We're looking for people to work at our locations Welcome To The Dollhouse
You may remember, a while ago Dove won over the hearts (and wallets) of American women in droves with the release of their “Real Women” campaign. Dove has always been a strong proponent of exposing the fashion-industrial complex, warts and all, even while they toil and profit in its trenches. Nonetheless, they”ve made a business out of attempting to redefine the public image of the feminine ideal throughout the beauty industry. Many women bought it.
Now, it seems, the make-up is melting off faster than a Murray Hill Pinkberry shop in Mid-July.
In a recent article, the New Yorker let us in on some conflicting information that has the corporate brass at Dove shrugging their elegant, digitally-smoothed shoulders at the question, “Airbrushed or untouched?” In retrospect, the Dove juggernaut of “real” women parading across our billboards in their skivvies did seem to be strangely devoid of wrinkles or lumps considering the authenticity of these human bodies that appeared to have crossed paths with a turkey sandwich here and there. And rightly so, because turkey sandwiches are fantastic.
While most women I know don”t feel particularly exploited by the fashion model celebrity craze, neither do they feel very empowered by its aesthetics standards. The words fascist and rehab come to mind. What”s so uncomfortably laid bare by this article is not that airbrushing is ubiquitous. Rather, it”s that a company like Dove would predicate its corporate philosophy (or marketing strategy) on a double hypocrisy. We know if you”re mugging for a magazine, your image will be manipulated more than Katie Holmes at a Scientology convention. But we don”t usually expect to be force-fed a pseudo-progressive message while unwittingly eating up the same artifice as before, just with a slightly larger waist size. I guess I miss the “open secret” that the fashion mags churn out (pimple-free America!) because the real fabrication surrounding Dove”s corporate integrity is so much uglier. Oh well, back to worshipping the Wintour.
Another video segment addressing the issue here, courtesy of Newsweek.
Email Post
|
Great, thought provoking piece.
The truth is, no one (male or female) really wants to look at the “wrinkles or lumps” that would authenticate these images. They are simply that- images. Fashion, probably more than any other industry, relies heavily on this very unattainability to continually fuel the desires of the consumer. Without, this there would be no business.
The discussion brings to mind the countless arguments that arose in fashion school about whether these ads (or the industry) were to blame for the widespread prevalence of eating disorders amongst females of our demographic. I don’t think that the ads are to blame- I’d say that if an image in a magazine is enough to cause such a distorted sense of self, it has to do with a deeper, underlying issue. People by now should recognize the difference. Perhaps those who work in marketing/ advertising are conditioned to recognize these indicators and are therefore less sympathetic to the cause- I could see how it’d be difficult to maintain an objective perspective as a creator (and therefore perpetuator?)
That being said, I totally agree about the hypocrisy of the “pseudo-progressive” message on Dove’s part. Who are they fooling?