Andrea t. B. sent in some photos released by Britney Spears from a series she did for Candies. Below, you can see the images side-by-side, before and after retouching, and get a sense of just how impossibly perfect our physical role models are made to be:
(From the Daily Mail.)
Jessica Simpson also appears on the cover of May’s Marie Claire without makeup:
I spoke with a reporter at the Associated Press yesterday who asked me if releasing photos without retouching or being photographed with out makeup was a trend.
Gwen and I agreed that, yes, it is a trend… but only insofar as the rules against doing so are so powerful that even a handful of female celebrities going sans makeup or retouching makes it SO AMAZING. In reality, what’s so amazing about this trend is that these women are choosing to release these photos. Photos of Simpson and Spears looking less than perfect are all over the internet, thanks to paparazzi. So it’s not as if un-retouched or unflattering pictures of these celebrities are anything new… it’s the voluntariness of the releases that is so fascinating.
The romantic might say that they really want to be role models for young girls. The cynic, however (e.g., me and Gwen), might suggest that there are ways that the might benefit from the release of these images. In both cases, this could be interpreted as an excellent career move.
Simpson has a new show, The Price of Beauty, questioning the cultural construction of beauty (with questionable success). So her photo shoot is likely a way to gain publicity for her program.
Spears’ motivation is less clear. On the one hand, she can claim the romantic narrative and gain the respect and admiration of (more) fans. On the other hand, some of the attention to those (often awful) paparazzi pictures may be displaced by these pictures. The truth is that she has a lot more control over these non-retouched photos than she does the candid shots. In the photos above, she has been made up by professional make up and hair artists and she is being shot by a professional photographer with perfect lighting and excellent instruction. She is also having these photos taken at the height of her fitness when her career is back on track instead of at a low point (psychologically, physically, and career-wise). So, given that all those truly unflattering photos are out there, these really re-represent the “real” Spears. They may draw just a bit of attention away from those images of her bald and attacking a car with an umbrella.
Of course, the motivations of Spears and Simpson, as well as the rationales of those in charge of their images, is left mysterious. What do you think? How much of this is about being an excellent role model? What else might be driving their decisions to take the risk of appearing without make up or retouching?
More discussion and examples of re-touching can be found through our retouch tag.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 43
Ranjit — April 17, 2010
You've rpobably all seen this before, but it demonstrates the act or re-touching very nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg6okGlLgLg
The transfromation of the model first with make-up and then in photoshop from human to media product is stunning and freightening.
(Disclaimer: this was part of a dove campaign, so it's actually an example of hypocrisy. Worth watching non the less.)
Sanguinity — April 17, 2010
The Marie Claire photo is supposed to be without make-up? Because that surely looks like eyeliner, eyeshadow, and brow pencil.
Ollie — April 17, 2010
I'm uninterested in the strategy of a pop stars career. Truth be told, I could care little for either of these women. What is sociologically interesting here is that there is a demand for the realistic photos. I watch a blog called Photoshop Disasters because I love to see what the industry does to seemingly "perfect" their photos. However, they do so because the market demands it. So what is it saying when the market demands /un-retouched/ photos?
mcnet002 — April 17, 2010
A long time ago, I came across this article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins
Pascal Dangin is (or at least was) the primary photo re-toucher in the fashion world. As a graphic designer/photographer, I can appreciate his skill. However, I question the ethically of it. I'm unsure of the impact it has on our society.
We tend to think of photo re-touching as something that's part of our digital age, but it's important to note that re-touching has been around for decades. I don't think there is much to be done about it other than being a savvy consumer who is aware of the practice.
ducky — April 17, 2010
I am afraid that I do not feel as cynical about the motivation for releasing these photos as you and Gwen (pinches self). I do see it as taking back control but I am struck too by the idea that this is about repackaging Britney. The image of bald Britney was related to this act of reclaimimg her body and image, albeit more extreme than releasing the untouched photos alongside the airbrushed ones. Shaving her hair off was the equivalent of raising two fingers to the media/beauty industry. The media predictably went berserk because she was not conforming to the standards of beauty that they impose on women and it got a lot of women thinking. Thankfully Britney has not been under the knife and she has a great body but look at how they retouched her legs, removing the muscular calves, which I think are attractive, and making them more slender. I hope young girls seeing these pics will think about what the airbrushed image means for them and see how pointless and impossible it is to conform to the Western beauty ideal when it so obviously faked.
Siah — April 17, 2010
Interesting that most of the women posing w/o makeup tend to be white (at least as far as I am aware).
heather leila — April 17, 2010
I kind of wish this blog would address Simpson's The Price of Beauty and how awful it is and how good it might have been if Jessica Simpson were a different person. She is in no position to be talking about these topics.
Here's my critique of the Thailand episode, after which I couldn't stomach to watch another: http://heatherleilamoz.blogspot.com/2010/03/price-of-beauty-thailand.html
Chenoa — April 17, 2010
This is only tangentially related...
It's interesting how media - and, well, anyone in the West - responds to a woman celebrity shaving her head. Everyone used it as proof that Brittney had gone further off the deep end - and maybe it was part of her crisis, in light of everything else that was going on with her then - but it seems silly to say, "Oh no! Giving up western beauty ideals! Must now be entirely insane!" WHAT? Both of these articles are interesting, as are Nickie Hastie's other articles about shaving her head. I shaved mine almost a year ago, partly for practical reasons (I was tired of dyeing it), but I was horribly nervous about how people would react. Fortunately, I was living in Berkeley at the time, so the most frequent reaction was a random 50-something woman telling me how great it looked. But if you google "woman shaved head" or something to that effect, people have rather strong opinions about it. It's just... interesting. Another beauty ideal, I guess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/20/gender.music
http://nickihastie.blogspot.com/2007/02/shaved-when-media-has-it-in-for-you.html
Jeremiah — April 17, 2010
Lisa writes: "Of course, the motivations of Spears and Simpson, as well as the rationales of those in charge of their images, is left mysterious."
By all means, Lisa, don't let that stop you from writing the previous paragraph. Or asking us to project whatever our own psychological garbage onto Ms. Spears. Oh, wait, she's a celebrity, so it's OK? Maybe she's "asking for it" by proxy of being an entertainer?
Laura othew — April 17, 2010
I think at least a good portion of this issue is fueled by jealous,catty women and the need to deconstruct other women.
chri2012 — April 17, 2010
Regardless of the motivations behind the celebrities, I think in general these are refreshing images. As the Dove campaign has showed in the past, there have long been unrealistic role model in advertising and these images dare to upset those unrealistic ideals. This is increasingly important as females of all ages are constantly bombarded with these images and then in turn have unrealistic body image desires for themselves. Even though most individuals know on some level these images are false and not the "norm" but it they are all we are ever presented with, they become the norm regardless of our better knowledge. If there were more realistic advertisements and photos released like these, perhaps the rate of eating disorders, depression, and other mental strife that is placed on young women (as well as males) will decrease.
Maria — April 17, 2010
no makeup (well, that conceals at least) or photoshop perhaps, but lighting effects and filters do half the work before the pics even get in the hands of the retouchers.
Eli Shrinking — April 17, 2010
Maria, I was just coming to say the same thing. You can barely see Britney in the unretouched photo, which is probably why the differences between the two are so minimal.
ashasekh — April 18, 2010
hm...perhaps finally, after 25 years of rejecting all cosmetics and also not shaving any part of my body, and having recently shaved my own head (to a huge chorus of nagging disapproval)...maybe I will actually be "in fashion"-- if only for a few minutes until the backlash against "celebrity real" begins, and those of us who don't overtly aspire to conventional beauty will go back to being reviled all over again.
JennJl — April 18, 2010
It should be obvious by now that women resort to deception to protect their self-esteem at all costs: http://goo.gl/OxDl
marcello — April 19, 2010
Somewhere i read that Britney said that she had a lot of fun taking pictures in front of the huge candy wall.
I don't remember where i first read that but here's a quote:
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/britney-spears-barbie-candies
[...]“I had so much fun shooting the Candies for Kohl’s campaign,” said Britney Spears. “My favorite set-up was against the gigantic wall of pink cotton candy.”[...]
I'm not sure if they're sarcastically making fun of her but it doesn't look like that's the theme of the article, it looks "flattering" overall.
If it's true it makes me wonder if she was actually aware of what "un-retouched pictures" meant...
M
Undercover Punk — April 19, 2010
Jessica's arm, waist, hips, and legs have also been thinned.
Candice Seppa Arroyo, M.A. — April 20, 2010
Actually, photo-retouching makes our physical role models 'perfect' in a way that is very possible to achieve. All you need to be as beautiful as Britney is a computer and some photo-editing software. Try it sometime, it's actually quite a bit of fun.
A lot of white, upper-class, female academics enjoy tearing down celebrities and sex workers for capitalizing on enhanced beauty, but they don't seem to mind capitalizing on their own enhanced intelligence.
How about a movement against academics that decries how 'impossibly perfect' our intellectual role models are made to be?
Seriously.
Give up your T.A.'s, your internet connection, your administrative assistant and your editors.
In fact, stop self-editing when you write, too. If you misspell a word in an article you are submitting for publication, leave it misspelled. Make sure you let the journal know that you want them to accept the article as-is, no re-writes allowed, because those editors are the exact equivalent of the photo-retouchers that celebrities employ.
Lecture freestyle, too, with no preparation and no notes.
Would that be authenticity?
Maybe it would be better yet if we all stopped getting advanced degrees. Most people can't afford to spend their entire day engaged in the pursuit of either knowledge or beauty, so wouldn't it be more fair if no one spent their time in either manner?
Morgaine — April 20, 2010
This past Sunday on the show Celebrity Apprentice, the teams had to make over an up and coming country music star. The women's team (with Cindy Lauper as the team leader) wanted to make over the female, Emily West. Cindy Lauper left to go pick up clothing for her, and when she came back she was appalled that they had airbrushed makeup on her. She said something like "You don't airbrush the young ones". Later, when they were in the boardroom with Donald Trump, he commented that they didn't touch up the photos for the press kit for her. He seemed really disappointed that they hadn't done it. I don't even think Cindy Lauper thought about it at all because Emily West was gorgeous and didn't need to be touched up! Of course, Mr. Trump did not say a thing about the guys team and touching up the photos of the man they made over. The women's team won the challenge.
I have always thought Donald Trump was a creep and this just made it more obvious.
ducky — April 23, 2010
I would love your comments on this piece I wrote http://notjusttheminutiae.tumblr.com/post/523825578/erotic-capital-the-sexualisation-of-society.
Sociological Images Update (Apr. 2010) » Sociological Images — May 1, 2010
[...] Lisa was quoted in an Associated Press article that, much to her chagrin, rather uncritically celebrated the recent rash of untouched photos released by celebrities. You can read it here and compare it to her unfiltered thoughts about it at her own post. [...]
My Three (Least) Favorite Photoshops « Baking With Ex Mix — March 27, 2011
[...] to Jezebel, Sociological Images, and Photoshop Disasters for sharing these [...]