'Makeup or Made-up?’: Cosmetic Products & the Expression of Identity

*“If you’re sad, add more lipstick and attack.”* This iconic quote by French fashion designer Coco Chanel powerfully encapsulates the intimate intersections between makeup and one’s subjective self.

On one hand, her words highlight the role of makeup as a confidence building mechanism, enabling one to transform their negative emotions into something powerful and assertive. Of course, this interpretation is given that we consider ‘attack’ in a more positive sense, as determination and vigor.

On another hand, however, this quote implicitly suggests the erection of a facade – a mask that conceals one’s true emotions and represses one’s selfhood. This line of thought resonates with broader critiques of makeup as a tool of deception, reinforcing the idea that beauty standards encourage individuals to suppress their “authentic selves” in favor of a curated external image. In fact, according to a 2017 survey by Statista, more than half of Americans believe women wear make-up to ‘trick’ people into thinking they are attractive. While women most definitely are not the only wearers of makeup, this sentiment can be applied to makeup wearers in general, to reveal the perception that cosmetic enhancement is often linked to a ‘misleading’ presentation of self.

These perspectives, albeit conflicting, share a common concern about the role of makeup in expressing individuality and authenticity. Makeup has become such a polarizing topic of discussion, sparking debates about empowerment, self-expression, and societal pressures. After all, it is intriguing to consider how an external, socially constructed tool can significantly influence one’s inner sense of self. Thus, let us consider this question: To what extent does makeup create artificial, constructed personas, rather than draw us closer to our true identities?

To begin with, it is crucial to examine why makeup has often been perceived by many as a tool of ‘deception’.

One key reason behind this impression is that makeup fundamentally alters or enhances one’s physical features, creating a transformation that some view as an illusion rather than an authentic representation of the self. By applying a layer atop the skin, makeup conceals perceived imperfections, evens out irregularities, and smooths inconsistencies, often resulting in a polished appearance that may differ significantly from one’s natural look. An oft-cited argument is that this alteration can sometimes be so pronounced, that both human and automated facial recognition are affected. For instance, research has shown that heavy makeup can hinder facial recognition by the brain, especially when an individual was initially seen without it. In more extreme cases, it is seen that makeup can even disrupt the functionality of automated facial recognition software, impeding the software from accurately identifying individuals. This reinforces perceptions of makeup as a tool for concealment that obscures one’s bare facial features, enabling deceptive modes of self-presentation.

In fact, the so-called joke—'Take her swimming on the first date'—which has been making its rounds on social media, reflects the prevailing notion that self-presentation is only genuine when left completely unaltered. Fundamentally, this remark shames women for using makeup as a means of enhancing their features, echoing the perception that any effort to refine one’s appearance is inherently dishonest. This logic preaches that authentic self-presentation must be removed from intentionality, and is tied exclusively to a bare, unembellished face.

However, I argue that this definition of the "authentic self" is myopic. Personal identity is a fluid construct that extends beyond the unaltered, untouched version of our external appearances. It is not a static truth, but a dynamic interplay between how we perceive ourselves and how we choose to present that perception to the world. Rather than viewing self-presentation as a binary between "real" and "fake," it is more productive to recognize that authenticity is not about rejecting external influences, but about embracing the various facets of our evolving sense of selves.

At its core, makeup is ultimately a form of creative expression—a means of shaping one’s external appearance to reflect their inner identity.

For one, it is deeply connected to gender identity and self-discovery, allowing individuals to explore and present themselves in ways that feel most true to who they are. While historically associated with femininity, contemporary culture has redefined makeup as a gender-fluid tool. For example, RuPaul’s Drag Race has played a significant role in bringing drag makeup into mainstream visibility, showcasing how elaborate cosmetics can be a form of self-reinvention and empowerment. Contestants use bold colors, intricate contouring, and exaggerated features not just to enhance their appearance, but to craft distinct personas that celebrate individuality and performance artistry.

Beyond shaping identity, makeup also acts as a mirror of mood and emotion, much like fashion or music. Aesthetic styles such as the ‘emo’ look or grunge-inspired smudged makeup, exemplify how cosmetics can visually express personal feelings and affiliations with subcultures. In this sense, makeup serves as a bridge between the internal and external self, allowing individuals to translate their emotions into a tangible form. By doing so, it empowers people to bring their inner experiences to the surface, transforming self-expression into an art form that is deeply personal.

Additionally, reducing makeup to mere vanity and concealment blatantly disregards its historical significance as a marker of cultural identity. It is a sign of the individual’s belonging to a community. In these contexts, makeup is a tribute to cultural legacy and storytelling: a form of self-expression that connects individuals to their roots and collective heritage.

In many tribal societies, makeup holds profound symbolic meaning. The Maasai of East Africa, for example, are known for their distinctive use of red ochre, which signifies status, identity, and heritage. Similarly, India has a long-standing tradition of intricate makeup practices that are deeply woven into rituals, performing arts, and cultural expression. A case in point is Theyyam, a ritual dance performed in North Kerala, where elaborate face and body painting transforms performers into living deities. The designs are highly geometric and symmetrical, featuring bold hues of red, black, yellow, and white that emphasize both spiritual significance and artistic mastery. These examples are a testament to the role of makeup as a powerful medium of identity and tradition, acting as a bridge between the individual and their heritage. In this sense, the ‘authentic self’ is manifested through one’s cultural identity, where self-definition is deeply intertwined with a sense of communal belonging.

Nevertheless, I would like to present a caveat. While makeup is richly emotive and culturally symbolic, it does not always need to serve a symbolic or transformative purpose. Many people wear makeup simply to feel more confident, enhance their features, or because they enjoy the artistry of it—and that is entirely valid. Using cosmetics for personal preference or practicality is no less legitimate than wearing it for cultural expression.

Ultimately, it is high time that we re-evaluate our conceptions of makeup, as something that needs to be justified or confined to strict ideas of authenticity. At its very core, makeup is a personal choice, and its meaning is entirely up to the individual.