BREAKING NEWS!!!!!! Jezebel.com reports that Lena Dunham received serious touch up work for her cover and photo spread in Vogue. These major alterations include her dress' neckline raised, a "smile" line disappearing from her face, her waist raised (even though she is wrapped up in a blanket and her waist isn't visible), AND she was in fact NOT in the middle of the street for one of the shots when that's clearly what Vogue is portraying! This is an outrag--wait, did I miss something here?
 |
| (Source) |
Body image continues to be a huge issue among women and fashion industry professionals. Magazines and designers have even been slammed for doing too much retouching on photoshoots and magazine covers, as well as having the same slim, young, caucasian model walk down countless runways.
All that said, most of us know about the whole debacle that went down with Jezebel criticizing Vogue's photoshop work, and many people voiced their opinions and responses on the situation, whether on Twitter, Facebook, or directly in the comments section of Jezebel's article. And now it's time to state what I think! And I, like the majority, still don't understand the controversy surrounding this photoshoot, and I'll tell you why.
 |
| (Source) |
Even though it's not produced on a canvas, photographers have visions of themes they want to see played out, and their photos are seen as artwork. However, not everything in this world is within reach. Photoshop allows visions to come to life in order to strike a nerve and resonate with audiences. What I'm trying to say is if they could not get that bird to stay on Dunham's head long enough to take 80 shots, I absolutely give my consent for it to be edited perfectly on her head by computer software if they so please.
2. What's wrong with editing??
 |
| (Source) |
When I write essays, I get my mom to edit my work in order to come with a more sophisticated way to say what I want to say, and create a polished piece. I'm even going to edit this post! I'm not saying editing someone's body is as harmless as editing an essay, but I kind of am. In both cases, the essence of the original person is still there; it is merely enhanced, with the editor tweaking, removing or adding some things that the original writer, (model, photographer, etc.) may have forgotten, changing the wording (or lighting), and finishing with a product that everyone is proud of (except Jezebel I guess). It's also no more dramatic than choosing an Instagram filter that camouflages a pimple or makes your eyes stand out. I know we've all used those tricks!
3. Was Jezebel's article more offensive than the retouching itself?
 |
| (Source) |
The fact that Jezebel went to such lengths to get a hold of unedited photos may suggest to some people that they didn't believe Dunham could have looked that good without her photos being touched up. And that's possibly even more offensive than the retouching itself! Oops.
4. Going to extremities
 |
| (Source) |
Is this shoot really being analyzed to the point where we should be appalled that Vogue swapped Dunham's pic background from a storefront, to a crosswalk? Is this discrimination towards store fronts everywhere? Is it time to make protest posters and boycott storefronts????!!! Yeah, I think I'll pass.
I'm 100% sure that if the shoot had in fact been totally unedited, people would still have negative things to say. There may have been tweets like "wow, they should have raised her dress' neckline!" Or "that smile line makes her look weird" and "I really think this photo would have been complete with a bird on top of her head". Regardless of the photos themselves, people look for something to criticize.
6. Lena Dunham is confused as well
 |
| (Source) |
Her tweet about the "ridiculousness" of the situation just shows that she's not into the pettiness of the media, she's confident in who she is, and that she's happy with how the pictures turned out. She even made an even longer response to Slate.com, stating that Vogue had supported her, that the editors were accommodating and understanding of who she was, and styled her in a way to depict that. She even thanked Vogue magazine!
xx
In conclusion, freedom of speech is celebrated, and so is fighting for a more open idea of beauty--it is needed in our society, and I love how more and more websites and publications are starting and surfacing for this specific purpose. But as much as Jezebel tried (and is still trying) to justify their reason for the article, I think maybe they missed the mark with this one, and have people wondering if this was done genuinely, or merely out of spite.
Is there a "right" and "wrong" situation? Was this a genuine effort to raise awareness about genuine beauty? What do you think?
Feel free to follow or subscribe to my blog. Also check me out on Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. Enjoy your week!
No comments:
Post a Comment