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.

Face (of) the day

Today’s post relates to the anxiety of lockdown, the amplified feeling of helplessness and isolation, which, in many ways, manifested itself as we were confronted with the racist US police brutality. I recently watched the BBC 1987 documentary Fouteen Days in May  (link to watch online if you don’t have BBC iplayer) and even though this took place over 30 years ago, the statistics about black men being convicted vs white men, and the way the colour of their skin seems to dictate their fate, haven’t changed much if at all: it’s truly harrowing. It is tragic to realise that prisons and death row inmates are still dominated by a black demographic. The inmate was being filmed by the BBC and thought that the fact he was being filmed might save him. “Do you know something I don’t?” he helplessly asked his young British lawyer. Alas, a camera might record but it can’t stop the reality. I personally find the death penalty shockingly barbaric: even when guilty, many of these criminals endured horrific upbringings and social inequality. (Read Guilty by Reason of Insanity: A Psychiatrist Explores the Minds of Killers by Dorothy Otnow Lewis). In a country where criminals are treated like dangerous animals to be put down it is hardly surprising that brute force is used when apprehending them. Indeed it seems clear that this tactic was well rehearsed, it just had never resulted in a death before. Perhaps even the fact that there was an audience, made the police even more vindictive. One can only speculate and aim for this video evidence to act as a catalyst for real change.

All this takes place in the shadow of an invisible and impartial enemy... although even the virus seems to disproportionally kill BAME (black Asian minority ethnic) groups. The claustrophobia and anger at helpless governments who simply cannot protect its citizens from a disease which is unpredictable and unpreventable by any means other than forcing us all to cower from within secluded homes. The anger from businesses who are forced to therefore shut down and the trickle down effect which means people’s futures are in jeopardy. Especially young people who are cruelly denied times in their life which they’ll never recover: the liberty of university life and the opportunities waiting for them once they graduate, or school children denied the simple joy of growing up in a rowdy schoolroom joshing about with their friends... the list goes on. I can’t help but wonder if the protests are to some, a chance to recreate a social communal gathering, especially if music acts are to take place and celebrities are to attend and give talks. Now doesn’t seem the time to encourage mass gatherings and the inevitable looting is a side effect of releasing all the pent up frustration and rushing into angry demonstration. I noticed a Facebook advert for a London protest advises attendees to self isolate for two weeks afterwards but surely many of them live in shared homes and in practise this invites inevitable exposure for people who would otherwise be sheltered from risk. Regardless of the merits or I should say necessity of visible protest at this abhorrent crime, I think encouraging mass gatherings whilst a virus is still a real threat, is wrong. I also think that the trouble with these “trending” social issues is that it gets a lot of traction and then is all but forgotten and the lessons are not learned. The killing of George Floyd is but the latest in a terrible list of black victims.

And onto beauty; beauty brands are expected to proclaim how upset they are and how much money they will be donating. I think this is misguided in the sense that it commercialises tragedy and pivots a serious issue into a marketing ground. Nonetheless the money is vital and of value but the abuse met out to celebrities and brands who don’t publicly speak out, seems also a kind of prejudicial witch-hunt. People should be able to not have the pressure of their skin colour used against them. But I know that when you are from an ethnic minority you are treated as an Other and whether you want to or not, you do stand as a cipher. So the pressure to be an example is very real and cannot be thrown off. Blackout Tuesday was a noble aim to mute social media and educate oneself on the history of black suffering and prejudice. Prejudice goes both ways and often there is racism within racism such as rap lyrics praising pale black women as ‘redbone’ etc and black celebrities using filters to lighten their skin to this more ‘desirable’ caramel tone or change their features and hair and so on. The racism is not simply coming from white supremacists. Within beauty however there is the added spectre of how foundation shades and even lipsticks are named. What, indeed, does “nude” mean?

 I think broadly shades are named in a neutral way, shades like Estée Lauder shell, Bone, nutmeg, etc all seem fine to me... but there will be a shift I suspect, a hyper awareness of what shade names invoke. I think beauty naming in general needs reassessing because aside from the eye rolling crude sexual double entendres, the drug and addiction type names are also unnecessary and degrading. That doesn’t mean names have to be numbers or boring but it does mean we don’t need to perpetuate makeup as a weakness or a call for sexual attention and (male) approval.

Blackout Tuesday had the ironic effect of being a time to in fact engage more with social media, the black square taking on something of a smug badge of honour, and again, those brands or individuals not using it being vilified for not joining in and thus the logic went aligning themselves with right wing racists. The way of press-ganging individuals to join the cult of vitriol doesn’t seem the way to progress. It seems that it would bring about a short term burst and then the fashion of political protest fizzles down and it’s  onto the next trendy cause to capture the zeitgeist. Racism or more broadly I would say prejudice is a relic from the past which one assumes is eradicated but it isn’t. The need to think of oneself as having an Other to persecute, is irresistible, and shows no signs of abating.

Martin Luther King (yes, who else can one quote at these times?) famously said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” We like to think of our favourite brands whom we shop from, as friends. We want to see them publicly standing against racism and putting ‘our’ money into this cause. We get angry when they don’t. But anger is at the root of where things go wrong. Violence even in the name of virtue can’t be  right... Then again, sometimes the only way to be noticed is to be violent. Kind calm demonstrations probably wouldn’t make the headlines; burning down buildings, does. This is not something to be vindicated by but it is the truth. In a time when there are so many brands - unlike 30 years ago one might say - we can and do boycott which makeup brands get our money. But if a brand makes a truly wonderful inimitable product, how many would still boycott them. Much like a beautiful piece of art painted by a known abusive husband (too many famous artists to list here as examples) would we not still enjoy the art as separate from its creators? Is hounding them until they proclaim their agreement not rather hollow? But as the public’s outrage over Dominic Cummings shows, no it isn’t hollow: we want these individuals in power to be brought down and humbled - even if they do so under duress. Maybe, especially so. We feel cheated if they can happily go about as they were, unpunished.

The point of all this is to say that, as hackneyed as it is, Ghandi’s quote to be the change you wish to see in the world, is the only truth. Making it a norm to be kind and give people the chance to show who they are without our prejudice forcing an identity onto them, it’s hard but we must try. And possibly more importantly, to love ourselves without self hatred and resentment, as this often leads us seek an Other to project all our own insecurities into as a therapeutic release/ scapegoat.

Sometimes the most tiny self care routines are enough to make us feel better and more able to face the world and feel valued. That is why even in lockdown I think it’s crucial to still eat healthily (well of course a few extra treats are understandable...) exercise and still do your hair and makeup and nails, if it brings you joy. My face of the day isn’t what it is when I know I’ll be seen and judged, but it is still a face of the day even if all I do is a trip to the shop or a socially distanced catch up. It’s:

Thebalm balm shelter - comes in extra light and goes to extra dark. My shade is “lighter than light” (I see no issues with the shade names; “light” and “dark” should have no connotations in either direction.) Anyway, this gives skin an even canvas and it has SPF 18. All sunscreens break me out but thankfully, not this. It’s therefore my daily face sunscreen too. Eyebrows - brows are so important. I like to use the Morphe  e29 angled brush and spoolie with some brown eyeshadow (usually MAC or Sleek) and I like to sometimes use eyeshadow but generally if I skip eye makeup I will then always use a lip and cheek colour. I like Lipstick Queen lipstick which I then dab into cheeks.

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.

Beauty Dupe

Thanks to a throwaway comment on a blog I follow, I learned of the recent mumsnet furore. Off I went to read it (naturally.) I don't spend much time on mumsnet, indeed my mumsnet knowledge thus far had been limited to the historic "penis beaker" episode. I found the thread fascinating (ahem, talking about the beauty thread now...) it was originally titled something regarding Caroline Hirons as the whole chat had been triggered by an innocent reader asking whether the blog posts had been sponsored or not. A character named Iamnina had proceeded to spill the beans. Allegedly, this Nina works in PR and had an axe to grind. Soon enough the bloggers being discredited got wind of this mumsnet thread, and in addition to the usual outrage and denial, they have apparently managed to get mumsnet to not only edit the title of the thread, but also completely delete every post by Iamnina and no doubt ban her. I find these draconian tactics really repellent and as I had been toying with the idea of writing a post, this made my mind up.

I wish I'd copied and pasted every post by Iamnina. I had actually thought at the time that I should do it, but I decided: I don't blog anymore - what's the point? If anyone reading this has a copy then do please get in touch and I'll incorporate her points here, hopefully blogger is a safe platform (cue MI5 suspenseful music.) And, reader I know you guessed it, as this is such a hackneyed tale, but one of the reasons I stopped blogging was because it had started as a hobby and then it became a duty. I was beginning to get sent products. Getting what feels like "presents" tumbling through your letter box every day is very different to documenting what you spend your own clutched pennies on. Knowing your blog post will be read by the PR who sent you the "present" and might get angry or upset, or told off by their boss, all because of your post... It's nothing like a blog anymore. Not that getting samples was unpleasant, far be it for me to imply, as I have read many times - that getting samples is a chore/ or a workload/ tiring - or anything like that. But all the same, it does constrain you; it gives the whole enterprise a different spin. My relationship to beauty (I am a dinosaur for saying this) was ambling over to the beauty counters, chatting to my friends (erm, I mean, the beauty counter staff) and seeing the posters and the shiny new display cases and picking out the delectable new treats. Then testing them, either loving my new purchases, or feeling angry that I'd wasted my money. And the blog would be the channel within which to record these innocuous findings.

This is what beauty blogs and YouTube channels were in those days... I'm harking back to 2007 or so. Now the popular channels and blogs are to be viewed with suspicion and there is an 'us' and a 'them' which didn't exist at the outset. I remember Zoella's blog when she wrote about working in a post office. Every entry was her little Superdrug haul or her Primark haul, or so it seemed to me (I was not a regular follower but such was the gist at the time.) Incidentally, I find it amusing that bloggers and youtubers call their PR spoils a "haul". Although far nearer the mark than they intended, the general understanding of a haul is that which they have bought themselves. But this is a side note. Of course the legacy of these humble beginnings is mercilessly and unnaturally sustained, and naive youngsters do still think of the content as independent. But a long time ago, the puppet masters arrived to take the reins. The only bloggers and YouTube popular channels who can afford to be truly independent, well, that's the word: afford. They have to be rich (£200 serums and £35 lipsticks do take their toll) either from their own pockets or from the adverts on their sites which pay by the sheer scale of readership or viewing figures and not by the content as such. As Iamnina put it, ironically these adverts allow the content maker to be independent.

But the real money comes from the euphemistic "consultancy fees". What is it that the brands consult bloggers about, what mystery? As with all Law ('the Law is an ass') there follows a loophole. And here is the loophole to the FTC. As the mumsnet discussion made clear, to any untainted mind, 'reviewing' a product and taking a consultancy fee for, mais bien sur, a wholly unrelated consultation, is quite clearly a conflict of interest. There isn't any need to expand on such an obvious point.

When the FTC first came to upset the party, many blogs and youtubers (I would say the very ones who are now at worst fault) would put resentful, falsely jesting disclaimers. Something along the lines of: 'These were sent to me by little fairy elves at X brand towers but they didn't put a gun to my head, I just happen to absolutely love these products and I wouldn't lie to you my lovely cherry buns as you're the ones I answer to not them!' Occasionally they would adopt a more hostile jokey demeanour, well how can I pastiche or better the eponymous Caroline Hirons who was criticised on the mumsnet thread for her advice after just such a disclaimer, to "chill your tits." Making light of the product being sent for free, to my mind, was never a solution. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting samples, but trivialising the disclaimer is almost akin to an admission of guilt. Misplaced guilt, but still guilt - aggressively defensive.

Iamnina's posts laid bare all the agency business dealings.Blogger and YouTube stars know their worth and will not allow brands a free ride (and hurrah for that!) but to keep their audience on side, they have to pretend to not know their worth. They have to apologise for new houses, new handbags, new noses and breasts. They have to pretend or at least force friendships in line with who belongs to their agency. British Beauty Blogger piped up with characteristic journalistic nous, why don't you write a few posts on my site and see what it's really like! Iamnina scathingly told her that she was not referring to mid tier but to what were the select few bona fide "influencers": Bloggers and YouTube stars who can merely allude to a product for it to sell out instantly. I think she also meant by implication, blogs with less discerning readership. In other words, young impressionable minds who are made to feel that if they don't buy this then they have forfeited their allegiance.

What made me a blogger, and I dare say all the original early bloggers and YouTube hosts, at that point all ignorant of the freebies - let alone wealth and fame and privilege that now can be reached (I nearly said 'achieve', but frankly some of those terribly written blogs and some YouTube channels which have to lay bare every tiny detail, and to my mind are mind numbing, I don't consider enviable or worthy of the term...) - well what made us want to engage with an audience, was a camaraderie. For its own sake. Sharing favourite makeup purchases and saying why other makeup was horrid. Now nothing is without repercussion. The makeup has a PR person who is a new friend. What would happen to her if I slate the product? Will she be blamed and I'll have ruined her day? Or more accurately perhaps, it's the agency PR who is the friend, or more than friend, the employer? We, the audience, become the gift to this new friend. We are the currency for the friend who can open doors, doors not only to new makeup and dresses and plastic surgery and anything in between ("pah! chicken feed!") but holidays and all sorts of bonuses which lead to real opportunities.

One of the accusations which this Iamnina levelled, was that charities have big budgets. She added a wink face emoji to intensify this point. This must have touched a nerve because some bloggers at this point became incensed. (Sali Hughes I believe, but I didn't read her rebuttal which she linked to on mumsnet, because I found her tone very patronising and unduly harsh.) I know charities do have budgets and pay huge salaries (but this is another tirade entirely which I shall not fall into) so it's not incredible to assume some blogger charity posts are indeed paid for. It's not very nice to think of a post which talks about losing friends or family members and beseeches the reader to go and donate generously, all whilst the post has been paid for. But such is the world and it's become a case where unless expressly written "I waived a fee for this post and I have never consulted with their company or affiliated brands" we can't be chastised for assuming they have! Anyhow, this is the way the world works - if you think celebrities advising us where to put our meagre pennies aren't being paid themselves, or benefiting from the exposure for their own ends, then that's something you should really wake up to. It might be sad or cynical but that's capitalism for ya. In fact these people truly believe that their fee is merely a token, and they are still being very charitable... Later posts came and said perhaps this Iamnina was a charlatan. But each Iamnina post had had the unmistakeable ring of truth. Not only that, but she predicted every blogger retaliation; every move just as if these bloggers were robots. 

Successful bloggers and YouTube channels need to start representing themselves as what they really are: a business. No longer, a girl next door. This doesn't mean they lose their value. Although to an extent, that is what happens in that they dissociate. But in theory they could continue to be useful. Instead of being a like minded consumer, they could become a reference library and you choose the voice you feel resonates with you. The trouble is, with everyone's pay packet at risk, they all inevitably sing from the same hymn sheet at the same time, so pick one you've picked them all. Their original voice has been quashed. In this agency led tribe war system, the only way to be independent is to have faith to just allow the ad revenue to fund you and continue your own purchasing and reviewing, and hope the brands in turn feel that regardless of bad reviews they might get, not to be featured on your blog is an unimaginable offence. But for a real millionaire lifestyle, I suspect that only a seasoned agency with all the right contacts can get you there. Bloggers and YouTube hosts have become amazingly proficient at social media so who knows how long a middleman will be needed? Although every PR seems to be interconnected; one wrong move can provoke a domino effect. Presumably an agency limits such blunders. And there is always the thinly veiled suspicion that your appeal can be obliterated overnight, so better to invest via a puppet master who can keep you on the leash and avoid any ill advised opinions or photos and such.

I remember buying a highlighting powder on the recommendation of a YouTube video. It had been sent to them for free and I realised that implicitly, but I didn't think that had to compromise them. Well, the powder was horrible and chalky. The betrayal was genuinely upsetting. A pleasure in reading blogs and watching videos, is the unbridled contempt for a poor performing product. With freebies, or even more deceptively, gift vouchers, if a product isn't good, and if the blogger is 'honest', we just won't hear about it. It won't do to criticise a freebie after all. And arguably, it isn't quite right to criticise something if you didn't suffer paying for it. Reading a very measured criticism which hastily recommends another same brand product, is almost as bad as not having mentioned it. It's this guarded, measured and bland reporting which we'd celebrated blogs for avoiding. No more shall I buy magazines, we had all chanted jubilantly. Well, as the adage goes, the revolution eats its own children.

Time for another Survey: Your Beauty Data Required!

Being a gloomy rainy day in London, both literally and metaphorically (those terrifying riots) I don't feel my plans for bright summer makeup will ever take off at this rate. Does the weather affect your choices... I blogged about this ages ago and about makeup for the workplace and I've blogged about how makeup must change as you age and whether mere mortals can even get away with movie star makeovers anyway but this time I mean everything: Is makeup really affected by all that: the weather, the situation and your age... Or is it personal and fired by your own internal soul and nothing else? How individual is your makeup, and how much dictated by events outside your control?

The fact that luxury products and consumerism generally have enraged these youths to the point that they feel they are positively "owed" that lifestyle is very bewildering. Does our stern criticism need to be reflected by austere makeup and sober garb? Probably.

Survey up there

Your beauty data required!

I have added a fun new feature to my blog, every week I will ask a burning makeup question and look forward to hearing your opinions!

This week's Poll: Do you wear bold lipstick? 

Please take a moment to select your answer, I hope to uncover many other fundamental makeup issues and trivia all to be gleaned from these polls, and then collect up my data to inspire future posts...

IT'S ON THE TOP RIGHT - UP THERE 

Thanks!!!

Embracing blue lips...

 

The book I have been reading for months now (mainly as I keep re-reading passages and researching further, it is rather addictive and enthralling - review to come shortly enough!) is the L'Oreal commissioned "100,000 Years of Beauty".

It reminds me of when I was young (adopt voice: "In my day...") when I spent hours with my grandma's precious Encyclopedia Britannica volumes. This tome is the Encyclopedia Britannica of Beauty! Every page is a lesson in itself and the varied voices make this even more enriching. Lately I was struck by this truism, which I had always wondered about, and which for all the bluster of modern rebels Illamasqua et al, still rings out:

     "The persistent rejection of blue and green for lips and face can be explained by the fact that the skin of the face and lips silently conveys extremely powerful messages. An eyelid dusted with violet, set against a fresh complexion, is not perceived as a bruise, and a mouth ringed in fluorescent yellow fools no one. But bluish or greenish lips immediately evoke cyanosis [deficiency of oxygen in the blood] or poisoning. These colours are distress signals that cannot be taken lightly[....] At no time has society exploited the huge stock of pigments available to modify the colour of skin and lips in any radical way. Respect for natural complexion has survived despite all the revolutions in cosmetics since 1850. This phenomenon goes far beyond the desire to appear young and fresh - it would seem that the colour of the face and the lips involves what might be called an 'archaic foundation' in which the colour red embodies a biological dynamism and thirst for life that, even today, can be neither ignored nor violated."

In broad terms, the beauty values we prize have been largely unaffected by the fact that we now live in an age of photoshop (which, frankly, has been around since the first ever photograph was taken by our Victorian counterpart, who would painstakingly erase anything unappealing) - and modern beauty remedies.

Ironically, beauty salves started off by being homemade mother to daughter recipes made in a kitchen - only relatively recently exploding into modern, Metropolis inspired, Lab-produced products... These 'potions' are unrelentingly advertised as the answer to our prayers; the appetite for beauty has certainly proven itself to be a billion pound industry worth mining. Yet, again, plus ça change, we now see more and more companies who proudly insist their creams are all "natural" "homemade", "ancient secret recipes", made to order, etc. Nasty sounding additives are deliberately highlighted on packaging by their absence. Like E numbers in food, which were created to assure people of their Lab-approved identity, nowadays nothing is more gruesome than an abundance of E numbers, and similarly in beauty products, sulphates etc are shunned wherever possible.

It seems that whatever era we are in, we can never feel "Beauty" can exist unless it is moored in nature. Whether that be natural human colouring or natural ingredients, the inherent aim is to improve nature and create our own being.

In many ways I think that is why I am excited by Illamasqua's hugely time-consuming new collection concept. The enormous cast of characters, part of the "Art of Darkness": a delightful play on one of the best novellas ever, Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." (I was told by my tutor that word for word this has the most practical criticism ever written on any book of all time, and hardly surprising if you read it and allow the story to take hold.) The further inspiration for Illamasqua's collection seems to be ancient Egypt (the scarab beetle on the nail polish; the distinctively Egyptian ornate mirror) but equally, elements seem to be taken from ancient biblical Kings and Queens. It is an overwhelming mix of cultures and themes. But that is what I enjoy about it: the tale of how,

"Lured by the promise of immortality, a host of fantastical beings try their hand at creating the ever-elusive Elixir of Life. The resulting potions dazzle the eye and ensnare the senses, a beautiful array of jewel-like substances. They may not deny mortality, but they do make the theatre of life a more colourful stage on which to play."

The decadence and futility of beating nature and creating beauty is as old as time. But it is fun trying, and capturing our quest for the Elixir of life. Illamasqua address this dichotomy, between the unending search - and the stagnation of reality.

Do you think there will ever be a time when true "futuristic" beauty will come? Will blue lips ever be mainstream accepted beauty: there for Beauty's sake and not for any shock value? It seems the facts deny this, but could that change...?

Pics from top: Vogue Italia, June 2010 (who advise it be worn for a very special evening, "deep and very glossy.")  Illamasqua A/W 2010, Paul Smith and House of Holland S/S 2010, Kesha wearing blue lips both before and during her performance at Casio's Shock the World 2010 event. Photo: Getty Images | AP

Beauty tips and tricks I've learnt this year (so far)

This morning I decided to road test Pixiwoo's tip, using the MAC 224 as an undereye concealer brush. And whaddya know, those girls do know a thing or two about makeup. Suddenly any concealer, however inept, blends seamlessly and works! I used my loathsome Laura Mercier Secret Concealer under my eyes, and for the first time ever, it actually delivered. It still is most certainly not one I'd recommend, but the 224 means I will not be binning it afterall. The 224 is an excellent blending brush but somewhat shapeless and huge for crease work (I have fallen for Louise Young's excellent crease brush instead, which Pixiwoo said was like "the old 224" before it was changed.)

So I have taken this as my cue to collect up other tips learnt along the way so far. And hopefully encourage anyone to share theirs below....? 

 Mascara your lashes downwards before upwards, this covers any eyeshadow fallout you might have incurred, also has the benefit of simaltaneously coating your bottom lashes.

 Only apply powder on areas you need to - i.e cheeks left glowing. Powdered cheeks are so ageing!

 Lipgloss is great as you get older, just be aware of the gruesome ones that do that horrific saliva strand thing ewwwww e.g MAC Underage et al. The ones that never do that are Guerlain (absolute fave). Then Estee Lauder (these seem good so far but are somewhat sticky), Make Up for Ever Full Couleur (not sticky at all), and let's admit certain MAC lipglasses, but be very careful... (their Liberty ones and Style Warrior ones were all safe.)

 Eyelids get greasier and more hooded the older you get. Furthermore, wrinkles start to loom menacingly as you apply your eye makeup. Time to make gel liner your staple. Applying with a brush means less tugging, and tends to stay on far longer than pencils or liquid liners. Cake liner is also good, but less weather proof/gym proof.

 Invest in good brushes. Yes they are boring at first (quickly becomes addictive, mind) and seem like a waste of "makeup money" but they make all the difference. They also can prevent needlessly scratching your face and eyes as you apply products - and they make products go further, thus saving money in the long-term. Eyeshadow applies more vibrantly and foundation is saved by expert application.

 Stationary/ Office supplies are perfect for makeup organising. As TiffanyD on Youtube explained, most makeup does look like stationary so it makes sense. Having makeup organised and depotted helps prevent buying too many dupes. And I refuse to become one of those collectors with dozens and dozens of taupe twins.

 Decide what suits you and never waver. I have finally conceded that red toned eyeshadows will never flatter me. Ditto blue toned lipsticks. MAC Lady Gaga lipstick, I tried so hard to pretend it looked great, and piled on apricot lipgloss... No. And, gorgeous rusty eyeshadows, pinky eyeshadows - I am drawn to the colours but once on my eyelids it's a disaster. If seven people in a day ask "What happened to your eye?" I've realised that means a bad makeup day. Know your limits. I am all for saying "makeup is Art - wear what you want" etc etc, but the reality is more dictatorial.

 Wear appropriate makeup. Similar to the point above, I have realised that sometimes more is less. As you get older, bright eyeshadow has to be carefully managed. Resist the easy mistake to blend upwards. Instead, blend along your natural crease, and bring colour out into a cat eye. Too much colour looks desperate and/or silly. When you are in the flush of youth it looks great, but there is something unpleasant about an old face with too much unnatural colour. Again, I hate admitting these things, but reality, again, must be observed.

What have you to share? Please comment below with any useful beauty ideas........

The best blushing bride's blusher

Chelsea Clinton has come a long way...

As a bride, she really had the look perfected. I think a bride should have visible makeup, a wedding is not the time for a nude face. On the other hand, all-out smokey eyes and glossy lips is not right either. Nude lips also seems wrong. Yes, this is the official way to do it:

But, having said that, Megan Fox's recent beach wedding was very charming for its natural no-frills appeal. Her makeup was the epitome of natural (replete with tan lines.)





Gwen Stefani chose a colour to enliven her famous Dior wedding dress, but her makeup obeyed the rules:



Christina Aguilera, notorious for her enthusiatic approach to makeup, took advantage of the classic red lip bridal image:



Some shun the classic bridal red lip though, especially if their husband is younger and they have to look as youthful as possible... Here is Eva Longoria:



This wedding had a very vintage Midsummer Night's Dream aura, thanks to the vintage gown. But the makeup is still classic and not too hippyish. Leah Wood:



Catherine Zeta Jones looked catalogue perfect:



Despite the dashingly handsome husband, I don't like Fergie's pale lips and smokey eyes here. It is probably the most flattering on her, but really I think a bride ought to have blushing cheeks and red lips...?



There is just something so timeless about deep red lips on a bride. See Grace Kelly:



Of course to some, a wedding day is a fun day and their taste will override any given rules. Jordan seemingly sees weddings as a time for pantomime, Victoria Beckham would not trade in her fake tan and nude lips for anything, and Dita Von Teese defiantly chose a stunning purple Vivien Westwood gown, and made sure her makeup was gothic purple to match.





Aside from long-lasting and all the other mundane issues, is there even really such a thing as bridal makeup? How do you think a "blushing bride" should aspire to look?

Selling your swag

BritishBeautyBlogger has lombasted the elephant in the room: How do we feel about our favourite bloggers and YouTube hosts appealing to us to buy their unwanted makeup? And how do the PRs feel about the free swag being turned into gold (well, ok, £4.26 before ebay fees.)

I think one of the reasons the post has received so many responses is, I would hazard a guess, that some people there protest too much...???

I stopped following a lovely person because the only posts were sales. Not that there was anything wrong with it, but (a) By the time I saw them, a milion had people had already claimed it, and (b) It was boring. However, fundamentally, the price was right, and I saw nothing ethically wrong with it - even if I could never be sure if it was bought or given originally. I do however think it is stupid to sell something marked sample, and let alone pre release; and I definitely think it's rude to your readers to sell something that they know you got for free. (And often recommended they go out and buy!) I also think it undermines the camaraderie of blogging to sell LE items at an inflated price - that's what ebay is for, if you must.

It is easy to see the attraction of selling on a blog - directly to beauty enthusiasts who might otherwise not happen to search for it on ebay, plus you get to avoid the heavy ebay fees. From a buyer's point of view, ideally I would see it as a chance to let someone (a virtual friend) try your product for a bargain. If it is for charity, all the better. However the post was geared toward the pure pursuit of making a quick buck.

In my opinion, beauty blogging in particular, is crowded out with rubbishly written, misspelled and fake bloggers. People who in real life would possibly shun you, let you into their world, and you relish the chance, although it's hollow. Many readers don't mind if a review is poorly structured and riddled with spelling and grammer mistakes... perhaps it even makes it more appealing, as it's not too lofty... Personally, I don't enjoy those. If PRs are simply going in for the "numbers game" without considering whether the blogger has integrity, then it really shouldn't shock anyone if occasionally they do see their samples surface on blog sales and ebay. Indeed I would imagine that PRs are used to their samples being sold off by even the most prestigious publications. I reckon the greatest ire comes from the fact that BLOGS ARE NOT MAGAZINES. No, blogs are NOT replacing magazines, they are eternally associated with a friendly fellow beauty addict, who isn't hawking their wares. Who is trustworthy and dependable and not vulnerable to corruption, because afterall, it's just a harmless hobby. However hard the lines get blurred, the fact that blogs have a homely immediacy means they have to walk the line. With a magazine, I think a poorly paid intern can be forgiven for selling off a LE Guerlain compact; but with a blogger who voluntarily set up a blog, ostensibly to showcase their love for beauty products - well in that scenario, selling a LE Guerlain compact that they were lucky to get as a sample - it's unforgiveable. 

I have often mentioned in passing how annoying it is for me to see makeup sales that are either selling at a premium or selling former proclaimed "must-haves"; but I never thought it was worthy of its own post. PRs must know it goes with the territory, and as for bloggers privileged enough to get freebies, if they can't act honourably one can only hope that they are known to the PRs who can then decide whther to deal with them again. PRs are not auditioning for Judgment Day, so I would not be surprised if, let's say, they found a key player in the blog world, who gave them tons of exposure but then sneaked off to ebay with their loot, continued to be indulged. It was a post worth doing for BritishBeautyBlogger, if only to put the scare into unscrupulous and insulting behaviour on the part of whoever it was... let's hope it works... But on the other hand, this knowing (and cliquey, as it implies a select few knowing) whispered witch hunt merely puts everyone on edge: who is the rotten apple in our midst?

I am not sure it is bad to sell your surplus makeup, but discretion is essential. If it says sample, perhaps best leave it as a gift; if it hasn't launched yet, perhaps wait. But once it's given to you, yes it is yours, so I don't think it's quite sinful to sell... just best not to, if only for your own conscience. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. I have a load of Make Up For Ever lipglosses I bought way too many backups, I really want to sell them but have never had a blog sale and feel queasy even considering it. How do you feel about blog sales? I am interested to know, how do blog readers feel about blog sales???

Homely Beauty vs Movie star Glamour

Following on from my last post regarding the blurring of lines between fashion and beauty, I must now consider the distiction between pitching a makeup line to an "us" or a "them". On the one hand, beauty products, by their very nature, are designed to embellish and enhance; on the other hand, beautiful models can be very intimidating - even alienating. Where to balance oneself, as a makeup line??

Interestingly, taking the fashion route - such as MAC have done for years, collaborating with designers, and now with various fashion houses branching out into the beauty sector - eliminates the need to "define" a brand, as its collections become fluid and unfixed, liberated by a license to follow trends as desired.

But a makeup company aiming to attract sales otherwise has to align itself either with aspirational beauty, or with attainable beauty. NARS for instance, in their new collection (pictured above), take Catherine Deneuve's Belle du Jour film as inspiration - injecting the glory days movie star glamour. Conversely, Dove famously made it their mission to "campaign" for "real beauty" (just not too ugly). And recently Bobbi Brown has done the same, with "Pretty Powerful".

I found the Scott Barnes book, "About Face" somewhat patronising in its attempt to insist all the women were beautiful "inside" and all had great causes... I prefer not to make makeup be about empowerment and outdated concepts such as releasing inner beauty. We have come far enough to be able to treat makeup as a fun expression of our artistic taste, or an extension of our wardrobe, so why the need to bring pop psychology into it?

I am currently reading L'Oreal's marvellous 100,00 years of Beauty tome, (review to come!) which, with around 300 authors - including artists, historians, philosophers, anthropologists and other specialists of 35 different nationalities - reinforces that there is no need to dumb down beauty with simplistic and dogmatic promotions.

What do you think, do you prefer overt beauty, or subtle beauty, in your promo images?

Size Matters

As I mentioned in my last rave, Boots No7 Highlighter might be a gorgeous find, but don't call it "drugstore". This pitches itself as above Estee Lauder and more in line with Chanel and YSL. I had to buy 2 compacts to get as much product as EL gave me, and what is more, the No7 compact is kind of tacky. Added to this is the trend set by MAC, giving us less product but keeping the price static. Or putting Dazzleglasses in huge tubes but in fact reducing product. It is patronising and irritating, making beauty shopping a stressful exercise whereby we must - for we must, PLEASE, show we are aware by our shopping habits- calculate how much they are giving you, and what they are charging.

I often justify buying "high end" because the quality, and often quantity, is greater. I often relinquish lemmings and head to a drugstore to take advantage of a more justified pricetag. But these erstwhile categories are no longer clear set. A new trend has begun: drugstores come out with "revolutionary new biospheres voted No1 etc etc" so no no no, this one can't be £5.99 honey, this one is £18.99. Oh and this is our "Pro" range, so no no no that one can't be £6.99, it's £11.99. And suddenly MAC is same price, but whoosh, it's less product. And EL, Chanel, YSL are relatively stagnant. So hmmm how does one compute the better deal???

Have you noticed a trend in makeup sales? Has it affected you? Will you allow it to intrude on your spending habits?

Beauty Resolutions and Hopes 2010

Hello and Happy New Year!

I have just read the excellent Temptalia's post but have to admit that I am in the massive camp of those left fuming, in spite of her earnest protestations and experiments. You see, MAC have replaced their sturdy squat pigment jars with little nail polish designs. And now instead of getting 7.5g we'll be getting 4.5g. For the same price, naturellement.

MAC have sneakily done this on a small scale before, with the ever rich pigments, or whatever that collection was when they gave us some BS about different texture dictating the pigment amount and volume... Oh please! Now though, the packaging is changed as "the new jars were designed to reflect the packaging of MAC’s entire line, particularly their nail lacquers and foundations." That is such a laughable excuse for what is essentially an underhand price hike.

Personally, I would take less offence if they had simply raised the prices. I believe they have raised the price of the lipsticks and eyeshadows already... at least, I seem to recall they were £10 in recent memory, and since when were MSFs ever £19.50? But anyway, Pigment in particular represented the true wow value MAC staple. It's no use Temptalia arguing that we still get more than we ever could use. In fact I am shocked and disappointed that a makeup enthusiast could ever use these arguments - what next: You don't need 12 different pink blushers???

I would not dare say that powerful blogs have to provide a measured response to troubling news and play devil's advocate to preserve good company relations. In any event, this, so hot on the heels of the new year, made me think about what I'm hoping for for the rest of the year - namely, none of these dirty tricks that undermine me as a consumer. In short, I want a consumer paradise: where products deliver, and do more than one thing, and give you a decent amount of product for a not too ludicrous price. I want brands to stop discontinuing favourites and packaging. I don't want to be faced with gimmicks that masquerade as revolutionary, but on the other hand I don't want the same old tired shades. I don't want a billion new limited edition collections, yet I realise that that probably is the only way to keep us in a state of eager enrapture.

I don't believe my collection is an unmanageable monster yet, so I plan to maintain that. However my downfall is backup buying, I will try to curb that. Also, to stop buying lipglosses as I hate the feel of gloss on my lips; and to respect my HGs enough to never cheat on them again. It's not worth it.

There are some new brands I want to try, in particular Ellis Faas, who I first heard of via my friend Witoxicity, who first posted here then reviewed some products in depth (creamy lips)here and (creamy eyes) here. The concept of having colours inspired by human bodily fluids is not unknown: artists have long realised that decay and gore play host to an array of beautiful vivid reds, yellows and purples and blues... But there is nonetheless something very off-putting about it, I feel quite repulsed at picking up a mustard colour - only to be faced with the question of what bodily function communicated itself to the Ellis Faas imagination for this?? etc. But still, I'm looking forward to seeing it in person once it hits Liberty's.

OxfordJasmine ran a retrospective feature, some bloggers (including myself) pick out a fave 2009 product. Check it here. Have you got a standout 2009 product? A brand or product you'll be looking out for in 2010? What are your beauty resolutions and hopes this year?