Thursday, 4 August 2011

144 The BANNED and the BEAUTIFUL

As a beauty director in the full-time employ of a woman's magazine that relies upon its advertisers, hmmm, this is tricky. Last week two adverts were banned by the advertising standards authority – following Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson’s campaign against ‘overly perfected and unrealistic images of women’ in adverts.

The adverts featured the actress Julia Roberts and the model Christy Turlington promoting LancĂ´me's Teint Miracle foundation and Maybelline's the Eraser foundation.

You’ve probably seen them? Both women look preternaturally perfect – pore/line/hairless. But they also look like ‘themselves’ – and having seen both women in real life, I can say that sincerely, and attest to the fact that, yes, their facial configuration is maintained. We’re not slimming noses, trimming eyelids, changing lips. Light and shade is what’s being played with here… to an extreme, yes, absolutely.

But beauty imagery has rarely lived within the realms of reality. As Lucy Beresford said when I interviewed her for a feature in PSYCHOLOGIES magazine, ‘I just don’t think it is damaging to see beautiful women advertising beauty products. Psychologically beauty has always been linked to fantasy, and is therefore often about archetypes or ideals.’ As such, an airbrushed version of Julia Roberts – already a phenomenally beautiful woman – becomes almost mythically ‘ideal’ – a modern-day Helen of Troy: flawless. This is familiar territory. This does not shock or disappoint me. I am used to it. I do not think it harms me in any way.

This is, after all, an advert. Does it make some women feel bad? Do people look at the image and think, ‘I hate my lines, I hate my wrinkles, I hate my spots, I hate my freckles’ – I want to have a CGI-complexion just like Julia’s – or do they look at it and think, ‘I know that’s not reality, because it’s selling me something.’

Perhaps because I fall into bracket B, I found Jo Swinson’s campaign intriguing. Had it been me, I would’ve picked on the over-sexualised, derogatory, degrading stances taken by so many beauty brands in a bid to sell ‘sexy’ to little girls. Now, that’s something I’d really like to shout about.

But in terms of bare-faced fact, of course Swinson is absolutely right. This is false advertising. Using a celebrity head, or eye-lid, chock-a-block with extensions to sell a volumising shampoo or mascara is mendacious. The product is making a visual promise it cannot deliver in reality. It does so brazenly – ‘no, our mascara is not good enough to give you the look of actual false lashes, so we will stick false lashes on and admit it, but hope you’ll still buy it and hope to look as though you’re wearing actual false lashes.’ With the pulled ads, the ruling is that the images are misleading. That the ban was upheld surprised me greatly.  After all, what beauty advert is not misleading? From the supremely slim and lithe limbs showcased in shaving ads (utterly hairless yet being shorn nonetheless), to the invisible ‘pure’ pores of those deep-cleansing foams… the exaggerated before and afters as ubiquitous as those blindingly bright smiles.

 

But, back to that fantasy thing… in my mind, I know that I will never, ever wake up looking like Julia Roberts. Or Eva Mendes. Or Cheryl Cole. But getting ‘airbrushed’ skin? I know this is possible. Cosmetic airbrushes do exist. SK-II Air Touch Foundation, for example – wowee. That stuff took years off and added hours of sleep on. And I could show you the before and after pictures to prove it.

Many believe that this ban is a sign of things to come… that consumers are growing increasingly tired (and cynical) of over-inflated claims. But that there are many beauty products out there which employ sound science and ground-breaking technology – in those foundations designed for use in an HD-TV generation for example – seems beside the point here. If the world’s most beautiful women are not deemed beautiful enough to sell a face cream without getting a bit of ‘help’, what does that say about the rest of us? Lost causes?

I think the ban will serve simply as a warning. Brands will become a bit more cautious… and then it will be business as usual.

That these idealised images can prove harmful to a woman’s sense of self-esteem is inarguable (swot up on the PSYCHOLOGIES Beauty Manifesto, http://www.psychologies.co.uk/beauty/join-our-campaign-for-positive-beauty/ for a deeper read)… but I believe such things are far less harmful to women than so many other insidious, institutional and oft-ignored and damaging issues. That’s my sticking point. Airbrushing is as old as the Hollywood hills. And ‘retouching’? Well, what about those portraits of Anne of Cleves that coaxed Henry into a blind marriage?

 

People like to hark on about the good old days when movie stars were allowed to break the mould… when people looked unusual and idiosyncratic beauty was celebrated. I am not convinced by this line of thought. Those old gals succumbed to more than their fair share of jiggery-pokery too – eyebrows shaved, realigned, re-drawn, hairlines moved back or up at the sides, noses shaved and slimmed (permanently and painfully), hair colour altered at a director’s whim, and slimming pills dolled out like popping candy, in a bid to shrink starlets down to size.

Swinson’s conclusion:

"Pictures of flawless skin and super-slim bodies are all around, but they don't reflect reality," said Swinson. "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.

My conclusion:

Let’s focus on positive imagery and confidence-boosting messages. Do away with the beauty ‘rules’. Break all moulds. Stop selling sex in lieu of scent. Fantasy has its place, and that does not bother me. But when fantasy masquerades as empowerment… that really, really does.

READ MORE HERE :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/29/loreal-adverts-pulled-by-asa-beauty-tanya-gold

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/08/01/living-with-contradiction-beauty-work-and-feminism/

11 comments:

kia said...

how have I not stumbled upon your blog sooner! Beautifully written & a really interesting read, I think airbrushing in advertising is extremely misleading and false advertising however it is good marketing & the beauty brands are doing well. Still don't agree with it! Kia x

Get Lippie said...

Actually, the reason the complaints were upheld was on a technicality - L'Oreal refused to hand over "before and after" shots to prove the veracity of the claims made for the foundations.

Further, the ads are only banned in the UK. Also, if the ads were for anything other than foundation, the claim would have been rejected.

You make some interesting points though - but I, for one, think that removing lines and wrinkles and pores in an ad for foundation is just as mendacious as false lashes in mascara ads, using extensions for shampoo ads, and photoshopped colours in hair dye ads.

Once upon a time, adverts used to use paint instead of milk, and other such tricks to fool the viewer, ads where substitutes are used in place of the real product have long been banned in food - why not for beauty?

sahiba said...

Hi there, nice blog – just wanted to acknowledge that with a comment

Bourbon&Pearls said...

Wonderful post, you've put me to shame, I must stop knocking out blog posts in ten minutes.
I'm all for the ideal of beauty, out of reach perfection - I wouldn't want a realistic image as an advert.

Anonymous said...

Even though Julia Roberts and Christy Thurlington "look like themselves" in the ads, that's not the point of the ban. Foundation is bought to make your skin look perfect - blemishless, almost without texture or visible pores. In all honesty, this is something that no foundation can achieve if your skin isn't already perfect. And even if it would, your skin would look extremely starneg in real life. If they were marketing a cream to change your bone structure, well, then the ads might be called adequate but since it's about skin texture and perfection, airbrushing the results is misleading.

The point of inflated claims and out of this world perfection in ad campaigns is to spark a hope in the consumer: to achieve even a fraction of what's shown in the pictures. I don't think anyone believes they're going to look absolutely poreless but hey, even 1/10 of that might look great!

Nevertheless, the campaign for 2D skin is not the sole right of advertisers. Airbrushed faces are a staple in beauty shots for every women's magazine. Even the 20-year-old models have pores and lines - they've just been painted out. When you look at old magazines (take Allure in the 90s for example), the pores are there.

Miss Malcontent said...

Thank you all for the insightful comments. It's a tricky issue - and one that was proven even trickier for me, personally, as I was scheduled to comment on this on BBC Radio before the plug was pulled... just goes to show, the fear of offending advertisers knows neither bounds nor good sense... thanks for continuing to enrich the debate x

Hydrolyze said...

Nice blog. It is really very impressive. Thanks for sharing.

Cathy of Top Beauty Secrets said...

Your blog is worth reading.

Vigrx-Plus review said...

Wow! Merit for those wonderful nice reading column about this topic. I've Bookmarked which post embattled outlook reference.

wow gold said...

Maybe since My spouse and i get into bracket N, I ran across Jo Swinson's campaign exciting. Had it been buy swtor credits recently me, My spouse and i would've chosen about the over-sexualised, derogatory, degrading stances obtained by simply numerous attractiveness brand names inside a bid to market ??sexy' for you to girls. Currently, that's something I'd love for you to shout regarding.

In terms of bare-faced simple fact, of course Swinson is absolutely proper. This is false advertising and marketing. Employing swtor credits a movie star mind, or perhaps eye-lid, chock-a-block with extension cables to market a volumising shampoo as well as mascara will be mendacious. The merchandise cheap swtor credits can be making a graphic offer it can't supply actually. It will so brazenly ¡§C ??no, our own mascara is not good enough to provde the search associated with true untrue eyelash, therefore we will adhere false lashes about and be honest, but hope you'll still purchase it and wish to appear like you're sporting real fake lashes.' With all the taken adverts, your judgment is that the photos are unreliable. The prohibit had been upheld amazed me personally tremendously. In the end, just what attractiveness advertising is just not unreliable? From the very lean and lithe braches displayed within waxing ads (absolutely bald but staying shorn nonetheless), on the hidden ??pure' tiny holes of people deep-cleansing foams?- the embellished before as well as afters while common since individuals extremley bright joy.

Alana Mitchell - skincare tips said...

Beautiful blog and awesome posts if you please some beauty and
skincare tips as well then it will increases its popularity.