Passion

Now that I’ve discussed how individualism is evident within American beauty advertisements, especially regarding how they portray beauty intrinsically, we should ask ourselves how being a member of an individualist society affects our everyday lives. Thus, being raised with the idea that individuals should prioritize their own happiness and well-being over those of others does not just impact the individual’s views and values; this also impacts the overall dynamic of a collective society, affecting how we view the lives of others.

For example, what is the first thing you see when you open an everyday application like Instagram? Do you see posts of happy puppies running circles around their owners, or the unnervingly toxic couple that poses as a functional, desirable relationship? Typically, Instagram portrays the lives of others as unrealistically hedonistic, where posting the best version of an individual’s self in a pleasurable setting is normalized. Instagram profiles are centered around the individual, flaunting the individual’s beauty, accomplishments, and assets. These posts accumulate while building one’s Instagram profile, flooding our feeds with a false impression of our world and the lives of others. While Instagram feeds are often assumed to portray the actual lives of others, in actuality, they only depict the lives that others want the world to see. 

Maybe this is why individualist societies portray beauty as the ultimate intrinsic good, as it is normalized for members of these societies to solely share the highlights of their lives to promote themselves as potentially more worthy than they actually are. Because individualist societies are competitive by nature, this idea seems logical but is ambiguously detrimental as others feel an intense obligation to fulfill these standards, which are projected through Instagram and other social media apps. 

Above is social media influencer and LSU gymnast Livy Dunne, a conventionally attractive celebrity who was caught photoshopping the above image in an Instagram post, altering the size and shape of her body. While the media already considered her [essentially] the standard of American beauty, this post raised consequential controversy and prompted many to reconsider: is photoshopping ethical? Although it is understandable that, like other members of individualist societies, she evidently prioritizes promoting the best version of herself, is it, then, acceptable if this simultaneously exacerbates others’ insecurities? 

If your answer is no, then why do we continue to normalize the abuse of photo editors and alternators that aim to perfect the imperfect instances of a realistic society?  While being part of an individualist society may explain why we use these applications, it does not justify them as ethical or socially sustainable, as demonstrated by the unethically provoked insecurities as a result of Livy Dunne’s Instagram post. 

 

Work Cited:

As previously mentioned in a previous blog, Summersalt, a trending bikini company, promotes the unification of women through their advertisements, which portray beauty as diverse, subjective, and inherent. But apart from companies that advertise user products, how do the artists we listen to appeal to audiences as they make a name for themselves?

One of my favorite bands of all time, Radiohead, is renowned for their compelling lyrical ballads and experimental rock, as they were recently inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (via 2019). Their 1995 hit, “Fake Plastic Trees,” effectively incorporates symbolism through imagery and metaphorical comparisons. This song illustrates the yearning for a true, meaningful relationship in a society where short-term flings are becoming increasingly normalized, which is demonstrated through comparisons to different plastic nouns throughout the song; hence, the title, “Fake Plastic Trees.” Therefore, Radiohead astutely introduces kairos through symbolism and pathos, prompting young audiences to relate to this song as short-term relationships are becoming more and more normalized within younger generations.

“Her green plastic watering can for her fake Chinese rubber plant” are the first lines of this emotionally compelling ballad, signifying the sole importance of plastic in this song as he continues to reiterate its symbolic meaning:  an artificial, one-sided love. He continues, “…in the fake plastic earth,” underscoring how just as growing fake plants in a “plastic earth” is futile, so is entertaining meaningless relationships. Because this song integrates abstract thinking regarding emotionally mature topics like romance, its target audience presumably consists of teenagers and young adults who are mature and experienced enough to grasp its theme. 

In the real world, the normalization of short-term relationships has evidently influenced the dynamics of relationships as a whole. “Fake Plastic Trees” critiques this apparent reality, emotionally appealing to an audience that also hankers for meaningful intimacy. The raw emotion, range in chords, and symbolic language throughout the course of the song induce the reader to think deeply about its meaning, as “Fake Plastic Trees” sheds light on the increasingly feigned society in which we live.

Title: Analyzing the Message behind our Country’s Biggest Beauty Corporations

While Benefit has implicitly integrated societal beauty standards through their advertisements, the beauty companies who appeal to women more positively can generally be detected through their history; as much of Benefit’s controversial history can be explained by the man who owns it — Bernard Arnault — owner of LVMH and wealthiest man in the world, according to Forbes (as of April 2023). This man has not only surpassed Bezos, Bills, and Elon Musk in wealth, but [LVMH] owns several of the world’s most renowned fashion staples: [Benefit], Louis Vuitton, Dior; and the way in which Arnault acquired the nearly $200 billion of his net worth is questionably ethical, as no one obtains billions of dollars righteously. He uses this success to his advantage by promoting his children as the head of an LVMH corporation, since, via the New York Times, Arnault’s entire profit is merely focused on his family’s fortune, “Mr. Arnault honed his children’s math skills nearly every night before dinnertime. Antoine recalled that getting anything less than a perfect grade on important exams ‘wasn’t acceptable.’”

Thesis statement: Summersalt’s effective utilization of advertising strategies promote the idea that beauty is subjective rather than objective; women can use their products to enhance and embrace their naturally attractive features.

Target audience: Women in society

Body paragraph 2: Summersalt’s short but significant history is supposedly shifted towards the reformation of society’s perception towards women; but Summersalt’s message is actually reflected by their board of members and what they do with their profit.

Body paragraph 3: Summersalt’s advertisements incorporate a diverse, inclusive message in which, all women are inherently beautiful; with their products, women can enhance their features opposed to becoming newly attractive. Their advertisements employ a positive, meaningful message as the company has manifested their reformative intentions.

Body paragraph 4: Their profit is dedicated to a bunch of organizations with innovative and abstract causes.

Main claim: Summersalt’s advertisements promote a diverse spectrum of women’s’ bodies, defying the nature of societal beauty standards which corporations like Benefit widely exacerbate.

 

 

Sources:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/business/bernard-arnault-lvmh-family-succession.html

The owner of LVMH and his corrupt background may explain for Benefit’s questionable ways in promoting women. He constantly mentions is sole focus on maintaining his family’s wealth, as all four of his kids went to the most prestigious French boarding schools and are being promoted to owners of LVMH’s companies.

2.  http://www.bylaurenm.com/2022/04/summersalt-swimsuit-review/

Summersalt’s bathing suits effectively embrace the features of different types of bodies; they are comfortable, appealing, and ultimately inclusive towards different body types, as they adhere to a more humanistic approach towards women.

3. https://skandalaris.wustl.edu/blog/2021/06/23/summersalt-ceo-lori-coulter-joins-skandalaris-center-national-council/

According to Summersalt owner and cofounder Lori Coulter, their swimsuits are based off over 10,000 body scans of women, reflecting their inclusive aim in providing swimwear for women with all body types.

4. https://lauraksawyier.com/blog-lks/2020/03/17/candid-lori-coulter-summersalt

Coulter explicitly claims to reform society’s views towards women’s bodies, as the primary purpose of her job is towards helping women [through this].

 

As women, it can be difficult to navigate what to buy and what not to buy; the intentions of the giant corporations that produce and manufacture our everyday household necessities can be deceiving. While I’ve recently shed light on the corporations that reinforce unrealistic beauty standards for women, it is important to also consider the companies that promote a more positive, inclusive message. Instead of conveying the idea that their products can (and will) make you conventionally ‘beautiful’, the companies us women should be supporting advertise a more pragmatic, accepting message: all women are distinctly beautiful in our own unique ways. We should embrace the natural qualities we are born with, and accept that beautiful is a subjective, broad, and wide-variety of attributes.

For example, by picturing an indicative variety of women [of different ages, races, sizes, etc.] next to each other, the bathing suit advertiser, Summersault, wittily insinuates how beauty is a subjective list of features; this message differs from larger corporations as the reader feels that this product would embrace their inherent beauty rather than make them newly beautiful. Since the advertisement suggests the subjectivity of beauty, there is no set of standards that the reader must follow in order to feel the intrinsic worthiness that results from feeling beautiful. This inclusive message enables women to feel worthy; thus, appreciative of their natural, innate beauty, rather than insecure and consequently obligated to fulfill a list of arbitrary standards.

Moreover, this advertisement deliberately demonstrates how, because we are women, we are beautiful by nature; this concept negates the purpose for the existent societal beauty standards that other corporations promote through their advertisements, exacerbating the division among us women that insecurities entail. Additionally, not only are a wide variety of women portrayed as beautiful, but their bathing suits undoubtedly embrace and conceal different body parts, allowing women to feel comfortable and secure in their own skin.

As a general rule, us women must continue supporting these smaller companies whose products maybe aren’t as well known, as their intentions are more focused towards eliminating beauty standards rather than ingraining them deeper into society like larger, more renowned names like Dove often entail. Before you suggest your new favorite bathing suit top to a friend, maybe reconsider the ethical intentions of its retailer. Not only will you be educating yourself through research, but you are also preventing eight-more-dollars from being spent on a bad cause.

How do beauty advertisements in today’s society promote social norms and standards? Whether you realize it or not, world-renowned beauty companies like Dove, Neutrogena, Victoria’s Secret, and Benefit utilize the same tactics in their advertisements to attract a diverse range of women to their products. These advertisements affect a wide variety of women as they typically portray a conventionally attractive model with a controversial message, reiterating a physical embodiment of what “beautiful” means in society by implementing pathos. Since companies know that [especially teenage] women are insecure, they project astonishingly beautiful women using their product(s), conveying the idea that everyone who uses this product will also be beautiful. Companies know that women consequently feel prompted to buy their products, which is why they continue to ingrain these beauty standards into society; since most women don’t feel as beautiful as these models appear, it’s a never ending way for companies to attract buyers.

While not inherently obvious, the most effective beauty advertisements tend to appeal to widespread insecurities, like body dysmorphia or chronic acne, depicting the idea that those who buy these products will appear more worthy and experience a greater sense of belongingness. For example, the advertisement below features Benefit’s new eyebrow pencil.

As you can see, an attractive woman with round red lips, white teeth, clear skin, and of course, perfect eyebrows, is projected as the ultimate beauty standard. The advertiser indirectly suggests that by using this product, the consumer’s eyebrows can also look this good; being beautiful is intrinsically fulfilling, and applying this product to your brows will only bring you closer to reaching “beautiful.”

Is being beautiful really the intrinsic good of life? Will us women ever be beautiful enough for men, or let alone, ourselves? Or will we continuously chase after an ambivalent and unfulfilling standard, putting down other women to bring ourselves up?

The sad reality is, the success behind these advertisements reflects how the American society views beauty as the be-all and end-all of life. If there is a standard for what’s beautiful, then naturally, the opposite would be ugly, and this close-minded perception is ingrained into society. These companies don’t actually care if their products are effective or not; like every business, they have an agenda centered on what they need to do sell the most products possible. It is part of our civic duty as women to acknowledge the division and tension induced by these companies’ advertisements, as appealing to the mutual insecurities of an audience by promoting unreachable standards is not an ethical way to attract customers.