.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, July 01, 2005

Women's Magazines

Apparently our Prime Minister Helen Clark is on the cover of one of those women's magazines. There is a pretty picture at Sir Humphreys. Apparently this is interesting and/or amusing political information. Her photo may or may not have been airbrushed. I am totally confused by the fuss. Aren't magazine covers pretty much always airbrushed? And what about makeup? Makeup can do wonders and make you look completely different. Most of my modelling pictures do not look like me and there was no retouching at all.

Anyway, if I was going to be on the cover of a women's magazine (I imagine it pays quite well) then I'd want to be made up and airbrushed to not look like me too.

Of course, if I was going to be on the cover of a magazine I would prefer that it was something like Rolling Stone or Time. In which case I would have a team of makeup artists and stylists and retouchers who would be able to make me look like a better more "natural" version of me.

I think I might go play with my makeup now. I haven't played dress-ups for years.

Comments:
I commented on Zen's blog about that just a moment ago. Some bloggers have plumbed new depths today. I really am disgusted at some of the vile comments. I don't like Clark - but you know....
 
I do know...
I don't really like Clark either, but nasty comments about her appearance are irrelevant. When the Prime Minister is male, appearance is never an issue....they are always old, ugly, and therefore distinguished.

Although, I guess if we had a young, hot, male prime minister who looked like a model/movie star, he would also get negative comments and people would assume certain things about him...
 
yep it was a big topic of conversation at work today. so weird man. i guess because its easier to talk about appearance in ways that seem to be universally 'acceptable' than actually talk about the issues.
 
Were most people critical of the photo?

I guess the important issues are complicated and require research to talk intelligently about, whereas everyone
has an opinion about appearance.

Speaking of which...I may get time to watch America's Next Top Model before I go out :D
 
I might be in even more trouble now with my latest post!

Sometimes its about the image you are trying to portray, and that image being a sham.

Helen the Artist, for example.

Helen, at the Berryman Bridge saying "Justice will be done" before she got into office.

Not that that makes Helen different from any-one else, this may be just another marketing effort, using her assets, as she announces some cooking tips, and appears to be all the more popular and competent for it. But good on her. That's the way it works.

I recently said on another post that Mugabe is no looker, but the ICC wants to kiss his arse.

Attack the tactics, not the person, but you should ask, say, Hillary Clinton what she believes of that statement.

Hopefully, my latest post has skated on the edge of the tactics/person divide in a far more sensible way the harsh, unfocused and uncalled for criticisms were in the first round reaction.

This just makes the cricket players stance that sport and politics don't mix even more silly. Maybe they *shouldn't* mix, but in politics its seems there are no rules.

That's rough.
 
Do you mean the "I am Woman Hear me Roar" post?

Umm. Yeah... Bad Zen Tiger ;)

Perhaps I should go read the post before commenting. But first I need coffee...
 
...coffee is good.

Reminds of the time a politican (in Canada, I think) turned up at a football field and tossed the ball around. The photo that made it to the paper was one of dropping the ball, missing the catch. Did heaps of damage.

Lesson 2: Use your own photographer.
 
"Sometimes its about the image you are trying to portray, and that image being a sham. "

Isn't every image that you try and portray a sham?

I don't see anything wrong with makeovers or dressing up. I guess I don't think that getting dressed up or being airbrushed is an evil/immoral/fake thing. Perhaps the things she does and the things she says are fake, but that's something else entirely.

But I don't think we are debating the same thing or even debating at all. I think I agree with your person/tactic divide, or lack of.

I will try and explain in a post.
 
No, every image you portray is not a sham.

Looking good is partly feeling good, feeling confident. Some images successfully capture that moment, and there is a certain sincerity to that.

The look in the eyes, the smile, the return of feelings that denote a special connection with another spirit can spin the concept of beauty on its head.

Some images reflect beauty for the feelings they invoke. A mother holding and looking at her baby. The face as it lights up in a smile when seeing a friend during a chance encounter in the street. A father swinging his child around.

Nothing wrong with a makeover and picking the right clothes, transforming oneself. In fact, generally speaking, I think guys are wired so that a little effort goes a lot further than you might think.
 
"every image that you try and portray a sham"

I would hope most people don't wander around all day focussed on presenting an image (an artificial image) to the world, presumedly with the intent of manipulating the opinion of, or meeting the approval of, whomever is watching.

I agree that various people make off-colour remarks about Clarks looks all the time. But thats a separate issue. The magazine shoot is deserving of ridicule as it is symptomatic of her approach to politics - do whatever is necessary to manipulate the voters. She can't rely on an honest portrayal of herself, so instead its all spin spin spin. She was given the benefit of doubt six years ago when pulling similar publicity stunts, but now I hope we all realise where she is coming from.

Somehow I can't imagine Brash appearing on Sportscafe (or whatever) to try and convince the People hes One Of Them.
 
Zen: Every image is just that. An image. Perhaps "sham" is not the right word.

I guess "beauty" is a complicated concept. And I think I know what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong): that people call Helen ugly because they find the things she does ugly.

AL: I think most people are conscious of the image they present to the world and make an effort to present themselves a certain way. Other people have opinions about whether the image is artificial or not.

My post was aimed at the off-colour remarks issue, not the sincerity of Helen issue, which is not even an issue for me. Besides it IS politics. So it is just a game (albeit with quite high stakes) and spin presumably helps you win. Perhaps she is playing the game well. I don't know.

Don't all politicians spin? Isn't that what politics is about? Don Brash has a different image. That is all.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?