Angelina Jolie is the cover girl for November's Harper's Bazaar UK, and what caught my attention right away was the fact that it was just Angelina's face.
Now granted, this cover is definitely photoshopped to make things like her eye color pop and her skin flawless, but I was trying to remember the last time I saw a women's magazine cover that was only face and no body. My memory is hazy and I couldn't recall any. Can you?
So, then I got to wondering if the full face shot would be the newest trend in cover shots, and would that be better, worse, or make no difference in terms of the beauty illusion that the mag covers keep trying to brainwash us with. Here's my thoughts:
Faces are interesting. You can read much in a person's eyes especially when it's close up. You can get a huge smile, and just see smile. A face can convey way more emotions. The face/headline combo could emphasize more the "this is what we think" image kinda like the bubble sayings we add in a scrapbook. Focuses less on what a woman's body looks like. Opens the door for more models who have a beautiful, interesting face but not necessarily the perfect sub-size 4 body that editors tend to pick.
Focusing on the face just gives women something more to nitpick and compare themselves to. "Now I gotta worry about how perfect my face looks because it's all about the face." Full face shots of perfection are just going to catapult women to buy more anti-aging and anti-wrinkle cream out of fear.
Doesn't matter if it's face only or full body shot, it's still selling unrealistic standard of beauty. No one has perfect flawless skin like that, and has a face that looks like near perfection. Preference will still go to those models and celebs who fit a certain look and standard of magazine cover beauty.
Now then, what do you all think?