You know, I have to say – when I read this blog post from SELF magazine’s editor, I just found it completely depressing and defeating. The deal is, Kelly Clarkson is on the cover of September’s SELF magazine. Apparently, last week there was a lot of buzz on the internet that SELF had “photoshopped” the cover shot. Now, I’m not naive. I know (especially being in the beauty business) that there is seldom a photo in a magazine that hasn’t been airbrushed to death. That’s why the actresses that are in their 40’s and 50’s seem to have this flawless skin without a single wrinkle. But I am getting the sense that this is all going way too far. The ability for digital photos to be seamlessly manipulated makes it fantastically easy for magazines to create this fantasy world where women have no cellulite and no wrinkles.

And when the editor of a major magazine blogs about this with such ease and confidence, I realize that it truly has gone too far. The SELF editor says “Pictures are meant to tell a story, express a feeling, convey an emotion or capture a moment. Portraits like the one we take each month for the cover of SELF are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot.” I say – why shouldn’t they be true to life? What good can we possibly be teaching our children and even ourselves when we have to retouch every photo? And for this photo, apparently about 20 pounds were shaved off Kelly. If we continue to show these covers and represent them as “true-to-life” (which, sorry SELF, is how they are perceived), then we are saying that even when you are confident and strong, you still should not be proud of what your body REALLY looks like? That there’s always room to “touch things up” a bit? We have far too many body-image issues in this country. And if this editor thinks she is not partly – and directly – responsible for perpetuating images that feed into these issues then she is kidding herself.

I will end my rant with the quote that I found most ridiculous and offensive:

“Kelly has this amazing spirit, the kind of joie de vivre that certain people possess that makes you want to stand closer to them, hoping that you can learn what they know. In this case, you get the feeling Kelly has not let fame spoil her, but also that she was just born confident, with a generosity of spirit that is all about others and rarely about herself. She is, like her music, giving and strong and confident and full of gusto. Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that. But in the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.”

How can it be her “personal best” if it is not reality? And moreover, how can this woman actually say it is NOT an “act of fiction”? Lastly – if this is the “truest” photo they have ever put out there – then how can we trust anything in this magazine?

I’d love to hear your comments! (and be sure to read the blog comment – yipes I am sure they are scrambling to figure out how to handle this further!!)