Yesterday, after spending hours doing normal girl things: homework, window shopping online, jamming to The Strokes. I found myself in the store looking at the latest Nylon magazine and thinking, “Wow, doesn't such and such look so cute.” I wasn’t envious and thought the cover girl (Anna Paquin) actually looked like an attainable image—nice body, face, etc. But I wonder how much of that is even her. As normal as even that photo looked, how much air brush sucked the real cuteness out of her.
I wonder how many young people buy magazines thinking, “If I could look like that!” too many, I’m sure. Perhaps the funniest thing is that THOSE women/men don’t even look like that. They’re all airbrushed. So yes, if you want to sell three quarters of your face for a micro chip and to become part pixel part human then perhaps you, too, can look like them. I’m not bashing magazines. I’m proud of many of them for coming into more diversity in many areas. But I think the idea of airbrushing the smithereens out of women on their covers is odd. What if you just featured women on the covers the way they actually look? Maybe their hair is a little dry, they didn’t get enough sleep, there’s a little flab here or there. But isn’t that reality? We’re not Barbie dolls. We are human.
I wish some of my favorite magazines (Nylon, Teen Vogue) would do at least 1 annual issue where they didn’t airbrush. The point isn’t to say, “Oh, wow, I’m glad I don’t look like HER.” But to see that everyone, EVERYONE, has something you can talk about. Believe it or not—it’s true! Don’t believe the hype. Don’t chase the illusion.
I wonder how many young people buy magazines thinking, “If I could look like that!” too many, I’m sure. Perhaps the funniest thing is that THOSE women/men don’t even look like that. They’re all airbrushed. So yes, if you want to sell three quarters of your face for a micro chip and to become part pixel part human then perhaps you, too, can look like them. I’m not bashing magazines. I’m proud of many of them for coming into more diversity in many areas. But I think the idea of airbrushing the smithereens out of women on their covers is odd. What if you just featured women on the covers the way they actually look? Maybe their hair is a little dry, they didn’t get enough sleep, there’s a little flab here or there. But isn’t that reality? We’re not Barbie dolls. We are human.
I wish some of my favorite magazines (Nylon, Teen Vogue) would do at least 1 annual issue where they didn’t airbrush. The point isn’t to say, “Oh, wow, I’m glad I don’t look like HER.” But to see that everyone, EVERYONE, has something you can talk about. Believe it or not—it’s true! Don’t believe the hype. Don’t chase the illusion.
Kim Kardashian is a natural beauty. Besides the fact that she has about a hundred pounds of make up on, look what they did to her legs! Girls (and guys) may interpret that as an actual pair of thighs. So women and men should have thighs that look painted. No. Legs have scuffs, marks, and pores. They also gave her a smaller waist (as if she needed one)! Now imagine every other photo you see: what else are they hiding?
Another gorgeous girl made to look more like a cartoon character. They slimmed her already beautiful figure, made her complexion ridiculously glowy, and gave her hair (probably extensions that took hours enough to fix) a mind of its own. Por que?? (Why??)
So what do you guys think? Why airbrush, why create images that aren’t real?
No comments:
Post a Comment