“Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder.”
But what if that eye
keeps changing?
As someone who’s
recovering from disordered eating issues, I’m inundated with the image factor.
In my childhood, like
many other females, I believed beauty was only
a thin aesthetic. This notion contributed to my experiences with anorexia,
bulimia, binge eating and self-loathing.
But beauty and image
is not solely that one definition. Indeed, beauty, body and image standards have
constantly existed and changed, from era to era. The “must have look” is in one
day and out the next.
And discovering this
reality can be liberating.
So,
let’s examine a sampling of different time periods, their images and the significance,
perhaps, attached to their representations.
For
starters, how about 17th century artist, Sir Peter Paul Rubens? He was
obsessed with the voluptuous female figure in his work, including, “The Three Graces” (1635).
“Rubenesque” women possessed rounded
backsides, breasts and abdomens, all which symbolized prosperity. These women
looked this way because they could afford to eat well.
And let’s face it, wealth has always been attractive,
right?
Speaking of
wealth, what about 19th century’s corset trend?
The tiny waist
was in demand; it exemplified well-bred beauty, a/k/a, the rich crowd. So, “Tight Lacers” were born.
A little ditty
from the time period…
“In
my hourglass corset I’m laced every day. My little wasp waist is shrinking
away. The stays squeeze me inwards so small and so nice, in a pattern of lacing
that grips like a vice.”
These tight lacers often fainted while
pursuing this beauty aesthetic. Some
suffered serious harm to their internal organs as whalebone corsets actually reshaped their bodies to the rigid form
of the undergarment.
Delightful.
Next, the early 1900’s and its moving pictures
give us our first film star, Mary Pickford, “America’s
Sweetheart.”
With a head full of ringlets, there was no
hint of sexuality- or womanly curves. Reassuringly girlish, Pickford embodied
the easily- controlled female.
So, when the roaring twenties with its flapper
exploded, it was a game changer. All traces of the virginal ingénue were gone.
In her place, instead, was the rebellious, sexually- free party girl. She
smoked cigarettes and drank booze. Her hair was bobbed short and her small busted
silhouette exposed a lot of leg.
But we’re just
getting warmed up.
With the 1930’s, here
comes screen siren Marlene Dietrich.
Often dressed in tailored men’s suits, she took image one step further; she flirted
with sexual identity. Hollywood was clueless what to do with her bisexuality. Everything is up for grabs now.
Which is, perhaps, why 1940’s war time returned us to the conventional
safety of the curvy female form. Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth were its notable
pinups, often decorating fighter planes.
And, since Rosie the Riveter challenged gender roles in the workplace, beauty,
possibly needed to be traditional. Again,
female curves exemplified a safe image and a soothing maintenance of “the
status quo.”
And so, these curves continued their popularity into the postwar 1950’s,
as the American family became the focus. Women were called to abandon Rosie the
Riveter and instead become wives and mothers. While doing so, of course, they
were expected to display a non-threatening vision of beauty.
And, it is within this context we
celebrate our best known sex symbol, Marilyn Monroe, as the ideal of womanhood.
Appealing to both male fantasy and ego, her hourglass physique is coveted and
lusted after.
But here’s a reality check, everyone; Marilyn was a size 14.
Still, it appears those female curves had a limited shelf life as, with the
1960’s, change comes again. Audrey Hepburn from the 1961 film, “Breakfast at
Tiffany’s” and First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy spotlighted a streamlining of the
female appearance.
And, as the decade continues, Great Britain’s fashion model, Twiggy
arrives.
She showcased short hair, painted on eyelashes and a gamine form.
Could it be that during this turbulent decade, with the Vietnam War, civil
rights movement and a strong baby boomer presence, feminine curves were now seen
as antiquated?
Regardless, image trends continue to change.
The 1970’s promoted its “natural girl,” via such models as Lauren Hutton
and Cheryl Tiegs. This era’s standard emphasized healthy eating, less make up
and a display of athletic bodies. Disillusionment from the Vietnam War and
Watergate, perhaps, prompted the belief the less artifice, the better.
Contrast that with the 1980’s; fashion, image and lifestyle are all larger than life. “Supermodels”
Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell drove the frenzy to be “model thin.”
And the decade’s fitness explosion did nothing to discourage that
sentiment. Jane Fonda’s aerobic workout tapes fed a lucrative diet/fitness
industry which validated its doctrines: “You
can never be too rich or too thin,” “Feel the burn” and “No pain, no gain.”
So, when the 1990’s, with Seattle’s music scene arrived, again, there
was a shift. Grunge bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, disinterested in beauty
and glamour, wore flannel shirts and ripped jeans.
Were we moving into an era unaffected
by physical appearance? Not so fast.
For now, we have “Heroin Chic.” This look was embraced on fashion pages
and runways, through its muse, Kate Moss.
Designers like Calvin Klein courted
controversy for using
Moss and similar waif-looking models.
Ads were filled with provocative imagery which often suggested drug use and
child pornography.
Indeed, we see how, throughout history, image
continues to be ever-changing. And that continues into the Millennium.
Yes, there has been some image/body
type diversification in this new century. Jennifer Lopez, Kate Winslet and Beyonce
are famous for their prominent derrieres.
Yet, despite their “fuller figures,” there
is still the emphasis on possessing svelte frames.
And this preoccupation ushered
in another troubling trend post-2000:
the “Scary Skinny” movement.
Its goal was “Size 0,” and, in some extremes, “negative sizes.”
Various celebrities who have experienced extreme weight loss spark a question.
Were they extremely thin because of
healthy lifestyle choices or were they, in fact, suffering from anorexia,
bulimia and/or substance abuse? Speculation circulates.
But their appearances could not be denied: frail- looking frames, prominently
jutting shoulder blades and the now disturbingly coveted “thigh gaps.”
Ah, yes, thigh gaps…
With hollowed spaces between
the legs, this trend occupies many
“thinsperation,” or “thinspo,” pro-eating disorder websites. It is a desired “beauty”
image. Emaciated-looking photos and advice on how to achieve and effectively maintain
full- blown eating disorder behaviors are the staple topics on these sites.
But, we’re still not done here. Guess what ridiculous image trend
has recently emerged?
As if we don’t have
enough unrealistic body expectations, tactics and measurements out there, now
there is the piece of paper test.
It’s more self-explanatory than you’d
think.
Take a piece of
paper, one which is 8 x 10. Next hold in against your midriff, vertically. And
the “logic” of the test declares...
“If you have a waist size larger than the width of this paper, you are
fat.”
(Sigh)...
I can go on about
dangerous body image, eating disorders and slaughtered self-esteem. Yet, it
appears we keep rolling out these harmful messages and tactics.
When will it stop?
Yes, who knows what the next big beauty/image trend may be? It is coming. All things are subject to
change.
It can be exhausting, debilitating and life-threatening to keep up with
the beauty du jour.
And the importance affixed to image is especially timely during this
holiday season. The approaching New Year and its infamous resolutions beckon us
to manipulate ourselves with weight loss.
Come on, Reader. You know you’ve made it one of your resolutions...
“This will
be my year! This will be my new start! This will be the new me/body!”
And then, days (or hours...or sometimes, honestly, minutes) after the New Year begins, we find ourselves unsuccessful
in that pursuit. Somehow, we did not become our new and improved body. We did
not achieve the aesthetically pleasing image we so coveted. We failed.
The expectation curse of the New Year’s Resolution continues to thrive.
Resolution... I was struck by the significance of this word.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary its definition reads as
follows...
·
the act of finding an answer or solution to a
conflict, problem, etc. : the act of resolving something
·
: an
answer or solution to something
·
:
the ability of a device to show an image clearly and with a lot of detail
It’s that last definition which
grabs my attention. It’s fitting, especially within the image context.
Indeed, whether it’s the pressure of the New Year’s resolution or the all-year demand to be an unrealistic aesthetic, it would be helpful and
healthy to, like that third definition, “show an image clearly and with
a lot of detail.”
Translation: show the
beauty/body/image symbol for what it really
is.
That’s the power of
discovering the ever-changing image. It is the realization that styles,
aesthetics and trends change.
Yet, if we are daring
enough to believe and accept our inherent value, that reality can be disempowered
by one constant truth: we are already spectacular,
as is, in spite of any image trend. Embracing that truth embraces healing.
So, the ultimate resolution and the
ultimate challenge is for each of us to discover that for ourselves!
Perhaps, doing so could truly help us to
have a happy new year (and a happier, better life)!
Copyright © 2017 by Sheryle Cruse
No comments:
Post a Comment