Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk

[A stor]

Excellent article.....thanks for the read.

Michelle Obama!

 

[Liesje]

Image of ultra-thin Ralph Lauren model sparks outrage on Shine


Another website to garner attention for its dedication to exposing photo retouching offenses is Jezebel.com. Speaking on the subject of retouching, Jezebel editor-in-chief Anna Holmes told Yahoo!, "I don't see any point in retouching anymore ... The cat's out of the bag." She added, "I think Americans in particular are sick of having the wool pulled over their eyes ... even if it's regarding fashion models and actresses. The more they do this sort of retouching -- and then try to justify it, as the editor of SELF magazine recently did -- the less anyone believes anything else they have to say, or show. They are, in a sense, digging their own (shallow) graves."

I don't see the big deal with re-touching. I guess for me it's always been a given. Anyone who's basing their self-worth on high fashion advertisements has bigger issues than whether or not the photos are retouched.

I retouch pictures of myself, my dogs, my family.... I recently took my cousin's senior pictures and re-touched them. My aunt wanted some acne smoothed over, I also whitened his teeth a bit, removed glare and flash bursts on his glasses, removed a shadow behind his head, rain drops on his shirt since it started raining...I see these are pretty minor retouches, especially since I was using fill flash for his photos, and the flash often exaggerates colors and textures (like lens glare, acne, 5 o'clock shadow, etc). Even with the retouching I feel the finished photo is a more accurate representation of my cousin.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

But you're not retouching them to look like freakish disproportionate lollipop people. She's hardly just a "better" version of herself there, that beautiful Ralph Lauren model.

It's not about basing your self worth on it- just about getting down to some more realistic images of what real people look like.

 

[Liesje]

True but I guess my response is, what's the point? Who cares? It's high fashion, not anything that represents mainstream people or culture anyway. They are always pushing the envelop, it's more of an art form than advertising commercial clothing that normal people will buy.

If you look at catalogs of clothing that normal people buy, you will see normal people (Land's End, LL Bean, etc).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.

 

[yolland]

Why do people buy Self or Glamour? What are most of them looking to get out of it? Would they keep buying them if most of the models featured in them actually looked like 'people from the LL Bean catalogue'?

I don't regularly buy any magazines because of the unnecessary expense, but if I want some mindless reading for an airplane trip or something, I'll sometimes buy a cooking magazine, preferably one that looks to me like it actually has some recipes I'll want to cut out and use. And it's clear to me that the market for many of these magazines--Bon Appetit, say, or Martha Stewart's magazine--couldn't possibly be accounted for solely or even mostly by people who actually cook like that, because very few people do. So I have to assume there are lots of people who just find it relaxing and pleasurable in a fantasy kind of way to simply look at those kinds of things. Which is fine, so long as you're not beating yourself up for lacking the time and money (and/or, in truth, the interest and therefore motivation) to prepare an elaborate tapas spread or surprise your coworkers with Halloween-themed petits fours--in which case I'm then mystified as to why you'd keep buying and reading them.

I mean most of those magazines, and pretty much all 'fashion'/'beauty'/'image' magazines as well, are fundamentally consumeristic in nature; they're basically about harnessing common desires (wanting to be attractive to others, wanting to eat good food) and directing them towards various products out there which you could buy. And cultivating fantasy is a great way to do that. Same with the major 'men's magazines'--they're not quite as wholly devoted to physical attractiveness and fashion themes as the major 'women's magazines' are, but they certainly do have lots of fashion articles and ads, and you won't see a less-than-perfectly-buff,-chiseled guy in those particular features, even though that's clearly not the average American man. You're not going to successfully sell many pricey haute-couture clothes (or cosmetics) or pricey haute-cuisine ingredients to people by telling them how beautiful or how impressive a cook they already are, so your goal is gonna be to get them thinking how much more beautiful and impressive they could be if they looked or cooked Just Like That. These publications don't exist to build people's self-esteem; there's no money to be made in that, particularly for the manufacturers whose ad revenues, product samples and so forth these magazines depend on for material. Sure, if and when these manufacturers find that featuring more 'average, representative'-looking people in their ads (and ads-masquerading-as-articles) actually drives up sales, then they'll do it; otherwise, not. These people didn't create the cultural situation where women tend to be more valued for their looks than men are; they're just exploiting it because it's profitable.

Aggghhh. This all sounds so inane, but on some level the whole thing IS inane. You can go out in public and look around you at all the couples, and all the groups of female friends who are out there, and needless to say most of the women you'll see don't look like Ralph Lauren models, yet all those boyfriends and husbands are obviously happy with them as they are, and their female friends aren't walking along bashing each other's appearance either. The social realities of appearance may not be exactly how we'd like them to be, but they're clearly not telling us that ordinary-looking women are doomed to be ignored and unloved either, so why let some stupid fashion ad make one feel that way?

 

[Liesje]

I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.

Those mags are about looks and beauty and self-image, so it makes sense that they put the "beautiful" popular people on the cover. I guess I don't really see them as magazines for "normal" women. For me that would be the Parade insert, The New Yorker, Harpers...magazines that are actually about something and do not focus on image and style.

 

[mad1]

I bought a mag recently and its got Renee on the cover and its obviously airbrushed to look thinner/great but its a pain in the ass to see. really.

we see these celebs, even younger ones with the bad photos of 'bad moment' with lighting, no make up etc....and then ............I dunno.

mind you Posh Spice has lost a LOT of weight, yet her face is fine. I figured only in your 20s would your face stay full. she looks crazy bad!

good to see my Jolie looking better/healthier/happier!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[A stor]

I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.

What is even scarier is when little girls see these "retouched, glossy, perfect photos" while food shopping with mommy.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Of course plus size during NY Fashion week is not really plus size-definitely relative. I'd like to see some photos.

time.com

The old super-sized vs. super-skinny debate is set to rear its ugly head again this week at New York Fashion Week. Organizers have announced that it will host the first plus-sized runway show in its history.

The official definition of plus-sized is U.S. dress size 14 or higher- not particularly big by most of our standards- especially considering that two thirds of American women are over size 14.

One of the show's organizers, Nancy Le Winter, editorial director at OneStopPlus.com, said, “It's simply about time that fashion speaks to all women.” She hailed the show as “the first time that women can look around and say ‘Oh my god I can wear that!'” “It's fashion democracy at its best.”

With 28% of Americans being officially obese, the question of whether the promotion of the ‘plus-sized' look is a good idea is bound to be asked. But when TIME spoke to plus-size super model Crystal Renn last year, she was very clear on the issue. On her transition from anorexic to ‘plus-sized' and healthy she said, “Women have come so far in the past 100 years...but what holds them back is lack of confidence and self-hatred.” Talking about herself at size 0, she said “I was at the lowest level you can be.” “It was only when I accepted myself that I managed to achieve [my goals] in life and work.”

 

[Jive Turkey]

I don't see the big deal with re-touching. I guess for me it's always been a given. Anyone who's basing their self-worth on high fashion advertisements has bigger issues than whether or not the photos are retouched.

I retouch pictures of myself, my dogs, my family.... I recently took my cousin's senior pictures and re-touched them. My aunt wanted some acne smoothed over, I also whitened his teeth a bit, removed glare and flash bursts on his glasses, removed a shadow behind his head, rain drops on his shirt since it started raining...I see these are pretty minor retouches, especially since I was using fill flash for his photos, and the flash often exaggerates colors and textures (like lens glare, acne, 5 o'clock shadow, etc). Even with the retouching I feel the finished photo is a more accurate representation of my cousin.

I agree with you that retouching isn't a big deal. Everything gets retouched to some extent. And people seem to think it's a new phenomenon with digital technology; It's been happening for decades. I work in the commercial photo industry and wouldn't even think about sending a photo out retouched.
Funny enough, I fall on the opposite side of the fence with you in regard to personal photographs. I see them more as a record of the way things were. Apart from printing adjustments (curves, saturation, colour control, etc), I prefer to leave these images as they are. Otherwise, things become to sterile. I want a photo of my real life, not some imaginary sense of it

 

[Liesje]

True but often I'm "retouching" my mistakes or shortcomings as a photographer! For example, I often get my dogs' coloring wrong. Why keep a picture the way it came out when I know that it's wrong? I make a few adjustments and it looks accurate.

 

[Pearl]

But a "Big is Beautiful" runway show at Sydney's Fashion Festival yesterday has critics arguing that the fashion industry's campaign for curves has taken an unhealthy turn in the opposite direction, the Daily Mail reports.
Robyn Lawley (Vogue Australia's first plus-size cover girl) opened the show, looking lovely in an asymmetrical black number. But other models, strutting the catwalk in looks spanning sizes 16 to 24, appeared alarmingly overweight, not simply "curvy."
The Daily Mail quotes Australian journalist Damian Woolbough, who took offense to the choice of models:

"There is a place for women of all sizes in the fashion media, as seen by the positive response to a plus-size shoot with Lawley in this month's Vogue Australia, but obese models send just as irresponsible a message about the need for healthy eating and exercise as models with protruding clavicles and ribcages."​

​

Australia's 'Big And Beautiful' Runway Show Sparks Weight Debate (PHOTOS)

While reading this, I immediately thought of a conversation I had a while back about weight loss with a friend of mine who lost 50 pounds last year and is doing a great job keeping it off. She said anyone is obese and says they are proud of their body and wouldn't change it, are foolish because they're unhealthy and at risk for diseases.

I happen to agree with her. While I think the modeling industry should promote more normal sizes, they shouldn't be glamorizing another form of an eating disorder. I mean, they shouldn't promote anorexia and bulimia by having ultra thin models and they shouldn't promote diabetes and heart disease by having obese models. Somewhere in the middle should be promoted.

Which begs the question, why does the modeling industry use opposite ends of the weight spectrum? I have yet to see a size 6 or 8 model on a runway that is not the Victoria's Secret show

 

[Pearl]

A model has revealed the horrifying extremes employed by her peers in the fashion industry ahead of catwalk appearances.
As another round of New York Fashion Week gets underway, Kira Dikhtyar admits getting down to sample size-zero is no mean feat, and some girls are prepared to do anything to lose pounds quickly.
According to the 22-year-old Russian, packs of cigarettes, diet pills, daily colonics and laxatives are the weapons of choice for many, while metabolism boosting injections have also crept onto the scene.

'Cigarettes, daily colonics, laxatives, pills': Model reveals horrifying dieting methods used by peers to shed weight for fashion week | Mail Online

I know this article is from the Daily Mail - aka the Daily Fail - but I'm sure there's a lot of truth to this.

I think something needs to be done about the way models are treated in the fashion world because it sounds like workplace abuse. You also have many underage models who are drugged, raped, harassed, etc. and there's no one to prevent it. You hear about social workers on movie sets, but are there any for fashion shoots or runway shows? And who is watching over these young girls? There are many stories of these girls living in big cities miles from their home - or even thousands of miles from their countries - and who is really taking care of them?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Many models are drugged and raped?

 

[Pearl]

Here's what ABC magazine show Nightline reported:

Lonely and low on cash, many models fall prey to a tempting but dubious lifeline: party promoters, perhaps the biggest and best-kept secret of the modeling world.
"It's almost like a secret society, so if you're not in it you don't understand it," said a promoter named Isaiah.
It appears to work like this: Party promoters befriend young models. Nightclub owners pay promoters to bring models as young as 15 to their clubs to attract rich men. Rich men go to the nightclub because young models go there, then spend lots of money partying with them. The club owners pay promoters a cut of the nightclub's profit.
Some might liken party promoters, many of whom are college-educated, to pimps.
"You get paid based on your quality of what you can bring to the table," Isaiah said. Quality of what? "Girls."
Whatever they're called, they certainly make a lucrative living off the attractiveness of young women.

Pretty Girls, Risky Business: A Peek at Modeling's Dark Side - ABC News


Maybe not "many" models are drugged and raped, but there are a lot of horror stories out there. Kathy Ireland had to deal with a photographer who arranged for them to spend overnight in a hotel, alone with one bed. Kate Moss spoke about a photographer convincing underage girls to pose nude, but had no film in his camera. That's why I wonder who is supervising young models.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Well that's certainly unfortunate. That said, I don't think the fashion industry is to blame for the party promoters any more than the movie industry is to blame for the numbers of prostitutes (male and female) and homeless drug addicts in Hollywood. If you venture out on your own to make it big in an industry where the odds are heavily stacked against you, you need a contingency plan and sadly many of these young people don't.
As far as the photographers go, sure there are some scum bag photographers *cough* Terry Richardson *cough*. There are scum bags in every industry. The number of respectable, talented, professional photographers far outweighs the scum. It's not an epidemic

 

[Liesje]

Sorry I have to agree with Jive. There are creeps, pedos, and sadists in any profession. When I was in HS a teacher was arrested for peeping Tom. Now I work for a small, private college that thinks they are so high-and-mighty and we've had two professors terminated in two years for inappropriate relationships and abuse of power. The sad fact is you always hear that one in three women are sexually assaulted in some way, teen models or not.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Robin Lawley, the first "plus size" model hired by Ralph Lauren. She's 6' and a size 12. She starved herself down to 136 and was eating only an apple when she first started modeling, because she felt huge pressure to stay thin as a model. She gave it up when she went to school and gained 40 pounds. She's from Australia. Saw her on GMA this morning, she's beautiful.

I'm 5'10 and a size 12, and I'd never consider myself to be a "plus size". That's nuts

I Googled for other pics of her and saw some lingerie photos (which are amazing looking), which are most likely not nearly as Photoshopped as the Ralph Lauren ad. She's noticeably slimmer in this one.

Their famous overzealous Photoshopping of a different model

 

[Jive Turkey]

Doubt they would've slimmed her down in the Ralph Lauren ad. She's wearing baggy clothes. When models are slimmed down, it's almost always when they're wearing something form fitting; they'll pinch in the waist and hips a bit sometimes. The lingerie shots have definitely had post done to them. Everything does. It's just the way it is.

Something like this

probably had much less done to it, as it looks to be editorial of some kind. You can tell the difference in skin smoothness here and in the lingerie shots (realistic skin folds, more natural skin tone variation).

Good for her for landing the big gig though. She's hot

 

[Liesje]

Size can be really deceiving. I know someone size 12 and she is tall and bigger boned but IMO looks more slender and in better shape than I am (5'7" size 6) because she is a runner and in really good shape. I couldn't believe she was that size but she is.

 

[Pearl]

Sorry I have to agree with Jive. There are creeps, pedos, and sadists in any profession. When I was in HS a teacher was arrested for peeping Tom. Now I work for a small, private college that thinks they are so high-and-mighty and we've had two professors terminated in two years for inappropriate relationships and abuse of power. The sad fact is you always hear that one in three women are sexually assaulted in some way, teen models or not.

I know this is a late response, but I just want to point out that even though sleazy people are in all professions, in the modeling industry, these sleazebags are well known yet nothing is done to stop them. That link to ABC News showed a video where a model said she was told by her agency that she had "to do whatever it takes" to get a job with a certain photographer. He ended up telling her to strip naked and give him a handjob, which she reluctantly did. And this photographer was well known in the industry. Also, Kathy Ireland reported that sleazy photographer to her agency about what he did, and they told her they will no longer send models to him. Within a week, they went back on their word and continued working with that creep. So that is what I mean that the modeling industry should be more responsible on how they treat their models.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Size can be really deceiving. I know someone size 12 and she is tall and bigger boned but IMO looks more slender and in better shape than I am (5'7" size 6) because she is a runner and in really good shape. I couldn't believe she was that size but she is.

I think that's true, I think it has to do with how the weight is distributed. Also just by being tall, it automatically makes it more difficult to fit into smaller sizes no matter how much you weigh. Of course there's also the craziness of sizing and vanity sizing.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Again, that's only 2 instances. I can name more sleazy teachers that have inappropriate relationships with their students.
I didn't watch the video, but it sounds like you're probably talking about Terry Richardson. I think most of the allegations are probably true (one look at his work will show that he doesn't shy away from the sleaze or nudity. Even his own), but there are models who have come forward to defend him. Two sides to every story and what not.
One point that's a little off about the story: models are rarely, if ever hired directly by the photographer. That's usually handled by the production agency and the client. And it's not like there's only the photographer and model on set. There are the photographers assistants, digital techs, wardrobe stylists and their assistants, hair and makeup people, prop stylists, producers, clients, etc, etc. it would be difficult to get away with much. It's possible she was on a creative for the photographer, but then, if she was already on set, there was no job 'to get'. It all sounds a bit sketchy

 

[Liesje]

Yeah sleezy stuff happens everywhere. I work in IT and have a degree in business and I see/hear the same things. When we do sexual harassment training it's case study after case study of bosses demanding sexual favors (males and females).

 

[deep]

this is a little different controversy than too thin

it involves all the phoney pictures because of retouching and photoshop

this girl's career may be ruined, without all the touch up, no one would look twice at her,

The Unretouched Images Victoria's Secret Doesn't Want You to See

 

[Pearl]

I've heard models feel a little insecure with their appearances because their profession is based on looks. I wonder if dealing with retouching makes them more insecure or if they shrug it off.

Either way, retouching is ridiculous because some models end up looking thin to the point that they should be hospitalized.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The model's figure was hardly touched in those photographs! If that's what people have a problem with, then I don't even know what to say. Most of those adjustments were to compensate for the photographer's horrible exposures, to increase contrast (which is completely necessary in digital because digital files are inherently flat), fix colour tone, smooth skin tone, etc. Hardly anything was changed on the model's physique, save for a couple lines here and there. People who know nothing about how a photo is taken and handled in post shouldn't be commenting on this. "muscle tone has been removed from her abs" is completely untrue. this is ridiculous

 

[Jive Turkey]

Either way, retouching is ridiculous because some models end up looking thin to the point that they should be hospitalized.

Over retouching is ridiculous. Retouching is necessary

 

[deep]

she has lines on her face, she is a hag, not pretty like the magazine wants people to believe.