This morning I was enjoying my morning coffee with Brad, and he told me about the Christina Hendricks controversy. (I mean, first we talked about how she is hot, then we moved on to the controversy. I mean, come on.) She was wearing a dress by Christian Siriano that got a lukewarm response from T. Lo and a thumbs up from the Fug Girls, who had great comments, as usual:
Christina Hendricks has the kind of fabulous bod that most designers wouldn’t know how to handle. Any time Project Runway throws the contestants a challenge to make clothes for mothers, or divorcees, or generally people who aren’t 5’10″and 100 lbs, they all start wailing and moaning that it’s not what their designs are about and it’s so haaaard, and blah blah blah. I always want Tim Gunn to come in and yell at them that if they can’t handle actual people’s bodies, then they have no business making clothes at all, because guess what? Sometimes people who eat carbs also want to shop and wear things on their bodies.
The New York Times, however, didn’t like the dress.
Cathy Horyn, a style blogger at the Times… quote[d] a stylist who said, “You don’t put a big girl in a big dress. That’s rule number one.” And seemingly to drive home the point of just how terribly big Hendricks really is, the Times ran an altered photo of her (left image) making her appear broader than normal.
After complaints from readers, as well as some bad press, the original photo was replaced (right photo) along with an update explaining that it “was slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing.” Sure. Forget the distorted photo; I’d like an explanation for Ms. Horyn’s distorted view of the female body.
I think it’s clear that the photo was distorted and it was probably inadvertent. But would we call her a “big girl”? And if we did, is that so bad? And do you hate the dress on her? (I love the dress, but not so much the color on her.) And is she the hottest woman alive, or what? Discuss!
Posted by mo pie