Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook
· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS
Older Articles
· A thanks...
· After a hiatus...
· Makeup for photographs
· The Look-alike Concept
· Beauty Notes: A great new site...
· Beauty Notes: Caron Parfum Sacré
· More ramblings...
· Blow Out
· Beauty Notes: Peaceful Moment
· Beauty Notes: Givenchy Organza Indécence
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, Monday, July 11, 2005 11:12 PM (Eastern)
Cosmetics, in the narrower sense of make-up products, rather than the general term encompassing skin, hair, body, nails, and fragrance in addition to make-up, has its leading figures, as in any other art. A list of names rolls glibly off the tongue, and even the amateurishly knowledgeable will know most of them, from beauty magazines and department stores: Kevyn Aucoin, Pat McGrath, Stephane Marais, Dick Page, Charlie Green, Collier Strong, Pati Dubroff, Bobbi Brown... the list goes on (which is particularly extensive once one approaches those with "lines"). There are different sorts: some work on runways and fashion spreads, some for celebrities, others still for theater and film (of whom I have zero to no knowledge, but you can probably pick up names from perusing makeup411.com), some for commercial advertisements. Many of them consult for cosmetic companies, oftentimes for their own.
Still, despite the near-celebrity status of some, such as Pat McGrath, Bobbi Brown, Jeanine Lobell, and of course, Kevyn Aucoin, make-up is less concerned with its artists than many other arts. Take anything else—literature, music, fashion, painting and sculpture and photography, films—and the question of "who made it" is as important as the art itself (though admittedly a modern obsession, in the academic sense of "after the Renaissance" and not "the Twentieth Century"). I guess cosmetics is closer in line with architecture, which mixes form with function, instead of the more ethereal universe of pure aesthetic. It may seem that the ready simile would be with painting, because both use pigments and brushes and differ only in their respective canvasses, but I think not. The manner with which these two are borne out, are very different. Cosmetics, like, architecture, can never escape the inevitably of function—which is not the same demand as that of money, which no artistic discipline can escape (the inevitable discussion of "high" art versus "commercial" art, though whether they are antagonistic forces or flip-sides of the same coin remains a matter of debate). By "function", I mean, simply enough, "usefulness"—a pragmatic rather than economic regard.
As a sort of side-note, I would say that hair-styling has the greatest similitude to sculpture, in that it is less concerned with function. Granted, there is some function involved, in that shampoos must clean, and conditioners must moisturize, but soap cleans, and mayonnaise moisturizes. Styling products, like gel and hairspray, of course, must perform, but the best products do their work invisibly. Simply put, hair styling is about the hair, and how you shape it, not what you use. Which is to say, like sculpture, the essence of hair styling is the quality of the material, and its eventual shape. The tools, which affect both, are primarily of concern to the artist (or the woman blowdrying her hair at home, as it may very well be), but not to the large bulk of museum-goers (or the people who will see your hair). Make-up, in comparison, shows, though some of it is obviously meant not to.
As for perfume, it is perhaps most like fine cuisine, a rather facile claim to make. The most obvious reason: both depend heavily on our faculty of smell, as our sense of taste is very rudimentary and 90% of it is actually derived from scent. Secondly, most perfumes, and most dishes, work their magic through a complex mélange of ingredients—or notes, shall we say? Of course, one can have a lone apple, sweet and crisp, or savor the richness of a jasmine soliflore, but it is unlikely that we'd ask for either at a restaurant or department store, and neither require artistry except that of the farmer and distiller. A quails financi$egrave;re or Guerlaine L'Heure Bleue, by contrast, require the handiwork of an artist, and most mortals would be utterly incapable of creating either, though they may replicate them. And by queer happenchance, or perhaps the French are simply very sensitive noses, both cuisine and perfumery are heavily Gallic domains. They thereby absorb some of the inveterate elitism, which is understood as the nation's greatest virtue as far as the French are concerned, and prevails its greatest vice in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is no coincidence that perfume aficionadoes are notorious snobs; an overwhelming preference for "niche" perfumeurs, from Serge Lutens to Frédéric Malle to rare Guerlains to JAR to Caron to Strange Invisible Perfumes, with occasional concessions towards the reputable works of Chanel or Hermès and the rare standouts (again, a very French list). This is not so dissimilar a practice as that of food aficionadoes, who turn their noses up at McDonalds in much the same manner as an amateur perfume fantatic sneers at Paris Hilton EDT. (To which I can only say, notwithstanding that I am a hopeless elitist myself, too much snobbery can come and bite you in the ass. Popularity, mass production, and an eye for commercialistic success are no surefire determinates of unworthiness, however often it may be the case.) And yet another similarity is that while there are star perfumeurs, as there are star chefs, they both work behind the scenes, and people and recipes in either are ferociously guarded. Both cuisine and perfumes require the best of ingredients (which in the case of perfumes, is not necessarily the most natural, as it is with food), and a truly superior sense of what to mix together, and how it evolves in the presence of heat (a kitchen, in the case of food, the warmth of the skin, in the case of perfume). I suppose there are more similarities to be found, but I digress. (To be truthful, I think it could be equally likely that music would be a better pairing, but I know absolutely nothing about music theory, while I do know about food.)
Cosmetics, I say again, is like architecture. The aesthetic responsibilities towards the visual, the functional responsibilities towards performance in the real world, and both, to be the best, must last. Cheap makeup disappears all too soon, just as cheap archictecture is flimsy, though sometimes ephemerality is desired as an aesthetic counterpoint (tinted lip balms, for example, or the I.M. Pei's pyramide). Cosmetics, therefore, must be viewed in context, how they perform for people, while many other arts depend simply on whether you like the object in question. It would be ludicrous to ask for the function of a Caravaggio, while one can answer the same question regarding Lancome's Hypnose mascara very simply: lush, defined, separated volume. There is also, I think, a prevailing understanding that cosmetics are superficial, which baffles me. Look at the article that I have written thus far, could it have been written by less than a thinking individual? It may not be one the same intellectual level of Jung or Darwin, but really, what is? Literature alone strives to be a pure marriage of intellect and aesthetic, as a prevailing discipline, though of course they are many in the other disciplines who incorporate both. And yet, no one sneers at Mozart or Vermeer or Scorsese. Some music or art or film is thinkingly done, some instinctually, and in make-up it is much the same... but still, this stigma. Of course, make-up is very different from movie-making, but no more so than painting is from music. It is as if intelligence and a love for cosmetics (or fashion, for that matter) are mutually exclusive. I can only darkly conclude that the reason is because make-up is a feminine interest, though many major make-up artists are male (but overwhelmingly gay). Perfume escapes this dilemma, but men use fragrance as well as women, so the theory holds. In any case, both serve to prohibit a head-on "academic" recognition of important figures and movements in makeup (I will blog on this topic at a later date, but being somewhat of a contentious discussion, intend to do so with more care than usual).
Still, despite all the limitations on "cults of personalities", some do exist. Some by virtue of the vast amount of work they do—Pat McGrath, for example, does nearly all of the major fashion shows (and what she does not do, Dick Page does, and what Dick Page does not do, Stephane Marais does), as well as half of the Vogue spreads and consultations for Giorgio Armani and Cover Girl (the latter being very recent, and I'm excited to see what Procter & Gamble will offer soon), others because they have started highly successful product lines (too many to count, I suppose the biggest commercial successes are Stila, by Jeanine Lobell, Bobbi Brown, and NARS, by François Nars, Trish McEvoy, and Laura Mercier), so much so that the more "commercial" (which I think is a misleading term, as very few lines are truly "artisanal"—in fact, only LUSH really pops to mind as one that is both highly successful and true-to-its-roots, but that is skincare) are employing professional make-up artists as creative directors, others still because they have very famous clients (Kevyn Aucoin, of course).
What does this all figure? In economic terms, a lot. The current trend in fashion, towards "cult" jeans? It is much like the proliferation of "make-up artist" lines. Bobbi Brown's innovation, yellow-based foundation, single-handedly changed the industry. Nowadays, foundations are unthinkingly yellow-based (though not as yellow as Bobbi Brown's), and pinky peachy things, like YSL's Touche Eclat, resemble nothing so much as dinosaurs, and it puzzles most consumers as to how it could possibly work. To Pat McGrath, I attribute the trend in sheers, which has coincidentally been made possible through innovations in lightweight-silicone technology, but the "sheer" look is truly through her influence. Sheer lipsticks, exquisitely textured eyeshadows (which was once the domain of Dior's shadows alone, and now, the consumer expects them to glide on like silk—something that would really matter most to someone who applies eyeshadow for a living), professional grade brushes (women used to be perfectly happy using dinky sponge-tips and sponges, and now there's a brush for everything), illuminating/highlighting shimmers, etc., etc.
But an examination of market trends is I suppose beyond the point. I finally arrive at my original purpose, which is to reflect on the doings, prevailing aesthetics, and influences of the major contemporary make-up artists of today. I cannot be comprehensive, because as far as I know no one has gathered a comprehensive encyclopedia as such (or touched on many of the topics I try to address in these blogs), so it will be a small handful of people I think are worthy of notice (most of whom have been mentioned already)—which I think is better, anyway. I will also include a look at some product lines, in that capacity, for it is not only individuals who influence the industry. This exercise, however, will be rather limited by my youth, so most, if not all, will be very contemporary. Overall, it should be somewhere between a biography and a book review... Without further ado, let us venture forth!
Labels: beauty notes, philosophy, the makeup artist
subscribe
in a reader
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Links to this post:
Create a Link