Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Baby Step? Untouched Photo on Cover of Marie Claire

January 6, 2010 by  
Filed under Body Image

“What we’re talking about here is just one small part of the much wider spectrum of body image, self esteem and eating disorder issues and that small part is actually about digital enhancement and retouching of images.

It’s so excessive in magazines these days and young girls and women are constantly telling us that they don’t even know what they’re looking at any more, and what they want to see is more real, untouched and natural photos of celebrities and people in magazines, and I think this delivers that.”

-Julie Parker, General Manager The Butterfly Foundation

Click here to read the whole article, Body image foundation defends nude Jennifer Hawkins cover.

I’m not sure about this one guys. She still fits a mold but how awesome would it be if all covers were untouched?

What does the WATRD community think?


23 Responses to “Baby Step? Untouched Photo on Cover of Marie Claire”
  1. Mish says:

    I live in Oz and it was all over the newspapers.

    question: why is she wearing a full set of makeup?


  2. CandiceBP says:

    I absolutely do wish all covers were untouched . . . but I don’t see the big deal in this particular model being untouched. She’s totally gorgeous and fits nearly every American beauty standard I can think of. If I remember another article correctly, the model states how she was good for this project because she’s “not a stick” . . . I guess we need to clarify what “stick” is these days. She appears to have curves, but she’s still thin.

    And it irks me that that crease in her waist is a big reason to cheer. That? They left that and we’re supposed to celebrate? All that tells me is just how ridiculously out of hand retouching has become.

    It’s a baby step, though, for sure. I hope the effort expands.

    • G says:

      It’s a baby step alright, but in the right direction. I agree with Candice that she fits almost every western beauty standard – but isn’t it interesting to see that even someone so beautiful has her photos touched up? It totally shows how ridiculous the retouching has become. If images of even the most beautiful people are retouched, then it just goes to show that most magazines do not reflect the reality of womanhood – of ‘humanhood’ even – at all

  3. joymanning says:

    Please. If I were that woman, I would never wear any clothes. She was obviously perfectly photoshopped in the womb and at the gym!

  4. KatieP says:

    My blogging friend Frankie stated her opinion regarding this cover by posting her own

    The day is coming when we will see beauty in all sizes in our media and it is going to be the moment when we all realise once and for all that we are beautiful.

  5. tombrokaw says:

    Not retouching is not retouching. If you are still dissatisfied with how this woman’s body really looks, and their decision to use her then perhaps you are just bitter?

    First it’s “no retouching,” now it’s “show women who look the same as me.” This image is this woman’s real body, does she not fall under the all encompassing umbrella of size/beauty acceptance?

    The fact that they chose someone who fits conventional beauty standards as well is clearly out of respect for what the larger reader base wants to see on magazine covers – standard beauty.

    So it’s not what you want to see personally. When your single subscription pays their bills perhaps it would be reasonable and rational for them to cowtow to your viewpoint. That they made any concession at all would indicate that your viewpoint has SOME economic sway otherwise they wouldn’t bother. Be happy with that, since you’ll probably never get more.

    Cultural changes such as this do happen but are generally glacial. Don’t hold your breath waiting for societal beauty standards to change to your benefit.

  6. lissa10279 says:

    Too bad this is Marie Claire Australia and not the US … but yes, I do think it’s a step in the right direction. Yes, she’s still thin and fit, but seeing a woman who isn’t airbrushed, well, that’s a helluva lot more “real” than we ever see here in the States, that’s for sure.

  7. WendyRG says:

    Marieke Hardy (whoever she is) called the model a fat cow and suggested she lose weight, PORKY.

    With “sisters” like that, who needs enemies?

  8. Gina says:

    Marieke Hardy (whoever she is) called the model a fat cow and suggested she lose weight, PORKY.

    LOL! I’ve never heard of Marieke Hardy either!

    Down here in Oz, Jennifer Hawkins is worshipped as a goddess.

  9. sleepydumpling says:

    Sigh… Jen Hawkins is an unusually effortlessly beautiful woman. A woman who has been blessed with genes that make her tall, slim, clear skinned, with little to no body hair.

    If THIS is held up to the world as what “real women” look like – what does it say for the other 99.9% of the world population that in no way look like this?

    Yes, this is the real Jen. The rare item that she is. But it’s not what ANY other woman should expect or aspire to, because they just cannot. As for men, if they think that this is what women in general look like in reality, is it any wonder they’re so screwed up about us?

  10. mamaV says:

    Ok, just had time to read this — WHAT A JOKE!

    I am totally outraged by this! Are they even serious???? This chick is the closest thing to “perfect,” and they are putting her out there as some “normal” woman unairbrushed? WTF!

    Then I went over and read the article and saw this photo with a caption “I am not some stick figure.”

    Ahhh….yes, actually you ARE. And if YOU are not a stick figure, who the hell is?

    Ok, I am taking a serious chill pill, and sitting back to see what everyone else says about this.

    PS This is no baby step — its a HUGE backwards step in a totally demented direction.
    Jennifer Hawkins unairbrushed on Marie Claire

  11. mamaV says:

    Hi again! I went out looking at the news on this, and found out that the controversy is actually focused on the fact that she is NUDE — not on the any sort of imaginary idea that she was trying to represent a real, typical woman.

    Posted an update here http://watrd.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/jennifer-hawkins-unairbrushed-nude-bogus-effort-gets-slammed/

  12. Julie says:

    This is a great step towards seeing more real and unretouched images in popular women’s magazines. The fact others (chiefly women) are slamming her for her body type is a sad indictment on how judgmental some people are.

  13. Nell says:

    Lovely photo! I like how you can see her proportionate body- not a body where parts are elongated or stunted, shrunken or bloated to fit a certain perception of perfect. Yes, she is as close to what is thought of as “perfect” as humanly possible, but she’s still real (if made-up to no end). I applaud Marie-Claire!

    On a related note, living in Germany I’ve noticed that people of middle-to-younger age have started to look at Brigitte, the mag that doesn’t use professional models any more, a lot more. They’re using Size-0 people from the streets mostly, but the “we picture real people FOR real people” deal seems to be working.

  14. Frances says:

    Pippa, a plus size model, has written an interesting take on the ‘no retouching’ debate, called ‘The Catch 22’, on her blog: http://curvesmart.blogspot.com/. The best bit:

    “As a long-time observer, I’ve seen countless photos of models backstage at shows year after year, looking exhausted, spotty-faced, and with their hair fried from all of the handling. This is often the same look they have outside of show season. In recent times we have heard more stories from models of being hungry and wanting to eat but denying themselves because they have an agent barking at them to lose weight, or because they have a big shoot the next day and don’t want a ‘food baby’ belly. Stunning girls are being told they are ‘too fat’ by people who think they are the arbiters of what is good and bad in fashion. This is the reality of the model existence.

    Given that this is all in conjuction with the existence of retouching, where the various effects of partying, overwork, and those pesky extra inches can be whisked away with a simple click of the mouse, what then when those same girls go to castings for print work? They run the risk of being refused on the basis that they need retouching. The same pressures to look good enough to win the job will still exist, albeit now in a different form.”


Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. Jennifer Hawkins: Unairbrushed, nude, bogus effort gets slammed « We Are The Real Deal Body Image Blog says:

    […] Baby Step? Untouched Photo on Cover of Marie Claire […]

  2. […] out…CURVES AHEAD in V MagazineAn End to Hollywood's Double Standard?Winslet's Body Best, Say GirlsBaby Step? Untouched Photo on Cover of Marie ClaireOh boy, a boy!The "Exposed" Hall of Fame – Part 1Brigette: Magazine with no models? […]

  3. […] another note, I know a lot of people were upset about Jennifer’s nude Marie Claire cover being un-airbrushed but yet she’s wearing […]

  4. […] just went on a big long rampage on this story on WeAreTheRealDeal here (part 1) and here (part 2) , so I’ll give you guys a synopsis, along with some specific commentary I […]

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

WordPress SEO
Get Adobe Flash player Plugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes