Hanging out with one of my closest friends in college always inspires me. I have known her since the beginning of freshman year, and when we’re in a comfortable environment especially, our discussions might as well belong in a philosophy or psychology class. Our political views are at opposite ends of the spectrum, our lives before college and outside it are quite different, and she is very religious whereas I identify more with spirituality. But our hours-long discussions frequently lead to some sort of revelation about society, the media, the world or even the universe.
Last week we were in her dorm and had just watched New York, I Love You. We started discussing different types of insecurities based on characters in the movie, and how perpetuating those insecurities through the media could be detrimental to a greater collective.
To illustrate what my friend thought of as a personal attack, she took out the February 2010 edition of “Cosmopolitan” magazine. At first I was skeptical, aware that many magazines have taken a hit by media critics, or anyone really, for being too superficial and/or of low quality. “Cosmopolitan” is no exception to criticism, and sometimes it’s warranted in my opinion. But I mostly disagree with these critics as “Cosmo” is my favourite magazine, and one I find to be interesting as well as the least shallow among a slew of publications featuring wardrobes that cost thousands of dollars and models with toothpick silhouettes. In my opinion, “Cosmopolitan” is above all of that.
But when my friend turned to the offending pages, I read and found myself becoming one of my favourite magazine’s critics. My friend is very beautiful inside and out, but since she was a little girl she’s been insecure about her nose. The article on pages 86 and 88 seemed innocent at first glance, being all about makeup tricks women can use to enhance and reduce the appearance of certain facial features. The headlines for each segment read “You want:” followed by the words “Bigger, sexier eyes,” “Plush, pillow-y lips,” “Perfect looking skin,” “Killer cheekbones,” “Uniform brows” (what did that mean, anyway?), “A tinier forehead,” and “A slimmer nose.” Each of these headlines preceded makeup tricks to aid “Cosmo” readers with their desired facial appearance, which apparently involved features of these descriptions.
Whether “Cosmo” realized it or not, they published an article which may insult many women who have an issue with these facial features. Critics frequently point out that unhealthy body images are the standard for almost all magazines today, but what about facial features? Promoting the image of a specific face that everyone wants not only casts the beauty of diversity aside, it is a scary notion. It conjures images of the clones under totalitarian rule in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
A face is the physical manifestation of identity, inspiring such quotes as Ralph Waldo Emerson’s. He said, “A man finds room in the few square inches of his face for the traits of all his ancestors; for the expression of all his history, and his wants.” Sir Thomas Browne said, “There are mystically in our faces certain characters which carry in them the motto of our souls, wherein he that cannot read A, B, C may read our natures.” Both quotes imply that the face (and body for that matter) that someone was born with is beautiful because it is uniquely his or hers. And it saddens me to see that in today’s plastic surgery-crazed world, people are losing sight of this. Thinking of plastic surgery actually angers and disgusts me more than saddens me. Sure, people should have the freedom to do what they want to their bodies, but how could anyone not be simply incredulous to the multiple procedures that take away someone’s physical identity? My reasoning can be explained with an analogy.
Of all the paintings in the whole world, the Mona Lisa may be the most famous. It is popular, everyone from anywhere wants to see it, and it is arguably the star of the Louvre in Paris. Surely many replicas of it have been made, and in Paris you can find post cards with the Mona Lisa on them. The front of one such postcard boasts the appearance of a famous work of art, but it’s not a work of art itself. It is a copy, simply printed and reprinted over and over with thousands of other postcards that are exactly the same. The postcard has been made in an image of beauty, but this cannot make it art. A completely different painting however, is true art in its diversity and individuality. No one would ever go to a museum to look at walls filled with nothing but Mona Lisa postcards. The idea is absurd. Original works of art are always different from each other and evoke different thoughts and feelings, but this is precisely what makes them art. As humans we are works of art too. We have depth of emotion and sharpness of thought; our behaviour is in different shades and our personality takes different shapes. Why would we want to wash the paint from our canvas and try to print on the Mona Lisa instead of wearing our true colours?
Word Count: 874
Works Cited:
“Cosmopolitan.” February 2010 ed. Pgs. 86 and 88.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Conduct of Life,” 1860.
Browne, Sir Thomas. 1605-1682.
No comments:
Post a Comment