Unicorns and Makeup (essay) 🦄

I blame tumblr.

I have not used the blogging platform for about two years, for personal reasons. One, I was getting a job and did not want a digital footprint in that sand. Two, though I think tumblr during my college days was invaluable in learning about social justice, privilege, critical thinking, etc., I can't deny the fact that, as with every form of social media, one contributes to a discourse consciously, and is rewarded with reblogs and likes. 

And of course, "the aesthetic."  The opalescent pastel aesthetic of the cool kids that typified much of site.

The past two years it was mermaids. 

And now it's unicorns?

The mermaid trend was reflected in makeup, hair ornaments, makeup, music videos, and dress. I understood the mermaid trend, as mermaids are 1/2 human, and perhaps have a standardized iconography and style one can mimic.

The unicorn thing is sinister.

What is it? Rainbows? Holographics? But unicorns are horses with horns on their heads. A quick google search shows they are white horses, in fact, with pastel (mostly lavender) hair, and rainbow horns. They are associated with magic and sparkles.

If we were going to go far back in internetland, there was a coveted shade of Clarins nail polish with the nickname Unicorn Pee. It was not in reference to any color scheme, but rather a humorous comment on the elusive nature of this product.

So if we were to reduce, if we were to collect all the unicorn makeup in the world and set it on a pan to boil at high heat, what would be left? 

From my observations of all the recent releases, including Tarte and Wet n' Wild (with Colourpop coming in soon), in can be reduced to the following:

1. blues
2. pinks
3. purples
4. rainbows
5. pastels
6. sparkles
7. unicorn horns

Also illustrated in the following (sans horns):

Let me take a breath. Aside from the way "unicorn horns" have been integrated into lines- which is, to sell makeup brushes that look like horns, everything else has been done already. Those are not themes. Those are colors. 

So why is it sinister?

Because even when "mermaid" was a trend, not every single brand was playing along. Now they are. And it is a shame because these are repeated colors and aesthetics. And brands lose their identity. And the market will be bloated with unicorns until- and I suspect this will be soon- it will move onto the next "thing." 

When I think of unicorns, I don't think of makeup. Mermaids, on the other hands, were sirens. Were women. Unicorns are horses. They are associated with maidens, sort of, but the Ophelia-looking kind. Not a girl bedecked in glowsticks and glitter. I don't know. At the end of the day, all a company has to do is slap a buzzword onto a product to reel people in. I guess the whole unicorn thing is just so blatantly transparent. They're not even trying anymore.

Take Wet n' Wild. This is one of their upcoming "unicorn" products (referring to center compact) :

And this was one of their highlighters from last summer: 

To me, this illustrates the fact that these are not new products, not completely. None of these companies are doing anything really new. Even the make-believe in yourself palette from Tarte was not entirely convincing, though it was a step in a different direction. The quality was a bit dubious for me, especially for that crucial matte shade. 

To wrap up, I think companies are severely limiting themselves with following such particular trends, especially with something as inane as unicorns. It is almost like the phenomenon with the "Minions." There's really no basis for their popularity, but because they are ubiquitous as a result of keen marketing tactics, people accept them. 

And hey, maybe that means in the near future, we'll see Minions be the new unicorns. I do enjoy wearing yellow and spouting gibberish, after all.  

Essay/Rant: Defining the "Range" of Cosmetics

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.