The ethics of airbrushing

There has been a lot of controversy in the media lately regarding the airbrushing of models and celebrities in magazines and advertisements. Recently, the feminist website Jezebel chastised the well-loved writer and actress, Lena Dunham of “Girls”, for appearing in Vogue magazine with her features mildly photo shopped. Normally, there seems to be a good amount of backing from the internet community for this sort of call-out, but in this case, Dunham had a rally of supporters who insisted that it was progress enough that Vogue was showing someone with a “normal” body type on its cover, and that it really wasn’t a big deal in that her pictures were only mildly edited.

Personally, I feel that the growing public distaste towards airbrushing is misplaced. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of advertisements that make a size 0 model look like a 00, but I feel like, for the most part, I think that naysayers are underestimating the public. I feel like the majority of consumers know, and even expect to a certain extent that these sorts of images are doctored; it’s just a part of the game. I would have been outraged if they tried to make Dunham look two sizes smaller, but if they trim out some cellulite, get rid of some wrinkles, or pull in someone’s waistline subtly, I don’t really feel like that is any cause for alarm.

I appreciated the effort made when lingerie brand Aerie had a full catalog in which their models were un-airbrushed, but it certainly wasn’t revolutionary in terms of promoting a wide range of healthy body types. All of the models, in their un-edited glory, were still very slim and conventionally pretty, and miraculously free of blemishes or cellulite. I think it is more important to reinforce the idea that beauty comes in many shapes and sizes than it is to insist on an end to photo shop.