You know, there’s a question that’s been burning deep inside of me for quite some time now (and no, it’s not just the kidney stones, either) and I need an answer. I need one. Why do photographers feel the compulsion to Photoshop such hellacity into each and every one of the Kardashians’ faces? Putting all biases aside, they’re pretty enough girls. They do alright on their own. Why interfere in that with poorly-done computer-generated imagery when things are just fine the way they are? Because do you see the above ad for the Kardashians’ new lingerie collection at Sears? It’s flat-out awful. Just … bad. Of course, the lingerie is just fine, and even though all three of them are way bustier than they appear to be in real life, the girls’ faces are just too much for me to handle, and not in a warm, fuzzy way. It’s all way too much.
Khloe, though, for one? Well, she loves the way the photo looks. On Twitter she said, “OMG how fab is this new ad for Kardashian Kollection lingerie?!? Nothing makes me feel sexier, plus it’s all so comfy! Killing two birds with one stone! LOL.” Comfy? Lingerie is comfy? In what parallel universe is lingerie comfy? See, when I think ‘comfy,’ I think ‘granny flannel’ and ‘argyle knee socks’. ‘Yoga pants’ and ‘camisoles’. Definitely not abrasive lace that always rubs your cracks and crevices the wrong way, padded underwires that poke and prod and bruise ribs, or thigh-highs that don’t want to stay up on their own. But yeah. ‘Comfy’, right?
Incidentally, the shoot was done by Annie Leibovitz, whose work becomes more and more questionable as the days go by. Also, what’s with the spray-tanner, and why is it so heavily concentrated on their faces? Is someone trying to send a message here?
The ladies may be quite pretty, and everyone likes lingerie (though let’s not fool ourselves with words like ‘comfy’ here), but this ad? It’s just complete crap, much like the quality of lingerie sold at Sears probably is anyway.