Today the Daily Mail is delighting, as usual, in ripping apart a non-perfect female celebrity. (Do women not work for that paper?) This time it’s Emma Watson, who was caught on film recently without makeup, her skin looking a little stressed.Of course, it’s just been announced that she signed a deal to become Lancome’s new face. The obvious question, which the Mail’s article raises, is: Should someone with bad skin be the face of a cosmetics brand? They never say this, of course, but it’s there.
Emma is 20 years old, which is barely out of the teen years, a time notoriously fraught with hormones and acne. Plus, she has a completely crazy schedule, probably doesn’t sleep enough, and is stressed out–all well-known acne triggers.
I think it’s absolutely fine for her to be seen without perfect skin. That’s what makeup is for! To conceal, brighten, smooth, add color–whatever your particular issue is. If anything, it can be a testament to the power of [insert name of brand for which celeb is shilling here] that one can be transformed from spotty and tired-looking into a beacon of luminous, flawless skin. This is the magical promise of the beauty industry, after all.
I’ve seen tons of gorgeous models backstage with less-than-perfect skin. It’s a fact of life. It doesn’t make them any less gorgeous. They get some concealer and foundation and off they go.
So leave Emma alone. She’s probably mortified, the same as anyone who has to deal with a breakout now and then.
[Source: Fashionista; Article: Cheryl Wischhover]
1 comment:
Well, it's just kind of misleading cause people buy the product thinking they're going to be as beautiful as the celeb promoting it and it doesn't even work for them. I say NO!
Post a Comment