Posted by: Jeannie Choe
|
Comments (4)

As part of the "Dove Self-Esteem Fund," this ad aims to teach females about "real" beauty, exposing extreme lengths the media takes to extract a true Venus from an otherwise nothing-special girl who's just like the rest of us unfortunate-looking trolls marred by the impact of airbrushed beauty.
Designers' Open 2008
DESIGN PHILADELPHIA 2008
LONDON DESIGN FESTIVAL 2008
FREEDESIGNDOM 2008
ManufRactured EXHIBITION
London Design Festival 2008
Core77 visits NASA:
DesignPhiladelphia 2008
UGLY:
Comments
This is great, absolutely great! It about time someone starts to point out how much the beauty you see in ads is actually not true. Even if dove is just a soap company they are bringing up a topic that should be talked about!
Dove has been doing this with all of their products. They are trying to focus on "real beauty" and most of their models are real people.. and the ads show a little flab, wrinkles, pores and all
It's part of the reason I stopped buying magazines like FHM or Maxim. Whilst I know they look fake that's not the only thing wrong, it homogenises female beauty. I like a lot of different body shapes and looks that you can only really find in RL these days. The ultimate irony is most CG these days has defects being put in to make the characters look more realistic where as we are removing them all from our photos. I'm sure its only time till we get composite models made up of the 'best' bits from various body/face part models.
First of all, I love that your handle is squirrelbait; it reminds me of HS (in a good way).
Secondly, I've been thinking lately about whether or not such image altering constitutes false advertising. In certain industries, there are disclosures that need to be made to the consumer. For pushing certain products, image is the only thing that the push relies on --> so should the push be monitored? Or at least not a total lie?
I have no answers but have thought about it a lot.
Thanks for posting this.