Lately, there has been a lot of controversy over the widely used practice of airbrushing models and actors in magazines. What makes the uproar interesting this time around though, is the fact that airbrushing is nothing new.
Photo manipulation was first documented all the way back to a President Lincoln photo from the 1860’s. Stalin made a habit out of it for propaganda purposes during his reign. The uses for photo retouching evolved quickly throughout the 20th century inevitably landing upon the world of glamorous movie stars whose perfect images were crafted by studios in the 1950’s and beyond.
So why are people in such a rage about the practice now? While it may be that a percentage of people truly were naive about the magazine industry, it may also be something else. The advances in technology and consumption of media in the form of reality television has given people more of an inside look into their favorite’s stars lives than they ever had access to before. While in the 1950’s, they may have thought the starlets were as perfect as their pictures portrayed, now we know better.
Is this what enrages us? Maybe. But could it also be that the magazines have been pushing the limits on the amount of airbrushing done? It’s certainly easier to enhance beautiful qualities and diminish imperfections on a model’s face or body with Photoshop than it was to do by hand 40 years ago.
Is it possible that the reason many are becoming more outraged at the seemingly increasing number and length of these touch-ups is due to the magazines purposely riling us up?
In an age of what is said to be the demise of newspapers and magazines as we now know them, what helps sell copies? Controversy. Controversy gets all kinds of eyeballs – the curious and the outraged. Magazines need eyeballs to make money. It is as simple as that.
So, when they see that going too far with say, the extreme slimming of American Idol star, Kelly Clarkson’s legs pisses enough people off that the magazine cover gets posted around the internet and reaches more people than it would sitting on the stands, why wouldn’t they do something like that again?
Maybe, the best way to get magazines to stop these obnoxious practices is simply not to get upset over it. Roll our eyes and swallow our words. Instead of blogging all over the internet with outcries of injustice over young girls’ diminishing self-esteem, how about just not buying anymore of their magazines? Stop giving them free advertising. If their sales plummet, maybe they’ll rethink their strategy, if they’re still around that is. Just a suggestion. I know – easier said than done.
