Distorted beauty

Video I found on a blog, video for the dove self-esteem fund. Shows us how beauty is distorted.

http://batbsms.blogspot.co.uk/

Twiggy Olay Ads

Twiggy for Olay

When you compare this photo of how twiggy usually looks you can see the substantial difference, and you can also notice how much photo-editing has been done to achieve a very different, youthful appearance.

A magazine ad for an Olay beauty product featuring Twiggy has been banned by the advertising watchdog, after more than 700 complaints gathered for a campaign against airbrushing in ads by the Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson.

In the ad, Twiggy, who also fronts Marks & Spencer's TV campaigns, promotes the Procter & Gamble-owned Olay Definity eye illuminator. Her picture appears next to the words: "Olay is my secret to brighter-looking eyes."

"Because younger-looking eyes never go out of fashion ... reduces the look of wrinkles and dark circles for brighter, younger-looking eyes," the ad continued.

The Advertising Standards Authority received two complaints that the ad was misleading because the image of Twiggy had been digitally retouched.

In addition Swinson forwarded more than 700 complaints, gathered via her anti-airbrushing web campaign, that the ad had was not only misleading but also socially irresponsible, because it could have a "negative impact on people's perceptions of their own body image".

In its ruling, the ASA said that it considered that the post-production retouching of the original ad, specifically in the eye area, could give consumers a "misleading impression of the effect the product could achieve".

The company said that there had been some "minor retouching" around Twiggy's eyes, which was inconsistent with its own policies; this had already prompted it to withdraw the original ad and replace with one in which there was no post-production work around the eyes.


Article found on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing

Maybelline Ads

Foundation Ads for Maybelline

The Maybelline ad in question and Christy Turlington.

These photos look nothing like the actress in real life, It gives a false appearance. Perfect skin like this quite simply is not possible.


The Eraser foundation image appears to cover parts of her face with the foundation while other areas are left natural to show the effects on the skin. It highlights the benefits across the ad: ‘Conceals instantly, visibly, precisely… covers dark circles and fine line to help conceal crow’s feet – as if erased!’
Additional text accompanied the product at the bottom admitting the image was an ‘Illustrated effect.’

L’Oreal again admitted Turlington’s features had been enhanced in the image to ‘lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows’ but insisted that the image was an accurate representation of the benefits of the foundation.

This is the second time the beauty company has been in hot water for faking images. Back in 2009 an Olay advert for anti-ageing featuring Twiggy was banned.

Using photo manipulation in make up ads has been a long-running debate in fashion and beauty industries and has come under particular focus after a series of recent flubs.


Found on: http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/loreals-airbrushing-ads-banned.html

Lancome Paris: Julia Roberts

Perfection: Lancome Paris Adverts

This is a magazine advertisement that one might find in any popular women’s magazine.  The ad is of Julia Roberts who is a spokesmodel for Lancome cosmetics company.  This is one in a series of cosmetic ads which try to sell products to make you look better, have better more youthful skin, and generally improve the overall look of your features. 

This advertising campaign by Lancome cosmetics uses a famous-person testimonial to persuade people to purchase the product. We can see the association principle at play here, in its use of the place “Paris”, and while we know that the company the product is advertising is based in Paris, it also does something to our psyche to see that word and feel the associations and visualizations of a place.  It places a ‘standard ‘ of sorts into our heads, that if we use this product, we will be like the model, we’ll attain some sort of ‘goddess’ status and our skin will remain perfect and glowing and Lancome will ‘recreate’ the light of our skin, and we can attain that “Paris” lifestyle.  I do believe that the myth analysis is at play here to some degree as well, because the product is insinuating that if you use it you will become what you see in the photograph.

The ad for Lancome is nothing earth-shattering, it is very much more of the same that we continually see from this, and every cosmetic company.  It is definitely a part of recycling culture, but there is something that makes this particular ad somewhat unbelievable, and when you see the photo of Julia Roberts below, you will see what I am getting at.  Julia Roberts is a beautiful woman.  She is aging, and the demographic this advertisement seems to want to reach, is middle-aged women.  Roberts is 43, so it would make sense that the product would be aimed at 40+ age bracket.  There isn’t anything offensive or off-color about this ad, but it does stereotype celebrities as being perfect, having perfect skin and hair and eyes even at the age of 43.

Not only was the ad campaign, which was comprised of several photos of Julia selling different products in Lancome’s cosmetic line, but it also gained worldwide notoriety when Parliament in the UK, or more pointedly, the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) www.asa.uk.org from their own website banned these very ads by Lancome with Julia Roberts because of the exaggeration and misrepresentation of the products’ ability.  

The ad must not appear inits current form again.

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/LOreal-(UK)-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_149640.aspx

Found on: http://marceapalmer.wordpress.com/tag/jo-swinson/