Friday 4 April 2014

Make-Up Free Selfies: A Good Cause or Display of Vanity?

Before I even so much as utter a single word regarding my beliefs relating to today's subject, I will wipe the slate clean and spill the beans - if I remain true to my pickier-than-ever food palette, a can of tomato-flavoured baked beans won't feature on the menu - about my ever-growing habit of taking pictures of myself on my smartphone, a.k.a. a lip-pouting selfie if you wish me to be more specific. When my hair has just been freed from oil-stimulating clutches and is looking cleaner than I ever allow myself to expect - after years of struggling with hair-related trauma, why take a trip down Misery Lane if you give way to your hopes exceeding an all-too-dangerous level? - snapping a decent selfie or two of myself is usually too irresistible, especially as perfecting my appearance to a Desperate Housewives-isque style takes such a neck-achingly long time to achieve. Despite my hundred and thirty two attempts or so to quash this habit in the past, I have all but failed like a big-footed elephant participating in a ballet exam every time because, whether I want to plant my hands over my reluctant-to-hear ears or not, I am as vain as many people would expect from a typical, 21st century girl. And, as I am about to ask, is it a crime to give into one's temptations and indulge in what so many of us have become accustomed to doing in the day and age of social media - posting personalized pictures of ourselves for the whole internet to look at, many of which would never see the light of day in the family photo album?

Like Burberry's tendency to fall in and out of fashion every so often - if It-Girl Alexa Chung's career is going up in America (which, if I can never remember the title of the programmes she presents, is currently heading towards that path), Burberry's future and selling prospects are indeed doomed - trends within social media and amongst the public change all the time, the most recent one of which is the 'make-up free selfie' which has taken the world by storm. According to the numerous articles which have discussed this trend (and my nosier-than-nosy-parker self couldn't resist reading), this concept was originally created by eighteen year old Fiona Cunningham, who promoted her idea on Facebook as a means of raising cancer awareness after her family were affected by breast cancer. She said that 'women don't need to wear make-up, so I just thought, why not do something to raise awareness about it?' which, unlike many of the self-obsessed selfies which people post onto the internet on a constant basis, truly gives some food for thought as to spreading the word about a disease with which thousands of women are diagnosed every year. 

Whether you are running a twenty-six mile marathon, organising a cake sale or even uploading a picture of yourself via social media, every effort matters if makes the slightest difference towards improving or even saving one's life from such a terrible thing like cancer and I have absolutely no problem against those who strip their faces of bulletproof make-up in order to be caught in one mascara-free picture which could make all the difference towards the cancer charities who thrive upon donations and very often offer a life-saving lifeline for those needing it desperately. But, as it often goes, celebrities with hundreds of thousands or millions of followers and fans on social networking sites immediately jump onto a bandwagon which was originally set out to promote a very good cause, leading to the media posting all-important news flashes on their websites as a 'well-known' star is seen without her £40 foundation or red carpet-ready lipstick. And, despite my best intentions to give up my long-honed skill in semi-professional moaning, I have no choice other than to criticize the actions of celebrities who, unlike the thousands of normal day citizens who have their heads securely screwed onto their shoulders, only wish to seek one thing from uploading a blurry, so-called 'Photoshop-free' picture onto their social media accounts: attention

When the latest stars no longer have the means of promoting a book they apparently 'wrote' several months ago and their five minutes on the red carpet are over, many celebrities reach out for their adoring followers and obsessed fans to spread the word about what they have just been up to which, in this case, is giving a personal glimpse into their lives when a professional make-up artist isn't lurking in the background: a make-up free face. I almost developed a squint when I first caught sight of Katherine Jenkin's make-up free selfie in the newspaper several days ago because, despite proclaiming on Twitter that she had indeed taken off her usually glamour puss slap, I struggled to see the difference between untouched skin and a layer of blemish-diminishing foundation covering it. Perhaps my spot-suffering self gave into a second-long rush of green-eyed envy because I couldn't understand why Katherine's skin still managed to look what many would categorize as perfect, but it nonetheless failed to win me over, as did the similar actions by the likes of TV presenter Holly Willoughby and Prince Harry's girlfriend Cressida Bonas. 

Like many life-threatening diseases and conditions, cancer needs to be the target of awareness because it can often be a silent, yet deadly killer and any money which is raised for the numerous charities across the country is much appreciated. But what have we as people have come to if we allow ourselves to believe that celebrities - many of whom you have never walked past or have had a conversation with, unlike a family member or friend who may have fought or are currently battling against the disease - are actually performing a good deed by posting pictures of themselves onto the internet which, correct me if you think that I'm too harsh, is a form of self-promotion? Unless they have mentioned it in a message, none of us know for certain that these celebrities have even contributed to these charities, such as Cancer Research or Macmillan Cancer Support, by making a donation, and I cannot disguise my anger any better than an ever-increasing dislike of offensive stereotypes when we, a public of whom many of us are classified as working class and often don't have much money to spare, are encouraged to hand over our hard-earned cash like we have never lifted a finger or done a single day of honest work! 

In all honesty, I've lost my appetite for seeing actors, presenters and the same singers performing on TV marathons such as Children in Need and Comic Relief in recent years because I always feel like I'm pressured into picking up the phone and donating half of my parent's bank account to the dying children across the world, especially as the overly eager stars constantly go on about 'what a great cause it is' and 'the massive difference it makes'. If that truly was the case, wouldn't world hunger and deadly diseases have become a thing of the past long before now? Without needing to declare it to thousands of users via Twitter or Facebook, a large majority of British households - including my family and I - already donate a certain amount of money to charity on a regular basis through choice, yet hardly any of us ever feel the urge to make a huge song and dance about it on the internet. Unless it encouraged more people to help animals, sick children or the thousands of charities in need of donations, I don't see what would be gained from promoting the good deeds that anybody or myself choose to do. 

But I'm more often than not given the impression that celebrities expect us to reach into our pockets and hand over our spare change instead of their having to fulfill the role on their part, which irritates me so heavily because their salaries usually make my eyes pop out of my sockets; unless a new swimming pool or Land Rover is calling their name, couldn't celebrities do without what they may deem as small, yet to us appears eye-wateringly generous amount of their money to charity instead of patronizing us to donate more than the general public can afford? Without listing names, there are a handful of celebrities whom I secretly admire because they prefer to give money to charities - or, in some case, run them - without being drawn into a huge, played out charade which involves the role of social media or prime-time slots on TV, and their choice to help others privately ought to be a path followed by other stars because their selflessness cannot be questioned. 

In the world of celebrity, so many people are easily sucked into the ways of promoting oneself at all costs and it saddens me that an idea like a taking a make-up free selfie has lost its original meaning because the ego of several stars have overclouded it. There is a time for celebrities to take centre stage, whether it involves singing in front of a crowd of cheering fans, playing a leading role in an acclaimed TV series or even making waves in a national newspaper, but adding their name to a cause which represents so much more than a make-up free picture? It's a tweet too far, so I believe, and I hope that this massive fuss dies down as soon as it first appeared because I'm getting tired of seeing shiny T-Zones after bedhead hair on a daily basis. 

As for me, you needn't ask whether I'll be posting a make-up free picture of myself on Twitter any time soon. Firstly, I don't want nor need to be hounded by sharp-tongued trolls regarding my recent spotty breakout and secondly I made an honest choice to steer clear of creating accounts on social networks long ago, so any of your hopes to catch your very first glimpse of LikeATeen have instantly been destroyed. In my opinion, one can still look their best and continue to do great things in aid of charity without being drawn into the celebrity-approved craze which is make-up free selfies - people living or having suffered from cancer deserve to make the most of the appearance, so why not donate clothes or unused make-up which could truly make a difference to one's life? 

Remember, every little helps

No comments:

Post a Comment