It's an Airbrushed World

Are We Living in an Airbrushed World? Well, that depends on who you ask, and maybe more importantly, your point of view. The most obvious examples of airbrushing (aka: Photoshopping; Retouching) are in the pages of magazines. As the founding editor-in-chief of Grace Woman magazine in late 2001, I saw an opportunity to take a bit more risk in creating a revolutionary magazine that broke some rules while truly servicing the women we were targeting (more about that later). I remember the first editorial staff meeting. I had my agenda ready and the excitement in the room was at a fevered pitch. I couldn’t wait to share one of the first items on my agenda.

After all, Grace was supposed to be a magazine for “real women” (this was way before the Dove campaign!) who were age 35+ and I had hired a staff of editors who I thought were really tuned in to this demographic—seasoned editors who wouldn’t be afraid to break the mold of traditional women’s glossies. So, I looked right in to the dozen or so eager faces of the assembled staff and said, “AND, we are going to have a policy of ‘no airbrushed images’ in the magazine! Isn’t that fantastic?!?” Well, from the panicked look on their faces, all I could envision was the scene from Frankenstein when the frightened ‘town folk’ chased the monster with pitchforks and torches.

I mean, you could have heard a pin drop. The reaction was so overwhelmingly against my lofty suggestion that I settled on minimal airbrushing rather than lose my staff. And, they were probably right. I’m not sure we could have competed on the newsstand next to the airbrushed faces that have become the homogenized reality that consumers have come to expect.

You have to understand the mission of women’s magazines to understand the reason for the horror on the Grace staff’s faces. I can sum it up in one word: ASPIRATIONAL. This is a word that most women’s magazines are built upon: the idea that woman want and need escape, fantasy, and, to live vicariously through the pages of a magazine or she won’t buy it. You know, sort of like the “Calgon, Take Me Away” concept (If you are under 40, you may not get that reference). Having been in that world for many years, I understand where the idea originated. It’s really the idea of selling “average” women short. Okay, that sounds harsh; but, the reality is that until Marie Claire magazine came along and put real women in their features, the idea that “fantasy sells” dominated the newsstands and still does today. By the way, I did many of those “real people round-ups” for Marie Claire over the years and learned a lot!

The newsstand competition is fierce and there is a “pile on” mentality. And rightly so. It will take amazing guts as an editor-in-chief with the backing of the publisher and business higher-ups to be the first major magazine to declare no air brushing. The truth is that when one passes a newsstand and scans the covers, to see a face with wrinkles, freckles, moles, and less than white teeth and eyes would stand out like, well, a sore thumb! Imagine seeing one perfect face after another: Vogue/Stunning! Ladies Home Journal/Lovely! InStyle/Glamorous! Cosmopolitan/Sexy! Gutsy Magazine/YIKES!!!

Until a couple of years ago, the dirty big secret about airbrushing was for industry insiders only. Even though there were random TV reports and Op-Ed pieces about the subject, until Jamie Lee Curtis “came out” on the now famous More magazine cover and article showing her “before & after” images, women really still believed that the images seen in the slick pages of magazines were reality. In case anyone reading this still believes that, I’m telling you now: Get Over It! Most computer proficient 12 year olds know how to “Photoshop” an image. The art department at any magazine spends hours laboring over photographic proofs correcting the images. Words like: minimize, reduce, sharpen, smooth, delete, and fix are commonplace. It is the art director’s job to make sure that the retouchers get it right. But, what is right? Have we gone overboard?

There have been a few well-publicized instances of airbrushing. On the December 2000 Glamour magazine cover, Madonna’s famous tooth gap was conspicuously missing; In July 2003 Julia Robert’s cover photo in Redbook was actually a composite image (her body from one photo was melded with her head from a different image) and in June, Redbook composed the cover image of Jennifer Aniston from three different photos and it was widely reported that Aniston was very upset; Also in 2003, Kate Winslet made the talk show circuit bashing GQ for slimming her legs so much that they looked ridiculous and unrealistic, and that same month it was reported that the cover of Harper’s Bazaar featured Winslet’s head digitally mounted on the fashion director’s body.

Hey, I’m guilty too. The first issue of Grace’s cover was shot at an indoor pool and by the end of the day, the cover model’s hair was so flat from the humidity that we digitally enhanced her locks so much they didn’t even look like the model’s real hair. Then there is "Hollywood" and that is another broader subject (including the great controversy over the digital composite and retouched image of Dick Clark with Ryan Seacrest and Hillary Duff promoting New Year’s Rockin’ Eve). An old photo of a youthful and healthy looking Clark was merged with new images of Seacrest and Duff.

At Mode (I was executive editor) and Grace, I received many letters from psychologists, MD’s, and nurses praising us for showing still beautiful (ok, say let’s substitute “aspirational” here) yet more realistic images of women. Many letters said that Mode and Grace were the only magazines they would allow in their waiting rooms! Having worked for other women’s glossies, this type of letter was overwhelming to me. Only at that point did I realize the true impact an image can incite from the viewer. It is true that “aspirational” sells—just like sex sells. Although, the impact here is different. When one considers that eating disorders, body dysmorphia syndrome, and overall poor body image are a rampant reality amongst women and young girls, it becomes the responsibility of responsible journalists and publishers to consider the power of the pen AND retouching wand.

I think abandoning retouching is unlikely and quite frankly not completely necessary. I mean, I don’t really want to see people who look like me and my friends on magazine covers or the big screen—at least not when the idea is to portray a pleasing image. Sure, reality TV has its place; but, we know it’s reality. That’s the premise. It isn’t conceived as art like many great fashion and beauty shoots are. I think (as most things in life) that there should be a balance—a mindful decision by editors and advertising creative folks to question the amount of images and the limit of retouching presented in the pages of the glossies. And, a certain amount of responsibility also lies with the management of the models and celebrities who sometimes insist on a certain amount of retouching on their client’s images. And, what about the photographers? I have been on too many shoots where the photographer takes the path of least resistance with the comment, “don’t worry, we’ll take care of that with retouching,” rather than focusing on better lighting, make-up, positioning.

At the end of the day, the responsibility ultimately falls to the consumer. To you. Use your good judgment and when you see an image that looks just too good to be true—it probably is. There have been many items reported about celebrities who are in a panic due to HDTV and the clarity it reveals. It is your responsibility to explain to your daughters and nieces that many images they see are fantasy-based in order to sell a product. Why do you think the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty that used “real” women in the advertising images garnered so much press?

Even Oprah did a show about the images. It is almost shocking to think that an ad campaign actually showing average women’s bodies became huge news. Don’t get me wrong. I applaud Dove. Big time! I remember driving along Sunset Boulevard in LA looking up a the massive billboards that normally show perfect looking celebrities in film ads or the latest Beyonce or Mariah promotion and thinking to myself, “Whoa, how will Hollywood react to this?”

Writing this column reminds me of a recent conversation I overhead between two brothers. During a dinner party at a friend’s house the topic of retouching came up. All the guests, except one, had a spirited conversation at the dinner table about the subject. After about 15 minutes, the older brother turned to his 24 year-old younger sibling who had remained quiet throughout the banter and asked why he looked so surprised and glum. He replied, “You mean all those models in Playboy don’t really look like that?!?” Of course we all broke into laughter at his expense. His brother replied quite seriously, “Tell me, when was the last time you saw a naked woman without ANY freckles, moles, or cellulite on her body?” I rest my case.