Michelle D. sent in this cover of The Australian Women’s Weekly featuring Sarah Murdoch, which includes the text “why she wanted an all natural covershoot”:
As Michelle pointed out, the woman has visible wrinkles, but she’s clearly wearing a significant amount of makeup (and teeth that are either bleached or covered with veneers), leading her to wonder what “all natural” means. As it turns out, it means that she wasn’t airbrushed or photoshopped. If you google “Australian Women’s Weekly Sarah Murdoch,” you’ll find a ton of stories about it.
Now, let me be clear: I’m not trying to minimize the courage it took for Sarah Murdoch to insist that her cover be un-touched-up or to speak in interviews about resisting the pressure to hide all signs of aging. Nor am I saying that wearing makeup is evil.
I’m just saying that, as I was reading the many stories in other news outlets about the cover, and looking at that “all natural” on the cover, and then looking at her face, I couldn’t help but think that it says something about the level of inhuman youthful perfection we currently expect of celebrities that this woman’s face, which as far as I can tell is flawless, would ever “require” touching up at all, and that showing herself looking like this is a major act of bravery and resistance because under normal circumstances, her face would be defined as unfit for a cover without technological “fixing”…and that all that makeup, teeth whitening, and eyebrow sculpting don’t undermine the claim to being “all natural” because we just take those things for granted now.
Comments 24
Fangirl — January 9, 2010
This reminds me of the post you did awhile ago on the French Elle special that showed the models with no make-up. That's a lot closer to natural than this, and even they were been posed, styled, clothed etc.
The first thing I noticed about this wasn't her teeth, but the very, very red lipstick. Like you said, I'm not saying make-up is necessarily a bad thing, just that I might be worried if I woke up one day and my lips were naturally the color of a maraschino cherry.
Jared — January 9, 2010
How about that Obama headline directly below. I wonder whose ambition it was that almost destroyed the marriage?
KrisThomas — January 9, 2010
That is an awful lot of cosmetic dentalwork, but I suppose it doesn't count because it isn't done via Photoshop. Still, I think we are raising a whole generation of people who have no idea that teeth are not supposed to look like uniform, blindingly white Chiclets.
maus — January 9, 2010
I sincerely doubt this was anything other than a gimmick and that there was "no photoshop", what this means is that they did a non-obvious job.
ash — January 9, 2010
I do agree with this comment she made about :
"It's women competing against women, they're not doing it for their husbands."
I do not wear make up, tweeze my brows, nor shave any part of my body. It is only women (both strangers and friends/family) that make negative comments about this or nag me to start "taking care of my appearance."
Meanwhile I have not once been chastised by any of my boyfriends or husband of ten years regarding my look, which is casual, neat, kind of bland.
After all these years, I still have not figured out why my hairy legs should be of such urgent concern to so many other women.
Digest – Jan 10 2010 – The Story — January 10, 2010
[...] on the term “All Natural” and the widely held expectation that images will be ‘touched [...]
Nicola — January 11, 2010
Well, she did say herself that what she did shouldn't be considered such a big deal, and she was sad that it was.
md — January 21, 2010
I also found it interesting that on the cover it is said that she will discuss "babies and why she wanted an all natural covershoot". In fact, those topics were mentioned in the article but Ms. Murdoch also discussed her political views and her charity work.
marire — January 25, 2010
Useful article Thank you very much
creatureofculture — December 13, 2010
Gwen,
Are you concerned about the affects of social standards of beauty and appearance on people, or are you exploring the contested meaning of "natural?" I saw both concerns expressed in your post. We all agree, as social scientists, that for better or worse, corporate media reproduces imagery and messages that shape our understanding and standards of beauty. To me, the more interesting issue is what "natural" means. On one hand, i criticize the notion that the line between natural and artificial is drawn between modern cosmetics and modern computer imaging techniques. At the same time, image alteration on a computer is a qualitatively different method of enhancing appearance than applying makeup, so this is an important distinction that gives merit to Sarah Murdoch's use of the word natural. In the end, I think the message to take from this is that we need to expand the awareness in the general population about the issues raised by such images, because the fact that we are having this conversation means that media literacy is poorly developed in our society. In other words, im unable to make a determination about what natural means, but i can say with confidence that its an important concept that commands thoughtful conversation to overcome the corporate construction of its meaning.