Today's Evil Beet Gossip

You Mean Lady Gaga Doesn’t Have A Ten Inch Waist?

A photo of Lady Gaga

In a startling turn of events, it appears that Lady Gaga‘s latest Vogue cover was Photoshopped. This unsettling news was discovered when new photos and a video were released of Gaga on the set of the Photoshoot, looking marginally larger than she did on the cover itself, and not because of common sense. Take a look at this STARTLING photo:

A photo of Lady Gaga

And this one!

A photo of Lady Gaga

And the video:

This is what Lady Gaga actually looks like, and if you look up at the very top, you can see what Vogue wants us to think she looks like. And yeah, it’s a pretty drastic difference, but, like, it’s a magazine cover. It’s an image of a lady doing something in print. Of course it’s Photoshopped. I don’t get why people are so shocked, but they really are. Apparently this is a big deal because Lady Gaga is such an advocate of being proud of who you are and not changing for anyone, but she very obviously wasn’t “born this way,” har har. And I get that. But I think this is just another crazy Gaga thing.

Of course the proportions aren’t natural. Look at her knees, and those gigantic hips. Nothing about this photo seems all that realistic to me, and the tiny little waist is just a part of that. So can we all just take a moment to relax and say “whatever, it’s just Lady Gaga” please?

13 CommentsLeave a comment

  • I really thought the photoshopping was done on purpose to give her a more alien-like, less human image. Did someone really complain about the alteration? Because this isn’t re-touching, this is straight up altering. I don’t think they ever strived for the photos to look natural!

    • I agree. I thought it was painted or meant to look like the old water colour paintings of women from the 40s.

    • A lot of people are complaining about it. Like, a lot. I probably read at least ten different articles saying that Lady Gaga wasn’t “born this way” and was promoting an unhealthy body image to her fans. I don’t even get it.

    • @Emily all right then! That’s weird though, I just don’t think she wanted to appear natural, like when she stuck her head on a motorcycle for her album cover.

      @cranapplesnapple I think it looks pretty cool as well :D

      • Yeah, I think it’s cool, and I think anyone who thinks it was photoshopped for reasons other than pure artistic craziness needs to calm down. Look back at Gaga’s body of work: she’s always been more concerned with weird, creative stuff than with representing “realistic” body image (like the motorcycle example you gave, mireee, or the Bad Romance video where she looks emaciated and it looks like her vertebrae are sticking way out her back).

  • Its a pretty good cover. I would prefer to look at that than how she really looks. The big deal with photoshop is that it makes people feel bad about how they look. When it should impower people into thinking they can become a cover model with the help of photoshop. I mean just look at gaga

  • Chances are, the cover has less to do with Gaga and more about what the fashion editors at Vogue wanted to portray. I think it’s supposed to be an artsy cover on purpose… see how her dress seems like a watercolor? It sort of reminds me of a mock up sketch a designer or a dressmaker would draw before making a garment. It portrays the overall feel of the garment but without precise proportion or measurements.

  • I agree that the cover looks like it is meant to be a fashion sketch, and think that it look really cool. No one expects ‘normal’ from Gaga anyway – it’d be more scandalous if it was meant to be someone ‘natural’ in a ‘natural’ kind of shoot.
    It’s pretty crazy to see the difference though – particularly her waist! Celeb photoshop reveals always makes me feel better about my tummy lol

  • There is nothing wrong with the “real” photos of Gaga. She looks like an actual person. A weird person, but still… I don’t read Vogue and I don’t know what their deal is. But if they were just going to put a cartoon version of her on the cover I don’t know why they bothered to have her pose. Did they have real photos of her inside the magazine?