An Edgey makeover, Girlie style?

Makeover?  Really?!  Ladies? (and some men) You know what kind of makeover I’m talkin’ about.  Cosmetics.  Makeup.  We’ve all had the fantasy of putting ourselves (well, our faces anyway) into the talented hands of someone like Kevin Aucoin, (may he rest in peace), once.  At least once in our lives.  

I understand that most men don’t get it.  The makeup thing.  They will fuss at us to “hurry up! what’s taking so long?!”  if we can’t quite get the right shade of blush on our cheeks, but there’s no doubt those very men like the results of all our hard work:)   And yes, devoted boyfriends, husbands and SO’s will always tell us that we don’t “need” makeup but is that really their preference?  No makeup whatsoever?!!  Keep telling us we’re beautiful without makeup, guys.  Don’t ruin a good thing. LOL

As this blog has to do with the “eclectic musings of a clarklike female”, then it goes without saying I should tell you how we like females view makeup.  You know, as opposed to rogerian and scottian women.  (“psst, Girlie.  Again with the Wakefield Doctrine? Really?”…. It is my blog isn’t it? Huh? Huh?”)

Alright.  My producer is telling me to lighten up on the clarklike female stuff today.  So I’ll keep it short and at the base level (whatever that is).  Speaking of bases, we are not into the whole foundation thing.  Yes, there are still women who use foundation although today’s versions are not what they used to be.  Foundation can now be purchased like whipped cream in a can.  Not quite like the stuff in the red, white and blue cans but close enough, if only in texture.  

It’s true that clarklike females view the face as a palette, hell, clarks view their entire body as a palette.  An artist’s canvas upon which they can create any image.  Whatever their mood dictates at any given time.  For the most part, we like to keep it simple – mascara (a must), a little blush (not absolute) and lipstick (any form of lip coloration).  Despite popular belief, clarklike females like Uma T. and Kristen S.  often will go with more subtle accents as opposed to a full blown Christina Aguilera (scott) kind of look.  

Get to the point of today’s post?  Image.  Projected image.  One of the methods by which we can alter an individual’s perception of us is a simple,  yet proper, use of makeup (look at that word – it is the combination of 2 words:  “make” and “up”) When you make up a story you create something.  There are instances when makeup alone is not enough. When it is a matter of “walking” somewhere not typical for us, a job interview perhaps, we go for the ensemble makeover.  The whole enchilada.  Then the question becomes what is it we want people to see?  Can we project/replicate an image as well as the real thing?   

Was on Reverbnation the other day and clicked on a bass player looking for a new band.  The guy was good.  He had a few showcase clips of  himself with his former band.  They were good, pretty tight. (lead vocals could have used some tweaking but overall, good) But……their look. They needed someone…. to dress them.  No, they didn’t need makeup but they sure could have used some help in the clothing department.  Move over makeup artists, there is a demand for image consultants!  I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe their career may have taken a different path if they looked, you know, cooler.  I was immediately dressing the band  more appropriately, which is to say, cool and consistent with their age and musical bent.  Why is it so many middle aged men in bands need help in the clothing department.  LOL 

Back to the question: “what image do I/we want to project” ?  It’s just as much about what we don’t want people to see as much as what we want them to see.  Dress-up can be fun and it can be functional.  In fact, it can be a very valuable tool.  Whether it’s dressing differently or putting on a different face, it goes to creativity.  It goes to  exploring different aspects of our own selves and trying them on.  You know what they say….if you look good, you feel good.  If you feel good, you look good.  And if all’s good, all is good! (“yo! gafferboy! is Girlie on drugs today?! get her off the…shut her down…”)

“Hey!! Give me that keyboard!  Just one more paragraph.  I promise!”

For readers who are familiar with the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, I am NOT saying that applying more or a certain type of makeup will make you more scottian.  I am NOT saying that achieving a perfect balance of color(s) will help you blend in as a roger nor am I saying the proper shade of red on your lips will give you a clarklike edge.  What I am saying is that we have more control than we think about how we are percieved by others.  Sometimes it’s as simple as a smile, a tone of voice or a well timed look. 

[Later in the studio –
“Alright missy, what was that shit?”
“I don’t know what you mean?”
“Like hell you don’t.  Where was the substance, the meat of it?”
“I got lost.  Thought I had something….did have something.  And then it went away.  Too many distractions”
“You know your contract’s almost up, right?  And you know I love you, but ya better fix things pronto or we’re pullin the plug!”

8 thoughts on “An Edgey makeover, Girlie style?

  1. Jennifer Wilson August 21, 2012 / 10:44 am

    Hey! We scottian females (or at least this one) are not always heavy on the makeup. Depends on who we expect to run into. And even then a “subtle” heavy-handed makeup is effective enough to turn heads in a “She’s Hot!” way.

    However I do agree that many female (and sometimes male) scottian musicians go a bit overboard. Look at KISS!!


    • GirlieOnTheEdge August 21, 2012 / 12:13 pm

      Very true. You scottian women are not always out demanding attention simply by wearing a dramatically painted face now are you? LOL But let’s face it, more makeup = more attention. Often people will sit up a little straighter, turn their head a little quicker.
      Certainly musicians use cosmetics as part of an act but what I speak more about is how makeup and image can and is manipulated in order to achieve certain results/goals.


      • Jennifer Wilson August 22, 2012 / 8:52 am

        The reference to KISS was obviously a joke. No one (at least that I know) would intentionally make themselves up like that except for Halloween maybe. LOL
        But in all seriousness, if make up exudes a feeling of being more attractive then any woman, whether she be clarklike, scottian or rogerian, will carry herself with more confidence. This, in turn, will command the attention from her counterparts.


  2. clarkscottroger August 21, 2012 / 1:19 pm

    good points… I would submit that it (must) begin with an understanding of what is being projected. (the Doctrine does, of course, *start* with the worldview/personal reality and it is from this perspective we seek to understand the individual.
    We know that scotts are predators and rogers are herd members and clarks are outsiders… everything else that is useful to ‘know and/or infer’ about a given individual is found when (we) apply the appropriate overlay of gender/ cultural/ individual.. to this reality.
    make sense? (be happy to provide example, but your Readership seems capable of doing this for theyselves)


    • GirlieOnTheEdge August 21, 2012 / 3:15 pm

      Does make sense and yes, my readership is capable but how about an example for the heck of it?
      (I’m sure you will be talking about how it’s more than the simple physical appearance – a person has to “feel” and “be” whatever they are trying to project. You know, to be believable)


  3. clarkscottroger August 21, 2012 / 4:38 pm

    no, actually would get all Doctrine Primer on you,
    clarks: (the worldview of the Outsider) what is ‘the appearance’ of an outsider: non definable by standards (of the insiders) now factor in gender/culture/individual and thats where the piercings, combat boots and purple hair
    scott: (the reality of the predator) what does a predator look like (to the prey and other predators): ‘teeth and nails’ ‘muscle and sinew’ culture dictates the latitude of expression as formed by gender and that leads to one thing – stilettos and cleavage
    rogers: the world as a quantifiable and inter-related place, society in all it’s expressions of closeness and commonality, order and restraint; you simply look as the world says that the best of (the herd) looks, conformity is it’s own reward.

    The real question is not how is it I appear to the world, rather it is what does my world permit me and what do I have to do to get to a place where a greater range of choices are available.


    • GirlieOnTheEdge August 22, 2012 / 12:03 am

      Doctrinistically speaking that is the 64K question: “what do I have to do to get to a place where a greater range of choices are available”. For example: if I (a clarklike female) wanted to obtain a position as an executive at an advertising firm, then in order to up my chances at getting that job, I would likely have to access my rogerian aspect sufficiently so as to be completely comfortable and “natural” among the rogers.
      There is more to your question than my reply addressed. And therein lies the challenge for clarks
      I will ask you to clarify for my readers the following excerpt: “what does my world permit me”.


  4. clarkscottroger August 22, 2012 / 9:20 am

    but wait! there’s more… besides the appropriately picked rogerian worldview, it might serve your interests to approach (this supposed employment opp) as a scott would!! and so on…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s