Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook
· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS
Older Articles
· A Return to Minimalism: Introduction
· Color Me In: Amy
· Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.23.05)
· More on sheers...
· Beauty Notes: Diagnosis of a Trend: Sheer Makeup
· Eye Makeup for Green Eyes #4
· Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (Brow...
· FOTD
· Beauty Notes: Building an Eyeshadow Wardrobe (The ...
· Beauty Notes: Hauling (5.14.05)
Comments
Archives
· Beauty Blog (2003-2004)
· Fashion Blog (archive)
· New Releases Blog (archive)
· Beauty Articles (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
· July 2007
· August 2007
· September 2007
· October 2007
· November 2007
· December 2007
· January 2008
· February 2008
· March 2008
· April 2008
· May 2008
· June 2008
· July 2008
Recent blog posts:
Links
Barneys
refinery29
The Sartorialist
Jargol
Perfume Shrine
Ambre Gris
Polyvore
The Fashioniste
The Powder Group
LA-Story.com
Dain's Literary Attempts
Colleen's Beading Blog
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog
The Beauty Blog Network
Eponym Blog Directory.
TBF Project:Blog
Posted by Dain, Friday, May 27, 2005 4:02 PM (Eastern)
Good skin and hair, et cetera
I know, a tired tune. But good skin will carry... ohh... everything. Nice features, good bone structure, and symmetry (beauty, insofar as aesthetics are concerned, is largely based on symmetry, did you know that?) all play a role, but there's not much you can do about those except curse your genes or submit to plastic surgery. Hair and skin can be worked on.
Fortunately for me, genetics has worked in my favor, and I've realized that my hair and skin are just better left alone. This is a lesson long in the learning—which may seem strange enough, but not really—the cosmetics industry is very good at making you think you need products you do not, in fact, need. I have healthy skin and hair, and I suspect that most women do too, a strange confession to make, as I've been so well—for lack of a better word—trained otherwise. Maintenance, then, rather than treatment, is my goal.
I prefer botanicals overwhelmingly to chemicals, even though I've allergies to some botanical ingredients (particularly calendula). By chemicals, I mean wonder-compounds such as glycolic acid, vitamin c, retin A, oxygen, superlight silicones, peptide-complexes, salicylic acid, etc. The efficacy of most of these ingredients is well-documented, of course, but they're too much for my sensitive, very fine, rather dry skin. My skin absorbs such powerhouse ingredients all too readily, and since I don't really have skin problems per se, it simply overwhelms the system. It reacts with hyperactivity: excessive sensitivity, flakes, overproduction of sebum, acne, the like. I suspect this is true of many women. Filler ingredients (preservatives, emulsifiers, slip agents, the like), too, are better left out of the equation as much as possible. Sometimes they are helpful (usually not, otherwise they'd be deemed active ingredients), usually they are innocuous, sometimes they are harmful (comedogenic, for example). The purer the ingredients, and the less the product is concerned with feeling good, the better. It just works better that way. If you want to soften the effects of active ingredients, couch it in some aloe vera gel (for oily skin), or any number of emollients that hydrate and function as a barrier between skin and air. Think about it: if silicone-laced hair products coat your hair and result in build-up and dehydration, wouldn't the same effect be visible on your skin, where the products are left on?
Of course, the difficulty of botanicals is that there is no rhyme or reason to them. Most chemicals are well-documented in their benefit to skin and hair. Botanicals are looser. But I see a difference, a good one, so I'm not inclined to argue.
I've only recently extended this theory to hair. I thought, by using such products designed to provide "smooth and sleek" (Pantene), "sleek & shine" (Garnier), "smooth intense" (L'Oreal), etc., etc., I could otherwise tame whatever waywardness my otherwise healthy (though dry) hair might have. After all, if they are such reputed miracle-workers, would they not also give my hair the extra boost I so desire? This is erroneous thinking, I've come to realize. Healthy hair shouldn't be treated as unhealthy hair. It's like spurning the good son. I've been guilty of product overkill (I wasn't aware that one could do that with shampoos, say). How could such an obvious fact escape me? God knows.
In any case, here is my approach, voiced in products.
HAIR: One reason is that new, lightweight-silicone technology that prevails today feels really good to use. Temporarily, it seems to work miracles on your hair. The silicones are lightweight, so build-up is minimal, but nevertheless inevitable, and the products lose their efficacy after a while. In short, the brilliancy wears thin.
Enter, Nature's Gate. The original formula of the Herbal Hair Shampoo and Herbal Hair Conditioner has not changed in over 25 years. Antiquated, by cosmetics-industry standards. And I dare say, with good reason. The formulations are simple and no-nonsense, and use very little of the "filler" ingredients that make a conditioner feel rich and slippery (selfsame silicone technology, which leads to build-up), or a shampoo luxuriously lather (very stripping). The products are gentle but concentrated, and are perhaps a little less cosmetically elegant than what one might be used to—a sacrifice made for efficacy. The price is right, too. $4.65 for 18 oz—not the cheapest, but certainly not expensive.
And the scent! It's the most glorious earth-goddess scent, that lingers. I adore the scent (as does anyone I've made to sniff this product), but it is earthy and I can see some disliking it, for it is much in the vein of Aveda's line (this smells better than any Aveda shampoo I've sniffed, however... it's got a bit of spice to it).
As for styling, I don't style—my hair doesn't require it (it's straight... always. what am I really going to do with it?). It's better not to: by avoiding damage and product build-up. I think it's better to leave healthy hair to its own designs. I just soften the black a little with a little "wee brown", preferably L'Oréal Féria in Downtown Brown (a Hi-Lift Brown), which I like because it is a very cool brown and doesn't turn my hair reddish (most dyes turn my hair red), maybe just a hint.
SKIN: Ah. Simple. The laughingly old-fashioned régime of cleanser-toner-moisturizer (nigh medieval, it is). As supplied by Dr. Hauschka, wonderfully pure botanical formulae (not 100%, but as can be), that really address the way skin is structured and takes care of itself. Aye, it truly deserves the title of "holistic", in that the Dr. Hauschka system really attempts to maintain skin as a whole, a complex organ, and the products work in concert, rather than to treat individual problems as they arise (read my article on Dr. Hauschka for further details). I'm enamoured with the Cleansing Cream (undecided as to whether I prefer this or the Cleansing Milk), Facial Toner, and the Rose Day Cream (which I might not even need—the cleanser/toner combo work so well to promote healthy skin—but perhaps for drier, tenderer days). So simple (even if the products smell funkily alcoholic—strangely, I like the scent). Isn't that glorious?
Of course, my routine of before was simpler (Cetaphil and Better Botanicals Dandelion Moisturizer), but I'm curious to see if my skin improves under the Dr. Hauschka regimen. In any case, I am by no means restricted to using Dr. Hauschka in the future. I like the products, but as yet, I'm only undergoing a trial. I'm curious to try LUSH Ultrabland, for example. In any case, I do like the cleansing/toning of Dr. Hauschka, so I may stick with that, but I think I prefer my Better Botanicals—far more elegant, perfect amount of moisturization, lovely scent, same price (I'm on my fourth bottle, that says a lot).
BODY: Again, very simple. I'm not particularly interested in bath and body products, so it's just LUSH Alkmaar soap (I use various body washes at school, as soaps are impractical, currently I like Johnson's Softwash Extra Care, but I haven't yet met one that inspires loyalty) and Palmer's Cocoa Butter lotion (fragrance-free). Neither of which are particularly impressive, in the botanical vein I've been expounding for the past few pages, but I have lower standards as far as bath & body is concerned (it's fine, who cares?); I just want a soap that smells lovely (check), and a body lotion that penetrates even the driest winter skin into silky softness (check). For something pampering, there's nothing better than LUSH Butterball ballistics, which are just a joy to use.
Labels: minimalism
subscribe
in a reader
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Links to this post:
Create a Link