After I posted my thoughts on beauty, Brother hit me back with some really interesting, challenging follow-up. You can read his comments in full on the post but the one that struck me as most fascinating is the idea that beauty is driving evolution. This brings up a number of philosophical questions. Off the top of my head: Is beauty linked to survival? How? Is beauty an evolutionary endpoint worth striving for? How is it better? What’s the alternative? Does beauty inform perception, does perception inform beauty, where does the circle of perception/beauty/perception/beauty etc…… end and begin? Lots of thinking for a rainy Friday night alone. Also: the image he conjured up of new shiny skin eating old wrinkly skin is squirm- and awe-inducing at once. You can read more about Aubrey De Grey if you are interested in that particular aspect.
The aspect I am interested in scrutinizing is where plastic surgery fits in to this equation. When one regards beauty within this evolutionary context, plastic surgery is a fabulous shortcut. If beauty is a desirable quality in a potential mate, plastic surgery is a bit of camouflage to sneak you past genetics’ red velvet ropes. These thoughts are all on my mind as I ponder beauty. Lots of questions but no simple answers.
Mr. Toledano has lots of questions too. A photographer, writer, and artist, his philosophical musings intrigue and provoke me. While his entire work is worth reading in depth and is generously availablegratis on his website, the subject that concerns this post is that of plastic surgery, or A New Kind of Beauty. In merging, I fleetingly explored plastic surgery trends, which, just like any other trends, tend to arrive at a similar image. Except this time the object of similarity is the human face. So when Mr. Toledano wonders, “When we re-make ourselves, are we revealing our true character, or are we stripping away our very identity?” my initial thought is the latter. Today, 51-year-old Madonna and the 23-year-old Olsen Twins have the same New Face (is it just me or does the New Face oddly resemble Nicolette Sheridan?).
Another question: “Is beauty informed by contemporary culture? By history? Or is it defined by the surgeon’s hand? Can we identify physical trends that vary from decade to decade, or is beauty timeless?” Well if you attempt to read L’Oreal’s 100,000 Years of Beauty you can find an in-depth tracing of some pretty convincing beauty timelines and trends throughout history. And I think there are absolutely varying physical trends (Rubenesque vs Kate Moss-esque, duh) as well as certain characteristics of beauty that transcend trends (say that three times fast). But the idea that beauty is defined by the surgeon’s hand is troubling. You know, that whole playing-God thing: how can a mere mortal improve upon divine creation? Yet, it’s not the fact that we can improve upon how we were biologically created — after all, who can argue with bionic limbs? — it’s what we choose to improve. The superficial outside appearance. Erasing lines, changing Dad’s nose, switching out Mom’s boobs as if they were tires on a car. But if beauty is necessary for survival, what then? And don’t forget that plastic surgery is not the great equalizer to be passed down generation to generation. It’s stubbornly corrected birth after birth by biology. (Let’s not get into genetic engineering, I need to finish Eating Animals and then we can discuss).
Speaking objectively about the images below, they are not what I would consider beautiful, or attractive. You could say I am a fan of improving on nature in a non-surgical way. But from an aesthetic standpoint it’s fascinating to see the similarities of these incredibly plastic people. Did the scalpel make them homologous, or did they all ask for the same results? Are the surgeons who did this work just plain bad? How come Ashley Simpson’s nose/chin/lip job didn’t make her look like this? Is this some new kind of mental disorder, that everyone wants to look like Jocelyn Wildenstein?
One thing that strikes me, other than the incredible sameness of each person’s features, is how asexual each person is. I thought that Gina was a man, and Michael a woman. Even Yvette, with her overtly sexual enormous boobs, full lips, and aquiline nose, looks like a drag queen. I’m assuming that a variety of plastic surgeons performed the work, which makes a pretty strong case for losing one’s identity under the knife. But maybe they all went in and asked for the Angelina Special, and these were the results? That, in their eyes, they are all better versions of themselves, their most Angelinaselves? Since I don’t know any of the subjects personally and have never met them I can’t begin to comment on the psychological aspect of having this many surgeries. Yet another question.
It goes without saying (but I’ll say it) that they could all be mistaken for overly trussed and stuffed celebrities. (At least one of them is a (sort-of) celebrity. Don’t lie, 90% of you recognize the Ken Dude, Steve Erhardt, at least by face). And I guess, in some ways, having a shitload of work done is a signal to the world, like carrying a the new status bag. So, I leave you tonight with “an amalgam of surgery, art, and popular culture,” and some of Mr. Toledano’s work.
No comments:
Post a Comment