THERE’S an ever-present debate around the use of airbrushing in celebrity photographs.
The incredible physiques, perfect skin, absence of cellulite, pert breasts and perfectly toned butt cheeks, are not not quite the dark circles, saggy bottom, droopy boobs, stretch marks and orange peel affair we all hope is behind the Photoshop wand!
However, whether the veneer is added after a photo is taken, or some of it is already there - implanted by a surgeon, pulled, tugged, tanned or extended - that’s what it is, a veneer.
Our friends in the papparazzi help to prove to us that these people don’t actually look like that when they’re walking the dog, taking the bins out, or shopping in Sainsbury’s.
We know the reality, and the rest is just a cover-up - so what’s the problem?
I would say bravo to all the celebrity gossip magazines who print the papps’ ‘reality’ photos, if it wasn’t for the headlines that accompany them.
When you look at the front pages of Heat magazine from the past year, the majority of headlines refer to weight gain, weight loss, celebrity diets, ‘body mayhem’, ‘sexy and we know it’, ‘diet wars’, ‘stars who refuse to diet’, ‘gym bodies vs real curves’.
Then there’s the features on the ‘curvy girls’ . The magazine dictionary definition of the word ‘curvy’ should probably read ‘women who are a size 8-10 and you can’t see their ribs and backbones when they’re on the beach’.
For me, I would rather see an obviously airbrushed pristine-looking photo, accompanying a touchy-feely interview about someone’s wonderful and privileged existence, than read about the dieting malpractice of celebs who only eat celery sticks and steamed cabbage, in an attempt to reach that Twiglet-like state.
Perhaps the fight shouldn’t be about banning the ‘airbrush’, but banning the ‘airheads’ behind the headlines!
No comments:
Post a Comment