Teleri (telerib) wrote,

Is it sad that this is news?

Woman appears unPhotoshopped on magazine cover!

Click the pic for a blowup. She has crow's feet and, ohmigod, freckles. Actual pores in her skin. And damn, if those teeth aren't 'shopped, she's either got a heck of a whitener treatment or the best dental genes around.

I love it. I don't like it when magazines say they'll feature "real women" because, what, the models aren't? If they have to say something like that, I'd prefer that it meant "women photographed as they actually are" instead of "women digitally manipulated to look like plastic dolls."

When we were in Florence, we went to the Uffizi Gallery, which hosts an amazing collection of portraits. I was quite taken with them, and if I get infinite money and bookshelves, I will start collecting big coffee table books on portraiture. Questions of identity and presentation intrigue me, and creating a portrait goes to all of that. I much prefer a picture like this one, that captures not only Murdoch's blonde/blue eyed beauty, but also her personal idiosyncrasies, to one that's manipulated and airbrushed to within in inch of its life, reducing the subject's personality by making it conform to some standard beauty.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 1 comment