Pictures of Celebs Looking Less than Perfect in Glossy Magazines - C or D?

On one hand, if "ordinary, ordinary-looking people" get to see models and actresses without their makeup, and the airbrushing, and the lights, etc. etc. and get to see them as they really are - attractive, but basically ordinary people - then I can see how it's a good thing. The Beauty Standard isn't just twisted, it's totally unattainable. Even most celebrities don't look like their colour glossy magazine selves. In terms of destroying unrealistic body fascism, if we had more of it, it might be a positive thing.

However, on the other hand, more and more, it doesn't strike me as destroying body fascism, but reenforcing it. People look at these images with a sense of schadenfruende (god knows how to spell that) and nastiness, and that leads to the patently offensive "Oh my god, what a minger" reaction that we've seen far too much of around here lately.

I'd be happy if we could tone down ALL celebrity photos - ban airbrushing and photoshopping etc. - so we see them as they really are, ALL THE TIME.

But just printing the occasional spiteful "bad hair day/cellulite/poor fashion choice" snap just seems cruel.

oh my god. are you ME???

Yes, the 'no makeup/ordinary person'. No the 'ooh ink on her thumb/cellulite on her bum/unattractive chum/facial expression dumb/'

(I thought of another rhyme thought better of it..)

And falling over outside clubs, fair enough...

dunno, but when I posted the question I imagined myself reading Heat with (say) Anna and Emma looking over my shoulder and responding "U CRAZY FULE!" to my "uh, what's the problem there, exactly? she looks fine to me"

And I'm really glad Kate Winslet raised such a stink last winter when GQ put her on the cover and photoshopped her skinny, because when I saw that I thought, hey, aren't you the one who's always going on about how proud of your curves you are and here you are looking like you need a sandwich! but apparently she doesn't need a sandwich.

I don't know. I understand what you mean by this, in that she usually looks "natural" but I think that she never looks particularly healthy, and therefore good, either.

Body fascism, I agree, is a quite nebulous term, but it is still important to discuss and keep in mind.

I agree with beauty that *some kind of* idealisation is important. But it should be an *attainable* idealisation. Lauren Becall didn't look like that all the time, but in the studio, with the right makeup and lighting and focus, she did look like that, for the moment.

Photographs that have been DIGITALLY MANIPULATED to make the model's legs look longer, for example, to degree that would be frankly anatomically impossible without surgery, is bad and damaging. (Yes, this happens, you'd be shocked to hear things from former photo retouchers.) Because the model *never* looked like that, and never could look like that at *any* moment.

This is not a debate about Kate Moss, anyway, sorry I responded to the red herring.

unfortunately so, Tico, it reminds me of when I was talking to someone who lurks here occasionally tho never posts and he told me that he was bored with ILX's Big Brother threads cf other boards coz we just weren't rude enough abt the contestants.

But maybe that's just me.

I'm not very keen on the 'ring of shame/ celeb cringe/ whatever' style either. Firstly, as a reader, it bores me. It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I think it's malicious and bitchy towards the celebrity, encourages body fascism in readers and it's bloody hypocritical. So all these writers and paparatizzo are beauties down from Mount Olympus? No, bollocks are they. Right now they are probably laying into Geri Halliwell for wearing Ugg boots with last year's Chloe, whilst wearing no make up, red eyes from a hangover and one of the heels comming off their Top Shop stilleteos.

I also think it's lazy journalism. Use pages better please.

I think that's a good thing; sneering at fashion is healthy. Surely your sneering at 'Top Shop stilletoes' is exactly the same kind of snobbery? As for celeb worship, I don't find it any more objectionable than, say, the Observer's (Exclusive Sontag Article=no more interesting than Beyonce's style tips IMHO), it's just worshipping slightly diff slebs. And most media outlets use horrendoes boostery gush about every damn thing.

Yeah, but I dunno if heat *does* have that effect on people. Mileage may vary, but personally I feel more patronized reading Observer/Dazed/Voice/other ILX faves than I do reading heat.

the difference lies in what these various publications are trying to be, and the market they are aiming for.

in reality, trying to be informative, authorative and highbrow, so it comes across as lofe-threateningly boring perhaps. Of course Heat doesn't try to be any of those things and therefore is never boring, even tho the content might make some ppl wince.

Oh but God it is. You can read it in about three minutes, it has absolutley nothing to hold your attention. (Okay, I care very little about C-list celebs, don't really watch much TV and hate J.Lo with a passion, I'm not their target audience, even though my age and gender would say otherwise to market researchers.I think I actively dislike it because it makes me feel left out of my gender. I'm not really a tomboy at all, but heat makes me feel like I should be. And then I get cross and start to think women are stupid for this pathetic obsession with looking like Rachael Stevens and then I feel like a bad feminist. Sisters, come back to me.)

xpost

Yeah, but I read the saturday guardian weekend bit, which I presume has the same philosophy behind it, for example, usually has really interesting stuff in there, in fact I thought there were some really outstanding pieces in the last year. The Observer equivalent is so bloody dull though! and the same goes for the rest of the paper. I used to really enjoy reading it in the past, but not anymore.

Just for calling them c-list, shows you care, at least, what kind of celebrities they are...