Kelly Clarkson’s “Self” Magazine Cover: A Weighty Issue
by Dinneen
Filed under Blog, Body Image
It’s all the buzz today, and I just couldn’t help but discuss it. In case you haven’t heard, there’s a new controversy over the cover photo of Kelly Clarkson in September’s issue of SELF magazine. She’s looking slimmer than ever. But it’s not due to a new fad diet or hectic workout schedule, but because she’s been photoshopped. But noticeably photoshopped — she’s been dramatically and artificially slimmed down due to all the retouching.
And it’s causing a big debate.
The big debate is because Kelly looks a lot thinner on the magazine cover than she does in recent photos. At this point in her life she is not as thin as the cover photo portrays. And to make it even more interesting, the theme for the September issue is all about “Total Body Confidence.”
Both the magazine and Kelly Clarkson admit the photo was retouched — and let’s be honest here, ALL magazine covers are retouched, airbrushed and photoshopped.
The magazine’s editor-in-chief, Lucy Danziger, told Entertainment Tonight: “Yes, of course we do post-production corrections on our images. Kelly Clarkson exudes confidence, and is a great role model for women of all sizes and stages of their life. She works out and is strong and healthy, and our picture shows her confidence and beauty. She literally glows from within. That is the feeling we’d all want to have. We love this cover and we love Kelly Clarkson.”
Kelly has had many ups and downs with her weight and is always very open about it. She’s happy with her size and shape, no matter what the scale, the press, or what other people say. She’s really comfortable in her own skin (go Kelly!!) This is a woman who truly doesn’t care what other people think. Even in her interview for the magazine’s cover story Kelly said: “My happy weight changes. Sometimes I eat more; sometimes I play more. I’ll be different sizes all the time. When people talk about my weight, I’m like, ‘You seem to have a problem with it; I don’t. I’m fine!’ I’ve never felt uncomfortable on the red carpet or anything.”
This morning I saw a segment on The Today Show where they had on the magazine’s editor-in-chief, defending the magazine’s actions. They also had Emme, the well known plus-size model and host of the tv show “More To Love,” representing the other side of the issue . She talked about the changes going on in society and that people want to see more realistic images (though she does agree with some basic retouching….but not going as far as changing her shape).
I‘d like to know how YOU feel about this whole issue:
Is SELF magazine (and other magazines) sending the wrong message to our girls and all us women (and men)?
Or is all of this retouching and photoshopping okay, as long as the person themselves is fine with it and comfortable in their own skin (like Kelly Clarkson)?
Is it okay to photoshop a few wrinkles and bags under the eyes, but is making someone look thinner going too far?
And where do we draw the line in all of this?
Speak up and tell us what you think!
I have stopped buying magazines altogether, as I deplore the preoccupation with beauty and the huge commercial presence. This editor’s statement is totally nonsensical. The picture doesn’t show Kelly confidence and beauty, because it’s not a true reflection of Kelly. I think Kelly is great! There is no need to touch her up to that extent.
Hanlie´s last blog ..Snippets
as the mother of an 11 year old daughter, I hate photoshopping of imagery in the media. What kind of message is that sending to our children?
Kim DeYoung´s last blog ..Metromom Website Contest – Win a FREE Website
I agree with Hanlie…I am no longer buying magazines either. I do not want the negative impact on my chilrdren so we just plain keep them out and let them know why it is we do.
When I decided to lose weight for the last time (in 1996), I deliberately refused to buy magazines that screamed “lose 30 lbs in 30 days” and that eliminated most women’s magazines. It was so great to be free of the “perfect” images. It turned out to be important to me as I lost a large amount of weight to be free of the untruthful perfection that’s out there.
I worked in the film business when I lived in NY and I was aware of how the images were made. The interesting thing about my friends who were starving models and actresses is that extreme dieting and foodplay diminished them as people. They felt really bad about themselves due to the constant criticism of the industry. It was sad to me.
I will say that “Self” has portrayed themselves as being different, but I wonder if they are, really.
If Kelly is truly content with up/down/different weights, why not show that on the cover? Sure, they could photoshop her skin if she happens to be in the middle of breakout season, but why not be her size, shape and weight, and really give American women the gift of honesty? What a gift. I think it would mean a lot, especially to younger women who are perhaps a little more influenced by magazine covers.
Another cover this month is “Good Housekeeping” with Meredith Viera, Trisha Yearwood and Jada Pinkett Smith. In all the pictures, Trisha Yearwood is hiding behind the other two women. Why? Here’s one of the most gifted singers on the planet who is absolutely beautiful. Why is she hiding?
Trisha, Kelly, be a true example for us! Look at Emme, Queen Latifah, Tyra Banks, etc.
Pat Barone, CPCC, PCC
“America’s Weight Loss Catalyst”
http://www.patbarone.com
It’s hypocrisy of the highest order that Self would make this beautiful young women thinner in a ‘Total Body Confidence” issue. I only hope people don’t buy the magazine out of curiosity and instead out of protest – deliberately not buy it. Maybe then the editors will get the message that we are sick and tired of cover girls being photoshopped to within an inch of their life and to the point where they are not a true reflection of themselves.
Julie´s last blog ..True Beauty Search
The issue isn’t that they photoshopped her…they completley restructured her. They made her face totally different shaped, every part of her body. I realise that in the crap industry of fame..it’s not about the person, it’s about what the industry wants you to believe and/or what they think we want to see.
Kelly is admirable in her stance that she feeds her body this or that. However, if I were her I would come out against the mago and make them repost the actual images that are photographed. What a huge stance for a mago to create a whole issue with NOTHING retouched. How shocking would that be.
I was recently looking through NYTimes online and saw the new Gap.com ad. The model looks so incredibly thin. Like she would be fed meals from the World Health Organisation because she looks like she’s starving. The irony in America is that it has the highest rate of obesity and the thinnest looking people they can find ‘representing’ us.
I think it goes back to what you stand for: loving yourself with some healthy lifestyle habits.
Life.Live.Fully ~M
You all bring up really good points and want to see more “real” photos and images of women in magazines and other media. And I agree with you.
This is such an important issue. I think if we keep letting our voices be heard, and keep sending that message — then just maybe they, the media, will hear it.
This past April the French Vogue had 3 different magazine covers each with a different celebrity — Eva Herzigova, Monica Bellucci, and Sophie Marceau — with no makeup and no retouching! So there is hope.
Thanks to you all for your input, insight, and personal experience!
Oh, and you can see all three French Vogue covers here:
http://stylefrizz.com/200904/eva-monica-sophie-without-makeup-cover-french-elle-april-2009/
i love her song Breakaway. she has been one of my favorite singers after she won American Idol.
I do not think retouching to create a “thin” image is ok – it’s not real. And that’s the problem. The media sends unrealistic messages because most people don’t realize photoshop is involved! It maddens me for many reasons. If Kelly really is confident, show her as is, no touch ups. If the glow is really there, it will shine through, no matter what size she is, and that’s real.
The thing that bothers me about this is even people who know about Photoshop think that magazines clean up the skin, maybe make someone look a little bit thinner. But take a look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenchambers/tags/beforeafter/ These pictures show how cover shots are often assembled from multiple photos, and *then* retouched to make it even better.
If they’re willing to swap in heads from one body to another, combine people who weren’t together into a “more flattering” pose — but one that never actually happened — then they’re not showing anything even remotely real. I don’t think most people understand how completely artificial most magazine covers are.
Drew @ Cook Like Your Grandmother´s last blog ..Introducing Dinneen
This is one of my pet peeves. I am constantly telling my 10 year old daughter that the images she sees in magazines are not a real representation of the person. That picture of Miley Cirus with the super perfect skin and not hair out of place.. not real.
Maybe if the media portrayed how women really look, we wouldn’t have a society so hung up on looks.
I could rant for hours on the whole marketing behind it but I’ll save that for another time