|
|
|
"The
Mad Search for Beauty":
Actresses' Testimonials, the
Cosmetics Industry, and the
"Democratization of Beauty"1
By Marlis Schweitzer, University
of Toronto at Mississauga
|
"Actresses as a rule know no more
about making themselves beautiful than does the average woman;
neither are they naturally more beautiful," wrote actress Margaret
Illington Banes in a 1912 article entitled "The Mad Search for
Beauty." "The truth of the matter is," she continued, "that no
actress—or any woman—can impart the secrets of beauty
to another, any more than the rich man can impart the secrets
of business success to some other man."2
Disturbed by recent trends in the theatrical profession that required
actresses to present themselves as "beauty specialists," Banes
sought to expose the constructed nature of their on- and offstage
performances. Stage stars captivated audiences because they had
numerous opportunities to appear onstage dressed in the height
of style; "under the same circumstances," she concluded, most
women "would look quite as well."3 |
1
|
|
Banes's sober argument against the
"mad search for beauty" served as a warning to women about the
folly of trying to reproduce themselves in the image of their
favorite stars. Ironically, however, Banes's contention that the
actress was no more beautiful than the average woman was also
the central argument in the promotional strategies developed by
fashion and beauty product advertisers in this period. Building
on the public's fascination with the stage, these manufacturers
emphasized the artificial processes that transformed actresses
from attractive women into exceptional beauties and implied that
their products could do the same for every woman. |
2
|
|
By 1910 women utilized a variety
of techniques to recreate stage fashions, copying actresses' hairdos,
dress styles, and other accessories. For advertisers of cosmetics,
corsets, and other fashion products, it quickly became apparent
that establishing an association with actresses through testimonial
advertising was the surest way to capitalize upon what one advertiser
later characterized as the female consumer's "emulative eagerness."4 Rather than dissuade women from emulating
stars, the revelation that the actress was not "naturally more beautiful"
than other women supported the "democratization of beauty," the
notion that every woman had the right, the capacity, and the obligation
to make herself as beautiful as possible. In this way, manufacturers
both profited from the preexisting relationship between actresses
and audiences and used it to shape consumer behavior. |
3
|
|
|
