It was a lovely night with lots of cake (the makings of a good party, I think!) and I had a fab time (Thanks!).
So the temperature is edging further into negatives each day, and with it, my standard of dressing drops deep into the realms of comfort rather than style. That, as well as the fact that I seem to spend a large proportion of my time painting rather than going out, means that the blog posts are becoming increasingly sporadical. Rather than bore you with the woes/coursework deadlines of my life, I will talk instead of the fashion magazines which are keeping me sane(ish). Firstly, a fashion blogger, writing about fashion magazines? Inspired! I know but bear with me!
It does concern me slightly that the humble glossy is going to fall, what with iPads and websites and smartphones etc. True, electronic devices are saving the rainforests and can sell the publications for cheaper, and dont get me wrong, thats important, but isn't sitting down with a packed copy of Vogue for a couple of hours, with a cup of tea (well, Im an English girl!) one of the best things? There is something special about having, in your hands, a kind of glamourous alternative reality that you can immerse yourself in for a while. It is my opinion that this just doesn't come across with digital copies. Call me old fashioned, but I like to have something that will last and I can pick up whenever I like rather than a convenient, however immaterial copy.
Like I said though, the digital copy does have its advantages. For starters, I know from experience that only a select few handbags will comfortably fit your Harper's or Elle, and if and when you succeed, you have to lug it around for the rest of the day.
I didn't actually start this to go through the pros and cons of printing magazines, so I am going to redirect this post back to the point I was going to make...
It kind of irritates me when people go on about how its so terrible how perfect and beautiful the women on the pages of magazines are.
Yes, I think it would be great to see 'normal' women on every page of Vogue, and I fully appreciate how great this would be for the self esteem and confidence of us girls. But is it particularly realistic?
The purpose of a fashion magazine's photoshoot is essentially to sell garments. The women in Vogue, and Elle, and Harper's are not real- they are aspirational. The thought process here is basically: This is the perfect dress on the perfect woman. Therefore, If I buy this dress I will look perfect. Obviously its slightly more complicated than that but thats the basic principle.
The reason all these 'perfect' women grace the pages of glossies is because this method works and however happy you may be in your own body, you still aspire to look as great as Rosie Huntington Whitely. Well, I do at least!
If designers know that this is the ticket to selling their clothes, you know they have to make a living, it is not in their interest to put the dress on a normal woman, who will look fabulous, but will not make people think 'Thats what I want to look like' because that is already, essentially what the average woman would look like.
In all honesty, if fashion magazines were all filled with people like us, would we still enjoy them in the same way? When I buy Vogue, I am accepting that I am looking into a world where everyone is beautiful (thanks to photoshop), can afford Louis Vuitton one season and Miu Miu the next and breezes around in a haze of Chanel No.5 . It is glamourous and exciting. And that is because it is not the normal people we see everyday, half asleep on the bus with a ladder in their tights and hair that wont sit straight. It is the elite.
So long as you understand that these models are yes, stunning but are not representative of the world's average gal, why should a fuss be made about how some teenagers are interpreting their computer generated, airbrushed perfection as reality?
Im going to stop there for now but I would love to hear any thoughts on this (just comment!) or even about digital magazines.
Sorry if I went on a bit...
LBxx
I completely agree with you! And quite frankly I love seeing beauty and perfection
ReplyDeletehttp://flyelephantfly.blogspot.com/
Sorry Bent, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your magazine argument because, in the first place, does the aspiration method of selling work? I'd question that: whilst not, admittedly, for clothing, the Dove Real Beauty campaign was extremely successful and this is because it was, in a sense, more aspirational - I mean, speaking personally, I am never going to look like Rosie Huntington-Whitely or whothefuckever and I accept this because physically I am just not made in the same way she is. The same would apply to Cee Lo Green. (The former might, I accept, be different for you because you are skinny and pretty. However, the majority of people are not.)
ReplyDeleteTherefore if I see RHW in some dress I'm not going to think "oh, that would make me look good". Quite the opposite. I'm going to think "bloody hell, she looks gorgeous. I wish I looked like that" - but I never will. Ever. It just isn't possible. And so I just get on with my day feeling slightly worse about myself than I might've done otherwise. I'm certainly not going to buy the dress.
With the Dove campaign, however, there's in the first place a boost that I look better than some of those women - distasteful though that may be to admit. And then there's the thought about how confident & therefore how attractive they look - if I use Dove, perhaps I, too, will gain such confidence.
"it is not in their interest to put the dress on a normal woman, who will look fabulous, but will not make people think 'Thats what I want to look like' because that is already, essentially what the average woman would look like." - why not? You put RHW in a sack and she'll look great. You prove to me that your dress will make me - frumpy as I naturally am - look amazing - by finding someone frumpy and making them look amazing? I'll buy that dress.
Instead, say you do buy the designer whatever it is that you've seen RHW in. And you try it on. And you're not 5"9' and a size 8 (I googled btw, that's her). And so, OBVIOUSLY, you don't look as good in that dress as she did. And you don't understand why, because the dress made you that promise and you bought into that promise when you bought the dress. And you think "if I were skinnier, that dress would look as good on me as it does on her". And we all know where that can end up.
"why should a fuss be made about how some teenagers are interpreting their computer generated, airbrushed perfection as reality?" - BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS. BECAUSE PEOPLE STARVE THEMSELVES. BECAUSE IT PERPETUATES A STANDARD OF BEAUTY THAT IS TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF WOMEN IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. Normal people don't have 8 hours a day to spend working out and even if we did we don't have the ridiculous genetic gifts of the ‘average’ model. Airbrushing is even worse because it means even a model can look at a photo of herself – as Cindy Crawford did, and say “I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford”.
Sorry again, Bent, I know this is fucking long, but you’re arguing, I believe, that these magazines are fundamentally escapist and no more damaging in their way than a Harry Potter film. But they aren’t. It’s not like they show you a Harry Potter film and then tell you that you’re inadequate because you can’t do magic, but if you buy a wand from them maybe you will be less inadequate, is it?
The number of eating disorder-related deaths in the UK rises and rises every year. Far too many people don’t see this as escapism, I’m afraid.