
As part of my Journalism course we were looking at different magazines that were out there. Someone brought in a copy of Vogue with the accompanying cover. Whilst I agreed with the women that it was a striking image, my first thought on seeing it was that it was obviously faked. Check out the size of her torso compared to those infinite legs.
The women in my group were complementary on my astuteness, although I'd imagine most men would see it given that we probably look at more women than most ladies do. I'm not sure if "Men's" magazines still distort images of women regularly, as I'm bored by anything that pushes masturbation as a viable lifestyle choice, but I remember it being vaguely scandalous when Kate Winslet got her legs shooped back in the 90s.
Aside from the rather obvious point about creating unrealistic expectations for women to measure up to, what attracted my attention was that this has the same effect as foreshortening. That is, this kind of technique would normally be applied to a painting hung high above the viewer to make it look more realistic. In the visual language we all imbibe, if not explicitly, this image is literally looking down on you.
The women in my group were complementary on my astuteness, although I'd imagine most men would see it given that we probably look at more women than most ladies do. I'm not sure if "Men's" magazines still distort images of women regularly, as I'm bored by anything that pushes masturbation as a viable lifestyle choice, but I remember it being vaguely scandalous when Kate Winslet got her legs shooped back in the 90s.
Aside from the rather obvious point about creating unrealistic expectations for women to measure up to, what attracted my attention was that this has the same effect as foreshortening. That is, this kind of technique would normally be applied to a painting hung high above the viewer to make it look more realistic. In the visual language we all imbibe, if not explicitly, this image is literally looking down on you.

I also find it interesting that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article I linked to notes you can do the opposite in order to make the image "a less aggressive assault on the viewer's eye". I highly suspect that there's no deliberate plan to make women feel worse so that they spend more on fashion & beauty in attempt to keep up, but there does seem to be layers of aggression here which is all the more disturbing if it is unintentional and just part of the culture.
Just to prove that the model in question has normal size legs, here's a picture of her which has presumably not been shooped. Gisele co-incidentally happens to be the wife of Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady, but I swear that I had no idea about that when I started researching this and this isn't an attempt to smuggle my beloved Pats into every issue possible...
Am I blowing this out of proportion as much as the magazine did? Did everyone else immediately clock that the legs were false? Are editors justified in creating images this strong even if they can have a negative effect? Is Tom Brady the greatest Quarterback of all time or just the second best? Leave a comment, let me know...
Just to prove that the model in question has normal size legs, here's a picture of her which has presumably not been shooped. Gisele co-incidentally happens to be the wife of Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady, but I swear that I had no idea about that when I started researching this and this isn't an attempt to smuggle my beloved Pats into every issue possible...
Am I blowing this out of proportion as much as the magazine did? Did everyone else immediately clock that the legs were false? Are editors justified in creating images this strong even if they can have a negative effect? Is Tom Brady the greatest Quarterback of all time or just the second best? Leave a comment, let me know...