Is This Real Life?
March 14, 2011 § 6 Comments
by ELENA
It says something (not particularly good) about our culture when a cosmetic company uses its lack of Photoshop as a way to market its foundation:
This campaign is successful: I now want to try their foundation — especially as an actor who spends quite a bit of her time in front of high-definition cameras.
Wearing makeup on a daily basis is pretty much a fact of life for me. And I’m the most appreciative of companies who can sell me a quality product without massive amounts of retouching. I also like how this model isn’t doing SexyFace, she’s taking a photo of herself. She’s doing something that I do whenever I’m dressed up for a special event or party.
So, as a message to other cosmetic companies: More of this, and less crazy retouching. Please.
(Via Beauty High.)
Women's Glib 
Hmm I still don’t know that I like it though. Although I have no problem with sexiness, I’d say she’s still making a sexy face (I don’t smile at my mother like that, especially not holding that pose).
It’s a cool product, but at the end of the day, she still has flawless skin even WITHOUT retouching–there’s no bending of standards here. Plus it says, “You won’t need to be retouched because we’ll cover up all your imperfections flawlessly!” not “You don’t need be retouched because real people are beautiful.”
Kinda just playing devil’s advocate–it’s a cool campaign, but there’s still some kinks in it for me.
Thing is, there is a market and purpose for that product. Speaking from experience, high-definition cameras can emphasize any irregularity in the skin. Changes in pigmentation, dark circles, blemishes, are pretty much magnified, and if I don’t wear a good foundation that covers well, I look like I haven’t slept in years. HD cameras are also more user friendly than film cameras, and less time-consuming to use on a shoot, so unfortunately, they aren’t going away anytime soon.
And a strong foundation is also important for period pieces like Mad Men, since women in the 30’s/40’s/50’s/60’s wore makeup that was not as sheer as it was today, and a great deal of theater, because sheer foundations would look anachronistic/would not hold up under stage lights.
I appreciate the ad for what it is. She’s making the goofy sexy face, not the weird haughty one that models seem to make. No, it’s not a Cover Girl girl-next-door, but it doesn’t look like someone superimposed Tammy Faye’s face.
Looking at the rest, not the face, you notice flaws in the models elbow area and underarm. Everything wasn’t so photoshopped that she was missing half an arm.
That’s the kind of make up I can appreciate. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to look your best, including embracing some of your flaws.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to look good or wanting to wear makeup–I definitely do both.
I’m just saying the ad doesn’t really defy any traditional beauty standards. This came out recently and it articulates my argument much better. I guess I should just leave it to the pros haha.
http://feministing.com/2011/03/15/unretouched-make-up-ad-a-reminder-the-problems-much-bigger/
But wouldn’t that better be said that it doesn’t defy *your* standards of beauty? It’s subjective about how definitive it is, really. Because each woman will find something wrong with the something in the ad, that it doesn’t fulfill their needs. Because everyone’s expectations are different when it comes to make-up and altering their beauty. What? Was the expectation to NOT sell a product? It says it’s for Professionals. For that end, it probably IS for professionals that do not require $1000s making an already expensive ad. Or movies. Or televisions. And it’s available to those that want the same look without the industry connections or wallet.
I would be surprised if people actually thought real life was like this.