Kelly Clarkson - Her Figure Would NOT Suck Without Retouching
Posted on Aug 13th 2009 12:00PM by Kristen Seymour![]() |
| Kelly Clarkson looks great, but not like herself on the September cover of SELF. Photo: SELF |
Fitness fanatics and celebrity gossip addicts alike have been all a-twitter over Clarkson's obviously airbrushed SELF magazine cover. In fact, it generated so much buzz that SELF editor-in-chief Lucy Danziger wrote a blog post about the retouching, titled "Pictures That Please Us."
In her post, Danziger compared retouching a celebrity image for a magazine cover to choosing the best vacation photo; you want the "best of the best" for both. SELF magazine covers "are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot," Danziger says. "It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point."
![]() |
| Kelly performs on "Good Morning America" on July 31. Photo: Jemal Countess, Getty Images |
We disagree. We like the fact that there's a beautiful, confident celebrity out there who's happy with her healthy curves. Removing flyaway hairs and wrinkles in the clothing is one thing, but when a health and fitness magazine feels the need to alter its cover girl, they might need to reevaluate the message they're trying to send. And if that message is that you have to be a certain size to be on their cover, perhaps they should stick to celebrities who are naturally that size.
Obviously, we're not alone. Just check out the results of this poll about celebrity retouching!














