Crossposted at Jezebel.
Sarah Barnes, who blogs at Uplift, expressed surprise at seeing the ad below in Grazia magazine:
She found herself surprised, she explains, because it took a minute for it to sink in that the dolls weren’t real people…
She explains:
In a time when everything is photoshopped to such disastrous levels, there really isn’t that much difference between a Ralph Lauren advert using a real model and an ASOS ad using Barbies. When fashion just has to be seen on ‘perfect’ women, we are becoming used to seeing a Barbie-like cookie cutter version of what women look like in our magazines.
So, this is why I screamed. Because, for a second there, I thought the Barbies were real women.
Do they freak you out a bit?
Comments 27
MaryReunited — March 17, 2010
Those eyes have always bugged me- what woman has eyes like that?
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — March 17, 2010
I've seen a few scary-looking Barbie clones in real life who look like that, plus like she said, all that Photoshopping excess in fashion mags. I don't blame her.
Niki — March 17, 2010
I don't really understand how this image could have been mistaken for real people. I mean, I get the whole issue with overphotoshopping these days - but these dolls look like dolls, not at all like people.
Robson Lima — March 17, 2010
*sorry is there's some mispelling, I'm unused with typing in English*
*Ah, I follow this blog thru twitter - actually, it's @bourdieu that once in a while tweet something from here. Nice work! Congrats! *
The intention here isn't to sound "lol, it's so cool and thumbs up to this add" or anything of this sort. But... hey, I recognized in no time that were dolls and not real people.
Anyway, that's not my true point.
The true point is: I wonder what would be the motivation, the idea that driven the publicity guys in this ad. Isn't ironic, after all, that dolls could easyly confused by people? What it says about the standard view of women, market, feminility and such?
Personally, I think that the attempt of portrait diversity of etnics VERY interesting. Especially 'cause some fenotipal characters aren't corresponding...
see ya
Brandon — March 17, 2010
My surprise was the shocking level of racial diversity. This was as close as Barbie gets to the United Nations General Assembly.
Michael Zunenshine — March 17, 2010
It’s disheartening the use of plastic-perfect dolls to stand in for actual woman, but to solely focus on the impossible body image perpetuated misses a far more sinister message: that the ideal woman is not only flawlessly beautiful on a superficial, but literally ‘fake’ and ‘plastic’—that is, controllable and silent, without a will or voice of her own.
Melissa C — March 17, 2010
Only the arms gave it away for me. If I were leafing through a fashion mag and glancing at the advert head first or feet first, I would have done a double-take. It was the "crook arm" thing that made me think, "no way, not in real life."
Oh but hang on, that's how plasti-girls carry their lapdogs through airports, isn't it? o.0
Folks, Western society is in MAJOR trouble. Like, huge.
JoAnna — March 17, 2010
Their dead eyes were the giveaway for me.
Spindlewit — March 17, 2010
I didn't really have a recognition issue because I've already seen these dolls in their natural shop-shelf habitat, but I did want to mention a few interesting things about them:
One: Each doll has a different facial structure. And not just the recently-introduced and generic 'black' structure.
Two: These are the first Barbies that I've seen with a skin colour darker than milk-chocolate.
Three: What I find most curious is that these particular dolls are more expensive than their sparkly sisters. The 'fashion' lines with bending wrists, knees, and elbows /and/ extra accessories are around 13 (Canadian) dollars, while these dolls in their ultra-basic dresses are slightly over 20. The price to pay for diversity, I suppose?
Julie — March 17, 2010
Isn't it likewise funny how the two darkest-skinned dolls in the ad both have light eyes?
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
/sarcasm
Quib — March 18, 2010
The "dollness" of the Barbies is probably more obvious here, prefaced, out of context, and much smaller than a two page magazine ad. I don't know how most people read magazines, but my eye-level is usually closer to the middle when I'm turning the page, and scrolling down a blog post, the first thing you're likely to see is their faces which are the most stylized.
The Barbies are posed like real women instead of like dolls, and their limbs and outfits do look a lot like real women in magazines are typically portrayed. Up close and between similar pictures the similarity to real people was probably intentional.
Melissa C — March 18, 2010
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't that Beyonce's doll on the far right in both pictures?
She's such a positive role model for ALL women, not just women of colour, and 'bootylicious' by her own and many people's reckoning!
I just kind of wish her doll was an accurate reflection of her gorgeous, curvy figure. Or maybe it is and the advert's been airbrushed?
marcello — March 19, 2010
maybe the title of the article gave the effect away, but sincerely i didn't mistake the dolls for human beings for even a fraction of a second, but i do see the point here, flipping through a magazine it would be really easy to take them as real people...
Beauty v Truth - Busted Halo — July 27, 2010
[...] to the blog Sociological Images, for highlighting the find from Sarah Barnes at Uplift, an online [...]
Playscale Poser — December 21, 2011
"Do they freak you out a bit?"
No. This new-found realism has re-awakened the popularity of Playscale [a.k.a. 1:6] Miniaturism among many adult hobbyists. These types of heads are often kit-bashed onto better-articulated bodies. The same goes for the GI Joe Classic Collection heads (199x-200x). Mine always look like they are waiting for me to give a speech.