To gloss or not to gloss...(is that really a question?)


Good afternoon, Friday. Happy Mother's Day weekend- lots of fun stuff happening in the city (huge Larry Levan dance party, new show at the Met, record shopping craziness at Brooklyn Flea, art fairs) but I'm headed home on Saturday to hang out with my family, and hope you all will be spending some time with yours as well.

So, here's something. I came across an article  in the NY Times about a "trend" towards no makeup and bare faces amongst the glamourati. I have to say, lately I've been noticing a lot of ladies foregoing makeup- I was kind of shocked by Gwyneth Paltrow's face at her GOOP pop up party in Brentwood- it looked, well, so real. Kind of like the rest of us, but you know, Gwynethy- she's always been a natural type but she really looks like she had nothing on at all. Her mom, Blythe Danner, seemed to have gotten the no makeup memo as well.  They're both beautiful so this is not a hard ask- and I think that's what makes this "trend" tough- if you look like Gwyneth or Jessica Biel or Jennifer Lawrence, why would you try to cover it? I really do like that older women are getting in on this too- I'd say that fresh faced is the provenance of youth, but Cameron Diaz looks gorgeous, and so do Gwyneth and her mom. Good for them. I guarantee you there are thousands of dollars of skin care products and injectables and peels that allow for such dewiness- I think it's cheaper to wear a little bit of makeup, but that's just me. Is lack of makeup the new humble brag? As in, I'm too gorgeous and busy to wear makeup? One wonders. (Hang on, I've got to apply some mascara).

The article ponders whether the whole "normcore" movement has spawned a new generation of fresh faced types, or if our obsession with self documentation of late has taken a more "natural" approach of less is more when it comes to those G-d awful close ups everybody seems to be taking of themselves, some of which, ps do great things- in the UK, a cancer awareness campaign of raw selfies got a lot of attention, but I'm personally not sure what the lack of makeup is trying to prove- we are not more brave or courageous or ourselves with or without mascara- we are who we are, regardless. (Is anyone else tired of these 'movements" ps?) It seems so smug to assume that we are somehow more courageous without makeup. That's just dumb. 

I'm going to give you my take on it- when I don't wear makeup it's not really a statement. On most weekends running around my neighborhood, I don't have a stitch of makeup on. But I adore the ritual of putting on makeup during the week- it's part of my morning and sure, as I age I'm well aware that less is definitely more (plus it allows me to completely ignore my hair in favor of a well dressed face)- it's not LESS per se it's just a different approach to say, more natural looking makeup and less trendy lip and eye colors, and I know I look better with a little bit of help.  I'm sure you have your own thoughts on the no makeup movement, but what I found most interesting is how much I disagree with a popular perception. 

As the article notes, in Silicon Valley, there's a huge double standard. The men get to wear flip flops and old tee shirts and the women have to dress and come to work with a full face of makeup and well done hair in a nod to their power status. I find that so strange, because the powerful women I know in business have ALWAYS worn very little makeup, and to be fair, I've always found it a bit intimidating. As in, wow- you are way too important and no nonsense to worry about the latest Laura Mercier caviar infused eye stick. And, hey, as I toil with my latest attempt at a cat eye, you are making deals and taking names. Don't get me wrong- there are often VERY expensive haircuts and highlights associated with said woman, but the makeup is always pretty barren. I've always found that the most important femmes I know would rather sell themselves on their smarts and sass than their lipstick. And that's the truth. The same goes for manicures- I know a lot of ladies who go bare there too, or keep it very, very simple. The piece mentions women like Tonne Goodman as a huge champion of the bare face- but I'd be much more scared of her in a meeting than some freshly blown out, kohl rimmed power blonde. (Tonne ain't got time for that). I've always admired the naked face- on a confident woman, it's a lovely thing (though a little concealer wouldn't hurt). And really, if you've been to France, you'll see how many women there are undone when it comes to hair and makeup, and somehow, it's so much more glamorous. (How do they do that???) But I find it hard to believe that women like Leandra Medine, she of the infamous "Man Repeller" blog, does not wear makeup because she is "lazy".  As a woman whose every outfit is painstakingly photographed and commented upon, I find that answer silly. She's not lazy about her appearance at all- she just doesn't choose to focus on makeup. Ok, good for her. How come then, the same is not said of women who decide a diet of kale and pilates is too depraved and maybe they want to keep those extra 10 pounds? Why is that not also applauded and celebrated? Hmm. Double standard BIG TIME. 

And there's much pontification on the matter- some are calling it a return to a 90s moment where the supermodels kept things very bare, while others are heralding a new era of relaxed feminism. I prefer the latter. I'd call it a reaction to perhaps some of the insane over the top makeup of cuckoo Kardashians.  Sometimes too much is more than enough. I find the whole "look at me I have no makeup on thing" more vain in some ways- I don't know why we have to make these statements about who we are and how we look- just be whoever you want and we won't have to talk about this anymore. Sigh.

And the fact that the Times notes that women are still judged for their gussied uppiness at the workplace is just odd.  I kind of thought we were over the whole "Working Girl" era of glammed up for work, eons ago- didn't you? You should see what I have on today...then again, I work in advertising where wearing a power suit and too strong a lipstick is a cringeworthy kiss of death. Are we really still equating lipstick with being professional? Seems grossly out of step to me.  I will say the women of Silicon Valley look a bit too business lady 101 for my tastes- why don't any of them look like Jena Lyons? She's the real deal and to me, epitomizes a relaxed yet super stylish approach to big picture dressing. Love her. She always looks herself, regardless of if she rocks a red lip or a nude lip or a pair of ripped jeans or a ball gown. Divine, and very modern.

My suspicion is that things are just kind of evening out- there's loads of options out there for a more natural approach to makeup- from tinted moisturizer to barely there blush to nude lipstick being a hugely popular trend.  I think it's wonderful that women are coming out of the medicine closet and daring to go bare.  PS am I the only one who always thought wearing too much makeup at the office was a big no no or is that just because women in advertising are just more laid back and chic about such things? Overdone screams cheesy to me, particularly at noon on a Tuesday in midtown.  Love it or hate it, I'm thrilled there's options for women who don't want to wear makeup- I'll never be that girl but am a huge fan of personal expression of beauty, whether it's enhanced by blush or not is simply up to you.  Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

And that's what's up this made up Friday in the 212. Yours, at face value.  XO