Which do you prefer... wild and colourful, or naturally pretty makeup? And, are you being manipulated in your beauty choices??

I was reading this amazing post which gave me hours of fun, and it made me realise decisively that I prefer colourful looks to natural ones such as those used by Stella McCartney, Balmain and of course Emmanuel Ungaro. Speaking of Emanuel Ungaro, I have just secured a swap for the cream colour base 'Crushed Bougainvillea', which came out in MAC's collaboration with Ungaro. I can't wait to try it! (Have any of you tried it?)

I have read a lot on Make up artist's forums where complaints are made about how MAC are buying out the independent artists- sponsoring shows, or even paying for the privilege of serving at shows, providing free make up and free artists and literally squeazing out the artists who used to make their livelihood from the fashion show season. Most infamous example would be to direct you to inmykit.com, where product recommendations conspicuously eschew all MAC. But that palpable sense of bitterness is more measured when you investigate the backstory and read the threads at forums. Take this post, where it really hots up:

"I'm on a mac boycot (sic) right now. I'm finding their practices in my market to be disturbing, and now its effecting (sic) my personal business. I feel like an idiot for not realizing their tactics sooner. Then after talking to an ex mac corporate employee, I'm really not happy. Here is what she told me. Their strategy is to befriend working freelance artists in a market, give them free product get to know who they are working for, via fashion shows, events, award shows etc. Then slip in under them, offer to do the show for next to nothing with their beauty advisors. At first I thought no skin off my back, I don't really do fashion shows and they haven't really affected me directly. (My italics) However I do events and award shows. Well not so much anymore, they've managed to take a huge huge huge client away from me. When I talked to the client about the situation, they were very honest with me and simply said, they could get for next to nothing even free from mac instead of paying me and the other artists our rates. They then had the balls to ask if any hair lines have a similar program. Now I feel like a fool for being a part of mac's "sponsor program" .Those of you who work for mac and do the shows and events for them, do you mind telling us what you do get paid? for hit and run events here in my market we were getting $400 for about 3 hours of work max. plus a kit fee. usually employing 4 to 6 artists per event. so $2400 per event, I think a bargain. again consider my market. Don't you think we should be angry about this??? and shouldn't those who are working for mac be angry about the fact that they should be making more money doing these types of jobs??? please correct me if im wrong here.."

Ok. This reminds me, one of my friends works for the Bank of England and I was talking to him about the state of the economy (yes, really) and I was saying, "Oh how sad, Woolies is gone" (yes this probably is the depth of my economic nous) and he replied, " Well it's like Darwinism: Woolworths was once important, but it had lost its place and didn't really have any niche anymore, this economic downturn means that only the fittest business models survive." Then, he added, with a flourish, "It's like spring cleaning really".


This make up artist who posted the message above, had been unwary. She selfishly gave information, so long as it didn't affect her directly. Currently the UK news is ablaze with the prospect that perhaps the secret cabinet minutes might be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Not necessarily because the minutes might reveal anything (for they are probably sparse) but because it's the 'slippery slope', opening up the constitution and unravelling safety nets. By giving away information on fashion shows because "no skin off my back", she has made her awards show work vulnerable. It is difficult to feel any sympathy for her now. Similarly, her client, who has seen her use these free MAC products, can easily be forgiven for assuming this is, in her words, some kind of "Sponsorship programme" and that perhaps this was a new phenomenon, and where are the hair equivalents, please? (In fact there are Lauder initiatives in this field too, supposedly, whereby Bumble and Bumble are at the helm.) Viewed in this context, the Lauder company are simply exercising a form of 'Darwinism', making individual make up artists obsolete dinasoars, and replacing them with young enthusiastic MAC workers who are excited enough to be in the fast-paced eye of the storm, be it a fashion show, an awards ceremony or even a film set, without concerning themselves with a fair wage or even the opportunity to own their work as their own indidvidual portfolio image (according to the forum, no money is paid and they have no right to assimilate the 'MAC' image with their own).


This cruel commercial attitude evokes Estee Lauder's celebrated line, "You can get anything you want from men with perfume", a know-how that has made us, as consumers, associate MAC with fashion shows, pop stars and professional make up artistry; has made us see Clinique's simple jars- labelled 'Super Defense', Turnaround', 'Moisture Surge' etc, as prescriptive cure-alls, with this quasi medical image intensified by the overt uniform of white coat! We have Origins as the 'earthy' brand, 'Aramis' as the male brand, 'La Mer' exclusive brand, etc etc ad nauseum. Each expertly marketed, and Estee Lauder herself has been credited with the 'Gift with purchase' concept (as well as the idea to 'accidentally' spill her 'Youth Dew' perfume in a department store in Paris and ingrain the scent into shoppers' minds!)


MAC have been identified in the forum as the brand who used to represent the creative artistry of make up, and now, as one unhappy professional make up artist puts it:

"They made their choice to disregard the professional community IMO, when they became all consumer geared and corporate. Away from their past history for being about the artists and individuals in favor of being over distributed next to every Lancome counter and the quality started dropping severly."

This implies, perhaps correctly, that to be an artist's brand means a tacit exclusivity clause- no "over distribution". Plebs and artists, the argument seems to run, should be very much differentiated. Today's beauty commercials often rely on film stars endorsing the product- it's no secret that we as consumers, want what they, as professionals serviced by professional make up artists, have. They are never anything other than perfectly turned out- and we want that glow. No use attributing it to good lighting or photoshop, just tell us the exact product and we're on it. MAC take this a step further- they have their name against a multitude of runway shows: 'Make up by MAC', the byline reads; 'MAC Viva Glam', the poster with Fergie proclaims. TV make-over programmes aimed at young women, where the make up artist has been surreptitiously sponsored by a make up range, spotlight the 'products used', sometimes belying this with a long-screen shot where the recognisable bottle of MAC 'Face and Body' sits.


Then there is the cult of the 'celebrity make up artist'. Kim Kardashian's popular blog, which I linked to in my last post, is heavy on make up tips and often features her make up artist in prestigious place, links to his blog and in turn their blogs feature the celebrities who they have 'done'. One make up artist blogger listed all items used as 'By Revlon', only to have his next blog entry become in turn an angry defense, provoked by the commenters who asked, 'come on, what did you really use?'


But most famous and succesful is the creative genius Pat McGrath. Chances are, if you have ever admired a runway look, this is the face behind the face. McGrath has been poached by Proctor & Gamble so had to push Cover Girl, MaxFactor and SKII, but plans are underway for her own cosmetics brand, which like celebrity make-up artists Bobbi Brown, François Nars and Laura Mercier before her, should do pretty well.


Ultimately, we all have our favourites, whether found by experimentation, chance or falling prey (however unconsciously) to a marketing strategy. Artists like McGrath make make up fun and inventive, so one hopes that this type of person is not eliminated if corporate conglomerates continue to dominate press heavy events. But with MAC making individuals outside of their firm nervous, and the prolific collaborations with designers and brands (Heatherette, McQueen, Fafi, Barbie, Ungaro, Manish...) MAC is proudly decalaring its commercial bent. Is it then up to us to the consumer, to go with the rebuffed make up artists and boycott MAC for this? Or do we live in a commercial age where capitalism is nothing to be scared of? Or should we just say, with a laugh, "Hell it's only makeup!"


Well I don't know. All I would advise is that you know your style and you test your products as if they weren't in that packaging. Just see it in and of itself. With L'oreal owning The Body Shop, Lancome, Garnier, Kiehls, Maybelline, Vichy and a host of other brands, and Estee Lauder owning Clinique, MAC, Prescriptives, Aveda and half the premier beauty section floor, it is tempting to imagine a different label is arbitrarily slapped onto each bottle on the production line. Perhaps that is not true. Nevertheless, the lines between the quality of drugstore make up and high end make up are blurring, so all we can do is not become a victim of the marketing machine. Get inspired by make up looks, then 'shop your stash'- if you don't have the colour- be creative! - mix colours you do have together, mix 2 different brand eyeshadows and see if you can make something new and your own. When McGrath is interviewed in magazines, her early experiences revolve around her enterprising usage of the limited products available at that time, particularly for dark skintones. Certainly today we should applaud the influx of new ranges and tailored products, but is it at the expense of experimentation?


Well this is my inspiration anyway. Now let me leave you with my poll. I would be intrigued to see the results. Please take a moment (see multiple choice poll above).


--> I want to know whether you generally prefer to look glowy and natural, or wild and colourful. Me, I prefer colouful! I'm talking about generally, not the time you'll be going to a funeral or even to work, I mean in your heart. Here are two images you should use as your guide:


Tom Pecheux for Givenchy:


Pat McGrath (mais bien sur!) for Galliano: