Superstar Beyoncé Knowles and supermodel Gisele Bünchen have joined the ranks of Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley in their objections to excessive retouching or reconfiguring of their images. All have been quoted as saying that they are real women with real faces and bodies and insist on being portrayed as such.
The whole notion of retouching fascinates me because as a cosmetic dermatologist, so much of what I do directly concerns image. It is one thing to eliminate a stray spot or a line after a snap, but quite another to create imagery that’s not altogether human (whether it be too perfect when done well or too freaky when done with a heavy hand.)
‘Masking flaws’ has been around as long as photography has. But with Photoshop becoming so ubiquitous, it’s become the norm rather than the exception in a media context. While it may be difficult to determine depiction versus interpretation, this hasn’t stopped the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority from stepping into the fray.
In Britain, the ASA is legally empowered to veto any ad it finds socially irresponsible and to take action against any that are misleading, harmful or offensive. In recent memory, the agency has banned a handful of heavily retouched beauty campaigns – including those featuring Rachel Weisz, Julia Roberts and Christie Turlington – because the digitally altered images “misrepresented the results that the product could achieve.”
In the U.S., the situation is slightly different. The First Amendment, our Constitutional freedom of speech, grants companies a lot more leeway as far as what wording and imagery they can present. But in the area of claims that promise results that cannot possibly be delivered, should the FDA be inclined to step in?
Multinational beauty companies respond to this issue by saying that in presenting digital perfection as attainable, they are merely giving the people what they want; that glamour and transformation are part of beauty media’s shimmering allure. This is being a little disingenuous, true, but they have a good point. Are the images themselves misleading or is it really our fantasies of redemption through perfection that are doing it for us?
In some ways, we in dermatology have created a media monster when it comes to perception. In my 20 years of practice, the lay standard of what constitutes ‘good skin’ is exponentially higher than it has ever been throughout history. So what we view as normal today would have been unachievable in generations past.
This is because of media, true, but it’s also because of the remarkable treatment breakthroughs we’ve experienced in the last decade. If you have any doubts about this, take a look at close-ups of actresses in movies (or particularly television which didn’t have the budgets for ace cinematographers) from the 1960s and 70s, particularly those that were not lit well. Under their makeup, even these great beauties had bumpy skin that would be unacceptable today.
So when a Beyoncé or a Giselle goes au naturel, they’re not shooting on a ‘bad skin’ day. What you’re actually seeing are phenomenal complexions (that is, real skin) thanks to advances in cosmetic dermatology, treatment products, fitness routines, nutrition programs and daily skincare regimens.
I’m here to tell you that if they can do it, you can too.
Real skin that’s flawless is always going to photograph more beautifully than anything Photoshop can do. Retouching happens but it doesn’t have to touch your skin if you don’t need it in the first place.
Follow me on Twitter @DrAvaMD and Friend me on Facebook Dr Ava Shamban