Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon posted yesterday about a photography firm that offers photo retouching. Their portfolio is yet another reminder that nothing you see in a fashion magazine is real – even beautiful, waif-thin models get the airbrush treatment. Lord knows what they’d do to the rest of us.
Are these photos more attractive after the retouching? If so, are they more attractive in an aesthetic way, or in a sexual way? Why is there a difference between these two questions?
I think the example above was definitely more interesting, and had more personality, before retouching. But that doesn’t mean stylized glamour shots can’t be striking works of art. Many iconic fashion photographs portray completely unrealistic ideals of female beauty. If I object to a photo because it promotes such an unrealistic ideal, must I also reject it as art? Or should art be judged without regard for its social impact? I’m honestly not sure about this one. All I know is, excessive airbrushing creeps me out. And makes me want to eat Cheetos.