1. In the November issue of Glamour they asked their readers to finish this sentence. What are your thoughts!?
"My Body is..." (And you can't write anything negative!)
2. In the September issue of Glamour Magazine Lizzie Miller, a 21-year-old model, apperaed in an almost nude photo. She is a size 12-14, the same size as the average American woman. The photo remained untouched and unairbrushed. In the photo one can see her slight belly roll whic is an imperfection most advertisers try to hide along with the average woman.
"My Body is..." (And you can't write anything negative!)
2. In the September issue of Glamour Magazine Lizzie Miller, a 21-year-old model, apperaed in an almost nude photo. She is a size 12-14, the same size as the average American woman. The photo remained untouched and unairbrushed. In the photo one can see her slight belly roll whic is an imperfection most advertisers try to hide along with the average woman.
What is your reaction to this type of photo?
Here are some of the reactions from the viewers of Glamour Magazine November 2009 Issue:
"When i read that one, I choked up. Why are we so hard on ourselves, when people who love us are so much more forgiving?"
"I speak on behalf of all men: She is stunningly beautiful."
"please make more of her."
"I love this picture. I *love *it. I want to rip it out of yoru magazine and frame it."
These were all Quotes from women, young and old, and even men!
3.Despite talk of ethics codes, airbrushing is here to stay
Section: MEDIAWORKS
WATER COOLER
Color us skeptical on this one: Magazine editors in the U.S. and England are considering codes of conduct governing the way they Photoshop stars' imperfections.
Not that it's a bad idea. Photoshop abuse is out of control at magazines, partly because celebrities demand protection from exposure to reality and partly because editors live and die by newsstand sales. An actually ugly Betty just wouldn't be good for anyone's business, even if it might represent something relatable.
In America, however, magazines repeatedly have been embarrassed by a string of revealing incidents. In the biggest blowup last summer, someone responding to a blog's $10,000 bounty leaked a photo of Faith Hill in a Redbook cover shoot-before substantial retouching erased her crow's-feet, back fat and other human features. It's affecting their credibility: Glamour has had to repeatedly deny it shaved whole dress sizes from America Ferrera, the nominally "Ugly Betty" of ABC TV, on its cover last October.
Mags across the pond, on the other hand, have been accused of promoting unrealistic ideals of body and beauty, to the detriment of women's health. The Model Health Inquiry, amid concerns last year about emaciated runway models during London Fashion Week, has urged the fashion industry to consider a voluntary code on digital manipulation.
So Britain's Periodical Publishers Association has asked for input, much as the American Society of Magazine Editors recently told Folio magazine it was considering an industry panel on the subject.
But we can't imagine that many more freckles, frowns or pounds will show up in magazines after all the talks. "ASME is not considering a ban of any kind," said ASME President and Glamour Editor Cindi Leive, according to Folio. "Given the ubiquity of retouching technology these days-think of brides and their wedding photos-it seems unrealistic to forbid all digital manipulation of photos in any magazine."
But it's advertising that will determine the outcome here. Even if magazine editors suddenly prohibited any retouching, models in every ad still would get airbrushed and digitally manipulated beyond the human plane. And no star of a cover feature will stand for getting shown up by the girl in the Dillard's ad.
"I speak on behalf of all men: She is stunningly beautiful."
"please make more of her."
"I love this picture. I *love *it. I want to rip it out of yoru magazine and frame it."
These were all Quotes from women, young and old, and even men!
3.Despite talk of ethics codes, airbrushing is here to stay
Section: MEDIAWORKS
WATER COOLER
Color us skeptical on this one: Magazine editors in the U.S. and England are considering codes of conduct governing the way they Photoshop stars' imperfections.
Not that it's a bad idea. Photoshop abuse is out of control at magazines, partly because celebrities demand protection from exposure to reality and partly because editors live and die by newsstand sales. An actually ugly Betty just wouldn't be good for anyone's business, even if it might represent something relatable.
In America, however, magazines repeatedly have been embarrassed by a string of revealing incidents. In the biggest blowup last summer, someone responding to a blog's $10,000 bounty leaked a photo of Faith Hill in a Redbook cover shoot-before substantial retouching erased her crow's-feet, back fat and other human features. It's affecting their credibility: Glamour has had to repeatedly deny it shaved whole dress sizes from America Ferrera, the nominally "Ugly Betty" of ABC TV, on its cover last October.
Mags across the pond, on the other hand, have been accused of promoting unrealistic ideals of body and beauty, to the detriment of women's health. The Model Health Inquiry, amid concerns last year about emaciated runway models during London Fashion Week, has urged the fashion industry to consider a voluntary code on digital manipulation.
So Britain's Periodical Publishers Association has asked for input, much as the American Society of Magazine Editors recently told Folio magazine it was considering an industry panel on the subject.
But we can't imagine that many more freckles, frowns or pounds will show up in magazines after all the talks. "ASME is not considering a ban of any kind," said ASME President and Glamour Editor Cindi Leive, according to Folio. "Given the ubiquity of retouching technology these days-think of brides and their wedding photos-it seems unrealistic to forbid all digital manipulation of photos in any magazine."
But it's advertising that will determine the outcome here. Even if magazine editors suddenly prohibited any retouching, models in every ad still would get airbrushed and digitally manipulated beyond the human plane. And no star of a cover feature will stand for getting shown up by the girl in the Dillard's ad.
My Question is "What was the end result of thier pannal discussion?" As the viewer do you want to know the results? If you could submit your input and opinion on this matter what would you have to say?
Post By: Lauren Erkelens
I've always been a fan of plus-size models! There's a great site with many images of plus-size models here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.judgmentofparis.com
They're all gorgeous. The site's forum also has thought-provoking discussions about body image and the media.