Airbrushing – what of it? (From Bucks Free Press)

Airbrushing – what of it?

2:48pm Sunday 5th February 2012

• Print
• Email
• Comments(2)

Firstly, we know that models are airbrushed don’t we?

Secondly, we usually know exactly what celebs look like without the airbrushing. (Just like us really.) They’re pictured regularly in the press, snapped unawares on holiday or shopping or something.

And who hasn’t been a recipient of the emails showing personalities without make-up or airbrushing? Supposed to make us gasp with horror. ‘God, is that really Madonna!’ Given these facts, should we ban airbrushing? The image on Yahoo of Rachel Weisz as herself (not the airbrushed version) frankly is far more appealing and interesting.

I wouldn’t be afraid to go up to her and talk to her at a party. ‘Hey Rachel, try one of my Bath Buns – I think they’ve come out quite well.’ We talk of airbrushing as though it’s new and evil. It’s just an old way of enhancing someone’s looks using new technology.

The National Portrait Gallery’s exhibition last year (Glamour of the Gods) was revealing and educational.

One section of it showed a Joan Crawford image sort of before and after. Before, there were the natural blemishes and uneven skin textures we all have; after, there were none. They retouched and manipulated images just as much back then but in the dark room.

Landscapes don’t escape this procedure either. Which means, doesn’t it, that we want to see what we want to see, not what’s really there?

And it goes back much further. Oil paintings of important people – well – if you were painting your king and he was a bit touchy about his mole/scar/missing eye, wouldn’t you cover it up? Not so much airbrushing as paint brushing.

Later on this year I’m having a major photo shoot myself and will be furious with the photographer if he DOESN’T improve the raw digital image of me to make me look impossibly beautiful! I don’t want to see me as I am (I can look in the mirror for that).

I suppose airbrushing does give us an impression of perfect people and raises our aspirations. But is it really damaging?

The results are often dull I would say. But harmful? Not so sure.

Early last century would we have said that flawless images of Jean Harlow or Greta Garbo made women distressed about their physical appearance? Maybe to a select few.

Aren’t we too sensitive? We mustn’t look at anything but unadulterated images and forms otherwise we might get upset. Well that cuts out much art.

We don’t seem to mind artists bending wire or chiselling stone to make fascinating shapes, why do we insist on seeing just people as they really are?

We should take issue with Michelangelo: ‘Leave that heap of stone just as it is, if you don’t mind.’ (No Pietá, sorry…) I suppose the ideal is more real people too. They are much more watchable.

And real, older people… now that’s a state of things I await with anticipation!

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here