…dear reader, but my wonderful ISP has done it to me again.
I logged on today and their front page blurb told me “A startling new portrait of Kate Moss shows the supermodel without make-up, looking remarkably average“. Like they expect her to look the same without make-up as she does with it, or something?
Duh.
Anyway, it transpires that Corinne Day took some pics of Ms Moss sans slap (but with eyelashes curled) while they were having a “serious discussion” about something where she revealed her true feelings which, according to Ms Day, “defined her character”.
I quite like the images, actually, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s angered me is the language used in the piece. Like “a startling portrait“. I am not “startled” in the least. “Remarkably average” - yeah? So? They even say “But some would be forgiven for thinking that in a couple of the snapshots….[she] looks a little worse for wear.“
Is it just me or is there some expectation there that Kate Moss is somehow not supposed to appear in public with her natural face on - you know, her own face showing normal facial expressions instead of that blank look she’s been made famous for in countless airbrushed pictures - just because she’s a model?
Good for her, I say. What d’you think?
19 responses so far ↓
dreamy5 // February 6, 2007 at 12:14 am
She looks quite beautiful in those photos. Well, a little thin but quite beautiful.
At this point in my life, I choose to wear makeup. I choose to do the designer clothes thing. I choose to fuss with my hair. But the operative word is “choose.” I do what I damn well please and anyone who doesn’t like it can go pound sand.
Ms. Moss: Tell ‘em to go pound sand.
RenegadeEvolution // February 6, 2007 at 1:02 am
i think she looks good, lots of attitude, too.
dreamy5 // February 6, 2007 at 1:22 am
I hope you don’t mind, but I referenced this post on my blog. It set me off on what beauty is.
simplywondered // February 6, 2007 at 1:23 am
yes, i pass her in the street occasionally and it is a beautiful face - no doubt about that IMO, and yes she’s a bit on the thin side and sadly all that is the point because it’s like commenting on how beckham plays football - it’s her trade.
but the shallowness of any comment about her appearance - i mean we must have better things to do with our time!
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 6, 2007 at 1:37 am
If anything I think she is more beautiful in those than the normal blank look we see. I love the middle one.
mistermorgan // February 6, 2007 at 5:37 am
This one’s giving me strange feelings that I can’t quite identify yet, mainly because I’m not sure how much intellectual responsibility to give this Corinne Day.
The idea that it’s at all revealing or interesting to photograph somebody without makeup in some way insults my intelligence. It strikes me as somehow dishonest or manipulative.
The whole concept of a ‘revealing’ photograph - that you can capture somebody at an unflattering angle; unprepared or poorly lit, offends me. The technique reveals more about the photographer’s concept of physical beauty than it reveals of their subject.
I don’t think that’s how these photos turned out, but the article’s comments do make it sound like any of the beauty you might see in the final product was there by pure accident. It’s there in the assumption that her expressiveness was in fact honest rather than posed.
I know there’s more to it than this, but I haven’t figured out how I feel yet.
fannyblood // February 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm
well what do you know, daily male have jumped on this story and done a double page spread on these pictures!!!
liz jones says “these pictures have come as a bit of a shock!” “you can see the lines, wonky nose, small snaggled teeth and MOST WORRYINGLY OF ALL HER HOODED PUFFY EYELIDS!!!”
after reading the article i’m unsure whether she’s being sarcastic and openly denouncing the industry as her own opinions are drenched in sexism and misogyny.
she documents what she herself saw whilst working in the industry and thus, praises kate moss for ‘COMING CLEAN’ - something which she is deemed ‘INCREDIBLY BRAVE.’
fb
sparklematrix // February 6, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Oh for heavens sake why cannot they just leave her alone ffs?
Holy fucking Mo’ only a coupe of months ago the press was trying to blame her for the murdered Ipswich women been on Crack.
Aye, because our Kate….. had ‘glamorised’ the drug! Yes, work that one out when you don’t have a vast space in yer head—or something.
Mwezzi // February 6, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I prefer her without the makeup, actually. She looks so much healthier and comfortable than she does in the Rimmel adverts.
Note that the poll on whether she’s ’still’ one of the most beautiful women in the world shows around 75% on the ‘no’ side. I guess the reality’s too much for them, huh?
mistermorgan // February 7, 2007 at 12:32 am
Ah, I got it!
It’s not that I was confused - more that every single conceivable aspect of the story is cretinous and actively denies its own politics.
There was just too much to write down.
dreamy5 // February 7, 2007 at 3:48 am
Witchy, have you seen this crap? http://desicritics.org/2007/01/18/004050.php
mistermorgan // February 7, 2007 at 5:14 am
A hellish link, Dreamy5 - This Camille Paglia almost makes me vomit with rage. Almost.
Mostly I feel sorry for her in her terrified and intellectually confused attempts to attack women for revealing things she doesn’t want to believe are true. ‘Rape is bad? Never! Pornography is inherently harmful? No, no, no! Victims of domestic violence are traumatised, often for life? They just need to get over it!’. I guess if you ignore all the evidence, it means woman are getting along just fine.
And is ‘delusionalism’ even a word? Having your fragile mind protect you from comprehending the theories of feminism is fine, but making up new words to do it? Surely she’s not also threatened by basic English syntax.
[Three in one morning. It looks a little like I have too much time on my hands for blog commenting...]
dreamy5 // February 7, 2007 at 5:33 am
MisterMorgan, you’re right on the money, I think. I get the feeling she will say anything to get her name out there.
witchy-woo // February 7, 2007 at 10:42 am
And it’s a name I will forever associate with huge, steaming piles of bullshit.
therealUK // February 7, 2007 at 11:17 am
This video was doing the rounds a few months ago. It shows the disconnect between reality and makeover quite nicely.
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/home_films_evolution_v2.swf
stormy // February 7, 2007 at 12:28 pm
WW: ” I am not “startled” in the least.”
And yet, your blogtag indicates “Often startled..” But you’re right, this is bland, bland, stuff.
Shocking headline No.1:
Woman photographed without make-up!
Shocking headline No.2:
Woman photographed WITH clothes on!
(because WE know it’s going that way…
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 7, 2007 at 5:02 pm
WW - change your ISP?
Leah // February 8, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Her gaunt cheeks scare me. Other than that, though, she looks lovely and it’s great to see her actually allowed to convey personality on her face.
Poot // February 13, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I detect some movement of the facial expression muscles - oh dear, the botox will be coming into her life soon no doubt - cannot have a face that looks too “real”. Still, makes a change from the dead facades that walk down the catwalk as a rule.
could someone please invent botox for the whole body? Then, we could all walk around stiff and robotic like the bots the pat wants us to be! No wrinkles anywhere either.
Leave a Comment