If they ban the photo, why not the whole claim?
Today it was reported that Rachel Weiszs, British actress and model’s image was banned on a facial cream advertising promotion. It was claimed that the photograph was not a true representation of her real life self. The photo image showed flawless, youthful skin, more youthful than that of the real age of Rachel Weiszs. This is what the cream claimed to achieve.
Rachel Weisz Skincare Ad (source: ABC News)
A panel of critics had various points of view. One which jumped out at me, as an aesthetic practitioner was, ‘It (the image) should be banned. People more and more have unrealistic ideas of how they should look. All this botox and lip enhancements, people are starting to look the same. What about individual looks?’
Another slant on aesthetic treatments! The ironic thing is that as an aesthetic practitioner I largely agree with this one critic. We don’t all want to look the same. We need to be careful of having unobtainable youthful looks. As soon as botox and (one small example of the use for) fillers is mentioned, the argument falls apart in my mind.
Aesthetic treatments are most commonly used to help us look as much as possible like our better selves. Everyone knows about that and aim to achieve this, whether it is keeping our hair trimmed and / or coloured, our physical selves in shape, our nails well manicured or glamorously varnished. Most of us take pride in being well suited and booted!
Aesthetic treatments are rarely requested to change our appearance. To date, none of my clients’ aims have been to achieve the plastic fantastic image which the media all too often partners these two words with.
In fact, facial creams which often are as expensive as having aesthetic treatments when looking at the annual cost, cannot and do not deliver what they often claim. Maybe that should have been the main discussion, rather than the photograph which mirrors the message that remains on the cream. Aesthetic treatments deliver. Creams moisturise!
Last updated May 2nd, 2018