In the December issue of Vanity Fair, Jim Windolf takes on America’s increasing obsession with cuteness in his article Addicted to Cute. He posits that companies, who are doing bad and decidedly un-cute things, will often try to identify their brand with something that pushes our cute button, because it triggers the bit of our brain that probably evolved out of a desire to protect our offspring. If we associate a brand like Geico (an insurance company that deals with ugliness as a core part of its mandate) with an adorable gecko, consumers and potential consumers are distracted into thinking that the gecko is the company and we are less likely to think about their actual business. In fact, we may want to protect the company, in a strange and abstract way.

As another example, Windolf draws attention to the evolving face of Disney icon Mickey Mouse:

In a 1979 article for Natural History, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould noted … [Mickey Mouse] evolved from the thin cackling rodent of the silent-film era to the high-voiced, plump-headed figure of the 1950s and beyond. So as the Walt Disney Company grew more powerful and profitable, its public face grew cuter.

Disney – Mickey Mouse image by Joe Penniston.

In the Spring of 2007 a urologist named N.J. John K. Lattimer died in California. According to the New York Times, what made this man’s death interesting were the strange collectibles he left behind, including Napoleon’s penis, “Lincoln’s blood-stained collar and Hermann Göring’s cyanide ampoule.” Yes, that’s right. Napoleon’s penis.

Napoleon Bonaparte died in exile on the southern Atlantic island of Saint Helena on May 5, 1821. The following day an autopsy was conducted by the emperor’s doctor … [who] removed Napoleon’s heart (the deceased had requested that it be given to his estranged wife, the empress Marie-Louise, though it was never delivered) …

In 1916 … [the] collection of Napoleonic artifacts [was sold] to a British rare book firm, which in 1924 sold the lot for about $2,000 to a Philadelphia bibliophile, A.S.W. Rosenbach. Among the relics was “the mummified tendon taken from Napoleon’s body during the post-mortem.” A few years later Rosenbach displayed the putative penis, tastefully couched in blue morocco and velvet, at the Museum of French Art in New York. According to a contemporary news report, “In a glass case [spectators] saw something looking like a maltreated strip of buckskin shoelace or shriveled eel.” The organ has also been described as a shriveled sea horse, a small shriveled finger, and “one inch long and resembling a grape.” (source)

Ouch!

Napoleon Bonapart image by Dunechaser.

Recently, fashion company Ralph Lauren took a lot of heat because of some overzealous Photoshopping they did that resulted in an already thin model looking like a bobble head. I would show you the image but, apparently Ralph Lauren and Co. have taken issue with other websites posting the image (next to critiques) and have sent the likes of Boing Boing and Photoshop Disasters letters warning them to either take down the offending image or face legal action. Photoshop Disasters has complied, but Boing Boing is calling their bluff. You can see the offending image here.

While attacking the above mentioned websites, Ralph Lauren simultaneously issued an ‘apology’ for it’s overzealous retouching:

For over 42 years, we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.

We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the calibre of our artwork represents our brand appropriately.

Lauren is basically saying that this incident amounts to a technical glitch and is in no way representative of how the fashion industry in general (or Ralph Lauren in particular) understands or considers the female form. There is a long, documented history of tension between the ‘ideal’ woman regularly featured in the fashion and entertainment world and reality, where not everyone is a porcelain skinned size zero.

Although  tools like Photoshop have made it easier for the fashion industry to create unrealistic and unattainable images of the human physique, contrary to what Lauren claims, it isn’t the poor use of a tool that resulted in this image but rather evolving perceptions about what constitutes beauty:

[Findings] show that from the turn of the century throughout the 1970s, the standard of physical attractiveness for women presented in the mass media became much thinner and less curvaceous … During the period from 1979 to 1988, Miss America contestants continued to decrease in body size and Playboy models maintained their already low body sizes … [This] has serious implications for women’s well-being. During the period from 1979 to 1988, 69% of Playboy models and 60% of Miss America contestants weighed 15% or more below the expected weight for their age and height category. The researchers note that according to the DSM III-R, maintaining body weight of 15% below one’s expected weight is a criterion for anorexia nervosa. Other researchers have also noted the prevalence of disordered eating among fashion models (e.g., Brenner & Cunningham, 1992) and the severe health risks associated with achieving a very thin body type. Women whose body fat falls below 22% are much more susceptible to infertility, amenorrhea, ovarian and endometrial cancer, and osteoporosis (Seid, 1989). (source)

Skeleton image by Perpetualplum.