Over the weekend, an interview was posted by Refinery29 about the image retouching of Victoria's Secret Models. Although this specific retoucher worked with the Victoria's Secret brand, the secrets shared are most likely universal. The interview was enlightening, and it provided proof of beauty-trick assumptions for many protestors of photoshop. In the end, it became evident that the "perfect" bodies that Victoria's Secret has shoved down our throats for years turn out to be (not so shockingly) imperfect! The Victoria's Secret Angels, who women have aspired to look like, are not as perfect or godly as their brand has made them out to be.
The anonymous interviewee (referred to as Sarah in the interview) reveals that when working as a retoucher for the lingerie brand, she was expected to make breasts rounder, higher, perfectly symmetrical, and larger. She revealed that "they all have [size] A’s,” but after pre-retouching routines -- like adding chicken cutlets into the bathing suit tops and having the models wear push-up bras under the bathing suits -- followed by the photoshopping stages, the models' breasts appear perfect. Too bad it's impossible for breasts to look like that in real life.
More important than breasts, the anonymous interviewee moved along to revealing the secret of adding curves to every body. It was revealed that photo retouchers don't make models skinnier, but instead curvier. "Models are thinner than you actually think they are, and we retouch them to look rounder [by doing things like plumping up butts, hiding protruding rib cages, softening sharp hipbones under digital flesh to]...curve them out."
The interviewer then took the opportunity to ask the question on my mind (and I hope every other reader's mind): Why not have curvier women as models? Or why not sell the image of diverse body sizes for the brand?
After all, the lack of representation of different races, body shapes, and clothing sizes is the reason that so many women (and men) protest brands like Victoria's Secret. Well...not so many, considering their brand's success. But still, you know what I mean. I am strongly against the perfect body brand that Victoria's Secret has been trying to sell to the world for years. I refuse to ever buy from the brand because of their selective ideology of beauty and sexiness, and I know I'm not alone.
While she was a retoucher for the brand, Sarah claims that the company did try "different models and different body types all the time." But apparently consumers didn't respond to the changes. “One time, during a swim season, they had these two girls come in that had abs and thick thighs and busts. They were really toned and their skin was amazing. They were still obviously models. But they were a different look. But, they didn’t sell anything and so [Victoria's Secret] stopped using those girls.”
I wonder what the extent of retouching was for those models. Were they made impossibly small, or curvier, or left the same (this last one is very doubtful)? And what about other body shapes and sizes? Why not give a few options a try? These questions are left unanswered, sadly.
For the record when I read the above statements in the interview, I rolled my eyes (and I hope I'm not the only one who did that). Many people blame consumers for photo shopping, and I agree that consumers are an issue. HOWEVER, if brands in the media enforced diverse body colors, sizes, and shapes, I highly doubt that advertisements would still cater to the thinner population.
Yes I'm a plus-sized activist, but there is a huge gap between women wearing size zeros and women wearing plus sized clothing, too. The plus-size categorization starts around sizes 8-12 (in US sizes), so why not feature models that are around sizes 6-10 and refer to them as "normal" and beautiful? And why not cater to all sizes while we're at it? Wouldn't it be amazing and empowering to have advertisements feature a mixture of sizes and races? I think so!
The anonymous retoucher went on to reveal that photo retouching takes away all evident body hairs and stubble, stretch marks, and cellulite. She also revealed that she thinks the elimination of cellulite in brand advertisements and images will probably "be the last thing to go," meaning that the cellulite we beat ourselves up for having (and the cellulite that is normal) may never be represented as normal as long as photo retouching is practiced.
I've always thought cellulite was frowned upon, abnormal, and gross. That has made me very self-conscious over my thighs. However, cellulite is normal! If pure, un-retouched bodies were shown in photographs with things such as scars, beauty marks, cellulite, stretch marks, etc., there wouldn't be such a negative reaction to those marks in real life! Let's make it happen already; let's draw attention to the beauty of these characteristics that make each of us unique.
I'm glad that Refinery29 took the time and effort to interview the former retoucher, and I truly hope this opens consumer eyes. Wake up, world. Let's stop bashing, shaming, and judging each other because we don't look "perfect" like Victoria's Secret Angels. Because even they don't look perfect. No matter what your size and shape is, you are beautiful. Just the way you are. (Shout out to Bruno Mars for sending that message a few years back).
