On a Makeup Evolution
By: Ana Palacios
Makeup: a colloquial expression of vanity or an avenue of self-expression? Makeup is routinely in many people's everyday lives, but shouldn't we stop and ask why?
The history of makeup has long been marked by the signaling of wealth, class or status. In Persia and ancient Egypt for example, makeup (which was based on pigments) was believed to make one's appearance more ‘godly,’ thereby ascribing those who wore makeup a higher morality as they were closer to godliness. Further examples include the Romans, who regarded makeup with a class association. Romans were no strangers to a different type of racism, and associated fairer skin to higher classes. One’s physicality was of vital importance in the Roman era, as it would determine one's societal role, and thus, provide others with the context of how to treat you.
Even still, in the bible, some passages identify makeup as sinful, as makeup was associated with vanity, thus, condemning its use. Throughout the west, this pattern of condemnation was prominent in the B.C period. We have all seen the use of makeup in the Reinancaince, this thought evokes images of Marie Antoinette-esque style of makeup. Nonetheless, the use of makeup popular at these various moments in history caused severe health defects, as they contained chemicals we now know as corrosive such as lead. Nevertheless, makeup was not considered out of vogue because of its danger to individuals health, but rather, by influential people’s statements (we could cite Queen Victoria, for example) who characterized makeup as vulgar and associated them with prostitution, thus, in order to be morally sanctified one would stay away from makeup. This prompts us to posit an interesting qualm; why is the way we present more important than the physiological or medical impacts of practices used to alter our physiques? Has it in fact never been principally about character?
Makeup began to be used more conveniently in the 20th century, beginning most notably in the 1920’s. As women began to enter some facets of the workforce, they were encouraged to wear makeup in order to compete with men. Many of the makeup trends of the 1920’s still linger today; what are you dressing up as for halloween? It is in the 1960’s with the regalvanization of feminism, that we begin to notice a tension between the concept of equality for women and makeup use. Although makeup was frowned upon in the west, mostly up to the 1920s, it became associated with a form of patriarchy that objectified women. Still, makeup use proliferated, with high fashion statements and in the general populace. The colors previously considered vulgar in history, as they were worn by ‘prostitutes’, made their way into the trends of mod makeup, the one you think of when you see a 60s inspired look on Pinterest. The 60s youth movement preferred more minimal makeup, compared to the 70s, where pop-culture saw a flourishing of glam looks.
Makeup is a statement; especially when done with a certain sensibility of artistry and creation. We have the example of iconic makeup artist Kevin Acouin, who’s take on makeup revolutionised the field. Even so, we cannot ignore the obvious and quite dubious account that feminists in the 60s already included in their rhetoric: makeup is about how others view you, and according to this, they shall treat you. Popular discourse about makeup includes a lot of new-wave spiritual jargon, many argue it is empowering to put a ‘full-face’ on quoting, “you feel your best when you look your best.” But why? Many believe, including Kevin Acouin himself, that makeup is an avenue to forget, or momentarily erase one's insecurities, and thus, become ‘empowered’ in a new, fresh face (for 5-12 hours according to most product labels). The makeup industry is a multi-billion dollar machine that ranges from products to artists to makeup channels that sell us a myriad of fun-looking pigments and techniques to alter our faces and empower us, by the same means. Would it be a reach then, to suggest that the same companies profiting from the mass consumption of makeup, are the same ones that have stakes in perpetuating the same insecurities?
There is a real and building tension between this economy of alteration and a new-wave of ‘realness.’ Consumer society has shifted directions suddenly and promoted the consumption of all that is “more real.” Industries have broadened their horizons to include and represent a more diverse range of people. We have been shown the unedited snaps of high fashion images, pre-photoshop perfection. ‘Influencers’ have also co-opted the trend, and some are even dedicated to showing an audience: “what a real body looks like,” “how your skin really looks without makeup,” “10 things that are totally normal to have.” This is not to say the movement for realness is malign, however, it suggests that the actions of moguls in pop-culture have been deliberately posing negative messaging about people’s natural bodies. Does it not speak volumes that we have been conditioned to despise our ‘real’ and ‘normal’ bodies?
We have been compared to a standard of photoshop and filters, thus, we continue to consume heaps of remedies, creams, foundations and eyeshadows to espouse a desirable look. Naturally, this is not always the case. Namely, editorial makeup is worn to enhance apparel. Further, this is a practice dating back millions of years, making it safe to assume that homo sapiens engaged in the practice because, at least some part of the collective consciousness, enjoyed it. My point is not to say that makeup is bad, or that it creates by itself objectification or self-commodification, but rather to say that industries have used and created people’s insecurities and have sold the ‘solution,’ creating a foolproof plan for high profits.
Comment your thoughts and follow @fadeintohueofficial