There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle over at MUACJDiscussion over at Reddit, one of the few places on the internet that I trust when it comes to makeup. As of today, there is a lengthy thread on Holy Grails of "Mid-Range" makeup. Of course, this leads to dissension about what "mid-range" vs. high-end really is. Many people are reporting comments that include improperly labeled brands, and the mods have instructed people to stop, as they themselves are managing this.
One of my earlier posts talks about a palette from The Balm. And I acknowledged that many people consider it to be a mid-range brand. One can purchase it from Kohl's. However, I wanted to say that based on where I was financially, and where I still am, I consider it to be an expensive brand, one of the higher end ones. If I had to contrast it with the cosmetics I had been using before college, which included Bonnebell, Covergirl, and hand-me-down Clinique, it is up there.
I think there is so much contention about the "ranges" because like all products, makeup is wrapped up in social class. That is why so much of the jerking that goes on calls out the pretension, assumptions, and nonsense that are embedded in something as innocuous (or seemingly, rather) as a post about makeup.
It's really a case of know your audience, as well as fluctuating markets and brands. For example, NYX, is one of those expanding brands that you can find in a drug store, but because of its increasing prices, may as well be considered mid-range.
And I can't believe that MUFE ($42) and Kat Von D ($35) could be considered mid-range if their foundations are of a similar price point to NARS ($47) and Estee Lauder ($39.50). There is no stability here of ranges, especially as Sephora phases brands in and out, and especially as brands spring up with greater ease and alternative ways to generate hype (like what the hell is Ofra)? You cannot convince me that Illamasaqua is mid-range. I'm sorry.
The danger of labeling only the most unattainable brands as high-end/luxury, like Guerlain or Tom Ford, and everything in between as mid-range, is that it creates an illusion that all of it can be and is accessible. An illusion that promotes living beyond one's means, or not painting an accurate picture of consumption that is reasonable. It could put more pressure on a consumer, more fear of missing out, more disappointment because they should be able to afford it. It's midrange.
Of course, everyone comes from different SES. However, if Amazon lists "Stila," "Lorac," "Cargo" etc., as "luxury beauty brands," how are they suddenly midrange?
I kind of think that post is a mess. To split hairs in such a way involves a little bit of delusion, and a little bit of an emotional edge when it comes to demarcating what is higher/mid/lower, etc. I don't have the time nor desire to mod, but I think a more productive approach would have been to actually organize these threads according to price: "Best foundations: $10-$20, or Best Lipstick, $30+"
Magazines have been doing this for years.
It also makes the consumption aspect more transparent, and sheds away some of the presumption that is accompanied by such labels. I think this is a healthy thing.
High-end, low-end, at the end of the day, if it is crappy and/or too expensive, I am not going to buy it, nor do I think others would, whatever it may be. I myself am going to try to get myself out of this box when it comes to "labels," especially for my reasons listed above. The industry is fluctuating too quickly, and prices are increasing too much, and people need to be more aware of the bottom line.
No comments:
Post a Comment