The politics of Photoshop.

The Internet has been amazingly adept at bringing like-minded people together and allowing them to make their voices heard. Even if the voices are screaming "We Love Dr. Horrible." Now, a collective of individuals has challenged the magazine industry to provide a magazine cover that is not subjected to rigorous Photoshopping.

You know, I understand that I'm sitting here blogging from under the auspices of The Man, but I can honestly say that I'm torn about the topic of altering photos and here's why: I have a permanent red vein in one of my eyes from an old injury and I 'Shop it out of just about every photo that makes it out of my hard drive. Sure, the super mondo bloodshot eye shows up in the photos that other people take of me, and I'll absolutely admit that I do it, so it's not like I'm fooling anyone, but I think it looks ugly and since I can't surgically do anything about it, I do the only thing I can, which is to digitally remove it. Sometimes, while I'm in there, I'll wipe out a zit or smooth over some acne scarring too. And at least once, I've shadowed in an egregious and unfortunately exaggerated double chin. You can smell the slippery slope from there, can't you?

Get ready for your close-up! High-definition TV has brought celebrities' skin flaws into tight focus. Learn from their tricks with SELF's advice.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I tend to view cover photos as works of art rather than photojournalism. It's a beauty ideal that doesn't exist in nature, much the same way in that makeup represents lips that are far too red or glossy or metallic and eyelashes that are way too thick and dark to come out of the head of a natural blonde. I know this. I understand this. If I myself were altered beyond recognition (the way that Tina Fey looks practically unrecognizable on the May 2008 cover of Marie Claire), I might be upset, but I don't honestly know how those stars feel about it, nor do I know how much money they're making to be some Photoshop artist's muse of the moment. What's more, having looked at untouched photos of stars, I can tell you that Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a lot more speckly than GQ would lead you to believe. But honestly, I don't really care, because I can understand that what I'm seeing is a representation of a person, just like a painting. I firmly believe that if Picasso or Rubens would have had the technology, they would have created similar depictions of their beauty ideal as well. The difference between the masters of yore and the masters of today is that our eyes can no longer see the brush strokes.

Photographic evidence: Anne from Elastic Waist comes to terms with her body by taking daily snapshots of herself. Could it work for you?

I get that. I think a lot of people do too. What I think people are questioning isn't the technology of photo altering, or even the philosophy behind it, but rather the aesthetic that is driving those changes. So therein lies my problem in justifying or denying the Photoshopping.

Weetabix wants you to know that Ugh Weekly doesn't want fat readers, thank you very much!

What about you guys? How do you feel about the obviously manipulated cover shots? Does it upset you when People airbrushes out Angelina Jolie's veiny forearm? Is it realistic to demand things from what is, in essence, a product? If there were a magazine whose tagline was "No Photoshopping Ever" would you buy it, on principle? The comments are ready for their closeup.