Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-14-2009, 11:23 PM   #91
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Excellent article.....thanks for the read.

Michelle Obama!
__________________

__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 12:31 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

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.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 12:39 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:58 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 01:42 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:58 PM
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).
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 07:09 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:58 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 04:20 AM   #96
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:58 PM
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?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:28 AM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
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.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 09:10 AM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 08:58 PM
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
mad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009, 10:57 PM   #99
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
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.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 10:05 AM   #100
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:58 PM
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.”
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 03:24 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liesje View Post
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
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 03:53 PM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:58 PM
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.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2011, 08:25 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 12:05 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
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?
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 09:00 PM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Many models are drugged and raped?
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com