more people into dangerous diet-binge cycles and even eating disorders.

Professor Janet Treasure, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, said such disordered behavior may permanently alter the way people’s brains react to “rewards,” making them susceptible to other addictions, such as drugs and alcohol.

And finally! Someone with a degree makes the connection between the promotion of a thin ideal and the so-called obesity epidemic. Whenever I’m interviewed by reporters about issues related to obesity, I’m inevitably asked for my thoughts on why America is fatter. I always respond by asking, “What came first? The so-called obesity epidemic or dieting?” Treasure also makes this chicken-and-egg connection in the British Journal of Psychiatry, where she also urges the British government to tackle society’s obsessive eating habits.

“Although it may take time to change the ‘thin ideal’ we should remember what has been achieved with cigarette smoking. People are just beginning to listen to the wealth of scientific evidence about the harm that fashion industry images cause.”

Treasure isn’t the only one speaking out. The anti-obesity scourge has attracted the concern of the American Medical Association and most recently, this Canberra Times editorial for the potential harm such zealousness may have on young, impressionable children. As editors there opined:

Education about healthy eating and exercise is an important tool for any young mind, but how much of it now veers to scare tactic? And how much of it takes into account the rising levels of eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia?

Regular blog readers may remember a September posting on a publication of the Women’s Forum Australia titled “Faking It: The Female Image in Young Women’s Magazines.” The report found that thin, sexualized and digitally enhanced images of women are linked to poor body image, depression, anxiety and eating disorders amongst girls and women and contributes to self-harming behaviors and poor academic performances. For young teenage girls, such images inspires desires to lose weight and the initiation of dieting, regardless of current body weight. Finally, the five year study found that reading dieting advice in magazines was associated with eating disordered behaviors in teenage girls.

As for the British magazine summit, eating disorders activist Susan Greenwood isn’t holding her breath. The chief executive of the eating disorder charity Beat warned that the industry – much like the Council of Fashion Designers of America – has a history of paying lip service to the issue. As she noted:

“There was a summit at Downing Street back in 2000 on digital manipulation and body image issues with fashion magazine editors and what’s changed since then? Nothing.”

Change is glacial, for sure, but for our sake and the sake of future generations, I prefer Treasure’s more positive outlook.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm and is filed under Body Image, Eating Disorders, Fashion, Feminist Topics, Pop Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On April 6th, 2008, occhiblu said:

I have not been able to figure out the whole vagina arms thing that people have been tossing around, since to me that just looks like… arms. But they’ve actually airbrushed out Knightly’s armpits on that photo.

So apparently, in addition to not being allowed to weigh enough to have bones or organs, we are no longer allowed to have arms that attach to our bodies, either.

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

2 On April 6th, 2008, littlem said:

On the one hand, a sigh of relief.

On the other, Rachel, you have a degree, don’t you? I certainly have one. And I know we’ve been talking about this for awhile.

Amazing what it takes to be considered a “credible” data source in the face of prejudice. Particularly when, with the chunks falling off in the Antarctic and all, glaciers actually seem to be moving faster these days.

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

3 On April 6th, 2008, littlem said:

And, looking sadly at beautiful Keira and remembering the Faith hullaballoo, I believe the biggest travesty here is that people believe the “after” photos are the reality to the extent that people can see the actual celebrity in person and not believe that their image has been distorted in the photographs.

People believe that Beyonce looks “chunky” and “fat” on TV, so even when she’s standing right in front of their faces, people will whisper “She’s not really that little, is she? She looks much bigger on TV.”

I’ve seen it happen.

*headfloor*

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

4 On April 6th, 2008, Court said:

Thank you so much for posting this. Really great perspective, and good links, too! Yes we “know” this stuff, but it’s still so easy to succumb to the inundation of expectations and standards. Thanks for the reminder.

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

5 On April 6th, 2008, Bilt4Cmfrt said:

Two words; Foot binding.
I mean, why Is this so hard to understand?

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

6 On April 6th, 2008, Rachel said:

I have a degree, but I meant degree as in medical degree. And it’s also more legitimate somehow if it comes from a thin person with a medical degree.

I met a presenter at a sociological conference the other weekend. She related a story about how a team of doctors contributed a study that didn’t vilify obesity in the Journal of American Medicine. People actually demanded to know their BMIs, which they provided and which all averaged into a “normal” BMI. Who else would have to provide data to justify a study like this?

posted on April 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

7 On April 7th, 2008, Charlotte said:

Even the “perfect” people aren’t perfect enough.

*headdesk*

It’s stuff like this that makes me feel bad about myself.

posted on April 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am

8 On April 7th, 2008, Shade said:

“It’s stuff like this that makes me feel bad about myself.”

I hear you, Charlotte. But I’m done feeling bad–now I just get pissed off.

posted on April 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am

9 On April 7th, 2008, Lisa B said:

What has the world come to that we cannot even appear to weigh enough to have organs? Also, have you all noticed that she now has bigger breasts? A recent blog came to my attention of a designer who learned the hard way why it is necessary to change this attitude in the fashion industry. He discovered that his daughter is bulemic. Its on AOL, called Shape Your Style – Fashion Can Kill. http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2008/03/14/fashion-can-kill/

posted on April 7th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

10 On April 8th, 2008, Jackie said:

I think the most striking thing between the before and after pictures, is that they gave Keira Knightley breasts. No offense to people who are naturally flat chested, but she seriously looked like a young boy. How can someone say that’s healthy, that’s ok, it’s not!

posted on April 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am

11 On April 11th, 2008, Boudicca said:

I’ll never forget my first education in the unreality of photos like this. I was looking at a new friend’s portfolio, who was a very successful fashion photography stylist, and I was marveling over how fabulous all the women looked. “You really must be a great stylist – they all look so beautiful – and they are all so thin and have such incredible skin”. He laughed at me and said “Oh, hon – you have no idea what we do to these girls – this one, for example (showing me a particularly perfect-looking woman in a slinky dress) has giant binder clips all down her back to hold the dress just so – I have her so sprayed down and covered in makeup – and she still looked like hell because her skin was just wrecked from all the smoking, drugs and anorexia.” Then he showed me the before and after picture – showing me how they removed her pockmarked skin , covered up her ribs sticking out, increased her lip and bust size, removed all her pores and LOWER EYELIDS and smoothed over her hollow eye sockets… it went on and on.

I have never looked at any photograph of a woman (or man) in a magazine, publicity shot, or movie poster in the same way. It’s all a load of lies!

posted on April 11th, 2008 at 8:26 am

12 On April 11th, 2008, Rachel said:

Boudica, I wonder why they even bother to use real women anymore? I mean, can’t they just digitally create her from scratch? They already practically do.

posted on April 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am

13 On August 19th, 2009, Should digital airbrushing be regulated like tobacco? » The-F-Word.org said:

[...] altered twice before: in U.S. posters advertising her 2004 film King Arthur and again for the Pirates of the Caribbean movie. On her latest digital breast augmentation, she told the UK Telegraph: “They painted my [...]

posted on August 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm