defaceyourmagazines

2

Deface Your Magazines

Eye luminosity is the “new” sign of youth, eh? Well I guess this is one more thing that women have to add to the long list of old fears we’re taught to worry about when it comes to aging: Not only do I need this product in order to keep my eyes bright, I also have to worry about wrinkles, grey hair, yellow teeth, brittle nails, saggy skin, big pores, a fat stomach, jiggly thighs, low hanging boobs, cellulite, hairy legs…right? Cuz ew, who wants to get old?

It’s not like aging happens to everyone, it’s not like aging is a natural part of life or anything. “Youth” is totally the only worthwhile period of our lives, so we must hold onto it forever! But only women have to think about this stuff, of course. Don’t worry guys - You can keep your dull eyes for all we care. You’ll be young as long as you drive a convertible and drink beer. 

So never forget that “Youth is in your genes,” which is apparently the reason why you need to buy this product in order to be youthful, and…uh…Didn’t think that tagline completely through, did you, Lancome? On second thought, maybe I’ll stick to my genes and just let them do their own work. 

Deface Your Magazines

[Within an Elle magazine, a woman is shown wearing two separate outfits. One is a glamorous black dress while the other features tweed and thick glasses. Printed alongside is the text: APPLE STORE. JOE’S TAKE: An early-morning line may require you to head there straight from the clubs, but, hey, what better place to potentially meet your future genius husband than in line for the iPhone 5? JOEL’S TAKE: She thinks she’ll blend in perfectly with the nerds in line. But really she’s so wildly attractive that she would send them screaming back to their parents’ basements.]

The point of this article was for two stylists to face-off, designing their own outfit interpretations for different “superfans” to wear on special occasions.

So what we have here is an Apple superfan who is being styled to wait in line for the newest Apple product release. But oh my, apparently a woman can’t simply be enthusiastic about technology! Nope, she either has to be there for the sake of finding a husband or intimidating all the ~real~ nerds who are waiting around. God forbid she actually gets in line because she’s a nerd and just wants to get her hands on that gadget! 

I’ve got no problem with either outfit. They’re both pretty adorable. But the reasoning behind each look and their apparent consequences? Ick. It reads more like a straight male fantasy than like an actual woman’s thought process when she’s excited about getting a new phone. I want no part in encouraging women to internalize the Fake Geek Girl stereotype.  

If you want to “say goodbye” to endless shaving and waxing, you could just let your hair grow. That works too.

This company says that they want you to “see beauty in a new light.” But if that’s the case, why are they selling the exact same beauty standard that’s been around for years? Hairless legs aren’t new.

If you really want to make that change and are interested in putting beauty in a new light, you’d do so by redefining what you see as beautiful, not just by purchasing a new product that promotes the exact same beauty standards

(Please join in by defacing your magazines! More info here.)

I just had to deface this page of my magazine. The message it conveyed was incredibly irritating, and it really epitomizes some of the major problems with the beauty industry.

The first thing you should know is that this magazine is made by the store ‘Boots’, which is a major seller of cosmetics in the UK. The magazine is offered free to customers with a club-card, and is comprised almost entirely of advertising in a variety of different forms.

The issue of photo-retouching in the media is a pretty hot topic at the moment, and discussion of this usually sheds a negative light on magazines. Cleverly, though, this magazine has turned things around by saying 'no retouching required’. At first glance, this makes them seem progressive, and as if they have the moral high-ground over most other magazines. But there are several problems with this.

They say that the covergirl didn't need to be photoshopped, but they never explicitly state that they didn’t photoshop her. She’s on the cover of the magazine, so it’s highly likely that some degree of photo-manipulation was involved, even if it was just editing contrast, etc. They can get away with this, because they’re not actually lying to the reader, they just plant the idea into their head with clever phrasing.

They introduce this 'no photoshop’ claim to the reader on the very first page, which can plant the seed of an idea into their mind. But they’re only talking about the cover image. Just because they say that there’s no retouching on that particular model doesn’t mean that there isn’t in the rest of the magazine. This is a particularly useful selling tactic, because the reader sees the heavily-retouched pictures that accompany the adverts and subconsciously thinks “if I bought that product, I could look like that too!”.

And sure, the covergirl may not be photoshopped. But that doesn’t make her “natural”, and it doesn’t mean that her look is achievable by the average reader. Six professional stylists were involved, not to mention the fact that they had access to a studio, proper lighting and a professional photographer. These people change the way models look for a living. Even if the magazine didn’t use any photo-trickery, the model’s appearance still isn’t exactly attainable.

… But that’s what the magazine tries to tell you! This whole page is dedicated to selling the reader a set of makeup with the implication that it will make you look as good as the covergirl. What’s even more annoying is that they call this “looking good the natural way”. This whole “natural look” is really on-trend at the moment. If you wanted to buy all the makeup that this model is wearing, it would cost you £83.77. But it’s designed to make you look like you’re not wearing any at all. What?

We are getting a horrible message from this. Apparently we’re not allowed blemishes or pores or wrinkles, so we have to wear lots of makeup to make us look 'flawless’. But god forbid it should actually look like we’re wearing any! (We just look like this naturally, honest!) We’re expected to look perfect, but not appear 'high maintenance’. We could get “the natural look” by simply not wearing any makeup, but that would be terrible for the makeup industry, so we’re manipulated into thinking that we need to buy their products.

If I want to go without makeup, that’s a perfectly acceptable “natural look”. And if I want to go wild and create a totally outrageous style with my makeup, that’s cool too. The makeup industry can shut their damn mouth.

anonymous asked:

hey, i saw your defaceyourmagazines post and was wondering if it would be okay to apply the idea to things such as racism, heterosexism, and other types of prejudice as well?

Absolutely, do whatever you like! These are all issues surrounding identity and society anyway, so they should actually fit in well with the ideas of self-acceptance that I initially had in mind. But my ideas were really just a starting point - feel free to take the project in whatever direction you want, using ideas that you are personally interested in and passionate about.

I really look forward to seeing what you come up with!
And for any of my followers that don’t know what this is about, click here to read more and join in!