You’ve probably seen them; those provocative commercials that feature a 5’8’’, 120 lb female proponent. The catchy pop music stutters in the background as she poses here and there, turns this way and that, sometimes smiling seductively, other times laughing at apparently nothing. More often than not, her perfectly straight, silky hair is being buffeted away from her face by an unseen studio fan, complementing the flawless airbrush texture of her face.
This is a depiction of the ideal woman. She is abnormally slender everywhere except her surgically or computer graphically enhanced chest and hips. Her skin is bereft of any deformity, no matter how slight, whether it is a miniscule pimple or a well placed mole. Her makeup is so masterfully crafted by specialists that she appears to be wearing none, when in reality this woman’s features are impossible to achieve naturally. Yet, despite these blaring contradictions, we are powerless to challenge her as she promotes Suave, Mabeline, Dove, or Slimfast, whatever the product. She stands on a pedestal composed of the backs of those who created her image, a project that has been years in the making.
In the colorful ‘70s, the ideal woman was just as slender, but her proportions were more believable. There was less emphasis placed upon her flawless features, and the creativity of her hairstyle was more important than any silky, perfectly straight quality. Her cheeks were plump and red, and her eyes were full of mischief and life.
Why and how, then, has this image changed?
Marketability. As our tastes as consumers have moved from the pleasant to the seductive, so has the ideal woman been warped to suit the promotional needs of companies struggling in competition with each other. She has been elongated, slimmed down, and plumped up in particular places. Her teeth are whiter, eyes are brighter, and her entire face is less human than ever before. She is a goddess that none on earth can emulate, unless of course we purchase Mabeline’s Fit Me Foundation, Gillette Venus razor, or Garnier Fructis Style curl scrunch. Then, of course, we will all be able to fling our voluptuous hair back from our unblemished faces as the fan buffest the sleek locks away, confident and perfect in our supremacy.
Check out these beauty ads from the 60s-90s. Compare them to your typical beauty ads today.
Check out these beauty ads from the 60s-90s. Compare them to your typical beauty ads today.
Its true the perception of beauty definitely changes with time. Back like in the middle ages girls who were curvy were the ones that were considered beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting about how ads have changed. Cool video!
ReplyDeleteReally interesting video -- in under four minutes, we see 40 years of beauty evolution.
ReplyDeleteThat was an interesting take on marketability being how these ads have changed. Good insight!
ReplyDeleteI like how you show the evolving beauty market throughout the years. I never realized how the ads have changed. I guess I was just naive in thinking that they've always been as they are today. This makes me think of Marilyn Monroe. She was the face of beauty but was a size 10, showing that beauty isn't always being 100lbs. Good observation!
ReplyDeleteI want to say, the thicker the makeup, no matter how well put on, the worse it looks to me. I know a girl who, when I met her, immediately struck me as overdone with her tan, eyeliner, blush, lipstick, and mascara. Natural is always better to me. I also remember a time when a girl I knew from HS was on a trip with myself a few others to a reading competition. She was very focused on putting foundation on her face, much to my confusion. To me she looked fine, and I was upset that this intelligent, beautiful, and happily not single girl was putting so much emphasis on "fixing" how she looked.
ReplyDelete