Vogue Revisions Lena Dunham
The fairly frumpy star of the HBO flop ”Girls” is clearly no
shrinking violet and thinks nothing of exhibiting her far-less-than-perfect body
as if she were an alternate Miley Cyrus but absent the twerker’s, the wrecking
ball girl’s, admittedly controversial panache.
Nevertheless, Dunham, described by Wikipedia as a product of a Protestant father, Carroll Dunham, who paints “overtly sexualized pop art” and a Jewish mother, Laurie Simmons, who photographs artistic domestic scenes with dolls, is now being portrayed by Vogue as a classic beauty, thanks to a ton of photoshopping and what seems to be Vogue’s odd commitment to magically and un-femistically converting an average girl into a gorgeous Hollywood starlet.
That effort won’t work except with starry-eyed Lena fans but much more relevant is the question of why Vogue would so twist the reality that Dunham is what used to be called a “plain jane” and manufacture her into something she isn’t?
Billed as “the world’s most influential fashion magazine,” with a print circulation of more than eleven million, Vogue seems to be editorially saying that plain girls and young women must have their physignomy altered to conform with contemporary, societal expectations of beauty rather than depicting them for who and what they are even if they’re far from classic beauties.
“Girls” pretends to be a comedy/drama allegedly based on Dunham’s “life experiences” whereas it actually serves more as a televised vehicle for her father’s “over sexualized pop art” and her own desperate cravings for attention which must be exacerbated by Vogue’s presentation of her as someone that isn’t really real.
Nevertheless, Dunham, described by Wikipedia as a product of a Protestant father, Carroll Dunham, who paints “overtly sexualized pop art” and a Jewish mother, Laurie Simmons, who photographs artistic domestic scenes with dolls, is now being portrayed by Vogue as a classic beauty, thanks to a ton of photoshopping and what seems to be Vogue’s odd commitment to magically and un-femistically converting an average girl into a gorgeous Hollywood starlet.
That effort won’t work except with starry-eyed Lena fans but much more relevant is the question of why Vogue would so twist the reality that Dunham is what used to be called a “plain jane” and manufacture her into something she isn’t?
Billed as “the world’s most influential fashion magazine,” with a print circulation of more than eleven million, Vogue seems to be editorially saying that plain girls and young women must have their physignomy altered to conform with contemporary, societal expectations of beauty rather than depicting them for who and what they are even if they’re far from classic beauties.
“Girls” pretends to be a comedy/drama allegedly based on Dunham’s “life experiences” whereas it actually serves more as a televised vehicle for her father’s “over sexualized pop art” and her own desperate cravings for attention which must be exacerbated by Vogue’s presentation of her as someone that isn’t really real.
In her defense, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=35218.)
No comments:
Post a Comment