#maven makes me think of the renaissance especially the art

[cyclic-laughter]

some pearl characters ive been thinking about a lot lately

first two characters were not designed by me

[redantsunderneath]

Critical Accommodation

The first forum thread I ever started, on some televisionwithoutpity-type forum, was on the topic of simultaneously overrated and underrated art/artists.  Now, I don’t know if I expressed my ideas clearly or not, but in the email exchange subsequent to a strangely angry moderator deleting the post, clarity didn’t seem to be the issue as much as a failure on his part to admit to the idea that the relationship between quality and popularity could somehow be multivalent.  At the time, I probably used Radiohead or something as an example – underrated by any sort of mass audience but overrated by what you might a few years later have call pitcthforkers – but maybe Serial is a good modern equivalent.  I doesn’t hold enough interest for anyone who has seen more than 3 Datelines and thinks the idea of NPRing the concept up is boring, but elicits a little too much ado from the Slate reading contingent who, maybe, believe True Crime as a genre just got invented.

 I kind of lost interest in this as a concept as, after a while, all you can see are the social signaling aspects of this multi-audience interaction, maybe thanks to hipsters turning countersignaling into a game of chicken where they threw their steering wheel out the window. But it seems that multiple axes of “is it good” that coexist have become more obvious lately, and not just because people are starting to notice that everyone lives in a bubble. Case in point: I was involved in an exchange recently about the movie Suicide Squad, with a poster claiming that the response to the movie showed how pronounced the divide was between critics and the casual audience.  I had to ask what this meant because the critics I pay attention to have been very positive about Suicide Squad and the DC movies in general (in relation to the Marvel movies especially) and dismissive of the sea of internet opinions that call the films garbage.  The person bringing it up was talking about the actual moviegoing audience which made the movie immensely profitable because they weren’t told they were supposed to hate it vs. the majority of internet based and payed critics who poo-pooed the movie as you would expect.  Both of these critical-mass divides were true at the same time, but each of us preferentially saw one.

 I’ve written a lot about textual story and subliminal story in an effort to pick at the meaning of entertainments of all kinds.  But all this is making me think about the fact that there are more levels than just above and below and various audiences are habituated to look for satisfaction at a certain level. One problem is that no matter how smart and attentive the audience member is, they tend to privilege this one layer and, as a result, this strata is optimized for by producers (via a complex Darwinian system) if they are viewed as the primary audience.  So the actual most complicated and interesting multilayered stuff is going to suffer for any specific audience in that it will not be “the best possible thing” at the level they are trained to value the most.  The funny thing is, this system more and more doesn’t favor people who focus on depth and complexity in producing a serious work, but artists who are profoundly unhinged at some level who are willing to operate at the most superficial levels primarily with the deep stuff inadvertently spilling out like piñata guts.  These movies often don’t make intellectual sense.

 I think in order to consider this, text and subliminal aren’t going to cut it.  There is a superficial or visceral level of engagement – incident, big emotion… the action movie thing, but also at a different pitch the romantic comedy thing.  Crowd pleasers that satisfy the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid – oral (safety, threat, need, good/bad) and anal (dominance, desire, will).  Then you have the mid level engagement of the genital (intricacy, complex relational, intellectual satisfaction) and basic social consciousness (mid to upper Maslow) which is common internet aesthete and print critic land.  If there is talk of screenplay structure or complex characters or representation, it is in this middlebrow-that-thinks-it’s-highbrow area. The Oscar zone.  

 There is another level, though, which me might call the ineffable, the preconscious, the deep structural, the semiotic, the transcendent, or the sublime.  People who I usually pay attention to are focused on this later level to some degree. The thing that ties these people together is an emphasis on visual storytelling (or poetics if we are talking about print) and a philosophical bent.  The escape of conscious forms, of spoken language and structure, receiving symbolic content and using that to construct meaning.  There is a lot of theory in this zone… it is not not intellectual, but rather senses something hidden or unintentional and wrestles that into the zone of language and reason.  This includes primal unexamined societal impulses where the motivations for politics and hatred lie.  

 So group 1 are the conscious experiencers (popcorn moviegoer).  Group 2 are the social intellectualizers (the maven or critic).  Group 3 have found some way to touch an unmediated submerged experience and bring it up to examine, which oddly gives them more in common with group 1 (the dredgers and deep divers).  Everybody at a higher number level has some experience with the lower numbers but what I have noticed is that most people in this hierarchy tend to limit focus to their preferred layer and stick there, losing the ability to really engage at the other levels with something that doesn’t satisfy on theirs.  I do run into more people who are able to put a foot on 1 and a foot on 3, people who go deep on trash cinema for instance, but these people usually take a shit on level 2.  Many of these people hate prestige TV very viscerally.  Others stick to 3 and tend to close read based on one particular “deep topic” like capitalism or gender.

 This leads to extremely insightful people who have a fixed level of focus.  I almost said “myopia” but a better ophthalmologic analogy is loss of lens accommodation, a common problem of age (the need for reading glasses after you turn 47 is this).  With this condition you can be nearsighted or farsighted or have 20/20, but you can’t focus very well outside of a narrow range of your focal length.  My very favorite writers on narrative art are able to focus up and down the scale and, importantly, experience the piece as a blank slate, so the reading can be guided by the piece and not a bias as to level of engagement.  Zizek is great, but I’d prefer it if he seemed to be able to be exhilarated, have fun, recognize bad pacing, or appreciate an actor/actress performance without making these a function of some Marxist/Lacanian equation.

 The good reviews of Batman vs. Superman I have seen dwell on the visual composition and fuck off attitude, but also focus on the movie as a critique of a kind of moral simplicity implicit in nerd/internet culture who can’t see what these characters are really up to.  The film is deliberately provoking the group that generates all the reviews.  Superman is an alien who is hyper aware of the conflict between humanity’s potential and its reality. His choice to act for the good in Man of Steel is that of a god in absolute agony as he has to take the war into himself, killing because moral choices are horrific and don’t have the external consequences they should in a just universe. Superman knows he chooses his path to suffer and serve the good and the universe could care less (Nietzsche’s Ubermench, anyone?). His suffering imposes a moral order on the universe.  In BvS he confronts the prospect of progressive inaction, the Obama path, do no harm because everyone seems to want you to be blamed, shamed into will-less-ness… one of the failure modes of the current American (masculine) spirit. Batman represents the other failure mode, the wallowing in the anger at traditional American values violated by the rise of selfishness and me first mentality.  Of course they need to fight – they are primal opposites: deflated optimism vs. pessimism on steroids, past vs. future, sun vs. void, naturally gifted immigrant vs. driven legacy born on third base.  

 These are gods, and are presented like gods, in a series of mise-en-scene straight ripped from renaissance paintings. It is wrong to speak of subtlety, because subtlety is the opposite of the point.  Look at those (Turin?) horses, gaudy symbols like oranges in the Godfather! The structure of the story is a mess by normal metrics, but there is a shape there, and that is enough when you are dealing with art film rules.  The collision of two celestial objects, awaiting the feminine to mediate their Hegelian synthesis and convert their masculine valances to the positive.  Dwelling on act structure is stupid.  Recognizing that they failed to make this a conventional narrative is useless.  Citing plot inconsistencies, “X wouldn’t do that,” and calling it emptyheaded and over the top mean you are watching a movie you can’t handle.  This is a skilled, smart but “off,” bodily centered outsider artist grappling with shit that is really, really big and deep.  It isn’t perfect, but no one should want that out of this (there are countless clockwork left brain things to watch)… you should come to this wanting a mess, gods of ideas punching your midbrain, opening you to experience the catharsis of basic archetypal struggles in the world.  You know, like superheroes work.  It is wrong to privilege level 2 which, remember, is where mass of expressed “learned” opinion is.  This is where the DC Verse lives.  Marvel is centered in DC’s hole, and it is right to talk of story as structure.

 My point is that the best thing you can do is learn to focus where the thing is most ready to connect with you and be flexible enough to let the thing tell you how to read it.  There is a lot of crap, but there is a lot of good stuff that gets critically ignored because too few are focusing in the right areas.  If you like more stuff, if you find everything more interesting and complex, you win. Not everything is good, but you can almost always find a way to engage it at its best.  You can say many bad things about the book Twilight, but damn if there isn’t something there about the subject/object struggle of being desired as a young woman, the disconnect of inner and outer experience, and the consideration of the choice of traditional-relationship-as-road-to-marriage in a modern context.  If you smirk and say Mary Sue, you have failed.  

 This three cluster model isn’t perfect, but explains a lot why I see lumpy, weird high budget stuff with the high viewership (mass audience), pissed off forums and think pieces (critical consensus/perceived audience if you live online), and elated jaded curmudgeons (deep critics) troika so often.  I think this is more than just a status economy (though that is clearly involved) but the production system has adjusted so that the qualities of the output levels align to the audience expectations.  The most interesting stuff is that which crosses levels, which requires risking a product that will probably seem suboptimal to everyone.  So, let’s have a toast for the auteurs who don’t fit, making movies that are a scrum of potential meanings that require you to get dirty and renounce the tyranny of “the way it should be done.” And I mean Michael Bay as well as David Lynch.  If they seem insane, it’s a feature not a bug.

[elsbethvanparidon-blog]

A woman’s most sensuous asset during the Han Dynasty (221 B.C.- 220 A.D.) was her mouth. Women created rounded, heart and flower shapes on their lips using rouge, the ancient lipstick alternate. So what rocks the brush boat anno 2017? Temper hooks up with makeup artist Cooper “Tan!n” Cu!

From (non-)biblical times, we travel to a city deemed by some a Sodom and Gomorrah of the digital age: Shanghai. One cosmopolitan cosmetic playground.

Fantastical

The ancient Romans were widely using cosmetics by the middle of the 1st century A.D., make-up maven Medusa informs us. Kohl was an essential asset to literally tone down the eyelashes and eyelids, achieving that intense-looking smokey avant-la-lettre sultriness. Chalk, then, was used for whitening the complexion and rouge in turn was worn on the apples of the cheeks — how very Snow White. On a “did you know?” note: Hair removal too already proved a popular practice 2000 years ago and pumice was used for cleaning the teeth. And feet, I dare presume — given the fashionableness of sandals…

The earliest historical record of makeup hails from the First Dynasty of ancient Egypt (3218–3035 B.C., give or take). Tombs recovered from this era have revealed jars containing lotion, which in later periods became scented. Cream was extensively used by both the men and women — both in real life and afterlife —  to maintain a supple, well-hydrated skin. The women of ancient Egypt decorated their eyes by applying dark green color to the under-lid and blackening both the lashes and the upper lid using kohl. This kohl was produced from the chemical (metallic) element antimony or plain soot.

In bulking up your impressively useless party-trivia beautycase: Legend has it that the Jews adopted their application of makeup from the Egyptians as references to “the painting of faces” appear throughout the New Testament. Salome must have really known her way around a brush.

Tan!n, Tokyo Harayuku 2012

From biblical times, we travel to a city deemed by outsiders a Sodom and Gomorrah of the digital age: Shanghai. Trained and educated at Tokyo’s MODE GAKUEN, currently Japan’s largest specialized training college, for four years, Japanese certified makeup artist Cooper “Tan!n” Cu in 2016 made his way from Japan’s metropolis to Shanghai. With his visual art published across fashion magazines such as ELLE, AR Tokyo, Zipper, EDGE STYLE, RAY, and having painted the catwalk multi-colori from Tokyo Fashion Week to Dior, make-up artist Cooper “Tan!n” Cu is one hot, hip and happening (and Temper trending) cookie.

Courtesy of Suzuki Swift for Japan Coolture

History Of Japanese Makeup: Geisha Matters

Because we simply cannot not go there.

The rightful origins of the white makeup on a geisha’s face are remain uncertain. According to Japan Coolture, one theory has it that during the Middle ages “a traveller returned from Europe with stories of “pale-faced” beauties”. Plausible as this may sound, the white makeup is said to have come from China and to have later been adopted by Japanese courtesans. Considering that its use first appeared in the Heian era (794-1185), when China exerted a strong cultural influence over Japan, this theory probably makes for the better-fitting explanation. Japan Coolture continues:

“Women in the Heian era used rice powder mixed with water to form a thin layer of paste to be applied on the face as foundation layer. Then they would remove their eyebrows and paint in thick, straight, false eyebrows high on their forehead and coloured them in thick black in the middle of the forehead. The lips were painted red. To finish off the overall look, the lips are colored in with a small, precise brush. Once the colour was extracted from the benibana flower (aka the safflower) infused in water, then covered with crystallized sugar to give it lustre.”

Minutiae alert: Teeth would be stained black with a mixture of oxidized iron steeped in an acidic solution, a custom that ended in the Meiji era (1868-1912) and is now only used by maiko (training geishas) in the week before they become geiko (“master” of the art). Bear in mind that the term geiko was primarily used to refer to geisha from Kyoto. Although geisha formerly referred to only those originating from Tokyo and its surrounding areas, this word has now become the general term for all geisha. Be that as may, the Heian era’s amorous and idyllic look was later adopted by the courtesans inside “houses of pleasure”, trying to mimic (recapture, even) the illustrative and symbolic delicacy of those golden geisha days long vanished into the mist.

  Cooper “Tan!n”Cu

Ten Temper questions With Tan!n

1. How old were you when you became obsessed with makeup?

“Actually… It was purely by chance that I became a makeup artist when I was 22! When I was a kid, I liked painting and once I — fast forward a decade — had graduated from college, I decided I wanted to step into the fashion world. Why I chose to become a makeup artist, specifically, was simply because I wanted to make people more beautiful and show them how to build up their confidence and just own it by using colorful things to show off their personalities!”

2. When did you decide “okay, this is it, I’m going to be a professional makeup artist?”

“My first professional gig was with M.A.C., back when I was still in Tokyo. To dot the i’s and cross my t’s in my answer to this question, I should  add that this was in fact my first job after striding into — and opening up — the world of fashion, or rather that of ‘makeup’. I like a challenge, especially when it comes to makeup, and always want to try to a lot of new things that at first glance may seem beyond my reach or capabilities. So whilst working on that very first M.A.C. job, I made up my mind and told myself ‘this is it’!”

  Fantasy

3. What role does make-up play in Tokyo? How important is the role of make-up in Japanese history and culture? In a few words, if you please.

“As the second biggest city in the world, fashion and make-up play an essential part in the daily lives of many a Tokyo-resident. The whole world by now knows about ‘Kabukicho [Tokyo’s nightlife hub that, in the 21st Century, has witnessed the rise of the modern male ‘geisha’, if you will and FYI]  and kimono’ geisha makeup. When walking the streets of Tokyo, one witnesses a vast array of styles. Harajuku, however cliche this may sound, is perhaps the one area boasting the widest variety in Japanese dress and makeup styles. Love.”

Fantasia

Fantasia Again

4. How do you communicate with the photographer you’re working with on a shoot to achieve his or her goals?

“First off, I have to tell the photographer what the client’s concept and thoughts on this are. That takes priority. Obviously, it takes some back and forth when deciding on which style-route to take and how we can really bring the idea to life! It’s a continuous dialogue. And of course, there are those times that a photographer shares with me the image he has his mind set on and I can just roll with that. Which is fun, obviously.”

5. How much of your input do you add to achieve the results the photographer is looking for?

“Quite a lot. First and foremost, you must remember that the photographer is the most important person on set. You have to channel his vision — or in the case of a fashion show, the designer’s vision, of course — through makeup and ensure the whole look is on-fleek. My input heavily relies on imagination and communication. We, the makeup artist, are there to get the job done. To perfection! Like I said before, communicating before shooting is key for any team. I then have to convey my ideas to my team. We’ll draft a plan of action and arrange for a strategy to be in place. And then… We go wild [laughs].”

6. What are the three tools in your makeup kit that you can never, ever be without?

“The three tools I can never, ever go without are my brushes, a small towel and sponges!”

  Tan!n for the “Black Cotton”Collection by Daven Zhang, Shanghai.

7. Which one do you prefer to work on: Catwalk or photoshoot?

“Which one do I prefer… Honestly, I don’t think I have a particular preference. As a make-up artist, I often have no choice but to … well… face reality [laughs]. I like fashion. That’s just it; the setting, stage, shape or size doesn’t matter to me. I will say this, when it comes to photoshoots, you have to be more careful and precise when applying the makeup. The catwalk is a different beast: It’s fast, quickie makeup.”

  Tan!n for the “Black Cotton”Collection by Daven Zhang, Shanghai.

8. Your move to China, then. Any No.1 trend spotted?

“My move to China. Basically, I’m now working as a freelancer, mostly! The larger part of my of jobs involve collaborations with high-fashion brands and then of course you have Shanghai Fashion Week. Trend-wise, then. Baby-face, baby doll, heavy eyeliner, smokey eyes, au naturel… There’s no pinpointing one current makeup trend here. At this very moment, I should add. It’s a party!”

9. What, to you, is “beauty”? Or “Chinese beauty”, in a non-offensive PC kinda way

” [laughs] Let’s just say ‘Asian’ beauty, shall we? Short and sweet: It’s all about maximalizing natural or ‘minimal’ makeup. That’s ‘beauty’ to me.”

10. Where do you get your inspiration from?

“Nature, objects, stories, anything and everything that crosses my daily path in a sensual, visual or audible way! Inspiration is everywhere and can strike at any time.”

  Tan!n, 2014 Paris Collection, Tokyo.

History Of Cosmetics: Fun Facts

Women in the 19th Century would use belladonna to make their eyes appear more luminous. This poisonous plant that has been used as a medicine since ancient times; it was named “Belladonna” after the “beautiful women” of Renaissance Italy, who took it to enlarge their pupils.

Many cosmetics in the 1800s were formulated (literally) by the parish pharmacist and this type of “expert” commonly employed ingredients such as mercury and nitric acid. Lovely. Nevertheless, fast forward some 200 years and Melanie Haiker reported the following in Forbes back in 2012:

“The list of dangerous skin creams is fairly long, but — so far at least — contains only products you’d purchase from an import store or Latino, Asian or Middle Eastern market, and no American-made brands or products. The creams are intended primarily for “skin lightening” and anti-aging and include Stillman’s skin bleach cream, Diana skin lightening formula, and numerous products with labels in Chinese, Hindi, and other languages.”

Moving on. Men wore makeup until the 1850s. George IV spent a fortune on cold cream, powders, pastes and scents. However, not all men wore makeup, as many looked upon a man with rouged cheeks as a dandy. Well-heeled Louis XIV was a sleek bit of mink in his own right, both the women and men of Versailles bore heavy white makeup consisting of mercury, lead, egg whites and vinegar. Yummy.

On a final fun note, here’s one beauty tip recipe utilized during the late 19th Century, once again courtesy of Medusa’s Makeup:

“As a wash for the complexion: one teaspoon of flour of sulphur and a wine glassful of lime water, well shaken and mixed with half a wine-glass of glycerine and a wine-glass of rose-water. Rub on the face every night before going to bed. “

From the 1930s through the 1950s, Hollywood’s studio movie stars proved to be the cat’s meow in het world of makeup trends. Audrey Hepburn’s cat-eyed liner, the liberated “anything goes” or “je m’en fou” hippie look of the 1960s and the heavily lined eyes, shimmeringly showcasing every eyeshadow in the palette, throughout the 1980s yuppie culture. Today’s trend seems to have reverted to the more natural look with a blending of styles from our rich cosmetic past. Nonetheless, given Temper is wise as Solomon, never forget: One must never blend in, but indeed always stand out!

                Contact Tan!n via

WeChat: Cooper_Coco E-mail: 15190486187@sina.cn Tel: +86 18362054976

Images: With the exception of the Suzuki Swift image, all images in this feature come courtesy of Cooper Tan!n Cu.

  Copyright@Temper Magazine 2017 All rights reserved

Ten Questions With Make-Up Artist Cooper "Tan!n" Cu: Never Blending In. A woman’s most sensuous asset during the Han Dynasty (221 B.C.- 220 A.D.) was her mouth. Women created rounded, heart and flower shapes on their lips using rouge, the ancient lipstick alternate.