Faux naturale

"Authenticity" is all the rage in the fashion mags, again. Ugh.

By Lindsey Bahr | May 7, 2010

In the past month, Jessica Simpson participated in a Marie Claire cover shoot sans makeup, and Heidi Klum followed suit in People magazine. Britney Spears then started an ethics-in-advertising commotion by insisting that her new Candie's ads go to press untouched.

Unsurprisingly, these choices were all well-documented by the celebrity-lusting media, and everyone seemed very pleased with themselves—both those reporting and participating. For years, the gossip rags have made small fortunes out of the perceived spectacle of celebrities not looking their best. So why not do it on purpose? Why not make the choice to very publicly display yourself on the cover of a glamour girl magazine without a trace of mascara? So bold! So fresh! Such a rejection of the pressure of perfection!

By now, any semi-savvy consumer of media or pop culture knows that in the glossy magazines, celebrities and models alike are airbrushed away till they barely exist. And every few years, we decide to get all flustered about retouching in the name of all the sensitive, impressionable girls.

It just so happens that this past year has been a particularly disastrous one for the public perception of Photoshop as a result of both extreme negligence:

and extreme vanity:

These laughably-fake disasters suddenly became representative of an industry-wide epidemic. The media had no choice but to respond. Articles were written, retractions were announced, brows were furrowed, models were fired, and conclusions were made—we must be more responsible!

So we got Jessica, Heidi, and Britney—and in return, we were asked to bow down in deference for their bravery.

It's hard not to think of these as lame stunts, though. This sort of backlash does, in fact, happen often. Jamie Lee Curtis famously appeared on the cover of MORE magazine in 2008 to much societal applause without the aid of Photoshop, and last April, French Elle launched a series of covers showing models and actresses without makeup as well.

Additionally, in each instance we were told that these no-makeup photos were BIG DEALS. So big that press releases were issued, interviews were given, and precious cover space was used to promote the fact.

Finally, we must remember that we are looking at folks who are famous mostly for their beauty. Removing the enhancement of makeup may lessen that impact ever so slightly, but we're still giving them the benefit of soft lighting, perfectly-positioned shadows, and an expert photographer to ensure that they all still manage to look beautiful.

So what happens now? I'm sure we'll see a few stragglers latch on to this trend in the coming months just to prove how down-to-earth they are, too, but you can bet that Marie Claire, People, and French Elle will go straight back to their old, inauthentic ways.

After all, the entire point of fashion and makeup is to enhance and disguise. We like to look beautiful and want to look at beautiful things, which is exactly why we purchase such silly magazines in the first place. We don't love celebrities and models because they are real people—we love them for being other.

If we all know that every image in a beauty or fashion magazine is manipulated to achieve an unworldly perfection, then what is the harm?

Things start getting dangerous when magazines announce an insincere responsibility towards their self-conscious readership to (temporarily) show real images, as this blurs the lines too much. It's almost the same as proclaiming objectivity in journalism and pretending that articles featured in the op/ed section are the only ones in the paper with a slant, bias, or motive.

Does Marie Claire now claim a responsibility to show people as they really are? No. It was just for this issue, and it was just to sell magazines. If the magazines actually wanted to promote real change, they'd institute bans on Photoshopping, they'd show Jessica Simpson on the cover not only with no makeup on, but with no mention of the fact that she has no makeup on. Till that happens, it's disingenuous and exploitative, just like Vogue's Shape Issue (to remind, you're allowed to be thin, tall, short, athletic, or pregnant).

But, for any struggling, unnaturally beautiful actress: jump on the bandwagon now. You'll be all anyone talks about for a week.