There’s been a big hullabaloo lately in the British press about baby images being air-brushed and Photoshopped before they’re put onto magazine covers and into circulation. Apparently, the major magazines, like Practical Parenting and Pregancy have admitted to digitally messing with babies’ skin tone, eye colour and fat creases – all in the interests of making a prettier picture. And let’s face it those spotty, chubby, pasty- faced Brit kids need all the help they can get.
JOKING. I’m joking. of course. British babies are just as ugly or pretty or average or normal as any other nation’s baby. Depends on your taste. Me? I like dark-looking kids because my kids are dark-looking. Other parents like babies who look like Hitler because their baby looks like Hitler. Each to their own.
I suppose we all worry about how our children look. Can I even say that? Or is that already too much Goddamn honesty for you people? I know, I know – I would love my kids no matter what they look like – even if they looked like Lyle Lovett or Kelly Osbourne. Maybe not quite as much, but I would still love them. Nevertheless, I bet you have worried about how your baby might look. Or fretted even just a tiny bit that they MAY turn out to be the ugliest kid in primary school. I’m not saying you worry about this shit night and day. I’m just betting it’s crossed your mind on occasion.
But, on the whole, I’m sure you all think your child is gorgeous. Every parent thinks their kid is beautiful. Why? Because their baby is THEM – it’s a projection of themselves. Isn’t it time we all faced up to the narcissistic side of being a parent? Of COURSE we think our children are beautiful and wonderful – they’re a better, brighter model of ourselves! They’re a little cipher for all our hopes and dreams and ideals. They’re the perfect little King or Queen we could never be.
How do I know this? Because of the overvaluation. That’s the key. When something is prized way too highly, unrealistically, it’s always a tell-tale sign that something is a tad skewed psychologically-speaking. Most parents ascribe every little perfection to their children and hide or ignore any failings. ESPECIALLY in comparison with other children. And if they say they don’t, they’re lying. Even when they do the equanimous parent and down-play their children’s abilities or complain about them, I still think they secretly believe they have the best kid in the world. I’d go so far as to say that a lot of parental love is simply self-love. And we ALL know how confused self-love can be.
Come on! You know it’s true. Sure it’s hard to admit. But deep in your heart you know I’m right.
Anyway. Back to the Photoshopping of baby pictures. What’s the big deal? The whole ish of magazines re-touching photographs has been in the news a lot lately because of local Australian mummy blogger Mia Freedman and her National Strategy on Body Image campaign. The big idea is that we should all be happy with who we are; that we should just be natural – whatever size, shape or colour. This is our new moral credo. Actually, it’s been around for quite a while. People have been saying it since the 90s kicked in.
What concerns me about Mia’s latest crusade is just that. It’s a crusade – a moral battle to impose a new will on the population. But even worse, it’s actually a fashion statement in the guise of a moral one. This latest thing about being “natural” or “real” is just part of the entertainment/advertising biz cycle. In the 80s it was big hair and shoulder pads. In the 90s we started the retro thing. We’re still doing retro these days but with a renewed emphasis on organic and natural. Kind of like the 1970s dressed up for the 2000s. All the celebs are doing concerts in bare feet and buying Prius. And those infernal green bags…
Nature! Being “real”. It’s back! It’s the new black. No more re-touching. No more digital fixing of wrinkles. Sara Murdoch you rock! Real talk, real talk.
It’s ALL fashion. And “being yourself” is the 21st Century version of “greed is good.” We’re in another cycle. And people like Mia who are very attuned to fashion cycles are riding the bandwagon. All the celebrities are into a good cause now and what better cause than loving yourself? Or adopting a baby from Africa and loving yourself in little African form? Go Madonna! Go Brangelina! Yay! You’re such GOOD people. And humanitarians too. You can be the humanitarian side of the battle for oil in Africa. Nicole’s even got herself on some UN committee and made herself a “good will” ambassador. Well, “Ambassador”, throw me your 303.
You see the problem with nature and natural photographs and nature-babies etc is that there’s no such thing. There IS no natural. There’s only culture. We’re stuck with our human culture folks. We preen. We groom. We are ARTIFICIAL by definition. We make and construct everything. EVERYTHING. And even “nature” and “good causes” is just another image advertisers need to keep the units moving!
So, I wouldn’t worry too much about the Photoshop scare and the big push for “reality” of the late 2000’s. Remember acidophilus? Who worries about that now? We’re all freaking out about antioxidants these days. Realness and naturalness is a fashion and like Zac Efron and Mad Men it’ll be out of fashion soon enough. We’ll all have our babies back in sailor suits and pink rouge on their cheeks in another 10 years. I’m not going to sweat the latest fashions. I’m happy to watch them come and go…
Follow Angry Dad on twitter!
There are currently no comments.