Lena Dunham Defends Vogue Photos

Photoshopped or not, the images are not a bad thing, says the Girls star and creator

  • Share
  • Read Later
Jezebel.com

The website Jezebel posted this unretouched photo of Lena Dunham on Friday. Digitally-altered versions of this and other photos taken by Annie Leibovitz appear in the February issue of Vogue.

Lena Dunham doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about.

The writer and star of HBO’s Girls told Slate France that the controversy over digitally-altered images from a Vogue photo shoot “confuses me a little.” The fact that she was on the cover at all was for the better, she said, since she is not a typical cover girl.

The untouched images were obtained and posted by Jezebel Friday (the site offered a $10,000 bounty!) after Vogue put her on the cover of the February magazine.

Dunham said:

“I know that I felt really likeVogue supported me and wanted to put a depiction of me on the cover. I never felt bullied into anything; I felt really happy because they dressed me and styled me in a way that really reflects who I am. And I felt that was very lucky and that all the editors understood my persona, my creativity and who I am. I haven’t been keeping track of all the reactions, but I know some people have been very angry about the cover and that confuses me a little. I don’t understand why, photoshop or no, having a woman who is different than the typical Vogue cover girl, could be a bad thing.”

[Slate]

20 comments
pico
pico

Lena celebrates sloth, she wallows in, onscreen, like the smarmy pig who stuck needles in his arms. I know she was sexually abused by her dad, but that doesn't mean every person accused is her dad.

vrcplou
vrcplou

On the plus side someone other than a stick thin, genetically perfect model is on the cover.  On the minus, we use a computer to buff out any imperfections so that we make the "real" girl look as perfect as possible.  Perfection is the enemy.  But I will take Lena Dunham on the cover of Vogue as more of a plus than minus.

hecate00
hecate00

"I don't know why…."  Really, Lena? If you don't know why, it's a quick google search to get some ideas. :-)


neonatlas
neonatlas

Well, to me it seems just like an average amount of retouching. And the most part it's about correcting lights to better suit the glamourous style of the magazine. On her face for example. I mean they retouched the male model's knee. C'mon.

GuoLiang
GuoLiang

Who cares


She was ugly even after Photoshop

CliqueOut!
CliqueOut!

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with a naked woman - and for a VOGUE mag to shoot Lena Dunham, whom i believe many of us believe are not the typical vogue girl - is a big thing.

Here's an idea... we could see her both dressed and naked. Even if its touched; haven't we seen enough to know what she truly looks like?

Additionally; even if she is naked on the show alot - maybe she'd prefer to be naked for the show than have some other poor girl do so. Sometimes, we tend to rely on the negative for perceptions and ideas, we lose all sense of possible reason

SukMadiq
SukMadiq

In her case, I am all FOR photoshop.

JohnWilson1
JohnWilson1

She does not understand how presenting an unrealistic version or lie of her physical appearance may cause concern to young women with hypersensitive body issues? That can't be the truth since she is a smart woman.... It seems like she just really really wanted to be on the cover of Vogue.....

eagle11772
eagle11772

She's not a particularly good looking woman.

terripeate
terripeate

It's just showbiz, folks. There's no reason for anyone to be "really angry" about any of the teapot tempests cooked up by the perpetually content-deficient web, otherwise known as the sub-media. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

VickieArnold
VickieArnold

If the above photograph is supposed to be untouched, she doesn't look bad.  At least she's not nude.

neonatlas
neonatlas

@JohnWilson1 hypersensitive body issues? You mean being obese? Which is a desease to avoid, let's remind it to ourselves, despite the beth dittos of this world..

ryan.bauer
ryan.bauer

@eagle11772Ah, Eagle, we meet again, and I see you are still posting like a genius. I envision you just sitting at your computer, mashing the keyboard with your thick hands, really thinking that "Yes, I've finally nailed it with this comment! Complete brilliance and the world will surely be better off having read this! I am really contributing to the discussion here with this!"

hecate00
hecate00

@eagle11772 It's strange to me why people need to make comments like that. Seriously; what's the point of just saying, "she's not particularly good looking"? If your answer is "I'm just saying" … that's not an answer, not even a full sentence.

Heisenblergh
Heisenblergh

@VickieArnold because there's a problem with her being nude, or because she's usually naked on her show?

hecate00
hecate00

@neonatlas @JohnWilson1 1)  Neonatlas, you might want to look into sociology. Women get there body issues from mostly media; it's called Objectification Theory.


2) Obesity is not a disease, and yes obesity should be avoided. But how does making unattainable standards of beauty on a magazine make people less obese? IT DOESN'T. In fact, it makes the condition worse in that people often give up because there is no way to be perfect like the media makes women to be.


If you don't know how media affects body dysmorphia, or even what that word means, I'm not sure you'll get the whole point of why this is an issue.