Safa S.-Y., of Naked Lady in a White (Silk) Dress, and K. sent us a link to a story about the recent collaboration between MAC cosmetics and the Rodarte clothing line to create a collection of makeup and clothing the sisters who own and design for Rodarte said was inspired by the city of Juárez and female maquiladora workers:
…the sisters explained that a long drive from El Paso to Marfa, Texas, got them thinking they might like to explore their Mexican roots. From there, they became interested in the troubled border town of Ciudad Juárez; the hazy, dreamlike quality of the landscape there; and the maquiladora workers going to the factory in the middle of the night. And that, according to the designers, who certainly know how to romance a pitch, led to this conclusion: They’d build a collection off the idea of sleepwalking. [source]
The cosmetics received names such as Factory, Ghost Town, Juárez, and del Norte. The eyeshadows are meant to give wearers an ashen, tired appearance. After many in the fashion blogsphere criticized the line, both MAC and Rodarte issued apologies, said they will change the names of some of the products, and promised to donate a portion of proceeds to charities working in Juárez.
Just for some context, MAC is a mid-range cosmetics company; a single color of eyeshadow runs about $14.50, lipsticks are generally $13-15 but some are $18-19. This is less than high-end lines like Chanel and Estée Lauder, but more than drugstore brands such as Cover Girl. Rodarte, on the other hand, is a luxury fashion line, selling t-shirts for $120+, sweaters for nearly $3,000, and dresses for $4,000 or more. They do have a much cheaper Rodarte for Target line, however.
Safa argues that it is problematic that these companies, both completely beyond the financial resources of maquiladora workers (and most people in the U.S., for that matter, particularly Rodarte), to use pale White women made even paler with cosmetics to represent low-wage workers in Mexico, none of whom they met or spoke to. Most of the online critics point out that Juárez is quite dangerous, and hundreds of women, many workers at maquiladoras on their way to or from work, have been raped and killed (NPR had a story about the murders in 2003). These numbers don’t include women who simply disappeared, since authorities don’t have proof they were murdered without a body, though most officials and activists believe that at least some of those women were also killed. The vast majority of the crimes are unsolved.
Safa says,
These women [the Rodarte designers], who had never been to Juarez, but nearby Texas towns, entitled themselves and their clothing line to represent the stories of women they never met.
Female factory workers in Juárez thus become exoticized Others for U.S. companies to represent and claim to speak for — that is, they are supposedly concerned about the problems faced by Mexican women workers (or anyway, they said so after all the criticism) and by creating a line in which White women are made up to look like zombies, or as though perhaps they got punched in the eye, they are actually helping women in Juárez by bringing attention to them…in some undefined way that most women who buy their products are unlikely, I think, to pick up and which probably isn’t going to lead to much concrete action to improve these women’s lives.
I think Safa sums it up nicely, so I’ll let her have the last word:
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.Human suffering became a look of glamour. They presented social consciousness in the form of consumerism, and with that, female oppression became another commodity that could be measured not in statistics, but in revenue sales.
Comments 44
nakedthoughts — August 4, 2010
this is disgusting. naming an eyeshadow that fetishizes workers who are at great risk of being beaten, raped and even tortured and mutilated?
there are high rates of domestic abuse in Juarez. There is also an epidemic of women being abducted (on the way to their late night jobs) and then finding the bodies a week later sexually assaulted tortured and mutilated.
human rights violations should not be capitalized on. But even more so they should not be used to invent beauty.
I feel a bit shaky reading this.
Alicia — August 4, 2010
I feel like if this were in a different context it would be a powerful statement. For example if an artist created this campaign but it was a mock campaign (without actual products to sell). Maybe that's insensitive as well but these images are horrifying and they make me aware of problems in Juarez I wasn't aware of before.
Too bad they were made to market violence against women.
Diana — August 4, 2010
I would send the ones who produce this kind of make-up to work in 12 hours shifts in the maquiladoras with no bathroom goings, eating bad food: to get the real "exotic-mexican" look on their faces
Jenny — August 4, 2010
I think what is also troubling about the images in particular is that the models don't look tired, they look dead. This is poor taste no matter how you look at it, but I can only imagine how I would feel about it if I was the family member of a victim.
Momus — August 4, 2010
I actually live in El Paso, which is right across from Juarez. The femicides have been happening since I was a child, and nothing has been done about them. Not only that, but almost everyone I know has been affected by the extreme surge of violence that has been happening in Juarez. I can't believe that anyone could be this insensitive about the current problems that Juarez is facing.
I do have to say, though, that I am glad that this did raise awareness about the femicides, even if it was through sheer insensitivity. The drug war in Juarez has become increasingly more well-known-of, but most people I've talked to outside of the El Paso-Juarez area don't know about the femicides.
nomadologist — August 4, 2010
Zoolander beat them to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkOBAEa9wn8
It's amazing and disheartening how often this theme rears its head in fashion.
Anonymous — August 4, 2010
i actually think the blood-streaked make-up is REALLY interesting....it really does seem to be trying so hard to make a valid point but missing it so much by the way they're going about it. I agree that it could be a fascinating runway show if it weren't exploiting real-life people.
This isn't quite on-topic, but not being of the fashion world (besides watching Project Runway occasionally) i never know how much to take as art, and how much as advertisement. I feel like there is something that could be art somewhere hidden in this concept - that hypothetical runway show that emphasized how run-down the demands of the fashion world make the women who live in it. But I don't ever know how to reconcile that idea with the fact that it's still trying to sell.
nakedthoughts — August 4, 2010
side note: the word "problematic" is problematic. this is not a case of, well these common things we take for granted reify culture, or promote problems in a way that most people ignore.
this is outright disgusting, horrifying and glorifying of violence, distress, and poverty. It seems that the word "problematic" gives an academic, but distant tone. there is no cause for distance. this is an active afront to the lives (and deaths) of the women in Juarez.
the word problematic diminishes this issue.
Simone Lovelace — August 4, 2010
So, aside from the fact that the entire campaign is horrifically insensitive, what consumer would actually buy this product?
Sadie — August 4, 2010
Another example of fashion not realizing the confines of its cage. Look people, if you want to make real social commentary, then write, speak, paint, photograph about it. Lipstick? Not so much. Yeesh.
"The medium is the message"
Marshall McLuhan.
Sound familiar anyone?
Henry — August 5, 2010
Fashion industry sucks. Cosmetics industry sucks. Treatment of minority migrant workers sucks. Treatment of disenfranchised women really sucks. Commodification of suffering sucks. This whole thing is just horrible. Down with this sort of thing.
Jane — August 5, 2010
Well, the cosmetic companies got the attention they wanted. They didn't really expect those cosmetic lines to proceed.
Margaret Snook — August 5, 2010
I have no problem with the "look" itself (to each his/her own), but the idea of using the harsh reality of the working women of Juarez as a marketing ploy is unfathomable. Not only is it insensitive, it just shows a complete lack of understanding of the world outside the marketing bubble and the objectification of women who most need help. The next thing you know they'll be offering to donate a percentage of sales so that buyers can feel good about copying this look!
Andrew — August 5, 2010
The only thing I find truly objectionable here is that Mac/Rodarte apologised. In my opinion, they were doing something quite creative and intriguing here, both with the concept of makeup and with the filters through which our social consciousness arrives, It's rather pathetic that thanks to the perpetual abundance of not-too-bright reactionaries, every subversive or complex work to enter the commercial-art sphere (which certainly includes fashion) has to be apologized for.
Here, the designers have made the very unusual decision to turn our gaze away from the glamorous mascots of the fashion industry and consider the lives of the people working behind the curtain. The deathlike colors evoke, in a more visceral way than any heartfelt op-ed, the felt experience of someone suffering to create what we consume. But unlike a sanctimonious lecture, these artists are also acknowledging how their perspective is distorted by the border separating them from Juarez; the designs reflect an acute awareness of privilege, and the lives of the maquiladoras appears in their work as a blurry but potent image at the far end of a kaleidoscope of wealth and glamour. Honestly, I wouldn't have expected such a candid expression of how Mexican culture is refracted through the American gaze to come out of the fashion industry, and I'm quite happy to see it.
The makeup, of course, is if anything the element that elevates the concept to performance art. It's key to remember that MAC does not produce cosmetics solely for making consumers feel pretty; it's also a leading brand brand for performers and artists creating special effects. Their brand is heavily associated with theatrical self-presentation (just ask any drag queen), and their branding in this case is more about imagination than beauty.
As for the fact that Juarez is quite dangerous...well, the same could be said for New York, especially in the mid-20th Century, but that sure didn't stop it from being romanticized out of all proportion.
pg — August 5, 2010
There have been hundreds, probably thousands, of women abducted, raped, murdered and tossed aside like trash in Ciudad Juárez over the last 10 years, with little to no attention paid and no perpetrators arrested. It's still going on right now. It is nothing like New York City. The women who are being murdered look nothing like the white women in these pictures. The victims are Latino women, mostly factory workers.
I don't understand how anyone could think the mass murder of women is fun, creative, subversive, glamorous, or romantic. Celebrating and profiting from mass murder is monstrous.
john — August 5, 2010
I agree with Andrew.
Roberto Bolano writes a novel--2666--about the Juarez murders, and is everywhere acclaimed as a heroic truth-teller and brilliant artist. He did not know the murdered women, and the novel he wrote, a dense modernist door-stopper, costs more than an eye-shadow, and its textual involution puts it beyond the educational attainments of all but the most lit-savvy. And he is considered, both by English- and Spanish-speaking critics, to be one of the greatest of recent Latin American writers.
The Rodarte sisters simply made art about Juarez in another medium, but are assailed as crass exploiters. Literature is not somehow less capitalist than fashion--a novel is meant to turn a profit for a company just as clothes and make-up are. It's a capitalist system.
I think this is prejudice against forms of art traditionally considered frivolous and feminine by a text-privileging religious and philosophical tradition.
As for the art and atrocity question...it's easy moralizing to assume that art about real-life suffering is always or necessarily exploitative, even when money and consumerism are involved (and, as I've said, money and consumerism are always involved in art today). Real people are never not suffering. People with the resources to make art tend to be more privileged than others. The reductio ad absurdum of objecting to this probably unavoidable state affairs is an objection to anyone making art about anything other than their own lives. Something like what we know of as the Trojan War seems to have happened. Real people really got killed in gruesome ways or else experienced unimaginable losses. And we have The Iliad. The transfiguration of pain into art was once considered, in cultures less puritanical than our own, to be noble.
Sadie — August 6, 2010
I think we need to go back and read the text and look at the images. Human suffering...as a look of glamour. That's quite different than human suffering presented in a work of fiction or a work of art that is designed to help us actually mull over the problem, or at least extend our capacity for human empathy.
I'm sorry, but as a make-up wearer, I can not, and do not accept that a line of coloured pigments in fancy boxes is really any kind of thoughtful reflection on human suffering. That is just inane.
I mean, how do you think it would go over if Estee Lauder or Lancome launched a new line of "Holocaust" lipsticks? Make up and impromptu make up played a huge part in the holocaust. Jewish women in concentration camps would prick their fingers and smudge blood on their cheeks and lips in order to look "healthier" and evade execution. They also did it to preserve their humanity and pride. When the camps were disbanded, one of the first supplies shipped over en masse to the female survivors was lipstick; again, in order to help give them their humanity back. So do you think that consumers would feel comfortable buying Holocaust Glam lipstick, for that "blood-smudged glow?" I'm sorry, but I think most of us would not feel comfortable touching that with a 20 mile pole, simply out of respect for those who had suffered. It isn't cool to trivialize such things. And that isn't the same as telling a story about it, and challenging people to really think about something, extend their understanding and to feel compassion (and maybe even to change their own behaviour).
Sadie — August 6, 2010
John,
As for the high-low division of art, I am acutely aware of certain art forms being pigeonholed as "frivolous" or "less serious." I kind of thought we moved past that debate years ago when post-modern irony was all the rage, but apparently not.
That being said, just because any art form has the ability to make serious commentary and provoke thought (and even positive action) doesn't mean this particular fashion/makeup line does. That is my problem with it.
The actual Rodarte line of clothing that is being referenced here is a work of art, to be sure. After all, the Mulleavey sisters had to start with a concept and then build around it. And build they did...it's just that what they built is totally romanticized and divorced from any reality about Juarez, and therefore isn't really eligible as "social commentary."
The write up describing the line follows:
"That concept gave the show its arts-and-crafts, naïve, almost random quality. Dresses were patchworked together from floral chiffons, vintage lace, burnout velvets, and other salvaged bits from the imagined maquiladoras' floors and then draped with narrow, twisting swaths of fabric or strands of pearls. The country cousins of their now-famous cobweb sweaters, this season's knits had an even quirkier charm, resembling as they did crocheted doilies and hook rugs fringed with long strands of yarn. Shearling jackets, too, got the Rodarte treatment, embroidered here and there with what looked like tufts of goat hair. The show ended with a quartet of ethereal, unraveling, rather beautiful white dresses that alternately called to mind quinceañera parties, corpse brides, and, if you wanted to look at it through a really dark prism, the ghosts of the victims of Juárez's drug wars."
The imagined maquiladoras? Girls stealing scraps from the factory floors? Flowing quinceañera dresses? Come on. This is a rediculous fantasy, and has nothing to do with what is actually going on in Juarez. I'm sure the Mulleavey sisters know very well what a maquiladora looks like, as they would have the "Rodarte for Target" line produced in one, and regularly benefit from such cheap labour. The kicker is the last line though...
"if you wanted to look at it through a really dark prism, the ghosts of the victims of Juárez's drug wars."
As if that dark prism was such a bummer to be looking through at a Fashion show. As if contemplation about something serious was antithetical to the purpose of pretty, frilly clothes.
I am sorry, but fashion has trivialized itself, over and over again. And trust me, I know my fashion and my art, perhaps better than you know your literature. And no, I am not an academic sociologist and there are far more people who commented first on the division between "high: and "low class" art forms (namely artists themselves) than Bordieu. He was right, in theory, any art form is capable of inspiring the sublime, really. But wearing the "run-down" look probably isn't going to inspire anyone looking on to ask anything about the state of affairs in Juarez. It's probably just going to get a lot of people asking if you're feeling okay. In this case, the art has failed to communicate any real, meaningful message beyond "well, that looks kind of cool/goth/creepy." Perhaps if it had been handled in a different way, people might have responded with enthusiasm. But they didn't. Overwhelmingly, the audience for this art is appauled. And I agree with them. It's not about whether or not fashion can make this statement (and yes, it is a tough medium to be critical in, hence my first comment), but whether it can do it well.
As for "hand-wringing" about privilege, I am sorry, but I won't apologize for being concerned about my impact on other human beings, no matter how far away they live. As someone who lived and worked in one of the poorest nations on earth for years and saw the impact of such globalization maquiladoras on regular people, I don't think it's exactly "condescending" to have an awareness of how our current system is operating and to question that. Maybe people's desire to empathize with, understand and try to help people less fortunate than they are rubs you the wrong way, but that doesn't mean we should all reject the idea of empathy because it's patronizing. Where I come from, that's called having a chip on your shoulder. And if that leads to right wing politics, that would explain why the United States (with it's growing inequalities and deepening division between the haves and the have-nots) keeps voting for policies that hurt people (uh, healthcare anyone??? Aw, who needs little thing like that???) Talk about messed-uppedness of the world...that is messed uppedness! Then again, what would I know. I'm just a leftist/socialist hand-wringing Canadian with no degree in sociology.
Sadie — August 6, 2010
Oh, by the way, here is a link to some stereotypically "low" art (rock and roll) that manages to make a pretty clear and effective statement regarding this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR1MVdDmUA&feature=fvw
john — August 6, 2010
First of all, I've never taken a sociology class in my life. I only know about Bourdieu because he's the only professional sociologist that's ever assigned in English lit classes!
To take your comments in reverse...yes, I wholly agree with you that it's called "having a chip on your shoulder"! I wasn't endorsing it, only describing it. But where I come from (working- to lower-middle-class white immigrant "ethnic" Catholic Northeast urban U.S.), that's the way it is. And empathy has been consistently rejected as condescending by leftists (Marx, Lenin, Fanon etc.)--"empathy is a waste of time" is almost an axiom of the Marxist tradition, which claims to be a science.
For myself, I'm not against empathy at all--I think it's way more reliable than Marxist "science"--but I'm against people making a great spectacle of how pained they are to live so well. That's not empathy, it's self-regard by another name, and the resentment it produces makes sense. (And I'm not accusing you in particular, I'm trying to describe a political tendency.)
Cheap labor is everybody's problem, not just the fashion industry's. Given where this computer I'm typing on was made, it might as well be dripping blood. You fault the sentence about the dark prism of Juarez, but I think it's better than not mentioning it. It's better that fashion acknowledges, in however fictionalized a form, the reality it (literally) draws from. Could it have been handled better? No doubt. I just think the line between acceptable and unacceptable is really arbitrary, and has more to do with relative status than actual ethical objections.
As for glamorizing suffering...well, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may think I'm morally monstrousness, but my own position is that life is more complicated than our ethical intuitions about it, and that we waste our time feeling guilty about this. Simone asks for my positions: well, I'm against the drug war, I'm against neo-imperialist policies and I'm against giving free reign to companies to pursue near-slave labor. How these things are going to change is anyone's guess, but I do vote (and sometimes write, and sometimes demonstrate) accordingly. But political positions have only a tenuous relation to aesthetic sensibilities, and I'm not enough of a purist to wish to align them by force.
I'm going to bypass the Holocaust question that Simone raises above. "Everybody knows" that one mustn't trivialize the Holocaust--it's just a conversation-stopper. Anyway, frivolous make-up based on the Holocaust would be a hell of a lot better than another politician's very serious and sincere warmongering speech about how the U.S. and its allies has to blow some more people up so that the Holocaust doesn't happen again.
With that, I think we're at an impasse.
Sadie — August 6, 2010
Well, yes, I did play the Holocaust card, but here I think it was a fair comparison. I had totally forgotten about Godwin's law actually...I went for that analogy because make up was such a huge part of holocaust history, not because I wanted to pull out the mother of all discussion stoppers. Thanks. :-)
To use a different analogy, I was also thinking that we could compare how a make up/fashion line that was built around the idea of Native American women who worked as prostitutes and have been abducted/murdered would play out (a huge issue here in Canada, especially since our police seem to care very little about stopping it). Think of it, we could use all kinds of feathers and beads and lycra fishnets and make up stories about young girls walking streets late at night to heroically make enough money to buy their next fix. Hmmmmm...whaddya think? I'm pretty sure most people would find that pretty apalling, and not many people would view it as social commentary or good art as much as trivialization and exploitation.
"How do you determine what types of suffering can legitimately be depicted through glorified goth makeup, and which cannot?"
Good question, very good question. I suppose this is where the impasse comes in, as when it comes down to it, we all must decide for ourselves what is morally and ethically repugnant. And Maybe John has a point. Maybe saying something deeply flawed is better than saying nothing at all, but somehow the outraged reaction of all of those who find this "art" offensive leaves me feeling that perhaps the Mulleavey sisters should have stuck to something a bit less contentious.
I suppose we could boil this down to a free speech debate, really. Free speech at all costs...or thoughtful speech that actually helps benefit people and is sensitive of the impact it has on society?
MAC + Rodarte=Fire your PR and Design Team Now (Trigger Warning) « Alice in Nappyland — August 11, 2010
[...] 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06,07,More on [...]
Becky — August 11, 2010
In today's news: Mac will no longer distribute this makeup collection in Mexico. Mexico's National Commission to Prevent and Erradicate Violence Against Women has asked them to also stop distributing it worldwide.
Mac is still planning its donations of $100k.
Here's an article about it (in Spanish, sorry): http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/08/11/index.php?section=sociedad&article=041n2soc
RyanFaulk — August 12, 2010
Awesome. How about some makeup that shows how people looked before they had jobs in factories?
Well for starters they'd have to remove a few models, because many more would simply be dead.
Estetizzazione e banalizzazione della violenza – Un altro genere di comunicazione — June 21, 2013
[...] violenza usata per vendere diventa essa stessa un prodotto. Una linea di trucchi che ti permette di ottenere “l’effetto cadavere” non solo sta utilizzando la morte e la [...]
Yamamay e la violenza contro le donne usata a scopo di marketing – Un altro genere di comunicazione — July 26, 2013
[...] violenza contro le donne vende, ha venduto trucchi e adesso vuole vendere mutande. La violenza estetizzata diventa prodotto, vende e si vende. E io [...]
MAC + Rodarte=Fire your PR and Design Team Now (Trigger Warning) - Alice in Nappyland — February 26, 2015
[…] 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06,07,More on […]
MAC + Rodarte=Fire your PR and Design Team Now (Trigger Warning) | Alice in Nappyland — July 27, 2015
[…] 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06,07,More on […]