Age old Question of Ageing women in Beauty

Ageing in women has always been the last bastion of prejudice. Perhaps as in the Klimptian way (if I may use such a term) - there are only three stages one is permitted. A child still connected to its young thin and beautiful mother, then there's the aforementioned beautiful mother, dutifully loving and cradling the child with wispy gauze encircling her limbs; aside and apart from them stands or rather hunches, a shameful grey figure with gnarly veined feet and wiry hair which she obediently and carefully uses to hide her no doubt horrible and wrinkled visage. Her bloated belly and sagging breasts are however still affronting our vision but the radiance and confidence of the younger two figures seem fairly safe in their (let's use that term again) Klimptian blue bubble aura whilst the old woman is in her red bubble aura, albeit her ashamed head accidentally bows and intrudes into the blue one as if foreshadowing some inevitable threat which indeed is clear. The message is: you'll be me! And then what! 

Klimt is actually one of my favourite artists so I am not attempting to prove my youth credentials by way of "cancelling" him for being misogynist. Particularly when this vision is still the same as ever and any attempt to correct it is met with anger at it in fact entrenching it. I am referring to the response of Sports Illustrated featuring a suspiciously smooth and glowing octogenarian, Martha Stewart:

In interviews she graciously concedes that she 'had a light spray tan, something she'd never done', a bit like Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner insisting they are horrified and bewildered by plastic surgery. We can speculate and we can, er, use our eyes, but it's true, we are not owed any explanation and I don't know why people think we are. I think it's safe to accept that if we all had unbridled funds, we too could give mother nature a good fight back. I don't know much about Martha Stewart but reading her interview (NYT) it's clear that this fight isn't only about the external, it's also about not being that hunched and apologetic grey figure accidentally seeping into a young world and contaminating it. When asked if she stood by her joke that she was waiting for friends to die so she can get a chance at their husbands, she drily replies: "I don’t take it back. But, well … the husbands do tend to go first. And, really, I prefer younger men."

Of course Sports Illustrated had the previous year already featured another older candidate in her bathing suit, though by comparison a sprightly 69 years old. Maye Musk. However she has short hair which immediately acts as a bulwark against suggestions of impersonating a young fertile (that word had to come up sooner or later) blonde. Her hair is short and white and her demeanor is dignified and without the girlish tousled locks and languid pose. Foliage acts as a slight apology attempting to contain this aberration of nature.

Madonna has become the poster child (so to speak) for women who refuse to accept ageing and in their silly insistence merely look ridiculous and push back feminism. I disagree. In the 50s, actresses, take Marilyn Monroe, were initially given the ingenue roles but by the time of her death at 36 it was only mother roles and she had changed her wardrobe completely. Well if advances in science mean this can be reversed then surely that's to be welcomed, not treated with anger. Now clearly, some people's inherent facial bone structure, or the time they start surgery (hint- the younger the better) or the surgeon they choose and various other factors, determines how pleasing it is to our eyes and judgment. So if the issue is that us mere mortals caught within a cost of living crisis can't do it then that's a different argument. But if Madonna wants to not see wrinkles then that's her decision. The backlash she gets is very cruel - and mocking a woman for being defiant is very misogynist, just like calling women who speak up and complain, Karens. It's a way to put women back in their correct bubble aura and get them to hide their ugly old faces. And the cancel format itself is very medieval and depressing. Once you make a mistake, that mistake will never be forgiven. The identity boxes and pronouns are similarly very strict. Women within this dogmatic logic are also contained and mocked. It's sad that the trend is not towards a more pliant route of people expressing themselves with a freedom to change at will and not because of their age or gender. Perhaps Sports Illustrated, an unlikely champion, will be at the helm of such a change. To my mind, I'd rather see women looking confident in their swimsuits than clunky makeup campaigns trying to sell products or using face creams called 'menopause cream'. Those are an insult to one's intelligence and a bait and switch rather than an attempt to change an ingrained pattern.

Allure magazine A lure?

Yes, that's right: my conclusion, having read the 'editor's letter' available online, is that Allure magazine is ironically simply trying to lure in the grey pound. Do they honestly abhor the concept of anti-ageing? If so, why pick Helen Mirren who has had and admitted to having work done? As far as I'm aware, she's had a facelift and no doubt has a regime of peels, fillers, botox. So, she knows how to use them in moderation to avoid us being able to ridicule her for 'chasing youth', and that, presumably, is what is being applauded.

To me this is a cynical ploy to act as though they are at the forefront of some kind of revolution. I pity anyone who falls for it... No fool like an old fool, eh?

Allure seems like one of the more intelligent woman's magazines but it often looks like it's trying too hard. Until they put non airbrushed non operated non hair extension-ed non injected women on the cover, what is their point? And in any event, let's be frank, we want to see beauty, we don't honestly want to buy a magazine with a 'people of Walmart' poster child on the cover. The simple truth of the matter is, since the dawn of time, youth and beauty, are linked. Not inextricably linked, but there is a fact: looking good once you're older than 30, takes effort. Effort may mean just eating better and drinking water and exercising. But it's certainly not the bloom of youth that comes effortlessly from being, well, in the bloom of youth.

Women over 30 hopefully have the intelligence to know that calling something "anti ageing" doesn't need to considered in the same lexicon of "anti fungal" and "anti virus" and "anti anxiety" as the editor's letter suggests. Buying a cream labelled "anti ageing" doesn't mean you wish you would die young and never age, or that you renounce all wisdom and knowledge accrued with ageing. It means, clearly understood because you're old enough and self aware enough to accept it, that with ageing comes age spots, wrinkles, uneven texture, sagging. Is there any point pretending we want these things?? Is there any point pretending that we don't want to look like we have a fantastic body, fantastic shiny hair, fantastic gleaming even-toned skin? Why create this absurd Emperor's new clothes phenomenon by claiming, after the horse has bolted (a very hasty search of past Allure covers shows that they have never been mindful before - yes, I know, they say they know they were part of the problem...) that suddenly we object to being promised a remedy to these side effects of ageing?

I believe that magazines aimed at teenagers - and more to the point - online blogs and sites and instagram and social media, are a threat to emotional well being and are dangerous. Because when you're young you're very impressionable and vulnerable.But telling a woman old enough to recognise marketing babble, that she will now no longer have to endure the term "anti ageing" is really pathetic. The magazine is not claiming to actually address the true issue: celebrating ageing in all its undisturbed damage (and it is damage, let's not be coy). They want to have their cake and eat it. They will hoodwink us by saying that they champion age, while putting a woman who's had a face lift and who is posing with an undeniably young tattooed model's arm. Why the need to enhance Mirren with this young arm, why not let the age stand alone or be enhanced, with another aged woman? To put Mirren in this setting makes the cover seem diluted and made more palatable; it seems to signal it as a gimmick and a novelty. In fact, what they ought to be doing is accepting that beauty can and does exist in every age, and there is no point in being touchy about the fact that after 45 you certainly won't have the same, ahem, allure, as someone in the 20 year old bracket. Yes, it's probably linked to fertility. Sad but why be in denial. However, an ageing face can be beautiful and inspiring by virtue of its age, with an erstwhile beauty that still shines through proudly.

 Audrey Hepburn. "I believe that happy girls are the prettiest girls"

This is not to renounce advances in science, quite the contrary. One is welcome to fight ageing with all one's finances and all one's efforts. The fight will probably be lost - who, seriously, is convinced that these fillers giving an old cheek the same volume as a young one, looks anything other than a blown up old bag? But regardless, the procedures give the patient a sense that she has done all she can and has at least tried to stem the ravages of time... Do not go gentle into that good night...

So don't treat this fight as anything other than "anti ageing" and don't just lead down to an inevitable sickening platitude or euphemism. If it's because you're ashamed to have a cabinet full of labels screaming "anti ageing", that's one thing, and if it bothered me that much I would put masking tape on it or rip the label off... but I would be no less ashamed if the label said 'plumping and smoothing' than if it said 'anti ageing'. If it's because you genuinely think "anti ageing" is an insult, then why not just stick to a slathering of vaseline when your skin feels tight, and let ageing take its unabated course. By 'plumping' for that plumping cream, you've admitted this is a fight against ageing. You're old enough to accept this without a cynical ploy by a magazine taking payments from these companies and taking photo-shopped images from plastic surgery celebrities who swear on paper that this is down to healthy eating. To force brands to rename creams just to spare your feelings?! How about they say they'll no longer run adverts for anti ageing creams unless the celebrity is actually ageing? Or unless the celebrity is actually ageing without surgical intervention? Hmm well that is a step too far, evidently.

Blurred lines

Arguably feminism's greatest victory is that it seems so unfashionable and embarrassing to be labelled a feminist. Adverts and pop culture in many ways set the aspirational blueprint, and makeup often becomes a tool by which to embolden the image. In the iconic Robert Palmer video, the women are stoic; their makeup is uniform smokey eyes and red lips. Yet their black turtle necks and guitars subvert the robbing of individuality and give them back their strength. In Robin Thicke's recent Blurred Lines video, the red lipstick remains - but the women are stripped whilst the men are fully suited. Robin Thicke looks a lot older than the models, and very slimy. It is undoubtedly grossly insulting (there is no irony) yet the jaunty lyrics make light of the spectacle. Check out this FT article for an interesting discussion. I've spoken before about how being jokey about being seductive is the new feminism, and the recent furore over Miley Cyrus desperately trying to look appealing is further entrenching this. Apparently red lipstick is the essential ingredient... how sad.

Benefit recently shared their advert for 'They're Real' mascara by trying to translate the objectification. This failed miserably. Ultimately, men and women are completely different and seeing men groping their bulging trousers is usually at best pathetic and creepy... But Benefit slathers on the 'it's a funny joke, lighten up!' patter. However, many wrongs go unchallenged by masquerading as light-hearted jibes. Well, it might all be forgiveable if the jokes were funny?!

Oscars 2013 makeup: Review!

A little late but I'd like to rekindle my tradition of reviewing Oscars makeup looks! After all, the Oscars are truly what ultimate glamour is all about.

This year, it seems hair was worn down rather than the more expected array of up-dos we have come to predict. As ever, mostly it is actresses showcasing their effortless, natural beauty and oh fancy that, yes I do happen to be in a full ball gown but aside from that I would look just as beautiful in my jim jams. But there was a very welcome dose of old true Hollywood glamour at last - not least thanks to Adele whose retro makeup and hair has become her hallmark. In fact whoever her makeup artist is - give that genius an award too! (Edit: just checked and it's a Michael Ashton - his twitter here for more info.) Adele always looks chiseled and having seen her without makeup, this really is beyond impressive. And hurrah she wore a black, flattering dress and looked groomed to perfection.

 

 Adele, in a Jenny Packham dress and Lorraine Schwartz jewelry.

Ditto Jessica Chastain, who equally looked the epitome of ye old golden years of Hollywood. Her red hair and bold red lip looked so much better than a cop-out of nude lip and nude dress. I thought it was right on target for that true Oscars look that we yearn to see!

 Jessica Chastain in an Armani Privé dress, Christian Louboutin shoes and Harry Winston jewelry.

My favourite look of the night was absolutely Naomi Watts. Firstly, I adored her dress - indeed, I also loved her Vanity Fair after party dress. Oscars are the time to get your sequins. I always wear sequins but you can bet that if I ever got to go to the Oscars (oh let me dream) I would be so glittery I would outshine everyone... sigh. Naomi Watts' Oscars gown was sequin laden plus it had a very interesting modern twist. The makeup was youthful, fresh and glowing - she looks so good for 44 - and it was so adorable that her husband was there taking shots with the best of them! What a cute couple...

Naomi Watts in an Armani Privé dress, Jimmy Choo shoes, a Roger Vivier bag and Neil Lane jewelry. And bottom: at Vanity Fair party wearing an Emilio Pucci black and gold beaded one-shoulder gown, Jimmy Choo shoes, Neil Lane jewels, and a Chloe bag.

Helen Hunt also had flawless natural glowing makeup and - gasp - an H&M dress?!

Anne Hathaway's dress had a few detractors but I think the fuchsia lips with the pale pink looked inspired:

 Anne Hathaway in Prada.

Nicole Kidman also had a bright pink lip, although it seemed to fade, as some pictures show her with her now signature pale pink lipstick. I applaud the bold lipstick. Again, I am a huge fan of her sequin overload dress and it so reminded me of a Gustav Klimt painting with all those gold swirls:

Nicole Kidman in a L'Wren Scott dress and Fred Leighton jewelry.

Amanda Seyfried had lovely purple eyeshadow, which made a change from all the rather dull browns and muted coppers around.

Amanda Seyfried in an Alexander McQueen dress, Roger Vivier shoes and Lorraine Schwartz jewelry.

Jennifer Aniston is never seen with anything other than her beachy casual very natural look - and I must agree, why mess with a winning formula? She looked fantastic and seeing her in red rather than black is a marvellous change. Some people don't suit heavy makeup and I suspect Jennifer Aniston is one such...

Jennifer Aniston in a Valentino dress, Salvatore Ferragamo clutch and Fred Leighton jewelry.

In fact... the only makeup looks I didn't like were just because it was uninspiring, not bad per se. The first such was Salma Hayek: her dress was my very close second fave, it was spectacular. Almost Elizabethan with all that sequin and velvet. But yet the eye makeup was a bit half hearted - with such a bold dress I would have loved a black smoky eye with glitter, and retained the nude lips and skin. As it was, it looked a little undecided and lacklustre.

 Salma Hayek in Alexander McQueen

Similarly Naomie Harris looked faded out and I didn't like her dress. Perhaps a deep berry lipstick could have saved the day. I feel she is too clever looking to pull off the vacuous Bond girl image. I know this Bond film was all about updating and rehashing the formula and I really loved that - but even so, I just am not convinced of Harris as a salacious Bond girl and this dress in spite of its overt slash right up to the wasitline, just looks pained. My disappointment of the Oscars goes to:

Naomie Harris in Vivienne Westwood.

...What were YOUR thoughts and faves? Please share below...

photo credit: Just Jared, Huffington Post

Round up Beauty thoughts

I have several ideas but usually they are not enough to justify a post in themselves, so I thought I would try out a round-up post and see how it goes...?

First up, those Chanel ads - how odd to have a man (ok no not "a man", I mean, Brad Pitt) fronting a women's fragrance. It has always been obvious that women could be used in adverts to sell a man's fragrance (or anything else) but it seemed clear that to sell to women we want to be enticed by a woman promising us an equal beauty to hers', if only we were to whip our credit card out for said item. But now, I guess in a classic case of post feminism, we too have the experience of being seduced for our purchase. These clips are the closest most of us will ever get to being chatted up by Brad Pitt, and I have to say I think it's a great ploy. Well worth his reputed $7M fee. It doesn't matter that what he's saying makes no sense, he is mesmerising, who is listening to him anyway?? Chanel No.5 really is legendary (in large part thanks to Marilyn Monroe's famous quip when asked what she wore to bed.) Chanel have made a video, somewhat bombastic and garish but describing its history (watch it here.) Personally I would probably still prefer Chanel's green bottle fragrance but I think it's ingenious to have the tagline "Inevitable" as there are plenty of clueless men buying their women fragrance or even women who don't know what they're supposed to like, so I am pretty sure Chanel No5 will indeed become an inevitable purchase and the campaign is bound to do amazingly well.

Seeing as I mentioned Marilyn Monroe, and seeing as MAC currently has their Marilyn Monroe collection out, I thought I would recommend a biography I just read - highly recommended if you are besotted with Marilyn Monroe as so many are. It is by Sarah Churchwell and called 'The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe.' It is very academically written and examines the various theories surrounding her. It also goes some way to explaining why Marilyn Monroe still to this day, more than half a century after her death, seems so modern and fresh and is still used as the benchmark for confident alluring females from Madonna to Gwen Stefani and various Hollywood actresses in between, who would all hope to be today's equivalent. In her day Marilyn Monroe was a subject for ridicule: her wobbly walk lent itself to comedies and the real seductive actress du jour was Liz Taylor. But when Hugh Hefner launched his career and sealed his future by buying and exposing Marilyn Monroe's nude photographs (she had posed nude whilst still a 'struggling actress') Marilyn Monroe refused to deny they were of her as her studio would have preferred, and instead admitted they were and simply absorbed the extra attention without allowing it to provoke shame. On the other hand, many feminists argue that by adopting the pre-war persona of humble, hapless and doting hourglass woman, she plunged women back into their former place. She had a very bizarre mix of naive openness and cunning wit. To take the Chanel quote above for instance, Marilyn Monroe explained that this was a way to avoid saying naked but that she didn't know why they would be asking her anyway. And the seemingly retrospective attitude of thinking of Marilyn Monroe as a tragic figure was already in place in her lifetime; every authorised biography made sure to reference her childhood in an orphanage and the studio loved her Cinderella tale. But the book is also objective enough to recount her flaws and ultimately it seems more than likely that her drug taking and overdose was all a part of her disorganised state rather than a murder or even a deliberate cry for help let alone suicide. We will never know the truth and that is one part of why her image never tires. Even her mole has become a cypher to her legend. As such, let me say that MAC'S hideous packaging really is an insult! It is good that they found a photograph not gernerally known as it does escape pastiche, but the black and red looks lazy and we all know Marilyn Monroe would never have carried that gaudy packaging around... However the colours did seem pretty accurate. Personally I hardly wear red lipstick (too ageing) so I found it an easy collection to resist. By the way, the unbelievably famous white dress (valued at £3M) from 'The Seven Year itch' film is going to be on show in London for the first time.

And finally in my roundup, do you recall the slave earrings? Well the Guardian and Telegraph  say this time it is an Aunt Jemima looking print dress and earrings at Dolce & Gabbana (spring/summer 2013 collection) causing an outcry. The irony is that if this black image was a black woman with european features, i.e small nose and subtly plump lips, this would probably have gone unremarked. I see countless dresses and earrings featuring white women or ethnic women prints - but apparently having a typical black featured woman is racist. It is very sad that showing a black face and having it modelled by a white model is taken as derogatory. If it were a black model I am not sure if it would be attacked even more, or whether in that context it might be taken as celebratory?
 
 
 images: Style.com, PHOTO: Vladimir Potop; Rex Features.

Ugly bite of truth

I once mused about Keats' poem which ends, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty...' I don't know why, but it has always been so perplexing to me, what he meant. In my post I argued perhaps it was the transparency of truth which was beautiful. Or the mastery we feel by the orderliness of knowing what is what and all is in its place. I am old enough to remember the very first series of Big Brother. I hadn't watched a single episode, but for some reason I caught the very last moments of the final. It was Craig (I think? erm, the one who pledged to give it all away to a sick child, anyway.) Watching the moment a 'nobody' becomes a 'somebody' - the 'nobody' cocooned inside a house like a mole, then with a bolt, emerging to a deafening applause; tears, money, fame - who could fail to be moved? Of course as this was the very first series and Big Brother was an unknown concept, this was a genuine evolution which one might argue has been lost since. Reality TV has now become a fixture on our TV schedules, and it is this sense of going on a journey with our protagonist which gives such joy. However, albeit that this concept has long been uncovered and subsequently manipulated, don't let the audience know that! The anger at being duped and taken advantage of is unparalleled, and the very opposite of "truth, beauty."

I wanted to touch on two programmes in the light of this: 'Keeping Up with the Kardashians', and 'The Only Way is Essex'. Both place great store in glamour and offset this with the license which gives them carte blanche: a close family and friends consciousness. I have only caught the odd episode of Keeping Up... but I get the impression that if you've seen one, you've seen them all. The pattern seems to be, some minor disaster (invariably relating to looks or object) followed by making up and realising family comes first (as long as said car/ dress/ hair/ event has been restored in the interim.) The Only Way... is more lighthearted - in that for legal reasons, the introduction clarifies, 'Some scenes have been set up purely for your entertainment.' It subsequently amounts to little more than a badly-acted soap at times, but that is its charm. The appeal of these programmes is to watch as 'nobodies', representing us the everyman, transform and develop into famous 'characters'. But with a meritocracy, the bad side is all the more bitter. At least in a caste system one knows one's place and can blame fate; in a meritocracy, jealousy becomes uncontrollable and failing becomes personal. Hence reality TV will always fall in harm's way.

Recently two of the characters from The Only Way... were attacked. The attack happened in the middle of a season, therefore the attackers became a part of the plot. The characters were featured nursing their wounds, and showed their battered backs to magazines, shared their experience in interviews, and went on to hire minders for future outings. Thus the attackers by proxy were able to indulge in some infamy for themselves.

And Keeping Up... has now been unmasked as a potentially very cynical business. Perez Hilton, the ultimate blogger, tweeted that as a gay man the fact that the sanctity of marriage was so callously thrown aside, was an insult to those who were banned from marriage. Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage, which obviously represented a huge episode and driving theme for many other episodes, looked like nothing more than a charade. Fans who had wept (yes apparently) to think of their Kim finding her prince (yes really) felt violated. The emotions invested were scattered and the 'cast' have now found themselves defending the reality of their reality show. As this article explains, "People can deal with the wedding being over the top, but to do that and get divorced 72 days later, that is hard to swallow in this economy. When people are struggling to pay bills and rent, it doesn't make average people feel much compassion."

In summary, is this a variation of schadenfreude? You can look beautiful and go to great parties, as long as I can have a hand in ripping you down just at the point when you feel invincible. For reputation, even in this media-controlled age, as the Leveson Inquiry is proving, is sacred. The media wield so much power, and every 'reality' TV 'character', even a subject from the news already suffering untold sorrow, is enslaved by it. Reputation cannot easily be bought, and once lost it is impossible to ever fully restore. As the quote goes, "O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial." However, in an age where making a sex-tape is the starting point from which your fame springs, does the quality of your fame/ notoriety matter at all? "I thought you had received some bodily wound; there is more offence in that than in reputation. Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving: you have lost no reputation at all..."

Amy Winehouse 1983 - 2011

There have been appalling news headlines lately and now, another tragedy. Of course the horrifying events in Norway, with at least 93 dead: innocent teenagers shot by a cold-blooded extremist; represents a bewildering malevolence. Yet that does not diminish the terrible nature of Amy Winehouse's untimely death at 27 years old.

Like other talented artists before her, Amy Winehouse became a victim of her success. The cause of death is unknown at this stage, but the speculation is that her addictions have killed her. Addiction is almost impossible to beat, and to compound this, often the victim feels absolutely invincible. Amy Winehouse's inevitable death will no doubt enshrine her. The glamour of drugs and alcohol must be tarnished, it's unbearable. The fact that now this so-called "27 Club" is being heavily reported and noted, will only further entrench the allure of drug-taking. Worse still, drugs arguably will be seen as a rite of passage for any serious and true musician, especially so for jazz, soul or rock; a chance to prove their mettle.

Amy Winehouse admitted that she had manic depression, and that her hair became bigger the less confident she felt; her tattoos were a pain she enjoyed; her self-harm also, a companion to her sorrow; her drinking and drug-taking synonymous with her very identity, so much so that all these facets were impossible to sacrifice. Her winged eyeliner, so extreme that it was more egyptian than 60s, also became her hallmark. It is tempting to blame her sometime husband for 'introducing' her to hard drugs and tipping the balance - but in truth, in those 'showbiz' circles, it wouldn't have taken long before it was someone else offering. Amy Winehouse was susceptible.

In an era when it's so difficult to stand out, and even looking "alternative" has in itself become a fashion trend with its own unwritten, harshly judged rules, Amy Winehouse truly managed to create a recognisable image. Her hair, tattoos, makeup and fashion was all her own invention, and that naturally deep voice - which has been now silenced forever - had effortlessly evoked pain, empathy and hope, to unite a wide-ranging audience from young to old and across cultures.

Plenty of hackneyed phrases will be used; platitudes will ring out, but let's now mark this blog post with the assurance that she has left her mark, and indeed it'll only take a bouffant black hairstyle and that winged eyeliner, before she is remembered afresh.

A strange and unique beauty (that we've all seen before)

Some aspects of beauty have been around since time immemorial and transcend all cultural divides: symmetry, long limbs, straight back. But there is no denying that now, as cultures and races intermix and stereotypes and assumptions progressively get waylaid by History's alleyways, definitions of beauty have been widened - but still - remain strictured.

And although it has always been the preserve of Fashion to shock and set flash trends, the inclusion of a new muse at Thierry Mugler is arresting and oddly beautiful. Tattoos have long been completely absorbed into the mainstream, but not like this...



Perhaps because the tattoo has a coherence of harmony and logic, and is almost poetic in its state of paradox: the inside, outside; the death vision on the life vision; the freshness of youth offset by a caricature of wormy decaying death... Somehow, it can be categorized as Beauty. Obviously not when he is pushing 40 and beyond (yawn yes yes we all know that) but for now, it is clear that "Zombie Boy" as he likes to be known, is getting mileage out of his creation. As WWD quips,

"Tattooing yourself to resemble a rotting corpse — complete with blackened eye sockets and insects crawling over your exposed brain — probably ranks low on the list of things a young man can do to attract attention from girls. Yet it seems to be working wonders."

It is impossible to mention him without citing his sponsor Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj - all portray a strangely post feminist version of Beauty. Fronting cosmetic campaigns [MAC/ OPI], they exude an equal parts mocking and desperate attitude towards Beauty. It might have started off as fun, now invariably appears horribly laboured.



Hip Hop and other music videos relish the exaggerated versions of money and ahem, 'hoes' - and the female pop stars play along, perhaps as a route to being empowered by what is essentially misogyny (much like the 'N word' has been adopted and turned into a term of endearment.) Lyrics that are saturated with far from witty double entendres pepper their pop songs, and they deliberately choose skimpy clothes and scandalous poses. All very tedious and staged.

It is always a struggle to create a modern, beautiful and arresting campaign - and although androgyny is old hat, the formula has been pushed to now include men playing the role of women: Lea T, a transexual model, and Andrej Pejic, a very feminised male model, both setting a new trend (pictured respectively below.) This article disregards these innovations,

"Of course, in fashion, things can always get stranger, but they rarely do anymore. Nudity, androgyny, sado-masochistic fantasies, an overtly gay sensibility — all these ideas have been expressed for years."

Individuality is prized to the point where it is ironically used to set off a cult (I believe Gaga calls her followers monsters?) and polished self-images mean tabloids thrive most when a celebrity can have a red circle or arrow drawn to alert the reader to their every flaw.

Is it a sign of freedom and advancement that there are these constant attempts to redefine beauty, even if it driven by a publicity campaign...? Or is it merely Plus ça change...

Oscars makeup 2011

Oscars makeup is always the most exciting - High fashion gowns that on the catwalk were invariably twinned with extravagant stylised makeup, now seen in a glamorous but real context. This year's makeup choices were as usual mostly within the confines of classic and natural, but thankfully the trend for true nude makeup was replaced by an abundance of smokey eyes in various shades. The absolute winner was Scarlette Johansson (in Dolce & Gabanna): the clashing orange eyes, dishevelled hair and burgundy purple dress worked in perfect (dis)harmony. The dress itself toyed between matronly doily lace and seductive cut-outs. The effect combined created a refreshing, modern twist on a classic. The eyes and hair made certain that she looked young and confident - the attributes most lusted after at these huge events.



There were a few other purple gowns in sight, and Natalie Portman came a very close second in her deep purple Rodarte gown and matching shoes, matching earrings and matching little bag (she does loves to match!) The rich shade really suited her olive complexion, and teamed with an aubergine smokey eye and purple toned blusher, her petite features were enhanced to their utmost.



Hilary Swank, who got it so wrong last year, chose a more resplendent gown, but the lack of jewellery and makeup really undermined her choice. With long earrings and a red lip or dark smoky eyes, this would have been exquisite.




Sandra Bullock, the woman of the hour last year, and notorious victim of the "Oscar curse" wore a defiant column of red, with a bright red matching lip and bag. Kudos to her for attending in a bold and lively outfit, rather than a mournful black remembrance dress.

Gwyneth Paltrow stuck to her reliable gold slinky numbers, and middle parted straight hair. Something about her face has changed recently but I am not sure what... However she looked reliably sleek and her Oscars Calvin Klein dress highlighted her enviable physique. The cool toned gold sheen was offset by the effortless hair and makeup. Heavy makeup and gold dress would inevitably become old fashioned, so it was perfectly pitched. Gwyneth rarely gets it wrong.



There were, of course, those who chose to look as natural and unpolished as possible. Halle Berry has been universally upheld as one of the best dressed. I thought, like Demi Moore last year, that the nude fairy wisp gowns should be left to those under 35. I know this is harsh, especially in a celebrity landscape which for the first time, is riddled with over 40+ screen sirens on every magazine cover [a good thing of course, especially as people's life expectancy gets longer, and women have no desire to give up their rights to attractiveness at nature's appointed moments.] And yet, I do think a sense of austerity should be consulted once one is no longer a young starlet. Either in the form of a nod to bold makeup, or a deeper coloured gown, or even a big necklace. I think the pixie cut is wonderful on her though!




Helen Mirren once again chose a brilliant dress. Her pixie haircut is an inspired move, and coupled with the dashing Vivien Westwood gown and the natural makeup and diamonds, looked superb.






Cate Blanchett and Michelle Williams also went for very angelic natural makeup. I think Cate has indeed made that her trademark - and with her unusual features, it works well. She doesn't need to rely on interesting makeup to look stylish. I am trying very hard to like her dress, as she wears it with such panache, but somehow that 'bib' just prevents me from praise. Michelle William's Chanel gown on the other hand, is easily my favourite of the night. It is equal parts elegant, uncomplicated and graceful. Her pixie haircut is yet another example of how flattering this style can be.

Making that Dior backwards tuxedo a distant memory, Celine Dion looked fabulous. Warm toned smoky eye makeup and nude lips meant the simple dress and her trim figure were the centre of attention.


Sharon Stone looked rather too sombre in draped black gown with 80s style bouffant and red lip, but there's no denying that she always looks her best.




Reese Witherspoon channeled the same style hair but her 60s dark eyes and nude lip, as well as the simplicity of the gown, kept it crisp.


Joan Collins apparently ended up in hosital due to the tightness of this dress. It is not hard to imagine, fitting into that is quite a feat! However I applaud this resilience. Admitting defeat and plumping for a demure gown and nude makeup is not as impressive as looking to Dynasty for your inspiration. Joan is dressing her age, but in a traditional way - indulgently embracing sumptuous overbearing glamour.



Madonna, on the other hand, is quite a confusing prospect. This is hampered further by her daughter - who looks inevitably sheepish next to her exhibitionist companion. Madonna's makeup is perfect - it always is (even if her face has been twisted and pinched) but the lace leotard was a gamble too far.

Tori Spelling probably had a bit too much makeup on, but I loved the combination of unapologetic makeup and glitzy dress. And thanks to the conservative cut, it didn't look overdone.



Hayden Panettiere revealed that she definitely suits a dark vampy lip. The dress was edgy yet still unmistakably grecian inspired.


Kim Kardashian did what she does best (no, not that!) and squeezed herself into a curvy dress. Her makeup suits her, it is heavy but it is always flawless. Her nose seems smaller than ever, but I am sure that is ahem, just makeup.



Kelly Osbourne has lost so much weight, and although she will never be winning any beauty contests, she looked the best ever. The light hair and pink lip ought to be her signature. She plays around with her image so much that it would be good to see her ease into a semblance of a signature look. This is such a pretty look:





Jennifer Hudson has also lost so much weight and looks amazing. The vibrancy of the dress and the glossy lips make her look so glowing. And even if she falls into the trap that so many women who lose weight do (ill fitting clothes that are just fractionally optimistically small) it still was one of the best looks of the night.

And the surprise of the night has to reluctantly be awarded to Jordan / Katie Price. Her hair suits her better blonde, and her makeup was beautiful. The dress was not quite within the realms of vulgar, either. Top marks!



PS. I didn't feature Anne Hathaway's makeup as it was too straightforward. I liked it though. You can read all about it here.

What did You think of this year's Oscars makeup?



*images via Google