In 2011 I came across several articles about fashion in museums and it got me thinking. So instead of showing a collection item today, I want to talk about whether makeup belongs in a museum. (Yes, I realize that I may be biased, but humor me). Since makeup is so intricately connected to the world of fashion, and since the notion that fashion is art is relatively new and still struggles to be validated, I will use the discussion of fashion-as-art as a springboard.
A poll on whether some makeup pieces are "more art than function" at Temptalia revealed that beauty fans and bloggers overwhelmingly think makeup is not meant to be collected and displayed. One of their top reasons: It'll go bad. "…Make-up is not like other stuff such as jewelry, clothes, or shoes, it will expire in time so no point to keep it," says one commenter at Temptalia. Adds Glinda at Manolo for the Beauty: "I wonder exactly how long a makeup palette would last, anyway. I’m guessing that to keep it in prime condition, you wouldn’t open it if you could help it. Otherwise, I would be afraid of something happening to it. If I spent that much money, I’d be paranoid that even a tiny bit of exposure to oxygen would hasten its demise."
Second, many feel makeup is meant to be worn, not looked at; it's totally impractical to buy a makeup item and not use it. "If a product is too beautiful to look at, why buy it. Isn’t the purpose of buying a product is to use it. I like packaging but art powder deco seems a bit over the top. Unless the product is totally functional, I wouldn’t care if the art design faded but if it wasn’t functional and bought it purely for aesthetic purposes then not only would I feel like a fool but have also wasted $$$ for some eye candy. No thank you." Says another, "i just get my brush and i actually dont care about spoiling the design or pattern and swipe swipe away and enjoy the colour of the product. too busy a person to sit looking at a pattern all day and i cant afford to buy pretty things to just sit in a drawer and have no purpose."
Along this line of thinking, Sarah Joynt at The Fashion Spot points out that the design of some limited edition palettes actually interfere with their usage, citing MAC's Street Art palette. "From luxury brands such as MAC and NARS to UK drugstore favorite No. 7, we've seen eye shadow and blusher palettes that feature intricate designs either sprayed on or baked into the powder. But are they really worth the investment? Sure they're pretty and collectors items, if you're into things like that, but for the most part they aren't practical, and if you're looking to buy an eye shadow palette, you want to be able to use it. For example, the MAC Street Art Palette from the Art of Powder Collection (above, left) features six colors in a graphic design. While the set itself might boast a heavier than normal weight (0.31oz, meaning more product for you to use) the design limits you to the point where there are some colors that you can't even access without blending into an adjacent shade."
Finally, many beauty enthusiasts argue that since cosmetics are mass-produced, they are not really art. From the Temptalia poll:
"Pretty makeup designs are certainly fun! But when it comes down to it…it is a manufactured product, you know? It’s NOT art. It may have been designed by an artist, but ultimately it was mass-produced by a machine for a specific purpose – to be used on your face, ultimately resulting in a ruined design. ..There’s plenty of legit art out there to enjoy in that way."
"…[D]esigns like this belong on a fabric pattern or on a picture…not makeup. This is a gimmick. After all, this is just made of powder and once you start using it, the design starts to disappear over use. This is impractical. This is makeup…not Picasso."
Personally, I feel these express quite a narrow-minded perspective. My question is WHY NOT? Why can't certain makeup items be considered art? A snippet from this article from The Atlantic, which discusses how fashion is art, can also be used to make the case for makeup as art despite its mass production. "With its fluctuating forms and needless decoration, fashion epitomizes the supposedly unproductive waste that inspired 20th-century technocrats to dream of central planning. It exists for no good reason. But that’s practically a definition of art… it’s hard to come up with objections to fashion collections that don’t apply to other museum departments. Fashion is mass produced? So are prints and posters, often more so than haute couture. Ephemeral? So are works on paper. Utilitarian? So are pots and vases." I'd also like to point out that artists collaborate with makeup companies to create limited-edition pieces, which serve to showcase the work of the artist and elevate the item from its utilitarian purpose.
This interview with fashion curator Valerie Steele gave me hope that one day, makeup will make it into a museum despite all the naysayers. Steele discussed how she managed to establish fashion as a valid field of study, and by extension, how it became acceptable to display clothing at an art museum. "The fact that fashion’s increasingly shown in museums has contributed to the beginnings of a dialogue about whether fashion should be perhaps redefined as art. I think the museum has a very important role because we’re used to thinking of things that are in museums as art, even if they weren’t originally created as art. So lots of ritual objects, for example from Africa or Oceania, were not originally created as art. They were part of ritual and daily life. But now they’ve been redefined as art. So the fact that a Balenciaga ball gown was originally made by a 'couturier' and not an 'artist,' someone who was trained in haute couture and sold it to a lady to wear, that original function does not necessarily trump all later definitions." The same can be said of makeup. Even though it is meant to be used, the intended purpose does not necessarily make it impossible to consider makeup as art.
Finally, even if makeup will never be viewed as "high art" or a valid field of academic study, it still provides entertainment. In response to an article at Bust regarding whether fashion deserves to be in a museum, a commenter writes, "Arguing over what is art or not is missing the point. If it gets people in the door and they get the chance to experience something new, it's valuable. It's also an entrance point for people who might not otherwise visit a museum, and who then might wander into other exhibits."
So, what do you think? Do you think cosmetics have a place in museums? Would you visit a makeup exhibition?
No posts for this week and no Curator's Corner today, but I'm pleased to announce that Ada Calhoun, one of the authors behind the awesome 90swoman.com blog, asked me to write a piece on 90s womanhood!! I was so honored. Naturally my thoughts went to makeup and 90s beauty trends. And also naturally, I was extremely long-winded so the piece was edited ever so slightly so as not to bore readers. However, I have no issue with boring my own readers (all 2 of them, ha), so here it is in its entirety. Enjoy! And do check out 90swoman.com, even if you're not of that generation – it's truly a fascinating look at the era. :) Thanks again, Ada!
Uma Thurman rocking Chanel Vamp nail polish in 1994's Pulp Fiction. (image from movieretriever.com)
Matte brown lipstick. Heroin chic. White eye shadow. The grunge look. These were the major beauty trends of the 90s. And they’ve been earning the attention of the fashion and beauty world in the past year or so. In January 2010 Selfridges staged an in-store exhibition devoted to the 90s, complete with a vintage M.A.C. Cosmetics face chart showcasing their (at the time) wildly popular brown lip liner named, appropriately enough, Twig. Fashion and beauty bloggers have also been covering the revival of the decade’s trends. “Messy plaids, patchwork and the overall look of 90’s grunge is back for Fall 2010, and we aren’t just talking about the fashion. The beauty industry is taking its cue from the Courtney Love days of dark, red lipstick paired with overdone, smoky eye make-up…A disheveled plaid tee layered under a floral dress and dirty boots are the perfect balance with a dramatic ‘I don’t care’ make-up look,” wrote Jessica Ciarla at The Fashion Spot. Last summer beauty blog Lovelyish provided a nostalgic look at 90s makeup trends. This year, fashion blog Refinery29 reports that the “sleeper hit” of summer 2011 is 90s grunge lip color: “Even though summer is currently awash in happy, vivid corals and pinks, there's another lip trend we've been tracking, too: A modern version of grunge-inspired lips. Mixing deep magenta-red with a little shimmer, they're like the love child of a '90s era Drew Barrymore and Married with Children's Kelly Bundy… pair your tribute-to-the-nineties lip with extra dark brows and matte skin. So angst-y!” Finally, retailer Urban Outfitters named Cher from 1995’s Clueless their latest beauty icon.
Fashion trends, and by extension, beauty trends, are cyclical – usually about 20 years after the initial phenomenon began, it becomes in vogue once again and is slightly updated. So it’s not surprising that the 90s are making a comeback now.
But the point I want to make isn’t that the 90s are back fashion and makeup-wise. Rather, I want to take a look at the transformation the beauty industry underwent in the 90s as a direct response to the new notions women had about makeup. In 1995, the L.A. Times quoted a beauty newsletter editor as saying, "The creativity the department stores had 10 years ago doesn't exist today…the top five brands control 75% of the makeup business." Something had to give to meet the beauty needs of the 90s woman, and it did.
Between the influence of “lipstick feminism”*, Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth, Riot Grrrl (and “girl power”, its co-opted, commercialized, mainstream offshoot made popular by the Spice Girls), and the smeared red lipstick of grunge poster child Courtney Love, more and more 90s women began wearing makeup not with the simplistic goal of looking pretty, but rather as a means of self-expression and empowerment. They also didn’t want to feel as though they were being brainwashed by cosmetic companies telling them that they wouldn’t be beautiful without makeup – wearing it had to be their decision alone, and they would wear it (or not) on their own terms. This outlook represented a huge shift in thinking about cosmetics, and beauty and business gurus pounced on it.
In 1994 makeup artist Jeannine Lobell created a makeup line called Stila. The name coming from the Italian word “stilare”, which means “to pen”, Lobell believed every woman’s makeup should be as unique as her signature. The cardboard containers (this environmentally-friendly packaging was a breakthrough at the time) also displayed quotes from famous women that could be seen as empowering: Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “The best protection any woman can have is courage,” and "Failure is impossible" by Susan B. Anthony are just a few of the quotes that made an appearance on Stila’s eye shadows. These marketing strategies encouraged the idea that women could let their individuality shine through their makeup, and that it could even make them feel powerful.
1995 and 1996 saw the introduction of “alternative” makeup lines Hard Candy and Urban Decay, respectively. Both got their start by introducing non-traditional nail polish colors that the founders first mixed themselves – Sky, a pastel blue, in the case of Hard Candy, and a purple color from Urban Decay. And both were revolutionizing the beauty industry and filling in the gaps left by mainstream cosmetic companies by offering non-traditional hues. From the Urban Decay website: “Heaven forbid you wanted purple or green nails, because you’d either have to whip out a marker, or risk life and limb with that back alley drugstore junk…The first magazine ad [for Urban Decay] queried ‘Does Pink Make You Puke?,’ fueling the revolution as cosmetics industry executives scrambled to keep up.”
A 1998 New York Times profile of Hard Candy founder Dineh Mohajer, states that she was a leader in providing the modern teenage girl with the daring makeup she wanted to use to express herself. “Ms. Mohajer's timing couldn't have been better: young women were ready for hard-edged, ‘ugly’ colors, which were a departure from the powdery, harmless pinks that once accompanied every American girl's journey to womanhood. Suddenly, blue lips, blue hair and blue fingernails became a statement about independence — even if independence might make you look as if you were suffering from frostbite.” Still, in the article Mohajer insists that ''I didn't make that first batch of blue nail polish so I could stand up to men or be outrageous…or so I could make some sort of stand for women.” She continues: “[what] it's really about is self-esteem, women being able to do whatever they want and look stylish and attractive and cute at the same time.” Mohajer, who was all of 22 when she founded Hard Candy, clearly represented the new way in which women were viewing makeup.
The decade culminated in the 1999 release of celebrity makeup artist Kevyn Aucoin’s iconic book Making Faces. The book offered details of makeovers performed on “real” women, and provided step-by-step instructions to create a myriad of looks. Women could essentially try on personalities like “The Diva” or “The Siren” through makeup. Aucoin writes in the introduction, “…it is my hope that you will find yourself, or rather, your selves inside.” His book was illustrative of the sweeping change that took hold in both the general population’s notion of cosmetics and the beauty industry.
Where does all of this leave us now? I’m of the opinion that if you asked teenagers and women today, most would say they don’t wear makeup for anyone but themselves. Personally I wear it because it makes me happy and because I think it’s fun to play with color, not because I feel as though I have put on my “face” before going out in public. While I can’t know for sure what other women think, I have a feeling most of my generation and younger generations share this perspective. That is one of the indisputable legacies of the 90s.
So, girls and women of today, bear in mind that your perception of cosmetics is in some way descended from ground-breaking beauty philosophies that were set in motion some 20 years ago. The notions that makeup can be a creative outlet and a way to express your individuality were forged back then. And if you’re a true 90s woman, relish the current comeback of makeup trends from your decade…everything except the matte brown lipstick.
*The debate between lipstick feminists and second-wave feminists is far too broad to discuss in this post. I’m leaving out the argument as to whether women should or shouldn’t be participating in beauty rituals; I’m only mentioning lipstick feminism as one of the many reasons for the change in women’s perception of wearing makeup in the 90s.
I spotted this in the Saks fall catalogue and was immediately intrigued by the elegant silver packaging. Here's the description from the Bergdorf site: "In celebration of its 75th anniversary, Lancome is introducing French Touch Mini Rouge Lipstick, a limited edition collector's item that harks to Lancome's glamorous past. In a nod to Lancome's founder Armand Petitjean's vision of jewel-like lipstick holders, French Touch is encased in a mini silver package etched with a pattern reminiscent of the Eiffel Tower. The original inspiration was a similarly etched lipstick from the Versailles collection of 1949, originally created in Lancome's jewelry workshop." I managed to track down a picture of the original lipstick (right).
I think the new one is more Eiffel-looking, with the pattern stretching ever more vertically – I like that it's not literally in the shape of the tower. Yes, $40 is steep for a lipstick, but the packaging truly is a stunning piece of modern design. Might need to get this to add to the French-themed exhibition I'm thinking of doing. 😉
(images from bergdorfgoodman.com and prodimargues.com)
Once I saw this at Rouge Deluxe I knew I had to have it! I believe it is Asia-exclusive. Why Lancôme refuses to release such interesting items in the U.S. (see my post on the Yayoi Kusama Juicy Tubes) is beyond me, but I'm glad I was able to get my hands on this. The palette was released in honor of Lancôme's 75th birthday. (Actually there are two of them – this one is the Pink Rose; there is another with peachy shades.)
I was very curious as to what the coat of arms represented, as the concept of a makeup brand having a coat of arms, like that of a distinguished family with a long lineage, was quite intriguing. A quick Google search revealed that the founder of Lancôme, Armand Petitjean, came up with the design back in 1935 to commemorate the birth of the brand. They feature the "Lancôme Rose, Cherub and Lotus, representing the Lancôme art of perfumery, makeup and skincare respectively." How cool (and so European!) is that? Here's a pic of the original crest.
(image from prodimarques.com)
I had no idea until now that, for Lancôme anyway, the rose stood for perfume and the cherub represented makeup – I just thought they used that imagery because it was feminine and slapped it on a lot of their products, with no real meaning behind them. I must say I'm a bit disappointed Lancôme hadn't made use of the crest until their 75th birthday, because it's interesting and makes the brand stand out from others. I wish other makeup companies had crests!
Things from around the interwebs I liked this week, along with a delicious treat I found at Whole Paycheck (err, I mean Whole Foods):
– Via ArtDaily I learned that not only is there an entire museum devoted to shoes (!! – the Curator's other passion besides makeup) in Toronto, they currently have a fantastic exhibition on European 16th and 17th-century ladies' footwear. How cool is that?!
– BellaSugar has an interesting quiz on how much cosmetics used to cost. I didn't do so well (I only got 2 out of 5 correct, eek!) but I did learn that Ivory Soap used to cost a mere 5 cents back in 1926.
– Bacon and chocolate? I know it seems weird, but I am totally hooked on these Vosges chocolate bars. I'm very sensitive to caffeine, which is unfortunate for a chocoholic (especially one who loves highly caffeinated dark chocolate) but in this case it works in my favor - I can only eat one or two squares at a time so I'm not awake the whole night, which is good since these bars are expensive! But a necessary luxury.
– The planning for our nuptials is coming along nicely, but I have to say it would have been cool to have our celebration at a doughnut shop.
Here's an interesting discovery, brought to you by the Daily Mail. French scientist Philippe Walter and his team at CNRS tested several samples of eye makeup from the Louvre's collection and confirmed its medicinal properties. You wouldn't think a lead-based eye liner would be safe, let alone beneficial, but apparently at low doses the lead salts produced a "molecule-nitric oxide" which boosts the immune system. Neat!
(image from eye-makeup-guide.com)
It just goes to show I'm not totally crazy – here is a bona fide exhibition about beauty and cosmetics! Via Art History Newsletter, I learned that the Musée National de la Renaissance in Ecouen, France, presents Le Bain et le Miroir: Soins du corps et cosmétiques à la Renaissance. Alas, I cannot understand French and the website doesn't have an English option, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with beauty and cosmetics. From what I can gather (did you know Google has a translation function?), included are combs, perfumes, mirrors and I believe even some makeup. There are also paintings and sculptures depicting ideal Renaissance beauty to put these objects in context. The exhibition is in conjunction with another exhibit focusing on beauty in from antiquity to the Middle Ages at the Cluny Museum. What's really amazing about that one is that L'Oreal analyzed the cosmetics to understand their composition. How cool would it be to research what people used back then for makeup? L'Oreal is also partially funding the exhibition..I'm thinking I should get in touch with them to see if they want to have a contemporary beauty exhibit stateside. 🙂
Instead of design and art today I will be discussing a little cultural history. I finished up Teresa Riordan's Inventing Beauty: A History of the Innovations That Make Us Beautifullast night, (which, by the way, is a fun and easy read that I bet would appeal to a wider audience than just beauty addicts) and while I was reading I couldn't help but notice some inventions that seem novel now but actually have already been done many years ago. In a chapter on lipstick she discusses one introduced in the 1930s called "Tangee", (still in existence today) which was bright orange in the tube. Once applied on the lips it became a light reddish hue, depending on "how akaline the wearer's lips were." She notes that the company claimed the lipstick worked with the user's natural coloring to create a custom shade. This reminded me a lot of some relatively new products that have been touted for doing the same thing: Smashbox's O-Glow gel blush and O-Gloss, which, according to the company, work with your body's chemistry to create a custom color unique to you.
Riordan also talks about a series of lipsticks developed by the company Volupte. They were divided into two categories: Lady and Hussy. Lady was for the "girls who lean towards pale-lacquered nails, quiet smart clothes and tiny strands of pearls" while Hussy was for the "girl who loves exciting clothes, pins a strass pin as big as a saucer to her dress, and likes to be just a leetle bit shocking." Riordan further reports that Hussy outsold Lady 5 to 1. After reading this I think Poppy King, creator of Lipstick Queen, would definitely appreciate these names since her lipsticks are divided into two similarly-named types: Saint and Sinner.
(photos from lipstickqueen.com)
Sinner packs a whollop at 90% pigment, while Saint features a much lighter, softer wash of color at 10% pigment. "Sinning can be fun because it usually involves some indulgence in something taboo and delicious…It is positively naughty to get lipstick this opaque, rich and creamy with a matte yet silky finish." The description for Saint: "When I think of Saints I think of them as light, airy and floating above, beyond and around us…Absolutely no glitter (Saints are far too humble for such audacity)." The names refer not only to the lipsticks' texture but also point to the mood of the wearer. Someone feeling naughty may wear a bold color, while someone feeling sweet and saintly would wear a light, natural-looking shade. In any case, it's interesting to take a look back and see the roots of the latest products and how they've been modified for our time.
