I was heavily intrigued by this article as it made me question the authenticity of celebrity intentions whilst introducing the concept of “Girl Gaze” it is easy to see the moral purpose allowing women from all backgrounds and ethnicity to have a voice through the aid of social media which is the advantage of living in a tech savvy society reaching a mass audience but it always important to not be distracted by the surface. Our contemporary society is filled with internet addicted obsessed teens and social media crazed young adults it is easy to see why as we all carry a smartphone allowing us to access this from almost anywhere keeping up with the non stop movement of the world but this is not mandatory as the article suggests not everyone will have access to these resources or choose not to. ‘Girl Gaze’ lives by offering all women a voice but if your campaign is online based not every woman has this opportunity as the article stated with a celebrity status to push this project into recognition branching out to women in third world countries or elderly women boosting moral recognition rather than shallowly relying on social status. When you’re living in a world that is infatuated with applying a filter on everything it is difficult to tell what is real without confronting the superficial aspect of aesthetic. Looft questions whether ‘Girl Gaze’ is specifically displaying images for aesthetic with a campaign that holds such passion and meaning it is challenging to take the concept serious if we are distracted by “pretty” and isn’t that just defeating the whole purpose of the campaign? As women we are much more than our appearance we desire to be known by intellect and skill I completely understand the intent to make images visual pleasing but your voice is what you say not how pleasing it sounds.