MAKE-UP, TO MAKE UP, TO MODIFY
From Mod Mania
Make-up, to make up, to modify. When discussing modification, what is more applicable or ubiquitous? Cosmetics are a “modification” dating back centuries, manifesting itself in diverse forms, and approached with changing attitudes throughout history. Make-up can be solidly classed as a modification because that is exactly what it is, only with a different impetus to modifying, say, a car. It is a modification with a powerful societal stimulus, and a much deeper motive, with a rich and fascinating past. Are cosmetics a symptom of a culture drenched with standards and an unhealthy obsession with beauty, or merely an expression of one’s self and a natural reaction to an instinct: to attract a mate? Whatever one may be inclined to believe, it is unquestionably a form of modification, just what kind?
Historically make-up has always been a key element in society, whether its involvement was rejected or encouraged, it influenced cultures for eons. "A woman without paint is like food without salt," wrote the Roman philosopher Plautus, this quote already implies an ingrained importance on cosmetics around 250 BC. Greco-Roman societies demanded women wore white lead and chalk on their faces to attract attention. Whereas Ancient Egyptians wore foundation to lighten their skin, and the kohl eyeliner to emphasise their eyes which was not only for aesthetic purposes, the practice also served medicinal, magical and spiritual practices. Furthermore, Persians believed henna dyes, used to stain hair and faces, allowed them to summon the majesty of the earth.
Following on, a palpable movement in cosmetic application began to develop. The European Middle Ages bore a psyche where those who flaunted a pale complexion were also flaunting their wealth as they did not have to work outdoors like peasants, who would subsequently get a suntan from labour, this pale skin tone was sometimes achieved by the women bleeding themselves. Though this influenced prostitutes to wear pink makeup to contrast with high-class women's pale faces, however 13th-century Italian royalty insisted women wore pink lipstick to show they could afford synthetic makeup.
Another interesting influence endorsing the rejection of make-up was in Elizabethan England, where cosmetics were seen as a risk to one’s well- being as many believed they would block vapours and energy from circulating properly. Though, this mentality was then impacted on yet again, where The reign of Charles II signified a time where Europe was still recovering from epidemic diseases and illnesses, which then encouraged the use of heavy make-up, as many people were afraid to go outdoors, and this provided colour and a healthy appearance. The French Restoration in the 18th century promoted red rouge and lipstick as it suggested a healthy, fun-loving spirit, however, this trend was soon avoided by other countries as they concluded the French must be unattractive because they has something to hide under the heavy make-up . The Victorians, however, refused makeup, as it was companioned with prostitution and therefore sin. The late 19th century allowed the use of make-up, but was only accepted with natural tones so that the healthy, pink-cheeked look could be achieved without suggesting a sinfulness or immorality that full, heavy make-up implied, which the prostitutes sported.
The 1920’s generated a major and preserved concept of cosmetics with mass- marketing coming into play. Women were allowed to vote, which bred a social necessity- to wear red lipstick to demonstrate their liberation. The 1930’s and 1950’s generated movie stars who became benchmarks for style and fashion. The 1960’s was a smorgasbord for self expression, with make-up playing a significant role, with the pale lips, and dark, feline eyes. Current western culture is merely an extension of all of these changes. Women today may be judged on heavy make-up as being promiscuous, and superficial, which can be closely related to the opinions of the Victorian society with their views towards prostitutes. The historical value of cosmetic application is invaluable as the same attitudes, though there were many, are still referenced to today.
Though current culture in regards to cosmetics is a product of history and change, there are also other forces behind 20th century use and maintenance of make-up, moulded from a modern perception. One could argue that women wear make-up as an answer to a natural need to attract the opposite sex, so as to continue procreation. This is obviously closely associated to the natural world, for example, where birds rely on visual displays of their feathers to obtain a mating partner, such as the blue bird of paradise which hangs upside down from a tree branch to show off the dazzling feathers of its body and tail to attract the female. However, it seems unusual that humanity appears to be one of the only species where the female must exhibit, and “parade” to attract a mate, whereas in the natural world, typically the male takes on this role. It seems that the human race may have moved beyond this particular calling, though it is not to say the natural instinct is not still a motivation, only that it has been stretched.
Billboards, magazines, airbrushed, perfect. This is a formula for low-self esteem. Much of what women believe beauty is, is to most, unrealistic. Make-up can be seen as an enhancement or a cover-up. However, present ideals tend to trigger the latter as these ideals force one, women in particular (in regards to make-up) to “modify” themselves. Women are fed a standard they must comply with, as decided by advertising, mass marketing and multibillion dollar corporations. Just to put into perspective the dominance of the cosmetics industry, figures from The State of Human Development in the United National Development Report show that globally US$8 billion is spent on cosmetics in the United States compared to US$6 billion spent on education for all. This is a losing battle with a materialistic culture, when more money is spent on cosmetics than education. Furthermore, the average consumer is exposed to 1,500 advertisements on body image each day, and an average young woman will have received over 250,000 commercial messages through the media by the time she is 17. Though the unrealistic, idealistic pre-requisite advertising pumps out, a lot of women still try to achieve it for fear of being labelled “ugly”. This need for beauty can be identified from early on, with Plato stating “What is beautiful is good” and Oscar Wilde, “No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly.”
Accordingly, a particular significance is placed upon the need to be “beautiful”, and ‘lookism’ is one of “the most pervasive but denied prejudices (Etcoff, 42)". This lays down firm foundation for a world where one seeks perfection, therefore modification, which make-up can provide. When a woman applies make-up she is effectively lying, this is a bold statement, but has merit. Make-up symbolises a lack of confidence and is a modification of one’s true identity. Though some may dispute that it is an enhancement of one’s features, which is true, but why should feel they have to do this either. When is enough, enough? When does enhancement become replacement? Cosmetics are a strongly embedded way of life, but one just wonders whether it is for the right reasons. It seems that advertising does play a noteworthy role, but how does make-up contribute when speaking of self-expression? Make-up is very useful device when wanting to communicate a state of mind or preference. An obvious example would be the gothic culture, which is typically represented by black dyed hair, dark eyeliner, dark fingernails, and black clothes, where styles are often borrowed from the Elizabethans and Victorians. This is significant in that it signifies sub-culture, an expression where make-up is a main factor. Make-up is not always propelled by a want to be better but also a desire to describe one’s self through appearance, and cosmetics afford a positive outcome when a people can own such luxuries as self-expression.
However, it is a modification going beyond the boundaries, it has become an obsession. Make-up is not the only form of altering one’s self; the phenomenon has transcended the mere curling of eye lashes and rouging of cheeks. Plastic surgery is the next step, with figures from the American society of plastic and reconstructive surgeons, over 600,000 cosmetic surgery procedures were performed in 1996. Most of these were done on Caucasian women within their 30's, 40's, and 50's, 89% of all surgeries taking place on women, with eye lifts and face lifts being among the most popular procedures done. These figures are evidence of an unsatisfied culture. Though people may go to these levels to achieve faultlessness, it is not necessarily a solution, it is only a postponement. It is yet further evidence of a society crippled by image and a search for “perfection”.
Make-up, to make up, to modify. A mantra that rings true to a culture sub-merged in a struggle for perfection. Cosmetics play a major role when it comes to modification, not in the traditional sense, but in a profound sense. One must recognise the importance of make-up as a false and ephemeral companion, the sheen that it paints our perceptions and the true respect it offers when it is worn. One is not to say it should not be worn, but without ignoring the reality of it as simply a ‘modification’.
“Beauty is not in the face; beauty is a light in the heart” Kahlil Gibran (Lebanese born American philosophical Essayist, Novelist and Poet. 1883-1931)
Bibliography:
-Etcoff, Nancy. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Anchor Books July
2000.
-Body Image and Advertising. 2000. Accessed on 15th October, 2007<http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/bia.htm>
-History of Cosmetics. Acessed 15th October, 2007<http://fragrancewholesale.com/somhisandbac.html>
Lara Mikocki
