Overly Airbrushed Julia And Christy Ads Banned

[MrsSpringsteen]

There is no such thing in the US-should there be? We all know that no product can make you look perfect or erase age. They can help somewhat. Are they just pretty pictures or are they harmful to the extent that they should be banned? Julia looks so pretty in that ad (Mario Testino makes everyone look gorgeous and she is anyway), if I could afford Lancome it might tempt me to buy it. But of course I know logically that it won't make me look that good. But that's the point, that's why those ads work. What women their age in Hollywood look real even WITHOUT airbrushing?


Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has pulled a pair of ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington for being overly-airbrushed, the Guardian reports.

Member of Parliament Jo Swinson first alerted the campaign watchdog to Lancome's two-page ad showing Roberts as shot by Mario Testino and a spot for Maybelline's "Eraser" foundation featuring Turlington.

According to the BBC, Swinson said the manipulated photographs could impact an individual's body image:

"We should have some honesty in advertising and that's exactly what the ASA is there to do. I'm delighted they've upheld these complaints," she said.

"There's a big picture here which is half of young women between 16 and 21 say they would consider cosmetic surgery and we've seen eating disorders more than double in the last 15 years.

"There's a problem out there with body image and confidence. The way excessive retouching has become pervasive in our society is contributing to that problem."

Swinson added, "Excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm, but both Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts are naturally beautiful women who don't need retouching to look great. This ban sends a powerful message to advertisers -- let's get back to reality," the Guardian writes.

The beauty giant, for its part, did acknowledge that the pics had been taken to ye olde Photoshoppe. From the Independent:

L'Oreal admitted post-production techniques had been used in its advert featuring Turlington to "lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows".

However, the beauty firm said it believed the image accurately illustrated the results the product could achieve.

It also said the flawless skin in the image of Roberts was down to her "naturally healthy and glowing skin", adding the product had taken 10 years to develop.

The ASA previously banned a YSL Belle D'Opium commercial for simulating drug use, nixed "indecent" Diesel billboards and said no to two misleading Louis Vuitton print ads. However, the group decided there was nothing wrong with a particular Miu Miu ad depicting what some dubbed a "significantly underweight" model.

 

[Liesje]

Reminds me of something I saw on ANTM (ok, yes, sometimes I watch the marathons while working on computer projects!). The judges were criticizing one of the models for posing in a way that made the airbrushing difficult.

 

[financeguy]

I would bet there are hundreds of adds with photoshopping or touching up that get published in UK newspapers and magazines every year.

The Advertising Standards Authority can only investigate when a complaint has been made.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The judges were criticizing one of the models for posing in a way that made the airbrushing difficult.

How exactly would that work that you could do that? And of course those girls are all so young, so that makes it even more pathetic. And Tyra's into real beauty and flaws and such.

 

[corianderstem]

And Tyra's into real beauty and flaws and such.

Well, that's the reality of the modeling world, whether or not Tyra or others are trying to expand on the definition of "beauty."

Photoshopping has gotten ridiculous. One blog I visit daily has a running feature called "photoshop of horrors," where you'll see models who have entire body parts missing, like an arm that's clearly been accidentally removed during the photoshop process.

There are clear mistakes like that, and then more appalling conscious choices, like taking an already-slim woman and whittling her waist down even further.

 

[Liesje]

I guess it honestly doesn't bother me much one way or the other. I've done senior photos and air brushed acne or fixed this or that. I also photograph dogs and do a lot of retouching (usually removing stuff from the picture, like if there is a row of nice trees in the background and one yellow fire hydrant). I'm sure there is a line but I'm not really sure where that line falls and whether I really care to decide one way or the other. I mean, what to we expect? The entire industry is based on extreme views of beauty and perfection that are basically unatainable anyway.

As for myself, I do not buy products based on magazine ads or photos of supermodels. I think Christy and Julia are both gorgeous.

 

[yolland]

Wasn't the ASA's reasoning that these two ads present particularly egregious truth-in-advertising problems? For example, I think the Lancome ad is for some product that purports to give older skin a "luminous" look, but obviously the depiction goes way beyond that (she looks sandblasted frankly). Whatever article I saw about this earlier quoted Lancome's spokesperson as protesting that the ad was only meant as an "aspirational picture"--that cracked me up. In general I agree with Lies, everybody knows (or should) that most all fashion/makeup ads are heavily manipulated "aspirational" fantasy anyway, but I can at least see a stronger argument here than in many cases given the accompanying claims being made about what the product does.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i really wish something like this existed in america. i remember a similar thing happened over some mascara i believe? now for those ads they have to state the models are wearing the mascara...with about 15 sets of false eyelashes.

 

[BVS]

Has there ever been truth in advertising?

I don't think the problem is photoshop, because honestly we've been doctoring photos since the invention of photography.

The problem is that we need to learn that advertising is not reality, that TV is not reality, and that reality TV is definitely not reality.

 

[mama cass]

i think it's a bit silly... surely anyone with half a brain knows advertising is mostly plain fantasy anyway...

 

[mad1]

exactly. it just feels like for a major time they have used teen type or young actresses/models for their ad campaigns, who are going to have plump faces and virtually no lines anyhow, so they dont need to alter much but WILL still make skin look very fuking un-naturual, and when I was younger I was very naive and actually hated myself for not having flawless skin like the girls in the ads, (but Angie and Kate make me see the real thing now), and anyhow, these advertisers are taking an actress in her 40s and making the obvious dramatic photoshops because lets face it, the media suck serious earth ass when it comes to women's looks, and its really cause Julia has natural lines round eyes, etc and you cant see it there, and anything and everything to try and convince women to spend loadsamoney on products that really do fuck all except hydrate your skin for a while when its better to just be heathy and eat fruit/veg, have plenty of water and exercise now and again to get the blood flowing and hey presto, you are FUCKING NORMAL and NOT A FUKING WALKING AIRBRUSH!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

As for myself, I do not buy products based on magazine ads or photos of supermodels. I think Christy and Julia are both gorgeous.

I look at those magazines in the library so I don't spend money on them. If I see an ad it's more like "that's a new product I might try", not that I would buy it based on the photos. A pretty picture of a pretty woman (ha) catches your attention, there's really no denying that. It's just like seeing a cute top in one of those magazines. Only for me it's the cheap stuff. I do think there are definite subliminal effects of advertising, there are countless studies about that.

Yes I read the "aspirational" thing, and I hate that somehow women are supposed to aspire to look like any sort of unrealistic fake ideal, or like any Botoxed or non Botoxed models or actresses. I aspire to look the best I can look with what I've got (and some days well I just don't give a shit ) for me, not for anyone else. I gave up on caring about trying to please anyone else but me in that dept a long time ago, and for me that is such a healthy way to go. If I get down on myself it's because I don't like the way I am looking-not because I don't look like a sandblasted Julia Roberts.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I would bet there are hundreds of adds with photoshopping or touching up that get published in UK newspapers and magazines every year.

I've got a little secret for you: ALL of the adds are photoshopped.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

How old do you think this model is?

 

[Pearl]

I read that she's 10 years old. Isn't that disturbing?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes she's 10

10-Year-Old Model's Grown-Up Look: High Fashion or High Risk? - ABC News

I looked at some of the fashion pictures on some blog devoted to her that was referenced in another article and they seriously looked like child pornography. One of them was topless

 

[Liesje]

I was just looking at that article. Not sure what I think. For one she is more "covered" than most of the 5 year olds I see tearing around at Walmart. What I've been thinking about lately (with the Olympics around the corner, yes a year is around the corner) being so involved in gymnastics is that you do have to wonder when kid models and actors are limited on how much time they can "work" but child athletes can work out 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. But is it different when one is a model and one is an athlete? I don't really "get" a lot of the high fashion stuff. At times I look at those ads and see it more as an art form than "oh she's so skinny and sexy I want that outfit so I can be her" sort of thing. I don't think that there's any part of high fashion that involves "growing up" normally (with regard to the "growing up too fast" comment in the article) whether you are 10 or 30. It's just a different world.

 

[yolland]

It'd be hilariously appropriate if fashion modeling eventually got to the point where literally every model was visibly under 14. In a way, it'd even be good because everyone else would have to come to terms that much earlier with the reality that now you're a wizened old college student and nobody will ever mistake you again for some tantalizingly prepubescent naif. Wasn't Brooke Shields considered creepily young(-looking) back in the day?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Covered or not for me it's the heels, the makeup, the sexual suggestiveness of it (which were all over the blog pics). She's 10. She's a very pretty little girl in the pics where she actually looks like a little girl. "High fashion" or not, it's just very disturbing to me. No way in hell would any 10 year old daughter of mine be involved in that.

Art form is fine for girls who are of age and older. For 10 year olds-no. I can't even imagine what some pedophile is thinking about those pictures. Which is clearly the responsibility of the pedophile and not the child or the photos. But still.

 

[Liesje]

I don't think I'd let my kid either, but not necessarily for those reasons. I would like my kids to spend their time being KIDS around other KIDS. I don't care if they dress up or do makeup or try to be "grown ups" (there were times my cousins dolled me up such that I looked like a cheap hooker!) but to me that's different when they are playing with their peers than when a bunch of adults are fussing over them for hours on end having them perform like a circus animal. The pedo thing always comes up and not to condone the child modeling, but pedos have their "type" that they will go after whether it's a superstar child model or the little girl in the trailer next door. I think that tends to get overplayed and the real reasons for why this is risky for the child get overlooked.

 

[Purplereign]

i think it's a bit silly... surely anyone with half a brain knows advertising is mostly plain fantasy anyway...

sadly, in this society in which we live some doucheymacdouches haven't been blessed with even half a brain

How old do you think this model is?

the fact that she is 10 years old and being proffered as a model for what is sexy just infuriates me to the point that I have no idea where to even start in on this one . . . I'll calm down and get back to ya!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The pedo thing always comes up and not to condone the child modeling, but pedos have their "type" that they will go after whether it's a superstar child model or the little girl in the trailer next door. I think that tends to get overplayed and the real reasons for why this is risky for the child get overlooked.

I know and get all of that but it still bothers me. I liked to play dress up with my friends and with my Mom's stuff but that was private stuff, not paraded in front of the world in magazines and all over the internet with the intent to provoke. Because any designer or fashion magazine who would pose a 10 year old girl in such a way, well that's clearly their intent. Unless 12 and 13 year olds are over the hill these days. Too many wrinkles and lines.

If that 10 year old is fantasy, well yes..whose fantasy is that? mama cass wasn't talking about that one obviously but ?

 

[yolland]

No, it's just an aspirational picture.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No, it's just an aspirational picture.

Yes-since grown women are buying and reading those magazines, maybe that's it. We all look too old (even teens and 20 somethings) and really need to aspire to look like 10 year olds. And 10 year olds need to aspire to look at least three times their age.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yikes. They say they couldn't find a picture without her arm linked with William's, so they had to mirror her arms and "inadvertently" slimmed her waist (made her look like a freakish Barbie body). A complaint was registered with Britain’s Press Complaints Commission.

 

[Jive Turkey]

A complaint was registered with Britain’s Press Complaints Commission.

Really??? People like that need to get a life

 

[Pearl]

If you thought that 10 year old in Vogue was bad...

In a move that has shocked fashion onlookers, scantily-clad young girls wearing make-up and sporting voluminous up-dos are promoting a new range of lingerie that is targetted at girls as young as four years old.
Combining lingerie and lounge wear to form 'loungerie,' the Jours Après Lunes line for four to 12-year-olds features a range of panties, bras, camisoles and T-shirts with lace edges, ribboned bow detailing and nautical stripes.

The shots feature young girls in poses and styling that seem far too premature for their ages.

Wearing striped bras and panties, they play with make-up and jewellery, strings of pearls wrapped around their small frames.
Most of the photos are too risque to feature on MailOnline, the bare legs and stomachs of the girls deeming them inappropriate for publication.

In one shot, a girl wears Jackie O-style sunglasses while lounging back on a pillow, her modesty protected by just panties and a cropped polka-dot tied top.


In another, three young girls play together, their hair set in Amy Winehouse-style beehives and their lips painted bright pinks and reds.
Fashionista, which broke the story, says: 'What’s disturbing about Jours Après Lunes is... that it’s lingerie for people who probably shouldn’t be old enough to even know what lingerie is.'

The label also includes a range for babies and another for older teenagers and ladies, or 'femmes'. The 'unsettling' styling sees a grown model 'made to look like a child, while the actual children are made to look like adults,' according to the site.

Read more: French label Jours Après Lunes launch lingerie for girls as young as FOUR | Mail Online


What's this world coming to? Isn't the world supposed to be fighting pedophilia and child molestors? Instead, some people are giving it legitimacy by sexualizing children more and more. Its digusting, sick and very disturbing.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

That's ridiculous

 

[Pearl]

Reading international fashion magazines can be tough because of the language barrier. Words appear out of place, phrases get lost in translation, meaning gets misconstrued.
But Jezebel has confirmed that Vogue Italia's "slave earrings" is not, as we had hoped, a mistranslation.
The Italian magazine currently features "Slave Earrings," by which they seem to mean hoop earrings, in its "Shop The Trend" section, instructing readers that hoop earrings are an updated classic... from the era of US slavery:

Jewellery has always flirted with circular shapes, especially for use in making earrings. The most classic models are the slave and creole styles in gold hoops. If the name brings to the mind the decorative traditions of the women of colour who were brought to the southern Unites (sic) States during the slave trade, the latest interpretation is pure freedom. Colored stones, symbolic pendants and multiple spheres. And the evolution goes on.
​

On the one hand, should the enslavement of Africans in the United States be mined for style inspiration? That just feels wrong.

'Slave Earrings' On Vogue Italia: Offensive Or Innocent?

Ugh, how insensitive. And wasn't Italian Vogue the one that once did an issue featuring only black models? What a huge step back this is.

 

[AGirlLikeTheSea]

Yes she's 10

10-Year-Old Model's Grown-Up Look: High Fashion or High Risk? - ABC News

I looked at some of the fashion pictures on some blog devoted to her that was referenced in another article and they seriously looked like child pornography. One of them was topless

Topless, but she has nothing to hide. I was topless a lot when I was ten and are still be when I'm at topless-beaches. It's a pity really that a female chest is so taboo that even a ten year old is sexulalized just for being bare chested.
I read threads about these pictures and the posts written by those who opposed them and those post were actually the most shocking ones. They compared a ten year old with porn-stars and prostitutes, that is taking it too far and an insult towards the child.