Do you think they got this model on a half price sale? If you lived in Australia not only would you have 24/7 access to Hugh Jackman (or Nicole Kidman for the gents) but you’d have something even better. What could be better than a shirtless Wolverine, you ask? Mandatory airbrush labeling on magazine photos. I’m serious. I’d take truth in advertising over glistening pecs any day of the week. (Rhetorical question: does that make me old??)
Apparently Australia has a law, “the National Media and Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image, which demands labeling of airbrushed images in women’s magazines and the diversification of models’ size and shape.” So anytime a magazine airbrushes a cover model into oblivion it basically has to tell you they are lying to your face. Do you think they make those stickers for kids?
I love this idea. I think that most of us intuitively know that most professional pictures (and many unprofessional shots, even) are photoshopped and airbrushed into perfection. And yet, despite my knowledge, I’ll still look at a horribly unrealistic picture and think “Man, I’d love to have those legs.” But if they were forced to ‘fess up to their tweaks, I really do think it would make a difference in my perception of the picture and my gut reaction to it. I still remember when Jamie Lee Curtis did that photoshoot for More Magazine where she did a before pic showcasing all her lumpy, droopy glory and then showed the 7-hour process of glamorizing her for the final picture that made it on the cover. Despite never having seen a single one of her movies other than Freaky Friday – and heaven help her, I thought she was Julie Andrews the whole time – I love Jamie Lee Curtis.
Other creative types around the world have taken up this message as well. A group of vigilantes in Berlin have been pasting large stickers showing photoshop tools over the top of too-perfect starlets and singers, as pictured here. Not only does it show the familiar clone and smudge tools but according to those who know these things (i.e. computer geeks), they actually replicate the actions obviously taken on the photos. They’re like a modern-day Robin Hood, except cooler ’cause it takes a really secure person to wear tights and tunic in today’s society.
So what do you think? Would it make a difference to you if magazines were forced to admit – on their covers! – when they had airbrushed someone? And how do you feel about vigilante justice of this type? And, be honest now, how many times did you have to look at that Hilfiger ad to figure out what was wrong with it? I think I’m moving to Australia. (I’d consider Berlin but I’ve been there already – too cold, too much sausage. Sorry.)
as much as I can say I would like to see the labelling, I too think that it really wouldn’t make much difference in my opinion of myself. I would still look at the photo and compare it to my own body, full well knowing that the model herself does not look that way in real life.
Seriously….this is a problem.
But then again, if they posted photos of models just as they are, would anyone buy the product? I think not…sad but true.
how cool is that, i love it. actually, what i’d love even more is if we didn’t glamorize airbrushing. everybody in their own skin. that would be admirable, and make the world a better place!
I was just in Berlin for work. Mmmm Currywurst! 😉
Love the idea of labeling which photos are airbrushed, because even though I know airbrushing is done all the time, the crazy-exED-nutjob in me would probably feel better seeing the actual label in print as a reminder. Its a mental thing….like a Jedi mind trick.
I’d like to know. To confirm it rather than just wonder. It’s one thing to think it’s airbrushed, it’s another to have a great big sticker confirming it. I don’t think it would guarantee no damage would be caused to my self-image but it would certainly alleviate a part of the mental pressure I subconcsciously subject myself to.
I always assume everything is airbrushed anyway, I’d probably end up disappointed if labelling became mandatory! And I would definitely continue to compare myself to models. Hell, I look at Jessica Rabbit and think “IWANNABETHATSHAPE!!!”….
TA x
hmmm. interesting point and idea and yet I guess I always operate from the assuming they are airbrushed as well until told otherwise. perhaps labeling ala the Dove Real Women campaign 🙂 and tell us when they are NOT.
and Jamie Lee? **sigh** too many opinions for a comment space. adore her acting. ADORE her writing for kids. not sure I admire her for stepping up and out **after** she has had plastic surgery and decided to have no mo’.
it’s better, sure, than having more but I really admire women like Susan Sarandon who are 100% natural.
Just to let you know, I live in Oz, and I haven’t seen a single picture labeled in any of the goss magazines. I’ll take another look and see if it’s on some hidden page, but I don’t think this law is enforced?
I like the idea, because it can act as a small reminder to us adults that these models don’t even look that perfect. More importantly, though, it might prove to younger gals that the pictures you see don’t tell the truth.
An even better idea? Get rid of photoshopping! Now, I’m not saying throw it all out. Keep the bits that smooth out skin tone and fix frizzy hair, but can we please get rid of the photoshopping that makes legs 10 miles long and waists the circumference of a baseball bat? That would be a step in the right direction, IMO.
I kinda think it’s awesome.
Even though I know that all those celebrity photos and ads are photo-shopped, I tend to forget it. Even better would be the actual photos, un-retouched, but this would be the next best thing.
I’m all for honesty in every area, so I’m for it!
Having a large screen TV, I can easily read all the disclaimers on advertising 🙁
Now, now, Charlotte, you know Tommy Hilfiger was just demonstrating their support for the Americans with Disabilities Act by showcasing that model in their ad…;)
You know, I’d think it was unnecessary to label ads as photoshopped, but about 6 month ago I had the most alarming conversation with my 14-year old who was shocked — SHOCKED — to learn that Professional Wrestling is a scripted theatrical show, not actually competitive wrestling. She was outraged, swore she’d had no idea. So, um, maybe despite our best efforts to raise savvy kids, we do need some labeling. Maybe a symbol that looks like a tongue-in-cheek…
How sad is it that I still wish I had leg like that model? Although I’m happy to settle for having 2 imperfect ones.
Can the law just be that something has to be seriously messed up in the photo? Cause I’d like that much more than a “we photoshopped” announcement.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say I’m not in favor of the law. Why? Because even in the world of airbrushing, models have to do unhealthy, self destructive things to be thin enough to get jobs. I just don’t believe that this is going to push magazines to present a more realistic image of women (and men!). Magazines aren’t going to want to have to identify their photos as having been Photoshop-ed so they are going to want to hire models who don’t need to be Photoshop-ed. And how thin will a model have to be for that?
Seriously?! That’s wonderful! I’ve always hoped that that would happen but I didn’t know that it actually was happening somewhere in the world. I have newfound hope in the human race!
And the modern day Robin Hood thing is awesome:D
You should see the movie True Lies with Jamie Lee Curtis- it’s so much fun.
I’d love it if we had to have those labels on North American magazines. That sounds like a fantastic idea. Seeing them all the time we may learn to ignore them, but atleast the changes would be acknowledged.
As for a world without Jelly Beans. It’s going to be a sad and slightly less shiny place for the next 4 weeks. It’s only 4 weeks, I think I can manage. Bring on the sugar headaches *sarcasm*
LOVE the photoshop vigilantes!!! And I was all in favor of labeling until I read Chelsea’s comment, and she’s absolutely right. That would just put more pressure on models and actors to be “perfect” looking and to take drastic measures to achieve and maintain that look.
Yeah, I’d prefer we do away with most photoshopping. Wanna get rid of zits and bags under the eyes? Fine. But making people taller, thinner, lighter-skinned, etc. is sickening.
We have to educate ourselves and our kids. The media wants to preserve the illusion, and it’s up to us to shatter it.
My first reaction was “yes, it would make a difference.” After some thought, however, I don’t know if it would make a difference. I know glossy pictures in magazines, on billboards, and other media publications are airbrushed and yet I still compare myself to them. It takes a little creativity out of advertisement and if magazines are required to disclose that a picture is airbrushed it takes away from the artistic view. It is a double edged sword. In a way it is good for some because it may help them realize the models, celebrities, and others are not all perfect, but at the same way it may take away from what the artist is trying to portray.
I don’t think this kind of labeling would trigger any kind of miraculous cure to the low self image plague, but maybe it would help.
Leamur’s comment about labeling for the sake of naive youth reminded me of a recent experience in the movie theatre. A trailer for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” triggered a debate by a row of teenagers sitting behind us who were trying to figure out whether the movie was based on a true story.
That movie is a perfect example of how much technology really can alter images and still look realistic; which is fine when everyone understands it is fictional entertainment, but not so good when it is used to sell products designed to enhance appearance.
I just always assume the photos are photoshopped, but like you, I still covet those long muscular legs or perfectly sculpted stomach of the model.
As far as labeling airbrushed pictures…it wouldn’t sway my opinion of the magazine or make me more likely to purchase it. I know they all photoshop their covers, and I’m just too cheap.
I would love love love magazines to be forced to do this. At least they might take some notice of how damgin what they’re doing can be. If I was reminded everytime I looked at a photo, that it was fake, I’m sure my self esteem would be better. There was a period where some Londoners were sticking on doctored adverts “You are normal, this is not”, similarly for cosmetic surgery adverts. And good on them, Well done the Ozzies
I think that is a fantastic idea for both airbrush and photoshop! IMO much of what is seen in magazines and TV is a big problem. Many dysfunctions and insecurities are caused through distorted comparisons that often lead to eating disorders, depression etc. Our youth have so many challenges …maybe the media should keep it real? My take anyway.
Oddly enough, Australia was one of the 3 places I considered moving when I left San Diego. Australia, Vancouver, or Austin. While I didn’t end up at the most exotic place I do love where I ended up!
And I pretty much assume that all pictures in magazines are airbrushed, so it would be interesting, but I’m not sure I personally care myself. That being said, if it would make other people happy, I’m all for it!
While I wouldn’t say I’m against photo-shopping, I do think it’s gotten a little out of hand. I don’t want to pay extra to airbrush my 12-year-old’s acne out of her school photo–I want her to wash her face so it clears up.
As far as puttig a “warning label” on pictures that are doctored…I guess it wouldn’t really matter to me. When I spot an obvious photoshop, I roll my eyes and show everyone I know, but it wouldn’t stop me from buying the product. (At least, I don’t think it would!)
On another note, I love that Photoshop disasters blog. I just have to share my favorite–censored nudity is involved, but check out her shadow. It cracks me up every time!
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/06/zoo-shadow-of-doubt.html
“Yes, yes, yes” was my first thought as I read your post. I can see the point of the other comments, but when I was younger, about 10 years ago, I was too ignorant to see that magazines and ads used photoshop. If we can change the extreme ideals even a little bit in the right direction, I think it is worth the disclaimer.
yeah, ringing in the new Obama regime with more regulations. You go girl, get into the spirit! Perhaps instead of compulsory labeling, we should fund a program to encourage labeling, which would make everyone happy: more government spending plus encouraging self government.
As a Photoshop professional, I am going to sue whomever publicized my trade secrets. Unless my name is properly credited to any photo I enhance. Then I would support mandatory labels. The best of us leave no trace of ourselves on our work, so having my name in lights as a true artist would certainly be good for business.
In my opinion, a photo that has been retouched should be “signed” as it were by the retouch-er.
Photoshop/digital corrections can be a true art form; akin to 19th century portrait painting, in which the subject was always flattered–but here’s the chief difference:
As a society, we have been raised to think of the photograph as “truth”, but if that mindset were shifted to thinking of fashion photography as portraiture, it would go a long way to erasing some of the impossible beauty mythos.
You’ve never seen “A fish called Wanda”? Really?
I say tell the truth and label photo-shopped pictures.
Yes, I love this (and Jamie Lee Curtis) and I think publishers should be forced to stop publishing books like “the 3 Day Diet” and “the 60 Second Workout.” The public is SO screwed up!