The “No makeup” Makeup Routine and the High Standards that it Exposes

In Sandra Lee Bartkey’s article Focult, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power, she describes in detail the ways in which women are expected to outwardly perform their gender. Amidst her analysis of the absurdity of the rigid and rigorous beauty routine that women go through, she highlights that “The crown and pinnacle of good haircare and skincare is, of course, the arrangement of the hair and the application of cosmetics…Furthermore, since a properly made-up face is…at least a badge of acceptability in most social and professional contexts, the woman who chooses not to wear cosmetics at all faces sanctions” (85).

            However, in a strange foil to these “sanctions,” Bartkey mentions several magazine covers, YouTube makeup tutorials, and online fashion blogs have recently been purporting the “no makeup” makeup routine. This WikiHow article, “How to Apply Makeup for a Natural Look,” claims that “a fresh face is always in style…of course, the natural look takes a little bit of time and practice.”  What follows is a 13-step, three-part foray into moisturizing, concealing, powdering, bronzing, blushing, lining, and shimmering. The article calls for the use of around ten to fifteen products to achieve the appearance of the absence of makeup, a routine that could easily be avoided if one simply opted to not wear makeup instead. What is the purpose of purchasing cosmetics and spending a large amount of time applying them only to achieve the same “dewy, fresh, radiant look” that the naked human face already possesses?

            A surface reading of Bartkey’s claim that wearing makeup daily is “at least a badge of acceptability” suggests that the “no makeup” routine could be a woman’s way of presenting the closest thing to her un-makeuped face to the public as possible while still satisfying social convention. However, later in the piece Bartkey claims that the high demands place on women to perfect their appearance “suggests…that their bodies are deficient.” (85). When Bartkey previously suggested “a properly made-up face,” she was alluding to a face that follows the doctrine of a perfected woman. “A properly made-up face” is one that is virtually impossible to achieve with an unpainted face. So a makeup routine that creates the allusion of a lack of makeup, even if it achieves a glowing, unblemished face, still fails to meet the standards for “a properly made up face.” The “natural” makeup look, even though it does still satisfy the demands placed on women to wear makeup, still fails to meet the societal expectations for what type of appearance that makeup should achieve.

            For example, when Taylor Swift appeared on the November 2014 cover of the music and fashion magazine Wonderland, she was without a doubt fully made up. However, because she had traded her typical public performance—red lipstick, black eyeliner, neatly placed and straightened hair—for a plainer palette of brown contouring lines and shadows, a strangely bewildered reaction ensued. Billboard magazine called her “nearly unrecognizable (but still gorgeous!),” implying that while Swift did not fit the public persona that they were used to, her appearance was still, at least acceptable. MTV news was more in depth in their shocked reaction to the Wonderland cover, making such elegant observations as “If the name Taylor Swift wasn’t in the headline of this post, would you even recognize her?? Like, would you be able to pick this tanned and bold-browed woman out of a crowd and appropriately squeal, “OMG Taylor Swift, I love your work!!”? I don’t think so.” This statement becomes problematic in many ways—firstly, it states that Taylor Swift’s entire identity is based o her appearance, that without her usual cosmetics she ceases to become a recognizable name and just a nameless “tanned and bold-browed woman.” Secondly, the use of the voice of an imagined fan, ecstatic of Swift’s music yet unable to identify the artist because of her appearance, implies that not only is Swift’s normal makeup routine essential to her physical identity, but to her professional and artistic identities as well.

            Would the response to the Wonderland cover be one of less shock and awe is Swift had appeared in more the more overdone makeup look that is more typical of magazine covers? If she had appeared on the cover with heavier makeup than usual, would pop culture outlets still be calling her “unrecognizable?” Or would she be be lauded with approval, the “but” removed from “but still gorgeous?”

            Swift’s appearance on the Wonderland cover is still a heavily made up one, but it the application of the makeup falls in line with the previously mentioned natural makeup tutorial—bronzers, blush, nude lip gloss, eye shadow only slightly darker than Swift’s skin tone.  So, while Swift is still fulfilling the expectation to improve her face, she is still showing too much of natural self—she, and the concept of the natural makeup routine, have not earned the “badge of acceptability.”