A couple of posts ago, I commented on a recent magazine cover shot of Demi Moore and how her thigh was not quite the same (a photoshop blunder).

Well folks… the plot thickens. It just so happens that another image has arisen which shows perhaps that Demi’s body is not Demi’s body at all.

It appears that 26 year old model Anja Rubik’s body has been miraculously attached to 47 year old Demi’s face.

New York magazine has gone on record to say that celebrity heads are often superimposed on model’s bodies for advertisements…

Invasion of the photoshop body snatchers.

How can real people compete?

Plastic flowers look real from a distance, but plastic flowers will never ever be real, no matter how well crafted they are.

This world is full of plastic pleasures, pleasures which make promises they can’t possibly keep… and we never learn. Promises like…

… wealth brings happiness
… extra-marital escapades bring happiness
… breast augmentation brings happiness
… power brings happiness
… meth brings happiness

Empty promises, plastic flowers. Reminds me of a quote I read once…

An intriguing entomological experiment shows that a male butterfly will ignore a living female butterfly of his own species in favour of a painted cardboard one, if the cardboard one is big. If the cardboard one is bigger than he is, bigger than any female butterfly ever could be. He jumps the pieces of cardboard. Nearby, the real, living female butterfly opens and closes her wings in vain. (Annie Dillard, The Writing Life)

What’s the Demi Moore cover shot got to do with fakeness you ask? Alas, another Photoshop blunder. One of her thighs are not like the other, one of her thighs are not quite the same… (anyone else having a Sesame Street flashback right now?)

PaisleyJade showed me this article (related to the above image) in the NZ Herald this morning .

The image to the left is a digitally enhanced photo of Filipa Hamilton (real-life on the right), A former Ralph Lauren model who has recently been fired because she is ‘too fat’.

I pulled the following from a sermon I preached in ’07 about this very thing. Sorry, can’t recall the original source…

Thanks to technology, often not even the models themselves can compare to their portfolios. Increasingly, photos for print are enhanced and perfected to an astonishing degree. Not only are moles, big pores, acne and subtle facial hair erased from already pretty faces, but retouchers are routinely asked by editors and advertisers to enlarge eyes, trim normal-size ears, fill in hairlines, straighten teeth and lengthen the already-narrow necks, waists and legs of 18-year-old beauties. “We’re always stretching the models’ legs and slimming their thighs,” says a photo retoucher who works for a high-end Manhattan agency. In some cases, hands, feet and even legs are replaced in photos when the subject’s parts don’t add up to a perfect whole.
“Sometimes I feel a little like Frankenstein,” says the retoucher, who would only speak anonymously because of the potential for professional backlash. The irony, she adds, is that the models and actresses pictured have usually already been through hours of hair styling and makeup—including body makeup—to remove the slightest blemish. Yes, you heard that right, even after all of that, a 5-foot-10, 110-pound model still does not have legs that are long or skinny enough to suit some advertisers and fashion editors.
One might argue that photo alteration has been around for eons, but what is new is the industry shift from film to digital media about four years ago. Now it’s easier, faster and more routine to clean up and “perfect” faces and figures. The doctored images are now so believable that our eyes are becoming too accustomed to them. “The result is a culture of kids who are believing that unrealistic images are real and normal.

Makes you think doesn’t it?