Anorexic Model Airbrushed To Look Healthy
2 Jun
Everything is wrong about this story -EVERYTHING (and don’t you dare rip into me about calling this girl anorexic, I don’t even want to hear it, let’s just call a spade a spade already and stop with this PC non-sense).
Ahhh, on to my points;
Healthy Magazine (oh, the irony) has digitally altered a model to appear to weigh more than she actually does. Or as the rest of the articles on this topic are quoting “Skinny Model Airbrushed To Look Fatter”
Irritating. Ridiculous. Just plain wrong.
At the left, you see Polish model Kamilla Wladyka featured on the airbrushed cover to look curvier. On the right, is a bikini shot that, as far as I can tell, appeared inside the magazine (the reason I state this is because all the coverage on this story shows these two images together, in a comparative way, but the odd thing is I don’t see the difference — do you? If anyone has a copy of this UK based magazine, please let me know since I’d like to verify this).
The third picture you see if from the models portfolio, which shows her in what we call a perfect thinspiration pose; hipbones jutting
out, collarbone prominent, a stoned look on her face while she leans against the wall to hold her self up.
Pathetic. THIS is what is defined as beauty. No wonder why we are all whacked out over our body image
The magazine claimed that the model had appeared healthy during a casting for the photo shoot a week before it took place, but on the day of the shoot she appeared too thin. Editor Jane Drucker admitted that the model was so thin in real life that she needed to be “radically retouched” before appearing on the cover (where is this radical retouching? So they retouched the cover, but the bikini shot inside was ok? I’m confused). Here’s more from Ms. Drucker;
“Sometimes when you cast a model, they look okay, but then when they turn up on the shoot day they might not have eaten for two or three days. You’re not in charge of their health. When she did arrive, there were plenty of clothes that we couldn’t put on her because her bones stuck out too much. She looked beautiful in the face, but really thin and unwell. She said the magazine was promoting health and wellbeing and therefore the model’s look was at odds with its philosophy. We made her legs a little bit bigger, to make her look like she was a size 10 as opposed to a size 4. It’s not what we normally do and I would never want to mislead people.”
According to the UK’s Daily Telegraph, the magazine added between 15kg to 20kg to the model’s frame (that’s 6-8 pounds). Hold on right there, I’ve heard just about all I can take in one sitting.
The fact that an editor of a magazine, one called “Healthy” for godsake, states casually “sometimes models show up and they haven’t eaten in three days,” is totally demented. But sadly real, I know because I did this. I remember getting this job where I got to go to the South of France for a week, and my booker literally hung up the phone, gave me a high five for landing it — and then pointed his finger at me and said “Don’t eat all weekend” (So I didn’t, except for about 4 mandarin oranges and a boat load of cigarettes). For the job they had to stuff toilet paper inside my bra since I had no breasts whatsoever (since I had rejected the agencies boob job offer some months prior).
Guys, this is real. Our society thinks nothing of the fact that models are half dead. If you were Ms. Drucker, wouldn’t you feel some sort of responsibility to DO SOMETHING? Like flag the agency, or send her home?? Particularly since their web site claims that they go through great lengths to shoot the perfect cover as told in their Behind The Scenes feature….doesn’t she had some sort of moral or ethical obligation to actually use healthy models?
This one kills me. It makes me feel like all this bitching and moaning I do over this crap is useless.
mV
Related posts:
Don’t you mean 60 – 80 pounds?
I am completely disgusted… Rather than hire an ACTUAL healthy person for the cover shoot they hired this woman who appears to look like a waif even after being retouched…
15-20 kg is actually more like 30-50 pounds!
Ok I am such a dork, horrible at math. So they are saying the cover shot is supposed to represent a size 10?
Yeah right. This whole story is just fishy isn’t it?
See, I don’t understand any of this. I saw the original article a few days ago and I’m still confused. Why would they add 30 (minimum) pounds to her frame via photoshop? Why not hire a new model? And if they shopped the cover, does that mean they also edited the bikini photo (because it sure doesn’t look like it to me). I wish someone in the UK would post more information.
A US 10 and a UK 10 are different sizes (then, again, sizes differ from store to store). They say that a UK 4 is a US 0, so a UK 10 would be a US 6.
No! Actually, 1 kg equals 2 pounds! Therefore, they added 30-40 pounds to her frame.
What has this world come to?
I know, isn’t it like science fiction?
My daughter and I were looking at the American Girl Doll catalog last night, and I was commenting on how the girl in the photo had a wig on (which is weird in itself). My daughter said “Wow I can’t tell the difference between a real picture and a drawing, I thought that was a drawing.”
Go here to view it http://www.americangirl.com/girloftheyear/2010/
I remember those American Girl dolls. I loved them when I was little. I don’t understand why they put a wig on her. It looks kinda strange.
For real is that a photograph…??? I thought it was a drawing too, or else they just applied one of the artistic filters in photoshop.
She’s not even that small
I love (read: hate) how they are saying that she was airbrushed to look “fatter.” Nowhere near her is there even an ounce of “fatter,” and the fact that that word was used reminds me that not only are we screwy about what is skinny, thin, too skinny, “healthy” (as supposedly portrayed in this photo shoot), but we’re also screwy about what is “fat.” I want to say that Kate Harding has a slideshow of these idiosyncratic and totally subjective terms on her blog, shapely prose.
And it makes me want to cry that you were told not to eat for the weekend. I know you’re over it, but still.
Leaning on a wall to hold herself up?? Hardly. From my experience, I’d say a large majority of modeling test shots involve leaning on walls…
These melodramic statements detract from any sort of credibility you might have achieved. Although I agree with the message of your blog, you make yourself sound ignorant (in more ways than simply the aforementioned). You’re doing yourself and your cause a disservice.
I really agree with J. I wanted to love your site- but you’re attitude has really put me off. You just sound so… condescending and hateful.
I agree too. I found many snarky, mean, superior sounding statements in the blogs here. That’s not the way to help people. It just turns people away.
Why do they even use real people anymore?
They always photoshop the legs. Models have terribly skinny bird legs that look awful. To bad they won’t just let them eat.