Thursday, February 09, 2012

Today in effortless

Into the Gloss outdoes itself. Says today's "Top Shelf" participant:

"[...] I’ve always been pretty low-maintenance with beauty. I’m from England—Cambridgeshire, it’s in the countryside."

[Mentions several luxe skin products.] Sample sentence: "And then I use Valmont cream, which is my favorite, favorite stuff. That I find either find in Paris, or at the Four Seasons here [in New York]."

But that's skin care. Presumably this woman stops there. No makeup?

"I’m not very precious with my makeup."

[Mentions a long list of cosmetics, including two YSL, two Dolce and Gabbana, one Chanel, one Armani.]

A simple country girl, really. Not like us Manhattan-born-and-raised who... I'm not even sure what would outdo this short of the Joan Rivers approach


Rachel @ Musings of an Inappropriate Woman said...

$150 moisturiser. So low maintenance! So affordable!

kei said...

Maybe you've addressed these points previously, but here are my thoughts. I wonder what these people have in mind for "high maintenance" when they say they're not high maintenance. Like would MAC products, because they're known for their intense pigmentation, be considered high maintenance? But, they might be thinking, YSL and D&G are chic, and since that's not gaudy like MAC, they can be classified however?

The other thing I think of when I see these things is that when people claim low maintenance, that they think they're pro-"natural" and thereby healthy, or something like that. I've been reading up on the lack of (US) regulation and safety on personal care products recently, so I'm coming from that slightly-paranoid angle, but I'll bet most products on ITG are filled with unnecessary and harmful chemicals and fragrances. (Johnson's had formaldehyde in their baby shampoo until recently, and this lady's has suspicious ingredients, too!) I know Europe and Japan are known to have better standards, but I don't get the sense that that's why these people get their stuff from abroad.

Phoebe said...


The pigmentation thing could be it some of the time, but I think what this woman means is that she identifies as old money, not nouveau riche. She's classic, not Snooki. She's not some spoiled princess, she's from the English countryside! She's an English rose! Even if the rosiness comes from a $60 blush. There's so much going on with this post, I want desperately to do a textual analysis of it and not what's in the other window, but the shorter version is, there's always someone more done-up than one's self, and even women in the fashion industry have a lot invested in identifying as low-key.

And... I go through phases of paranoia about this as well, and have that Method body-wash, a paraben-free hand cream (by Vaseline, and $4, and thus not very Gloss-worthy), etc. Meanwhile, after years of experimentation, I've found one brand of shampoo/conditioner that works for my hair, and it's both expensive ($30-$40 for a jumbo bottle that lasts about a semester) and not-not-toxic.

Mostly, I think the best way to avoid the toxic stuff is to use less stuff, period. That's why the "French" way of putting on a bunch of different creams, not to combat any actual dermatological issue, but because that is where Beauty comes from, is both a massive waste of money, and a way to increase one's exposure to whichever toxins. And that's what Into The Gloss celebrates. That's oh-so-sophisticated, far more subtle than - as you say - putting on really bright makeup. It's more "natural," even if health-wise, the better approach would be neon eyeshadow and nothing more.