Britney Spears highlights airbushing in latest ad campaign

In her latest ad campaign for Candies, Britney Spears requested that the original photos be displayed alongside the airbrushed ones.

I think this is awesome, and a great way for Britney to use her power as a pop icon. While the ideal thing would be to have advertising that didn’t distort women’s bodies in impossible ways, this does send a message to viewers about the process behind these images.

Join the Conversation

  • cattrack2

    Never thought I’d say this, but good job Britney! What a great idea!!! Truth in advertising indeed!
    …Can’t believe I congratulated her about something. OMG my head is spinning. Must. Lie. Down.

  • Comrade Kevin


  • NurseyPunk

    Good job Britney! Women have flaws, we’re humans, not dolls. We have cellulite, bruises, stretch marks, calves with a circumference of more than 3cm…
    What we see in advertisements may as well be Na’vi. They’re not reflective of reality.

  • strangedays

    Y’know, this would be great if the original pictures didn’t ALSO set an unrealistic standard.

  • tooimpurenangel

    Her legs also look WAY paler. Is that the lighting?

  • MzFitz

    If Candies didn’t have the Candies Foundation, I would consider them worthy of my money because of this.

  • mlmccorm

    This is great, but what would be even better is if they were addressing the deeper issue: how we police women’s bodies through labeling perfectly normal and healthy things about our bodies as “imperfections” or “flaws”.

  • genericjanedoe

    I don’t want to sound like the “that’s cool but you know what would have been better” police, but here I go.
    That’s awesome. I commend her for doing this. However, I still think there’s a lot still going on here. As others have said, the originals still portray an unrealistic standard and we label normal bodies as flawed.
    Plus, by printing these side by side, it points out those “flaws” and makes them more salient in our minds. (Her thighs have some cellulose. They took that out. My thighs have cellulose and are therefore also lesser than.)
    Additionally, the helpful details about what was changed don’t even begin to scratch the surface of what all has been done to her body to make it “magazine” ready both with things to her real body (cosmetics, hair removal) and to the photo digitally.
    So yeah, awesome…but I’m hoping someday we drop the fakeness all together and celebrity women with media clout only allow themselves to be printed in their true forms. So there’s no before and after. Just befores and no-really-that’s-still-hers.

  • sparky17

    Hooray for Britney! This is definitly a step in the right direction. I don’t see how the before is so unrealistic, though. There are plenty of women with body types like hers

  • April

    While the ideal thing would be to have advertising that didn’t distort women’s bodies in impossible ways,

    The ideal thing would be to have advertising not distort women’s (or men’s) bodies at all.

  • The Feminine Woman

    This is awesome. I commend Britney for doing this; and whilst others think her originals may not be ‘realistic’ – I think she looks quite healthy!
    And especially compared to how her body looked when she was the least healthy. She looks much better than she did a few years ago.
    Go Britney!

  • Soraya Rose

    I don’t think it does, she looks a healthy weight and toned to me?

  • Lydia

    I was thinking exactly the same thing. The whole “See? Even beautiful women are flawed” thing doesn’t work for me in here because I see nothing flawed about her body. Why is it a “flaw” to have a fleshy bottom’ larger hips or a waist that isn’t tiny? That’s just normal variation. Some women are petite, some women aren’t. Britney isn’t. And she has a lovely figure.
    As for “cellulite”, I think that whole term is bogus. You know what cellulite is? Body fat! Everybody has it! And it’s not perfectly smooth. That’s just what flesh looks like. I used to be a size 2 and I still had some “cellulite.” And I’ve got it now at a size 4-6. I really couldn’t care less. I don’t know a single woman of any size who doesn’t have a bit of dimpled flesh. So if everyone has it, it can hardly be a “flaw.”

  • Soraya Rose

    I don’t think they do, she looks healthy and toned to me.

  • mandoir

    I don’t mean to be skeptical because I appreciate what she’s trying to do, but those “original” photos don’t really look un-retouched to me to begin with. I guess I’d need HQ pictures to be convinced, but it really looks like they’re already kinda touched up… particularly around her face and hair.

  • SadieWest

    When I look at those photos, I don’t think, “They took those bruises/cellulite/whatever out, therefore they must be flaws and I must remove them from my own body.” I think, “Jesus Christ, even Britney Spears’ body, as is, can’t live up to media standards? Media standards are effing stupid.” I actually think that exhibiting the contrast between the two photos is necessary to show that perfectionist ideal that is expected of women is plastic and utterly ridiculous. Good for her. Every time we can expose the “perfect female body” standard for what it is, absolute fiction, we take a small step forward toward an acceptance of real, natural female beauty.

  • TB

    I would call this a good start.

  • Soraya Rose

    I agree with SadieWest, These don’t make me look at myself and see lots of flaws, they make me look at myself and think “these are not flaws if brittney spears has them, i am just as pretty as her :)”

  • Anony-mouse

    Am I the only one who noticed that they photoshopped her vulva out?