Spring Break
In the eye of the beholder
Lara Oliver
Issue date: 2/3/09 Section: Opinion
Apparently, I missed a memo recently. I've spent all this time thinking that women like Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Denise Richards were beautiful, when in reality I'm supposed to think Scarlett's too fat, Anne has too much cellulite and Denise doesn't have a big enough butt.
Or, at least, that's the message I'm getting when I walk through the grocery store.
Disregarding the already heinous gossip magazines that make their entire profit off of full page spreads on some A-lister's bikini body, it seems like every magazine on the market has jumped onto the bandwagon of editing celebrities' faces and bodies past the point of recognition.
Honestly, I'm usually not bothered by how thin and perfect celebrities are portrayed in films and on television. Celebrity photos more than 15 years old aren't usually that bad. Older pictures of celebrities from before the advent of photo editing used lighting, makeup and trick photography in making that person look as perfect as they can.
Yet even with all those tricks, you could still see the real person behind the photograph. Mia Farrow looked like her magazine pictures. Marilyn Monroe looked like her magazine pictures. Even Cindy Crawford looked like her magazine pictures.
But it seems like being beautiful just isn't good enough for modern magazines anymore. A recent spread for Scarlett Johansson has her waist whittled down to about half its normal size, an act made even more ridiculous by the fact that the editor decided to cut the size of her arm as well. Most models get their skin "airbrushed" to perfection, despite having perfect skin already (a job prerequisite).
And what makes me so sad is that I never hear these celebrities complaining about the false representation of their bodies. The last time I heard anyone complain about the editing being done to their body was Denise Richards when her rear was enlarged for promotional posters for her film "Undercover Brother."
So, if female celebrities aren't even attractive enough anymore to grace magazines, movie covers and other print outlets without major editing, how are regular women supposed to feel?
I've already seen a huge spike in the amount of girls who edit their profile pictures on the Internet in hopes of smoothing out skin, enlarging and/or shrinking areas of their body or changing colors in order to seem more appealing. And it makes me really sad. Not only is it lying, but it also demonstrates a severe lack of self-esteem on the part of most young women today.
I guess one could say that the same thought process I use for older pictures of celebrities could be applied to the new form of edited celebrity photos, but it still seems like such a gross representation of how beautiful a beautiful person must be in order to be on a magazine cover.
In the end, all it says it that perfect is still not perfect enough.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Or, at least, that's the message I'm getting when I walk through the grocery store.
Disregarding the already heinous gossip magazines that make their entire profit off of full page spreads on some A-lister's bikini body, it seems like every magazine on the market has jumped onto the bandwagon of editing celebrities' faces and bodies past the point of recognition.
Honestly, I'm usually not bothered by how thin and perfect celebrities are portrayed in films and on television. Celebrity photos more than 15 years old aren't usually that bad. Older pictures of celebrities from before the advent of photo editing used lighting, makeup and trick photography in making that person look as perfect as they can.
Yet even with all those tricks, you could still see the real person behind the photograph. Mia Farrow looked like her magazine pictures. Marilyn Monroe looked like her magazine pictures. Even Cindy Crawford looked like her magazine pictures.
But it seems like being beautiful just isn't good enough for modern magazines anymore. A recent spread for Scarlett Johansson has her waist whittled down to about half its normal size, an act made even more ridiculous by the fact that the editor decided to cut the size of her arm as well. Most models get their skin "airbrushed" to perfection, despite having perfect skin already (a job prerequisite).
And what makes me so sad is that I never hear these celebrities complaining about the false representation of their bodies. The last time I heard anyone complain about the editing being done to their body was Denise Richards when her rear was enlarged for promotional posters for her film "Undercover Brother."
So, if female celebrities aren't even attractive enough anymore to grace magazines, movie covers and other print outlets without major editing, how are regular women supposed to feel?
I've already seen a huge spike in the amount of girls who edit their profile pictures on the Internet in hopes of smoothing out skin, enlarging and/or shrinking areas of their body or changing colors in order to seem more appealing. And it makes me really sad. Not only is it lying, but it also demonstrates a severe lack of self-esteem on the part of most young women today.
I guess one could say that the same thought process I use for older pictures of celebrities could be applied to the new form of edited celebrity photos, but it still seems like such a gross representation of how beautiful a beautiful person must be in order to be on a magazine cover.
In the end, all it says it that perfect is still not perfect enough.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Samuel
posted 2/03/09 @ 1:17 PM EST
Apparently non-celebrities don't care enough about their appearance since this nation has a severe obesity problem. Don't we have the highest percentage of fat people in the world? People are not prisoners of their genetics, so to blame it on a slow metabolism is just laziness. (Continued…)
Post a Comment