Introduction Chapter 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. Although Davis provides a guarded defence of cosmetic surgery, she con- cedes that it is an option often taken up by women who have few, if any, other alternatives. Chapter 1 1. Douglas Kellner (1993) has a useful discussion of the “problem” of identity in postmodernity. 2. See Charles Baudelaire (1978 [1863], 26–29) for a discussion of dandyism. 3. Arthur Marwick (1988, 13–22) also argues that physical appearance is accorded a greater importance today than ever before, though he fails to see this as being in any way problematic. 4. See Bonnie English (2007, 28–42) for a more detailed account of the democ- ratization of fashion in the early twentieth century. 5. Also indicative of the importance accorded to appearance in contemporary culture is the huge expenditure on cosmetics and other body care products, as Synnott points out (1993, 74–75). 6. Richard Sennett (1976, 162–76) goes on to argue that the advent of this notion of outward appearance as an expression of the personality of the wearer para- doxically resulted in clothing becoming more homogeneous and neutral, as people were afraid of revealing too much of themselves in public. This meant that those seeking to read someone’s personality through their clothes had to search for clues in the small details of dress, much in the manner of the detective undertaking a forensic investigation. While I concur with Sennett’s observation about the homogenization of appearance, I argue in this chapter that this is rather due to the increasing difficulty that individuals have in forg- ing, for themselves, a meaningful sense of identity through the fashioning of their physical appearance. 7. Hilary Radner (1989) draws attention to this in her discussion of the changing nature of cosmetics advertising directed at women. 8. Rosalind Coward (1987, 55–60) notes the growing prevalence of the defi- ant pout in women’s fashion advertising and points out that while, at first glance, it appears to present a more assertive image of female sexuality, it is 164 NOTES no less problematic than the ingratiating smile characteristic of earlier fashion models. 9. See Malcolm Barnard (1996, 166–69) for a discussion of this concept in rela- tion to postmodern fashion. However, while I am using the terms “pastiche” and “bricolage” interchangeably, Barnard seeks to distinguish the latter from the former, suggesting that bricolage is less nihilistic than pastiche. 10. Heike Jenß (2004) discusses a recent trend to resurrect the style of the 1960s, in which the aim is to be as “authentic” as possible. This is at odds with the predominant trend in postmodern culture of mixing styles from the past in an eclectic way, but even here, as she demonstrates, ’60s enthusiasts combine con- temporary clothes made in a ’60s style with actual garments from that period. Furthermore, their appropriation of ’60s style is very much determined by their contemporary cultural context. Thus, they are quite selective in what they have chosen to revive, favoring those items that correspond with their current cultural context and bodies. 11. See Goffman (1959) for an elaboration of his performative notion of the self. 12. See Susan Kaiser (1997, 515–18) for a further discussion of this. 13. See Charlotta Kratz and Bo Reimer (1998) for a further discussion of this. 14. See Gilles Lipovetsky (1994, 107–9) for a further discussion of this. 15. Alison Clarke and Daniel Miller analyze this phenomenon (2002). As they argue, in contemporary culture, where there is no single dominant fashion but rather a multiplicity of different styles, individuals face increasing anxiety about what to wear. In response to this, there is a tendency to retreat into forms of dress that are less individualizing or expressive in order to avoid possible social embarrassment. Even in instances where individuals are knowledgeable about fashion and style, they are often at a loss as to what is most appropriate for them to wear. Chapter 2 1. While there were dissenting voices within the Women’s Movement as dis- cussed, for example, by Wilson (1987, 230–37), this was the predominant feminist dress code at the time. 2. Shilling (1994, 63–67) provides a useful discussion of Orbach and Chernin in this regard. 3. See Oakley (1981, 83) for a description of feminist garb in the 1970s. 4. Similarly, Holliday and Sanchez Tayor argue that the “natural” aesthetic cham- pioned by feminists conceals its operations—looking natural is not the same as being natural. They go on to argue that “the feminist acceptance of only a naturally beautiful body in fact endorses certain modes of cultivation—such as the gym—while arbitrarily dismissing others such as the beauty industry, interpreting the former as active and chosen and the latter as passive and con- sumed” (2006, 185). 5. Holliday and Sanchez Taylor (2006, 184) make a similar point. NOTES 165 6. See Giroux (1993–94) for a development of this argument. See also Bordo (1993b), who points out the similarity between postmodern notions of the body and self-identity and those promoted by the fashion and advertising industry. 7. A similar criticism applies to Peiss’s and Holliday’s and Sanchez Taylor’s defense of the cultivation of appearance by black and working class women as a means of social advancement. According to Peiss (1996, 330), the employ- ment of beautification techniques by Afro-American women was a tool of empowerment insofar as it challenged stereotypical conceptions of the black woman as ugly and unkempt and conferred on them a sense of dignity and pride. The production of cosmetics for Afro-American women also opened up opportunities of employment for such women, giving them a greater economic independence than they would otherwise have enjoyed. Similarly, Holliday and Sanchez Taylor positively appraise the fact that working class women, such as shop assistants and office workers, who adopted a “lady-like” appearance, which belied their working class origins, were able to command greater respect (2006, 184). In these ways, these authors claim, the cultivation of appearance challenged race and class hierarchies among women, opening up new economic opportunities for black and lower class women, and giving voice to their claims for cultural legitimacy. In making such claims, however, Peiss and Holliday and Sanchez Taylor fail to address the social structures of inequality that necessitated such a strategy in the first place. It was only because such women were denied access to power through legitimate means that they were forced to resort to beautification as the only way of achieving their aims. 8. For instance, as Hollander (1994, 25–26) points out, there was a precedent for the big-shouldered look in old Hollywood movies, where it was worn with short skirts and long hair, not long pants and shingled hair. Chapter 3 1. Georg Simmel makes a similar point in his article, “The aesthetic significance of the face,” where he writes (1959, 278) that: “The face strikes us as the sym- bol, not only of the spirit, but also of an unmistakable personality. This feeling has been extraordinarily furthered in the period since the beginning of Chris- tianity by the covering of the body. The face was the heir of the body; for in the degree to which nakedness was the custom, the body presumably had its share in the expression of individuality.” 2. Craik (1994, 153–75) has a useful discussion of the contrasting nature of cos- metic practice in Western and non-Western cultures. 3. Andrew Strathern quotes one Mt Hagener tribesman who commented: “If the men’s faces can be seen too clearly, we say, ‘Oh, we went to that dance and even from a distance we were able to recognize the men early, it was no good.’ So they put on a lot of charcoal to make their faces really dark as night and 166 NOTES prevent their recognition, so that people will praise them. They say, ‘Hey, we can’t recognize these men, this is a good dance performance’” (1987, 29). 4. Grosz (1994, chap. 6) provides a useful discussion of Lingis’s analysis of body markings. 5. See Mercurio and Morera (2004) for examples of Andy Warhol’s portraiture. 6. See Bell et al. (1994, 42–43) for a useful discussion of this style. 7. In a later article where she reconsiders her earlier position on masquerade, Doane acknowledges the conservative nature of the professional woman’s masquerade of femininity as discussed by Rivière. However, she still main- tains that it is possible to read such a performance “against the grain,” arguing that “Rivière’s patient, looking out at her own male audience, with impropri- ety, throws the image of their own sexuality back to them as ‘game’ or ‘joke,’ investing it, too, with the instability and the emptiness of masquerade” (1988, 52–53). The question still remains, however, to what extent the audience will see the “joke” being played by the woman who parades the artificiality of her femininity. 8. See Craik (1989, 12–14) for a discussion of this book. 9. This image also appears in All the Rage: A history of fashion and trends (1992): 66. 10. See Marie Claire Australia, November 2006, 1–2, for an example of this Estée Lauder advertisement. Another Estée Lauder advertisement in a simi- lar vein from 2002 can be viewed at http://www.advertisingarchives.co.uk, no. 30518988 11. Wilson (1987, 110–11) also notes that when visible cosmetics were first pro- moted in the early twentieth century, they were seen as a sign of emancipation rather than of bondage by women. 12. See Peiss (1998, 249–51) for a discussion of this ad campaign.