“BEAUTY

r, s o t h e y ”
s a y
o

a critique on
modern media
and beauty (or whatever that is)
 Contents
Introduction 4

A Brief History of Beauty 6

2 Photoshopped 10 3

The Disney Effect 14

 introduction
A wise man once said:
“Beauty is how you feel
inside, and it reflects
in your eyes. It is not
something physical.”
Oh, what a nice thought. What a
quaint sentimentality. Well, actually,
it was a woman who said this. And
she wasn’t so wise. What would she
4 know about the plight nonphysical
beauty? I mean, look at her!:
I also come in blonde, athletic, and emaciated.
We can’t deny the physical attrac-
tiveness plays a huge role in our
every society. Beauty is, of course,
at the centerfold of human cul-
ture. Everywhere you look there
are testaments to its impact. Post-
ers and advertisements, magazines
and fashion spreads, studies and
blogs, works of art and erotica. The
list goes on and on. Open an issue
of Vogue and you’ll learn one hun-
dred and one ways that you could
look younger (because you’re never
youthful enough), open an issue of
J-14 and you’ll get tips on how to
look older (because you’re never
legal enough), and open an issue
of Shape and you’ll be told at least
fifteen ways to get rid of the fat that
until then, you didn’t realize was
an issue. After all that struggle and
worrying FINALLY come to terms
with the fact that overall, you are
never going to be good enough.
But why all the effort? Why all
the attention? Why must we curse
ourselves to the Sisyphean task of
gaining physical perfection?!?!
Well, some of the answers to that
are a little obvious. Humans place
high value in looks, and although
there are a lot of studies explaining
why on a more scientific level (we’ll
touch on that later), there are a lot
of things we do with beauty that
don’t carry any weight evolution-
arily, biological, OR rationally.
Let’s make sure we just leave this in the past,
capiche?
Now, it’s not only the old ways of
attaining beauty that’re disturbing
(though, have you READ about that
lead sulfide eyeliner from Ancient
Cinderella because she was the
fairest in the land. But what exactly
makes someone attractive?
Egypt? I hear it’s to die for.). We Biologically, we know that symme-
have plenty of wacked-out beauty
“improvement” methods still now-
try is a universal feature that deems
someone attractive. We also know
adays. Want to be more ‘horny’?
Surgically insert horns into your
that clear skin is found attractive,
world wide. Many scientists think
forehead. Want taunt abs? Have a this is because they are clear, visible
try at abdominal etching. Not in- signs of health, vitality, and overall
terested in anything on that list? reproductive ability. But beyond
No fear! In today’s world, there’re those two traits, everything else de-
plenty of things we can find wrong pends on whom you are talking to, 5
with your body. and when. Some cultures admire
small ears, others gush over large
doe-like eyes, and more recently,
the Western world is worshipping
large breasts.
Ultimately, the world’s present con-
cept of beauty is muddled in a big,
nasty mess of what we want, what
we think we want, and what we are
told to want. Everything around us
calls for us to work harder to obtain
Are you sure that’s all the work you want a certain appearance, but no one
done? Because there’s definitely still room
for improvement.
really explains why THAT is what is
needed and desired.
But we have to give credit where
credit is due. There isn’t just fault
found in newsstands and maga-
zines. There are engrained percep-
tions of beauty in visual media and
entertainment. Everywhere we are
forced-err, excuse me, suggested–
particular concepts of physical at-
tractiveness, as well as stereotypes
for what an idealized woman is
meant to look like. Megan Fox was Tune in tomorrow where she’ll be
wearing a deep v-neck and no bra!
chosen for Transformers for a rea-
son, and Prince Charming chose
 The ideal female form was a
youthful and slim figure with
narrow hips. Both men and
women used makeup, oils, and
perfumes, bathed regularly, and
wore jewelry. Lower class or
royalty, physical appearance,
health, and maintenance were
very important in Egyptian
society. Much of the makeup
used could cause blindness or
Eve ruins it for everyone
death. But at least they decked
with her ‘feminine wiles’.
out their mummies, too.
Way to be.
Women painted their faces
and sun bleached their hair,
all to appear as close to al-
bino as possible. Not only
Pale complexions came into was blonde in, but unbe-
fashion, and women used lievably pale skin was a sign
many methods to whiten of prestige, wealth, and, ul-
their skin: chalk powder, timately, beauty. Hairlines
white marl, and, or course, were plucked to achieve
the class favorite, white lead. high foreheads, and hair
Cinnabar and red lead were was always worn up and
also applied to the cheeks to
often hidden. Except on a
create a rosy complexion, as
girl’s wedding day, where it
well as death by intoxication. could be let down and flow-
ing (probably to let loose at
the Bachelorette Party).

In the beginning... Ancient Egypt Ancient Rome&Greece Medieval

6 7
Renaissance Elizabethan Victorian So, people finally wised up about the
Edwardian
deadly face powder thing, but con-
The last era where women are
tinued to use lead in eye shadow, mer-
celebrated for their natural figures,
curic sulfide on lips, and belladonna
and use little to no makeup. Pale
for sparkle. There was also a back-
skin was still the “in” thing, and
lash against cosmetics, and soon only
the look as achieved by using a
prostitutes and other females with
whitening agent composed of
loose morals used them,. The hour-
carbonate, hydroxide, and lead Generally with the same
glass shape was ideal, and this was
oxide. One lady in Italy finally Men and women would use mercury amount of constriction as
achieved by making everything else
caught on to the fact that these to get rid of any signs of pesky the Victorian era, just with
huge. Skirts were made to be large,
things were bad for you. But instead blemishes, as well as any signs of a slightly altered silhouette.
full, and impossible to walk in, and
of telling everyone and being a life. Lye was also used to bleach Emphasis on a flat stom-
women were draped in layers and
cool dude, she decided to com- hair, causing it to fall out, and now ache and narrowed hips,
layers of garments. Corsets forced the
mit a series of murders and just explaining to everyone why wigs but a large bust and back
ribs to crack and organs to rupture.
be a big meanie. Signora Toffana became so darn popular. Wigs, side. The straight-fronted
The ideal waist size was between 18
created a face powder made especially women’s, were grease corset helped with this at
and 20 inches. Women often died
from arsenic for wealthy women. with lard to hold up the ridiculous first, but the S-Bend really
from what was called tight-lacing,
Signora instructed her clients to proportions they often reached. exaggerated the shape of
but the look achieved was apparently
apply the powder to their cheeks the narrow shoulders and

B E A U T Y
worth it.
when their husbands were the large ba-donk.
around. Six hundred dead hus-
bands (and many wealthy wid-
ows) later, Toffana was executed,
for being just so darn devious.

a brief history of
 The twenties were a controversial
era. Women actively were redefin-
ing what beauty was, but still doing
some ridiculous things. The little
boy look was introduced by Coco
Chanel, and in order to achieve
this women bound their breasts
and flattened their curves. The
corset was replaced by an elastic
girdle, meant to flatten everything,
especially the stomach. Dresses
became shorter and hemlines rose
above the ankle (heavens!!). Make-
up also came back. Thick eyeliner,
rouge lips, and an “Oriental pal-
lor” became central to the Roaring
Twenties.
A continuation of the
30s/40s, but more conser-
vative. Women’s clothing
Emphasis on forced hour- was tailored precisely and
glass figures, soft curls, red well, and the hourglass
lips, and finding a husband. figure was still in demand.
The pin-up also became Girdles and petticoats
popular in America. were widely used. Uni-sex
clothing was not an option.
Men and women dressed
in their respective gender’s
expected manner.
Complete upheaval, probably
rebelling again the 50s. Women
went from one extreme to the
other; from the hippie craze to
the mod craze. As long as they
were being outside of reason, all
was well. The natural, grown out
locks prevalent during the Re-
naissance came back, as well as
the pixie cut from the 20s. Hem-
lines also went shockingly well
above the knees. With the model
Twiggy, the 12-year-old-boy fig-
ure came into fashion. It has yet
to be weeded out.

20s 30s&40s 50s 60s

8 9
70s 80s
Consisted entirely of over
the top color, hair, make-
up, and shoulder pads.
About as tacky an era as
you can get. The mullet
also came from this era,
as did the slow but sure
growth of the plastic sur-
gery phenomena.
Whether the Fawcett or the
Afro, your hair had to be BIG.
Otherwise, the 60s carried over.
90s
Cherished as the era that takes everything
previous and uses it, the 90s were seen as
the “everything goes” time for beauty. From
toned and athletic girl-next-door look of
Jennifer Aniston, to the heroine-chic, 60s
androgyny inspired models on the runway,
it appears there is one thing that is across
the board: thin is in, and it looks like it’s
here to stay.
NOW
Cosmetic surgery is in high
demand, and there appears
to be high amount of diversity
in how beauty is portrayed.
But it all boils down to two
looks: thin, or thin with breasts.
Women not within these two
parameters have obviously not
working hard enough. The fe-
male population seems to be
the main culprit in creating
their own suffocating world.
When the men of this world
start missing curves, and wom-
en attack any female with a
little junk in the trunk, there
is clearly some miscommuni-
cation going on.
 PHOTOSHOPPED
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
Kim Kardashian has practically made a liv-
ing off her curvaceous figure. But the E! network
celeb was looking a little less shapely in Complex
magazine in April, her body reduced about a dress
size, her legs smoothed to near-perfection.
How did readers know? Complex accidentally post-
ed a pre-Photoshopped image of Kardashian on
its website - before her thighs, arms and waist had
been digitally sculpted. In a matter of hours the
photo was gone. But in that brief time span, those
who spotted it got a little reminder that we should
think twice about taking photographs at face value.
“My belief,” says Scott Kelby, president of the Flor-
10 ida-based National Assn. of Photoshop Profession-
als, “is that every single major magazine cover is
retouched. I don’t know how they couldn’t be.” But
don’t stop there. Aside from U.S. newspapers, most
of which do not permit photos to be manipulated,
it’s quite possible that the vast majority of images
seen in the public arena have been altered.
Photoshop, the go-to graphics editing program
that got a foothold in the 1990s, has become
so ubiquitous that most of us gaze at faces, bodies
and landscapes, not even registering
that wrinkles have been diminished,
legs lengthened and the sky honed to a
dream-like shade of blue. And, unlike
its predecessor, airbrushing, anyone can
use it.
But Photoshop’s popularity has proven
to be divisive. While some laud it for its
ability to allow people - and things - to
look their best in a photograph, others
see it as a vehicle for feeding our cul-
ture’s desire for uber-perfection.
“I think the perfect bodies we’re seeing
in magazines that are Photoshopped
have a terrible effect on how women
feel about their own bodies,” says Mon-
tana Miller, assistant professor in the
department of popular culture at Bowl-
ing Green State University in Ohio.
One theory about retouching in adver-
tisements is that it’s done to create an
aspirational concept of beauty that in-
spires women to buy more products.
Miller’s heard another: that the goal
of showing perfect images is to make
women feel bad about themselves - also
making them buy more beauty products.
Kelby, who also writes a blog on Pho-
toshop, doesn’t believe it’s a malevolent
force; in fact, he sees it as practical and
cites the example of singer Faith Hill.
In 2007, the fashion website Jezebel
posted unaltered images of Hill that
were shot for a Redbook magazine
cover. In comparing them to the fin-
ished product, it appeared that Hill got
a makeover, including erased crow’s-
feet, excised back fat and a slimmer arm.
The fallout was huge - the Jezebel post generated
more than 1.3 million views, and was picked up by
ABCNews.com, VH1.com, TMZ.com and a number
of blogs. Many commenters were angry that an al-
ready attractive woman had her image altered to
appear on the cover of a national magazine. (Red-
book declined to comment for this story.)
“If you met Faith Hill in person,” Kelby says, “you
would think she’s absolutely beautiful. And when
you take her picture, you will see every flaw that you
never saw in person. Those flaws not only become
visible, but magnified. . . .
“If I were talking to someone, I’d look at their eyes,
not at the blemish on the side of their face. But
as soon as you open up that photo on a 30-inch
monitor, you’d say, ‘Oh my gosh, where did that
come from?’”
What the brain perceives in a still photo is vastly
different from what it perceives in real life, accord-
ing to Dr. Dale Purves, director of the Center for
Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University in
Durham, N.C. Up close and personal, “every sec-
ond you’re getting a series of images of a person
that you’re kind of blending together, and that
would be a little more forgiving.” What we’re taking
in, he adds, is a load of stuff, including clothing,
personality and smells - elements that can evapo-
rate in two dimensions.
When it comes to editorial photos for magazines,
it’s common for several different people - photogra-
phers, professional retouchers, photo editors, art
directors, publishers - to have a say about an image.
Although some editors insist celebrities don’t
have final say on how images will be altered, “If
they’re big enough, they do get [final approval]”
says Howard Bragman, chairman of the Fifteen
Minutes publicity and media company and author
of “Where’s My Fifteen Minutes?”
R etoucher Amy Dresser sits at a computer moni-
tor in her home office scanning a portrait of an
auburn-haired model to demonstrate how she
uses Photoshop. She deftly zaps a few small moles
and then peers at a small white patch just below
the model’s eye before obliterating that too. 11
“I think one of my main objectives,” she says, “is
to erase distractions. When you look at an image,
sometimes people can’t focus on what they’re
supposed to focus on because there’s something
going on in the background.”
She adds, “I don’t have a rule that a mole near her
armpit equals bad. It’s really case by case. I don’t
think anything is universally bad.”
Dresser is considered one of the top freelance
retouchers in Los Angeles. Her portfolio includes
work on celebrity, advertising and model photos
(Britney Spears, Gwen Stefani, Kat Von D, Lil
Wayne, Dita Von Teese) for editorial work, and
promotion, as well as big-budget ad campaigns.
For editorial portraits, Dresser says she doesn’t
take liberties, such as over-softening facial
features and turning subjects into plastic-like
dolls, a look often seen in rookie Photoshop work.
She abhors that style, leaving in freckles and moles
and sometimes drawing in stray hairs to retain a
person’s humanness.

“When it comes to notable people,” she says, “I
feel like embracing the details of that person’s face
is what I’m supposed to do. Obviously a person
wants to have a nice picture of themselves, and
the photographer doesn’t want to look bad, and
I don’t want to look like a lazy retoucher, and the
magazine wants an appealing image, so you have to
find that middle ground.”
12
People may not think too much about Photoshop
when scanning the magazine stand, but they do
notice immediately when altered images of notable
people go awry. Comedian and actor Dane Cook
went off on his blog about his Photoshopped im-
age for the movie poster for “My Best Friend’s
Girl.” “Whoever photoshopped our poster must
have done so at taser point with 3 minutes to fulfill
their hostage takers deranged obligations. . .” Tennis
player Andy Roddick was digitally enhanced for
a cover of Men’s Fitness in 2007, and posted this
on his blog: “Little did I know I have 22-inch guns
and a disappearing birth mark on my right arm. . .
I walked by the newsstand in the airport and did
a total double take. I can barely figure out how to
work the red-eye tool on my digital camera. Who-
ever did this has mad skills.”
Kardashian blogged that Complex’s slip-up didn’t
faze her: “So what,” she wrote, “I have a little cel-
lulite. What curvy girl doesn’t!? How many people
do you think are photoshopped? It happens all
the time! I’m proud of my body and my curves
and this picture coming out is probably helpful
for everyone to see that just because I am on the
cover of a magazine doesn’t mean I’m perfect.” At
Complex magazine, editor-in-chief Noah Callahan-
“When I’ve talked to young adolescents
Bever says he tries to sit in on every cover shoot to
“Whoever did this has
mad skills.”
about this,” she says, “they’re not aware
ensure what’s seen on set is accurately translated
of the extent of the manipulation.”
into a two-dimensional image.
Even those who are more savvy, she
“I want to make sure that person is represented in a
adds, are still affected. “They know that
fair way,” he says. “If their flesh tone ends up look-
no one really looks like that, but they
ing flat and dead, and it doesn’t look true to who
still say, ‘I wish my waist were that
they are, then it goes back for more retouching.”
small.’ “
Ask Ladies’ Home Journal creative director Jeffrey
Saks if magazines are consciously manipulating
images to foster readers’ poor self-images and he
W ith technology always evolving, no
doubt graphics programs like Photo-
firmly denies it. shop will become more sophisticated
and easier to use, possibly making it
“We’re not trying to make women feel bad,” he even more widespread. If “to Photo-
says. “We’re trying to show women looking like shop or not to Photoshop” is the ques-
real people, and whatever cleaning up we do is ba- tion, the answer lies in what retouching
sically about the quality of the photograph more will ultimately achieve.
than trying to do plastic surgery.”
These days, purposely being seen au
Gigi Durham, associated professor of media studies naturel is almost a political statement.
at the University of Iowa, doesn’t buy into the ar- Last April’s edition of French Elle
gument that Photoshop helps people regain what
13
featured eight European women, in-
they lose when going from real life to a flat page. cluding Monica Bellucci and Charlotte
“We do see who people are in real life,” Durham Rampling, sans makeup and retouch-
says. “We can actually see blemishes and weight ing. To many, it was as refreshing as it
and body shape, and most of the time we love was eye-grabbing.
them anyway. I think manipulated images are far
from that, and have impacts that are more negative In the course of making adjustments
because they’re subject to far more scrutiny than on the auburn-haired model, Dresser
we’d give them in real life.” She’s referring to the mentions that she recently joined an
fact that young women, especially, pore over maga- online dating site, and posted a photo
zine photos, comparing themselves to the images. of herself. Was she tempted to Photo-
shop it?
Jeanine Stein
August 2nd 2009
“I wish I looked as good as Cindy Crawford!”
- Cindy Crawford
 the DISNEY EFFECT
Now, I’ll have you know, this is an article about
looks, so we won’t be discussing the personali-
ties of these characters. Though some of these
female characters MAY indeed be ‘bad-ass’,
we’re mainly observing them on figure and
form. This is a shallow article and we’re going
to do it right. Nice, and skin deep.
“Does This Tiara
Make Me Look Fat?”
On Disney Princesses & Body Image
Despite being a former Disney “cast
14 member” (I used to work for the
magazine group), I’m not much of a
fan. In fact, I tend to look askance at
Disney products, most especially the
princess characters. However, I’m
raising two young girls, so the Dis-
ney Princess franchise is a constant,
if somewhat unwelcome, presence in
my house. Those movies are girly-girl
crack: the songs, the outfits, the hair,
the general mood. And I understand
why. I loved that stuff, too, when I was
a little girly-girl. Now, however, I cringe
at the characters’ passivity (Cinderella,
Sleeping Beauty - I’m looking at you,
ladies), their willingness to be subju-
gated (Snow White, why exactly are you
doing those dwarves’ laundry?), their
general simpering (that’s you, Little
Mermaid - when you’ve got your voice,
anyway).
The only Disney chick I really like is
the powerful, independent Mulan. And
have you noticed that she’s never hang-
ing out with the rest of the pantheon?
I have yet to see a single Mulan dress-up
outfit at my local Target. Moreover
(and you knew this was coming) I take
issue with the body images. My girls
have beautiful, strong, healthy, sturdy
little physiques. The thought that
they might compare themselves to
those Barbie-like figures (Ariel’s wasp-
ish waist is fully exposed beneath that
clam-shell bikini) and find themselves
lacking fills me with dread.
Which is why I was particularly
intrigued by a new study, published in
the latest issue of the British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, called
“Am I Too Fat to Be a Princess? Ex-
amining the Effect of Popular Chil-
dren’s Media on Young Girls’ Body
Image.” It’s as if they were speaking
directly to me.
These researchers measured the effects
on very young girls - 3 to 6 years old -
by showing them scenes from movies
that contained “appearance-related
clips” (most were Disney movies, but
Barbie in the Nutcracker was thrown
in for good measure). What consti-
tuted an appearance-related clip?
A scene that focused on the main
character’s looks: the clothes-chang-
ing scene in Cinderella, for example,
or the bit in Beauty & the Beast where
Gaston says Belle is the most beauti-
ful girl in town, “which makes her the
best.” Meanwhile, a control group was
watching shows considered neutral,
like Dora the Explorer. (God bless
Dora and her mind-numbingly boring
adventures.) Before viewing the mov-
ies, each child was shown digitized
pictures of herself with two different
body sizes, and asked to select the
picture that looked most like herself.
Then each child was shown pictures
of other girls and women, and told that
one was a “real” princess; it was the
child’s task to identify who it was. And
after movie time was over, researchers
observed the girls’ imaginary play.
The results? Kind of surprising, I
must admit: “Results failed to reveal
any direct negative effect on girls’
body dissatisfaction.” A majority of
the children believed that they them-
selves could be princesses, regardless
of their self-perceived body sizes. (Do
I want my kids to believe they can be
princesses?) A third of the girls did
report that they would “change some-
thing about their physical appear-
ance,” given the opportunity, and half
reported worrying about being fat at
least some of the time - but this was
true whether they watched Belle or Dora.
Age was a more predictive factor than
media imagery for girls’ answers to
the researcher’s questions. The 5- and
6-year-olds consistently chose sig-
nificantly thinner women as the “real”
princess than did the 3- and 4-year-olds.
What to make of this? The authors say
this is the first empirical study of its
kind, so no sweeping judgments can
be drawn just yet. It’s clear to me as a
parent that there’s something afoot in
this culture; this is not the first study
to show that the older girls are, the
more likely they are to equate thin-
ness with desirability. It’s too easy, of
course, to pin this on one source, such
as princess imagery; this study under- 15
scores that.
In the end, regardless of the research,
Disney princesses will remain a fixture
in our home - until the High School
Musical kids or Hannah Montana dis-
place them (later to be dethroned by the
Twilight characters, no doubt). But
as long as they’re here, I’ll continue
to make my mildly snarky, hopefully
thought-provoking comments to my
daughters. (And Mulan? You’re welcome
here anytime, honey.)
Naomi Shulman
December 4th 2009