Will 2010 mark the end of airbrushing?

‘You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,’ goes the famous saying. And never has this been more apparent for the glossy publications and advertising giants who have found themselves in the midst of an anti-airbrushing campaign.

The Olay advert features a digitally altered, unbelievably youthful-looking photo of 60-year-old Twiggy with the words ‘Olay is my secret to brighter-looking eyes.’ The ASA deemed the ad misleading but rejected complaints that it was socially irresponsible.

In case you’re still one of the fooled, airbrushing is the pre-digital solution to making the famous appear flawless. It’s a marketing trade tool that is better than make-up, lighting or even Botox because it requires little effort other than a pair of skilled hands on a computer program such as Photoshop. Airbrushing has long been used to censor, doctor and even rewrite history. Stalin and the Soviet government famously attempted to erase purged figures from official photographs. In 2007, MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, James Purnell, bizarrely had himself airbrushed into an image. The amalgamated photo of the MP at Tameside General Hospital was released by the hospital’s press office after Purnell was reportedly late for the photo call.

When combined with other human enhancements such as fake eyelashes on mascara adverts and hair extensions on shampoo adverts, airbrushing takes the persuasive nature of advertising to a new level of highly unrealistic absurdity. Recently everyone from David Cameron to Kim Kardashian has been labelled as smoothed criminals, with the creation of an unhealthy attitude to body image the last consideration of advertisers.

But as more manipulated adverts appear, the more we’re beginning to wise up. So much so that in the last few months a handful of adverts have been banned and certain celebrities have stopped living by the brush.

Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire and chairperson of the party’s working group on women’s policy, Jo Swinson, has launched a campaign against airbrushing. As a result, a magazine advert for an Olay beauty product featuring Twiggy has been banned by advertising watchdog the ASA, following more than 700 complaints.

Swinson said: “There must be something wrong with any mindset that tells us that a woman as stunning as Twiggy needs to be airbrushed before she can be considered beautiful. It is high time we realised that people can be beautiful in all different shapes and sizes. Changing the rules for advertisers would be a step forward on the way to achieving that cultural change.”

The Olay advert features a digitally altered, unbelievably youthful-looking photo of 60-year-old Twiggy with the words ‘Olay is my secret to brighter-looking eyes.’ The ASA deemed the ad misleading but rejected complaints that it was socially irresponsible, stating: "We considered that consumers were likely to expect a degree of glamour in images for beauty products and would therefore expect Twiggy to have been professionally styled and made-up for the photo shoot, and to have been photographed professionally.”

The company responsible responded by saying there had been ‘minor retouching’ around Twiggy’s eyes but also added that these types of post production techniques are routine practice in all advertising campaigns. So who else has been exposed for sneaky tweaking?

A Clean & Clear television advert has been banned after producers used make-up to enhance a before and after comparison. Complex magazine accidentally published an un-airbrushed photo of Hollywood socialite Kim Kardashian before promptly replacing it with the touched up version, in the hope that no one would notice. But unfortunately we did.

Kim responded by blogging: “You know what, who cares! So what: I have a little cellulite. What curvy girl doesn't!?” She has a point, but clearly someone does care otherwise they would have proudly published her, wobbly bits and all.

At the opposite end of the weight spectrum, actress Keira Knightley has had her flat chest doctored on more than one occasion to give her a curvier appearance. Demi Moore recently threatened legal action after critics noted that she was missing a chunk of hip in a photo for W Magazine. Then there’s Cheryl Cole’s L’Oreal adverts which claim to be the answer to ‘weak, dull, lifeless hair’. But in the advert it’s a headful of hundreds of pounds worth of hair extensions that make it ‘worth it’ for Chezza. Ralph Lauren were forced to apologise to the public last October after airbrushing a model so much that her head was wider than her waist. The list of lies goes on.

The ASA have said that, before any changes can be made to UK advertising codes, academic evidence of the detrimental effect of idealised media images on body image and related, unhealthy behaviours must be submitted to the Committee of Advertising Practice.

Swinson and her campaigners have wasted no time in providing such evidence, as well as a list of requested policies to change the future of advertising forever. These are:

1. No digitally altered models in advertising aimed at under 16s.
2. Clear labelling of digitally altered models in all other advertising.
3. Models used in Fashion Weeks to have a health certificate from an eating disorder specialist, in order to protect their health and well-being.
4. Encouragement for use of diverse and healthy body sizes in all media models.
5. Media literary programmes about ‘perfected’ models as part of school curricula to encourage critical awareness and resilience in children and adolescents.

The list is fair, although it’s naive to think that advertisers can be convinced into thinking that they have a duty to promote a healthier body image. Unfortunately, as a business, their only duty is to sell.

Another factor is that it’s not just those in the public eye who seek the help of the airbrush. I have firsthand experience of being professionally, digitally altered at the For Your Eyes Only (FYEO) portrait studio. I didn’t even see the unaltered photo and quite frankly, I don’t want to. As one of their biggest selling points, FYEO say: ‘We provide a state-of-the-art digital retouching service like those used on the famous catwalk models you are so used to seeing on the front pages of glossy magazines. We have the ability to magically make your skin look flawless and remove body hair, amongst many other things.’

I’ll go for the flawless me every time, thanks. And according to high street photography shop chain, Snappy Snaps, so will you. Last summer they noted a 550 per cent increase in airbrushed photos on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Whether in a magazine or on someone’s Facebook profile, it’s all an idealised version. If you want reality, it’s quite simple – close the magazine, switch off the computer, take off the rose-tinted glasses and look around at real people in real life.

Rather than expecting advertisers to abandon the airbrush, perhaps a more effective tactic would be to get consumers to stop buying into such misleading images. Then something would have to change at the advertisers’ end. Until then, they’re just doing their job by presenting us with the narrow view of beauty that we accept and expect. If the change did come about, there’s no denying that it would be strange to see models and celebrities looking...well... just like us. Odd – yes, wrinkly – yes, but also refreshing, characterful and interesting – as human beings should be.

There’s a long way to go but Swinson’s campaign and all the media attention it has generated is at least a step in the right direction. Sadie Frost is featured on the cover of this week’s Grazia magazine un-airbrushed and looking great without appearing like she’s made out of wax. Australian Marie Claire magazine is also set to publish un-airbrushed nude photos of 2004 Miss Universe, Jennifer Hawkins, which will allow creases and uneven skin tone to be seen.

The push for change on this issue is commendable, especially when it comes to educating children (particularly young girls). They need to learn that, these days what you see isn’t usually what you get.

For more information about the campaign visit www.realwomen.org.uk.