This is one of those cases of “words” having pesky “meanings” being inconvenient I suppose. Perhaps something like: “Karrueche looks like Disney’s Pocahontas.” Or: “If Disney did a live action Pocahontas they should cast Karrueche.” That doesn’t begin to touch on underlying issues with Disney film itself, or many of the complex feelings people have about it. The comment itself shows an ignorance that while may not come from malice, is still a slap in the face. Nor does it endorse either of those statements- which in their own right may be controversial. They at least show some level of thought or care on a sensitive cultural matter.
If they wanted to compare that person to Disney's Pocahontas, why didn't they just use an actual pic of Disney's Pocahontas, as opposed to the shiny artist's rendition?
I mean, that pic is okay and all, but compared to the character they're speaking about, talking exclusively about proportioning, they've narrowed her face, widened her eyes by about 300%, shrunk her nose (at least it looks shrunk to me in comparison to what the nostrils on Disney's version implies), darkened her skin, even added some additional poof to the lips... if they were going for a realistic version of the character, they could have achieved it without blowing out her proportions so much. It looks like a hybrid between Pocahontas and a bratz doll almost, and, really, ANY person can look like anyone if you follow this standard.
3Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
I don't understand why the makeup community always makes people look so greasy. I get they're going for a "natural" kind of look or a dewy look but it just doesn't come off that way.
There are a few reasons. Humans tend to have primitive desires buried below many of our sensibilities. One is “shiny=oooh.” Building on that- the implications of a shiny person can evoke ideas in our subconscious and make us think of sweat. This can give us an idea of activity and physical exertion and ability- or trigger parts of us that think of post coital exertion. The former feeds off the latter anyway- in simple terms a sex angle that speaks to our tiny monkey minds within. Another artistic reason is curves. In math a line is not interesting. Where the line changes trajectory is. This is true of aesthetics too. Clothing models tend to be straight and skinny to showcase the clothes. Walking clothes hangers. Figure models tend to have curves- and both general have prominent facial and bone structures. Like a white car versus a clean and waxed deep black- or a laquer piano- the shine causes light to accentuate curves and where lines change- drawing attention to those areas.
To be clear I’m not saying I like it, or even that I endorse or approve it. I’m just saying these are some fundamental reasons it is a popular choice. Matte and low gloss tend to hide flaws. They are often used to flatter the less photogenic- or where touch ups won’t be done post. Important to humans is that what looks good in person and what looks good on camera are often very different and opposing each other. You may notice that people appearing on tv or movies, or people going all out to photograph an event like a wedding or gala look overdone- almost “trashy” and very heavy and fake in person. Similar deal. They were made up to look good on camera, in photos they’ll look good, but in person not so much.
I mean, that pic is okay and all, but compared to the character they're speaking about, talking exclusively about proportioning, they've narrowed her face, widened her eyes by about 300%, shrunk her nose (at least it looks shrunk to me in comparison to what the nostrils on Disney's version implies), darkened her skin, even added some additional poof to the lips... if they were going for a realistic version of the character, they could have achieved it without blowing out her proportions so much. It looks like a hybrid between Pocahontas and a bratz doll almost, and, really, ANY person can look like anyone if you follow this standard.