Britney Spears un-altered: does it matter?
The Daily Mail posted an article along with a series of photos of Spears for an upcoming Candies campaign, unaltered and altered.
I agree that it is a “brave” move, especially since Spears continues to be taunted for weight fluctuations. As stated in the article:
Celebrities, and the industry around them, are often accused of producing images that affect young people’s body image.
Which is why it’s so refreshing to see one of the world’s most famous pop stars allowing all of their imperfections to be highlighted.
One thing that I think is important to note is that Britney Spears looks good *unaltered* yet, according to industry mandate, must be altered to remain within the unrealistic, nonexistent beauty standard that has been created and is maintained incessantly.
Spears’ decision to release the unaltered photos next to the altered versions is to be applauded along with French Elle’s recent “Curvy Girl” version (or their make-up free issue last year). These efforts correlate with Dove’s ongoing Campaign for Real Beauty which gained attention (not all positive, mind you) in 2004. Since their campaign launch they have produced several campaigns and videos ironically critiquing their own industry (not to mention Dove’s use of “real women” to sell firming cream and the fact that they are owned by Unilever, a company that also owns sex AXE).
But…
Do these efforts matter? Well, yes. Of course.
Do they represent “change?” Not exactly. Real change will occur when these images are not the exception but the norm and these images do not represent a handful of images and in a sea of millions of taken-for-granted but absorbed images that counter their positive message.
I love this post. I saw the images on Jezebel yesterday, and it got me thinking about how it’s such a big deal whenever a celeb is willing to do this. (Kim Kardashian did something similar last year, when the unretouched photos of her got accidentally posted on Complex Magazine’s website. She posted them on her blog and basically said “yeah, I’ve got cellulite, so what?” Also, Demi Moore, who denied the W Magazine photo scandal, but also posted unretouched photos of herself at a photoshoot for a perfume campaign. http://jezebel.com/5454146/demi-moore-unretouched-or-why-do-cosmetics-companies-think-models-need-photoshop
Reading Jezebel’s “Photoshop of Horrors” posts always surprise me, because many times I’ve seen the images they post beforehand, but never really took notice of the ridiculous “enhancing” that was happening until it’s brought to my attention. And I can’t be the only one, and that’s the problem.
Also, this statement needs to be heard so, so much more often (for pretty much any celeb who is photoshopped): “One thing that I think is important to note is that Britney Spears looks good *unaltered* yet, according to industry mandate, must be altered to remain within the unrealistic, nonexistent beauty standard that has been created and is maintained incessantly.”
Comment by Rachel — April 14, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
Everything is very true. This forces our media and other celebrities to enforce a, “nonexistent beauty standard that has been created.” Other than the many procedures to remove the tattoo, cellulite, and the lipo to give Brit the small bottom, there is layers of makeup and lights to make her more pretty. Even in some cases, Photoshop is used to change skin tones and to alter the person to an unrealistic form of beauty, which ends up on magazine covers to display the image of beauty.
Comment by Michael — April 19, 2010 @ 3:52 pm