![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jezebel.com commented on both of these things, but I want to draw them together in one place just to contrast them.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
First of all, we have the Super-Photoshopped version of Michelle Obama on the cover of Good Housekeeping Magazine. |
 |
Then we have Marie Claire Magazine showing Jessica Simpson and bragging about "No makeup, no retouching!" Fascinating that these come out in the very same month. Interesting to see the two side by side. |
 |
One more of Jessica, just because I think she looks really good, this way. Of course, this still isn't "nature". It's all art, remember: the photographer, the designer, the editors--these images still came through layers and layers of "image-making process". But they're nice to see. |
 |
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Look at that helmet hair! The poreless skin!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
D.
From:
no subject
There's a lot good lighting will do.
From:
no subject
And the color on her cheeks is not coming from under the skin, as it would if she had simply pinched cheeks. It's subtle make up, certainly, but it most assuredly there.
D.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
D.
From:
no subject
I'm trying to see what you mean on the photos, but they're not large enough for me to tell, and also I'm more used to trying to pick out Photoshop than makeup. I'm wary, though, of the commenters on Jezebel who were saying things like "That's got to be makeup, people's lips aren't really colored like that!" etcetera, because it's part of the whole "because MY body/skin/hair is this way, everyone's is" thinking that comes up in so many body-image discussions, a.k.a. "Real Women Have Curves" etc.
Some women really are naturally thin, and Jessica Simpson might have more perfectly flushed lips than I do, and maybe she blushes in a way people of my skin type don't.
And also, if the magazine is specifically promoting an agenda, like being able to say "No Makeup!" right on their cover, wouldn't they have an interest in, you know, doing the image with no makeup? I imagine the fun the photographer and stylists might have had, working with that challenge, and looking for alternatives, a photoshoot that went "okay, Jessica, now bite your lips, then lick them...good, good!"
But maybe that's too much good faith on my part.
From:
no subject
It's also possible that a fashion magazine has very different ideas of what "no makeup" means.
D.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Beautiful young women are young and beautiful. The whole process starts with the selection of a model.
If makeup and retouching are so bad*, where would that leave the other 99% of the population? Humans are tool users. Other animals have to live with their genetics. We can fill in our flaws with tools. Those tools can also be misused, but for the most part, they raise the average quality of life.
* And I know that is not your argument.
From:
no subject
No outrage on my behalf over either cover...I think they're both a lot of fun to look at.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I guess, yeah, if I was Michelle, I'd be pissed, but there are enough terrible representations of her around--like charicatured tee-shirts--that she's gotta be used to it by now.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I wondered if it might. Thanks for pointing that out!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject