Really, Ralph? Lauren Ad Takes Either Airbrushing or Skinny Models to A Ridiculous Extreme

Fashion models have long been the subject of discussions regarding beauty standards, body image issues, and even truth in advertising with the ubiquity of photo retouching.  Over the past few years, several individual designers, print advertisers, and fashion shows have instituted rules regarding body mass index, or at least have attempted to promote “healthier” models.  Most, however, have steadfastly refused to restrict their products to a specific body type, instead preferring to hang their wares on the models who could best display them.  At minimum, this has generated heated discussion about the appropriateness of extremely thin models, what is the “right” size and weight—if any—for (mostly) women in advertisements, and the ethics of photo retouching.

All of which makes a recent Ralph Lauren advertisement featuring absurdly thin model Filippa Hamilton a poke in the eye of those attempting to curb such unrealistic portrayals of women in advertisements.  To be fair, I don’t know that anyone has verified if the photo has been retouched or not.  This isn’t really an issue about whether the viewer thinks Ms. Hamilton is attractive, repulsive, or somewhere between.  This photo simply throws into contrast what is appropriate in advertisements.  Should the fashion ad industry continue to showcase women who are impossibly thin, with perfect skin and hair, either naturally or digitally?  And if photos are altered from their natural state, should the viewer be informed of that?

If this type of thing were a one-off incident, we could accept it as such, scrunch our foreheads a bit at the picture, and move on to the article about 10 Steamy Bedroom Moves That Will Drive Him Wild.  This beauty standard, however, has been pushed on popular culture for so long and with such drastic societal consequences for young women that we can’t simply ignore it.  In the larger context of all media—TV, film, magazines, the internet—the barrage of such images with little refuge or respite can’t help but mold society’s views of what is beautiful, what is acceptable, and what is not.  Yes, we should be able to discern what is real and not real, but that’s not really the issue.  The issue is, what is attainable and what is not; and of what is attainable, what is the cost?  For 99.9% of women, the Ralph Lauren ad is simply unattainable.  For those who can look like that, how?  Through virtual starvation and compulsive exercise, and other potentially fatal habits.  Happy now?

It’s not all about skinny, though.  Advertisers want to put their best foot forward, because once a spot hits the newsstands, it can’t be changed.  It must be perfect when it gets there, which is where photoshopping enters the picture.  How can Beyonce Knowles and Halle Berry and Faith Hill and Jessica Alba and Eva Longoria have such perfect figures and faces?  They don’t.  They’re beautiful women, but the pictures in Vogue, Vanity Fair, Cosmo, and the rest are the result of hours in the makeup chair, professional lighting, and computer retouching to remove “blemishes.”  Even those women, considered the most attractive in the world, can’t avoid the digital brush: magazines have lightened Beyonce’s skin, trimmed Jessica’s waistline, and smoothed Faith’s wrinkles.  The implicit message is that the world’s most beautiful women aren’t hot enough to show naturally, so how could you be?  Just buy our product and we’ll see how close we can get you!

Like most things, this boils down to money.  Advertisers will do whatever it takes to sell product, even if it means poisoning the self-image of millions of people, sometimes to the point of death by eating disorder or suicide.  It’s worth wondering whether marketers are just giving us the images we want to see, or if they’re foisting them on us unwillingly and we’ve simply come to accept the impossible as standard.  Either way, we’d better discuss it loud and fast, because Ralph Lauren’s Filippa Hamilton, natural or not, won’t be the last ad like that we see.