I won't lie to you, readers. I have been staring at the images at left, on and off, for at least two hours. They depict celebreality star Kim Kardashian, pre- and post-airbrushing, for a feature in Complex magazine, and they are, to me anyway, beyond fascinating. The release of the original pic (far left) was apparently a mistake. Some bloggers found it on Complex's site as part of an "exclusive photo gallery" and it was quickly taken down. The second, thinner, smoother image of KK is the one that ran in the magazine.
What's striking about these photographs is what the retouchers decided to change. For starters, they lightened Kardashian's skin all over, and they took out any texture that made it appear in any way like real skin. (Can you see how her thighs look human in the first pic and like a Barbie in the second?) Next, they shaved a few inches off her thighs, waist, and maybe her arm; added a bit to left breast; and cleaned up the weird bodysuit thing she's wearing so it's less fringey. It's not dramatic, in fact, we've all seen much worse, but the question is: Why is this necessary at all? She's on the cover (and is no doubt famous) because she has a gorgeous, curvy, irresistibly sexy body. It's a body, from everything I've read-yes, I've read Kim Kardashian stories-this woman works hard to maintain. Why is it unthinkable to leave the damn picture alone? To show the model as she really is, flesh texture and all? The original image is not offensive, it's not ugly, and it's not sloppy. Wouldn't a men's magazine want to embrace and highlight a woman's natural curves and not Photoshop her into a glossy fembot?
I just do not understand.
Source: Animal NY, Shine
