RealBeauty - An issue of prespective?

I recently took a look at the new video for Dove's "RealBeauty" campaign. After watching it I decided to craft a response that they may or may not post on their forum, so I decided to post it here so you can read it. I'd like to note that they open the video mentioning 'extreme' dieting as a distortion of prespective, yet the video they show has nothing to deal with 'dieting' or the 'slimness' of models. None-the-less, I get their point.

>>>>

I am a professional fashion and beauty photographer and as working professional 'on the inside' I have to say that the problem is more complicated and nuanced than most people think. It's not simply that magazines are pressuring women into looking 'perfect', but it’s a mix of marketing, self-esteem, Photoshop and reality, all together.

For one, the Dove video here illustrates the power of lighting, makeup, photography and Photoshop in the transformation of the woman depicted. But it is also misleading to suggest that all of what has been done counts as a 'distortion'. There is no photographic medium that can be considered 100% truthful. All pictures look the way they do as a combination of lighting, camera lens, angle and film/filter type. An extraordinary amount of 'distortion' for an image takes place before even any makeup is applied. Just as the model here looks 'less than dramatic' when compared to the final version, I assure you it would have been possible to create just as dramatic and beautiful (although different) portrait of the model without any of the 'computer magic' or even makeup.

That aside, yes, there is an extraordinary amount of 'Photoshop' that goes into magazine covers, advertisements, etc... But this isn't absolutely always the case. There are indeed women out there who do in fact look perfect. It's quite popular to call extremely thin models anorexic, but it ignores the truth that there are indeed many women who are naturally extremely thin. Most people also don't know that many of these models that they think are anorexic are also very young. These days’ girls start working at 14, generally before the onset of puberty and while their bodies may have already grown a fair bit (in height) they have yet to develop (hence lack of hips, breasts or other 'womanly' characteristics).

The truth is that the perception of women through magazines and fashion is a mix of truths and distortions. There are real women who have the bodies that magazines adore. This is true. What is also true is that the women, who have bodies that don't exactly conform to what has become the norm, get photoshopped. Sometimes, they get photoshopped A GREAT DEAL. True.

I would argue however, the problem is not from the magazine/fashion side of the issue, but rather the consumers. If 'real women' sold magazines, they would be on all the covers. Unfortunately women do not buy products that depict pictures of 'real women'. This is true. Women purchase products that show idealized versions of often-unattainable beauty. Take note: nearly all advertisements for mascara feature an image where the eyelashes have been DRAWN ON with Photoshop. Despite the obviousness of the computer manipulation women will continue to choose the product featuring the obvious falsification over the product that depicts real-life results. What about hair dye products? Almost no one has a head of hair THAT thick. Almost no one has hair that combs out to be THAT shiny and perfect. Yet women continue to support the very products that seem to offer something they can never have.

The real issue is why women seem to pursue their own negative reinforcement of their beauty. Everyone knows the magazine covers are photoshopped. Even kids. Yet it doesn't stop them from starving themselves. We live in a society where women teach themselves that their only redeeming characteristic, their only positive contribution to society, is their body. But this isn't the fault of the fashion world. We aren't a group of uber-thin elitists who sit around plotting the our next mass-bulimia inducing photoshoot. In fact we are ourselves normal people. As many over weight as trim. The industry is also surprisingly varied, with plenty of products aimed towards, "real women" with "real figures". You don't see the egalitarian and encompassing nature of the fashion world because you (yes you, the reader) as a consumer choose NOT to accept an image of yourselves as an accurate reflection. There are plenty of magazines dedicated to 'larger figures' that promote the use of real women in their fashion editorials and plenty of companies that use real women for their advertisements. Even more surprisingly for people is that many companies that produce products for 'unattainable' lifestyles also produce products for 'real people'. The market gives people what they want. And people want thin, photoshopped, altered, distorted, images of themselves. Unfortunately.

I want to also mention the importance of 'casting'. Casting is the process by which a magazine or company selects the individuals they will use as models to represent their product. Even products that use 'real women' as models have a lengthy casting process by which they look at hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people before making a selection. Casting really well for a model is just as 'distorting' for women’s image of beauty as is Photoshop. If you look long or hard enough you will always be able to find someone who matches your idea of beauty. Just because a women is 'more real' doesn't mean her beauty is any more or less 'attainable' than that of a 'supermodel'.

To illustrate my point, an advertisement in a magazine can depict either a really tall, super skinny, large breasted perfect haired supermodel, or a beautiful 'real woman'. Just because the 'real woman' model does not seem to be really tall or super skinny, does not mean her beauty is somehow 'more attainable' to the average magazine reader than that of the supermodel. This does not logically follow. Beauty is an intangible thing that no one can definitely define, yet everyone intrinsically recognizes. A beautiful 'real woman' can be just as threatening to ones self esteem as a beautiful 'supermodel'. The same women that feel inadequate when looking at a magazine cover feel inadequate standing next to a 'regular woman' they find also be very beautiful. Self-esteem is a matter of ones own perspective.

Anyway, I do acknowledge that there is a growing problem, but I urge people to be sure to consider the problem from a variety of perspectives. For example, fashion models are skinner today than they have ever been before. Yet the consumers today are also far more overweight than they have ever been before, with obesity fast becoming the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. Is there a possible connection? As people get 'larger' do they idealize even thinner and thinner people?

It's not just a question of wanting to be the girl on the magazine cover. It's more a question of what do we want to see when we look in the mirror, and what are the reasons we think that is who we should be.