Remember Jackie Kennedy? Took the world by storm. Media couldn’t praise her beauty enough. Time, Life, McCall’s, People, Look, Cosmopolitan, Match (French), and other magazines featured her on their covers. After she became Mrs. Onassis, however, there was a bit of a change, a falloff as the media focused more on her as one of the wealthy elites and not as a beauty or fashion model. Remember Michelle Obama? On the cover of Ladies’ Home Journal, Ebony, Time, Essence, Glamour, Prevention, Vogue, Cooking Light, Rachel Ray’s every day, Variety, InStyle, More, and probably many more magazines in a list so long it’s…just too long. Couldn’t find a magazine whose cover she didn’t grace. And Jill Biden? Also a darling of the fashion world: Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, probably others I didn’t see. Anyone ever hear of Melania Trump? Well, maybe before her husband ran for president. Yeah, come to think of it, she did grace some covers then, but…
As Clair Atkinson writes for NBC, “There’s a clear reluctance among editors to put themselves in the cross-hairs of the culture wars. Mostly New York-based editors may fear having to face unhappy readers or advertisers if they go with a choice so closely tied to President Donald Trump.” *
“Wasn’t she some kind of model or somepin? Yeah, I thinked she was? Then what’d I know ‘bout beauty and style and stuff. Never been to a fashion show, buy my jeans at Walmart, have worn the same jackets for years, think I own—wait—yes I do own some ties cause I just checked the back of the closet….”
What’s the Truth about Beauty?
Call it “The year Beauty Died.” So, it seems that Melania Trump was beautiful and stylish enough to grace magazine covers before the 2016 election, but not afterwards. Apparently, beauty isn’t skin deep; it’s ideologically deep. Thus, whereas thin (svelte?) models were once the “ideal,” now thin-challenged models (Corpulent? Chubby? Hefty? Fat?) are equally ideal, and ideologically appropriate models are even “more” ideal.
There’s Melanie Trump at the inauguration, in my eyes looking rather elegant and sophisticated, the broad-brimmed hat hiding some of her face. Didn’t Kate Middleton wear a similar hat—without derision and criticism—at some ceremony? And how does the media see her? If they didn’t want her on their magazine covers the first time she was First Lady, what are the chances she will grace any covers this time?
Poor Kim Kardashian, she lost followers—supposedly more than 100,000— because she posted a picture of Melania Trump in that inauguration outfit. Yep, beauty really is only as ideology says it is. But I wonder…
Hypothetically, let’s make the Slovenian poly-lingual lady an “ordinary citizen.” Put her in chic nightclub attire, and send her into a club alone. Think she would attract any attention from both guys and gals (sorry for the “only two sexes” reference)? I think she would.
So, What Is Beauty? Or, Rather, Who Is “Beautiful”?
Take overriding political propaganda out of the consideration. Melania Trump was a model for a reason, and I’m guessing that reason was…beauty carried well, even better than well. Stately, even, evidenced by her status with media before 2016. Have standards of beauty changed so radically in less than a decade?
We should admit that the idea of beauty does change as does the idea of who is beautiful. There are cultural and ethnic preferences. I assume Geishas look the way they do because that look defines a standard of beauty. And I also assume that every ethnicity has a “standard” for beauty, a standard that rises to the level of “ideal.” If that assumption is true, then from Australian Aborigines to Okinawa islanders, to Inuits, the sense that some people are more beautiful than others is a universal. The parameters of such beauty might differ, but the underlying truth of an ideal prevails as a universal concept.
So, what are the parameters for beauty in the West during the twenty-first century? And have they changed in the past decade?
The model for Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1536) had a bit of a tummy that would not get her on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue of 2015, but would have gotten on the cover in 2016. The model for Venus in Front of the Mirror (1614-1615) by Peter Paul Rubens would also have been excluded because of her “spare tire.” But things changed in 2016 as Sports illustrated featured Ashley Graham, a plus-sized model—who had no “spare tire,” by the way. Obviously, the sense of who is a beautiful woman has changed, even more so in that trans women have now participated in beauty contests and won (Kataluna Enriquez, Miss Nevada, and Bailey Anne Kennedy, Miss Maryland). My goodness, one doesn’t even have to be a Missto be Miss America anymore, as the selection of Mrs. Bailey Anne Kennedy, wife of a Marine, reveals.
Now those are some changes in the idea of beauty that no one in the centuries prior to our own would probably understand. Would Titian paint a man-Venus? Would he have considered painting such a model? We can’t know, of course, but we can surmise that he wouldn’t comprehend what political correctness and ideology have done to our brains’ basic understanding of beauty. Nor would he understand the needs to conform in a socially engineered art world.
Liberalism Destroyed
Let’s go back to classical liberalism and the idea of unrestricted freedom to think as one prefers. Liberalism manifested in political correctness and ideology now entails restrictions and forced or mandated ideals supported by seemingly endless propaganda. You have to accept a trans woman as a beauty; you have to accept a plus-sized woman as a bikini model; you have to accept… NO! Wait! You can’t accept Melania Trump’s beauty even though you formerly praised her beauty.
And just as liberals could not see Kamala Harris as a bumbling, inarticulate person, so they seem unable to see any conservative woman as beautiful. It’s truly a shame how supposedly liberal ideology has become restrictive. John Locke would be disappointed by the conversion of his ideas into their opposites. All avant-garde artists of the past are probably turning over in their paint boxes, er… graves.
*”Model, first lady: Melania Trump conspicuously absent from magazine covers.” NBC Online.
As Clair Atkinson writes for NBC, “There’s a clear reluctance among editors to put themselves in the cross-hairs of the culture wars. Mostly New York-based editors may fear having to face unhappy readers or advertisers if they go with a choice so closely tied to President Donald Trump.” *
“Wasn’t she some kind of model or somepin? Yeah, I thinked she was? Then what’d I know ‘bout beauty and style and stuff. Never been to a fashion show, buy my jeans at Walmart, have worn the same jackets for years, think I own—wait—yes I do own some ties cause I just checked the back of the closet….”
What’s the Truth about Beauty?
Call it “The year Beauty Died.” So, it seems that Melania Trump was beautiful and stylish enough to grace magazine covers before the 2016 election, but not afterwards. Apparently, beauty isn’t skin deep; it’s ideologically deep. Thus, whereas thin (svelte?) models were once the “ideal,” now thin-challenged models (Corpulent? Chubby? Hefty? Fat?) are equally ideal, and ideologically appropriate models are even “more” ideal.
There’s Melanie Trump at the inauguration, in my eyes looking rather elegant and sophisticated, the broad-brimmed hat hiding some of her face. Didn’t Kate Middleton wear a similar hat—without derision and criticism—at some ceremony? And how does the media see her? If they didn’t want her on their magazine covers the first time she was First Lady, what are the chances she will grace any covers this time?
Poor Kim Kardashian, she lost followers—supposedly more than 100,000— because she posted a picture of Melania Trump in that inauguration outfit. Yep, beauty really is only as ideology says it is. But I wonder…
Hypothetically, let’s make the Slovenian poly-lingual lady an “ordinary citizen.” Put her in chic nightclub attire, and send her into a club alone. Think she would attract any attention from both guys and gals (sorry for the “only two sexes” reference)? I think she would.
So, What Is Beauty? Or, Rather, Who Is “Beautiful”?
Take overriding political propaganda out of the consideration. Melania Trump was a model for a reason, and I’m guessing that reason was…beauty carried well, even better than well. Stately, even, evidenced by her status with media before 2016. Have standards of beauty changed so radically in less than a decade?
We should admit that the idea of beauty does change as does the idea of who is beautiful. There are cultural and ethnic preferences. I assume Geishas look the way they do because that look defines a standard of beauty. And I also assume that every ethnicity has a “standard” for beauty, a standard that rises to the level of “ideal.” If that assumption is true, then from Australian Aborigines to Okinawa islanders, to Inuits, the sense that some people are more beautiful than others is a universal. The parameters of such beauty might differ, but the underlying truth of an ideal prevails as a universal concept.
So, what are the parameters for beauty in the West during the twenty-first century? And have they changed in the past decade?
The model for Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1536) had a bit of a tummy that would not get her on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue of 2015, but would have gotten on the cover in 2016. The model for Venus in Front of the Mirror (1614-1615) by Peter Paul Rubens would also have been excluded because of her “spare tire.” But things changed in 2016 as Sports illustrated featured Ashley Graham, a plus-sized model—who had no “spare tire,” by the way. Obviously, the sense of who is a beautiful woman has changed, even more so in that trans women have now participated in beauty contests and won (Kataluna Enriquez, Miss Nevada, and Bailey Anne Kennedy, Miss Maryland). My goodness, one doesn’t even have to be a Missto be Miss America anymore, as the selection of Mrs. Bailey Anne Kennedy, wife of a Marine, reveals.
Now those are some changes in the idea of beauty that no one in the centuries prior to our own would probably understand. Would Titian paint a man-Venus? Would he have considered painting such a model? We can’t know, of course, but we can surmise that he wouldn’t comprehend what political correctness and ideology have done to our brains’ basic understanding of beauty. Nor would he understand the needs to conform in a socially engineered art world.
Liberalism Destroyed
Let’s go back to classical liberalism and the idea of unrestricted freedom to think as one prefers. Liberalism manifested in political correctness and ideology now entails restrictions and forced or mandated ideals supported by seemingly endless propaganda. You have to accept a trans woman as a beauty; you have to accept a plus-sized woman as a bikini model; you have to accept… NO! Wait! You can’t accept Melania Trump’s beauty even though you formerly praised her beauty.
And just as liberals could not see Kamala Harris as a bumbling, inarticulate person, so they seem unable to see any conservative woman as beautiful. It’s truly a shame how supposedly liberal ideology has become restrictive. John Locke would be disappointed by the conversion of his ideas into their opposites. All avant-garde artists of the past are probably turning over in their paint boxes, er… graves.
*”Model, first lady: Melania Trump conspicuously absent from magazine covers.” NBC Online.
RSS Feed