Slowly But Surely, The Anti-Photoshop Movement Makes Headway

Filed Under: Anglophilia Legal Matters Beauty Buzz Models Photoshop Awardz Francophilia Ad Campaigns Spread 'Em Ralph Lauren Vogue

Another step in the right direction!

As we're sure you know by now, in the past few months, there's been much debate over how to regulate advertisements which use Photoshop to make models look impossibly perfect.

There are a lot of arguments on both sides of the debate - many designers, photographers, and editors claim that airbrushing is merely part of the artistic process, while their opposition - which runs the gamut from editors and photographers to women's rights organizations and average Janes - argues that putting forth altered images of impossibly flawless women sends the wrong message - essentially a visual lie - to young women. They claim this sets a standard of beauty that is truly unattainable.

The most radical moves have been across the pond.

The French have been on the front lines of the battle, proposing a controversial but (we think) reasonable Photoshop disclaimer that would be mandatory on heavily altered images.

The Brits have mostly been on the sidelines, mulling (albeit, vaguely) over a potential Photoshop ban, but now they're stepping back into the ring.

The U.K.'s Committee of Advertising Practice, which handles the national code of advertising, has just received a report penned by over forty academics, hailing from the U.K., U.S., Australia and Brazil, recommending a ban on Photoshopped ads targeted at girls under than 16-years-old. The report features testimony from experts who claim there's a correlation between unhealthy adolescent body image and behavior in youth exposed to perfectly airbrushed models.

Dr. Helga Dittmar of the University of Sussex says that,

"The weight of the evidence… shows that thin, 'perfect' media images have a detrimental effect on how girls and women think and feel about their own bodies."

A spokesperson for the CAP declined to comment on the report in specific, but said,

"If a specific digitally altered advert creates a misleading or harmful impression, we can take action. However, we are bound by European law, and it would be very difficult to change the law as it stands."

We're very pleased to see the anti-Photoshop movement gain momentum abroad, but what about here on our own turf?

It's clear that there is a strong American desire to do away with unrealistic images being shoved down the throats of our women.

When Glamour ran a feature of a "plus-sized" model in the buff, the public response was overwhelmingly positive. So much so, in fact, that the glossy has pledged to feature more models who reflect a realistic portrayal of their readers - real women.

American magazines across the board claim they aim to be responsible about the images they put out there at large, but, still, is this enough? Some of the worst cases of heavy photoshop are committed, not only on our own turf, but by our very own designers: the Ralph Lauren Photoshop saga has been a major point of controversy in the debate.

The demand for responsibility is loud and clear among the American people. This past weekend, The National Organization for Women's New York chapter organized a rally outside the Ralph Lauren store in New York to protest the scary-skinny and heavily altered ads the brand ran not long ago. NOW's Sonia Ossorio said,

"We'd like retailers to realize that their customer base is women. It's like, who do they think they are? Making women feel less sexy and less beautiful than we are. Why do they think they have the right to do that? And it's so unfortunate. Look at how it impacts the entire world, and how we feel about ourselves."

Still, we're nowhere near as close to any tangible regulations as our French and British sisters. We need to keep the demand for reasonable retouching loud and clear. Take Cindy Crawford's advice - if you don't like the ads a brand is running or the images a magazine is featuring, don't patronize those establishments. Stay strong! We need to come together and keep demanding change, or else we're just contributing to the problem.

Don't get us wrong - we get that retouching is a necessary part of any print image. We just think that the public should be told that what they're looking at isn't real.

Certain celebrities contribute to the problem by denying any retouching and essentially lying to say that they actually look that good, when we know better. Some are honest, which we love.

We just think that we have a right to know what's real and what's not. Put it this way: if food companies are required to let us know what we put in our bodies, shouldn't we also have the right to know what we're putting in our brains?

Do U think airbrushing should be regulated in the States?

We certainly do!

Posted: December 23, 2009 at 4:00 pm