Key Takeaways:
Something unexpected happened recently. As a self-proclaimed (and proud) skintellectual who has always enjoyed relatively problem-free skin, I started to notice inexplicable changes: redness, dryness, and mysterious blemishes and texture on my chin, along with, frustratingly, a diminishing overall quality of my complexion, no matter what manner of creams, masks, serums, and pore-vacuuming devices I used. Chalk it up to aging and perimenopause (I’m 43), and also a new, higher-resolution iPhone that captured my face (and flaws) in high definition. Am I vain? Absolutely. (And I’ve worked in the beauty industry for two decades, which doesn’t help.) So, in an effort to calm my angry skin, I traded my retinols, toners, and chemical exfoliants for only a cleanser and an intensive repair cream at night, and in the morning as well, together with sunscreen. Within four or five days, I was quite shocked. My skin hasn’t looked this good in a year or more, and I feel much more confident than I used to when sans makeup. So why the disconnect between what I’ve been educated to use, and my newfound complexion clarity? It confused me, to say the least.
As a brand consultant and trend forecaster, I’ve had the opportunity to touch many beauty brands in my career, from global behemoths to niche indies. I also teach trend forecasting at the University of Cincinnati, where I have the privilege of educating Gen Z in the analysis and application of sociocultural trends. This semester, we surfaced the interesting duality I described above—the bipolar, even “schizophrenic,” attitudes, values, and especially behaviors we embrace as hyper-involved beauty consumers. I call it Bifurcated Beauty.
Let me explain a bit more. On one hand, we have begun to actually embrace the #skinimalism philosophy: we have downsized our regimens, seek out hyper-multiuse products, admire makeup-free celebrities, and support body positivity. And “anti-beauty” voices that aim to de-influence consumers from buying into the hype-machine beauty industry are taking up more room in the modern beauty discourse. We are trying to opt out of beauty consumption, at least partially.
On the other hand we are witnessing astonishing celebrity transformations through six-figure face lifts, and the further democratization of weight-loss drugs as drug companies lower their prices. “Clean girl” makeup is being upended by hyper-glam TikTok trends.
Opting Out and the Rise of Anti-Beauty Sentiments
Let’s explore one end of the spectrum. Though the idea of #skinimalism isn’t new (it arose around 2021), one could argue that it’s yet to reach true mainstream adoption in terms of consumer behavior. But the signposts are there.
In his seminal 2020 book Clean: The New Science of Skin and the Beauty of Doing Less, James Hamblin warns of the dangers of a beauty industry that peddles products that don’t work (or not at all) and makes us question our self-worth in the process. In a recent interview on CNN with Chief Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta, he speaks to the benefit of making New Year’s “anti-resolutions” with regard to self and appearance. Are we ready for these more extreme forms of minimalism? He highlights the prevailing social attitudes of people that take a “less is more” approach (he famously doesn’t shower very often, and when he does, uses little to no cleansing products): “I question the stigma that people who use less don't take care of themselves or have proper hygiene.” But as a physician, he stands by his less-is-more philosophy on the basis of fostering optimum skin health.
Perhaps the loudest voice in the anti-beauty movement is writer and cultural critic Jessica DeFino, whose Substack “Flesh World” aims to “report on the absurd world of beauty culture.” In our wide-ranging conversation, she said that the pursuit of external perfection is “very detrimental to our mental health. These products exist and, in the course of their existence, make consumers feel lesser than.”
More with DeFino later. But consider the transformation (or reverse transformation, as it were) of celebrities like Alicia Keys and Pamela Anderson (which for Anderson, represents a hard departure from her glamorous sex icon days in Baywatch). In their appearances at May’s Met Gala, both appeared makeup-free, and very elegant and beautiful indeed. Regarding Anderson specifically, her choice to eschew makeup was deeply personal, emerging after the death of her longtime makeup artist and friend Alexis Vogel. But there was a more intentional reason behind her decision. In a June interview with InStyle, Anderson asserted that “I think that with AI technology and filters, people are becoming kind of boring-looking.” She went on to explain, “I want to challenge beauty norms. I’ve always been a rebel. I never see somebody and think, ‘I want to look like that.’ I just want to see who I am.” A challenge to beauty norms indeed.
Skinimalistic Products
We aren’t just seeing minimalism emerge from thought leaders and celebrities in culture. In response to consumers’ growing preference for quick and easy routines, many brands are following suit. Clinique recently launched a campaign around its 3-step routine with the tagline “Where Great Skin Begins,” its first TV commercial about the regimen in more than a decade. Whether the move represents a rethink of its strategy to embrace skinimalism or not isn’t known, but its message seems very timely for consumers who are looking to pare back.
In addition, new products are being launched all the time that are indicative of the extreme hybridization of categories. Launched earlier this month, Gen Z favorite brand Bubble launched two new SKUs aimed to be skincare makeup hybrids (“the imposter in your makeup bag”). Secret Agent and Undercover are tinted color correctors and skincare in one. Secret Agent neutralizes redness immediately, in addition to containing soothing, brightening, and clarifying ingredients that help fade redness over time; Undercover camouflages hyperpigmentation and dark spots and contains soothing and brightening ingredients that help fade dark spots over time.
But the skinification of makeup and multitasking formulas are nothing new (see: Typologie’s Serum Foundation, Westman Atelier’s Complexion Drops, and Olay’s 5-ingredients-in-one Super Serum). Now, newer entrants are doing even more, with even less. Orcé Cosmetics’ new 4-in-1 Cloud Dimensions Multi-Use Eyeshadow + Blush + Bronzer + Highlighter Cream also contains hyaluronic acid and other “age-defying” ingredients. Beautybio’s Blendrops, offered in Perfecting, Bronzing, and Illuminizing shades, combines four steps in one: blurring, priming, and imparting color and luminosity, all with SPF 40 protection. Kosas’ Revealer Concealer is positioned as a concealer or foundation, and contains skincare ingredients that both hydrate with hyaluronic acid and reduce puffiness with caffeine, along with other skin-nourishing ingredients. These uber-hybrid products also serve to provide a more natural, undetectable finish, which helps achieve the (still) prevailing “clean girl” look characterizing today’s beauty zeitgeist.
Fabulous & Flawless (At All Costs)
Though skinimalism is seeming to only gain momentum, we are seeing a countermovement in the form of beauty maximalism. “Mob Wife” makeup (an exaggerated, luxurious look characterized by strong eyes, red lips and nails, and bouffant hair, as portrayed in TV shows and films like The Sopranos and Casino) and other trends like it have now partially displaced “clean girl,”- a natural pendulum swing away from the “old” barefaced-but-better aesthetic. So trends go.
And consider for a moment the astonishing facelifts of celebrities like 70-year-old Kris Jenner, who reportedly saw plastic surgeon Dr. Steven Levine for her procedures to the tune of between an estimated $150,000-$175,000. Even more stunning are the facelifts of 39-year-old Lindsay Lohan and 44-year-old Christina Aguilera, who have dramatically transformed their faces through a “suspected” (they have been nonforthcoming about the source of their newfound taut skin, tiny noses, and arched brows) combination of mid facelifts, blepharoplasty, Botox, and laser resurfacing, costing an eye-watering $160,000-$300,000 by some professional estimates.
It’s not just Aguilera’s face transformation that has garnered attention, but also her dramatic weight loss, which she has publicly attributed to diet and exercise, but which some have speculated is the result of the use of GLP-1s. The government recently announced efforts to work with drug companies to reduce the cost of many drugs, including GLP-1s. The democratization of these drugs will see many more people striving to and succeeding at the thinness that our society values. Beth Hitchcock, founder of brand consultancy Fluffi (which advises brands on how to incorporate size inclusiveness into their business and creative strategy), observes: “I think the definition of body positivity was lost in translation years ago. While the movement was founded as fat liberation, at its core it was really about self-love and reclaiming autonomy over our bodies.” No wonder consumers are confused.
The Widening “Beauty Gap”
Of course, it’s worth noting that $150,000 facelifts and GLP-1s are available to all but the most affluent—the “haves.” But what about the so-called have nots? Those who can’t afford the “$5,000 face” (wherein influencers promote 3-minute makeup routines when in reality they have a high-maintenance regime of Botox, fillers, and other skin-enhancing treatments)? This gap explains trends like “expensive” hair and skin, “old money” makeup, and “nepo-baby blond,” DeFino said. Put that together with dupe culture, the increasing popularity of the dollar-channel haul, and the rise of reseller platforms like Poshmark and Whatnot (which offer prestige beauty at near-wholesale prices), consumers are clear: they want it all, and they want it for less.
“As the wealth gap becomes wider and wider, we're not necessarily seeing people on the 'have not' side opt out of beauty,” said DeFino. “It's almost sort of this desperate scramble to say, how can I keep consuming, how can I keep performing beauty? And in the process, break the bank.”
This is partially because beauty is linked to both morality and worth, and more broadly, survival. “Performing beauty seems like a necessity for women and gender-nonconforming people, especially…women are judged more harshly for what they look like,” DeFino said. Consumers literally feel like they don’t have a choice.
The Murky Middle Ground
In exploring the intended premise of this story, it became obvious that the issue is not so black and white; these polarities are somewhat imagined. The reason? Because within us are inherent contradictions, especially regarding beauty, as we continue to be exposed to mixed messages in culture. “Whether someone chooses to take weight-loss medication is entirely their personal decision,” said Hitchcock. “What concerns me is the harmful messaging—and the constant pendulum swing—that women and girls are forced to navigate. We go from ‘love yourself as you are’ to ‘shrink yourself at all costs,’ often within the same news cycle.”
DeFino further questioned the premise, asserting that regardless of personal beauty philosophy, regardless of economic status, “The focus is still very much on the beautification of the person or the face or the body, really…[skinimalism] was so wild to me because it wasn't necessarily about, oh, here's how to use less products or work with what you already have. It was like, here's a whole new set of three products you can buy.” We are all still obsessed with beauty, still consuming more and more, still aspiring for the same aesthetic standards. It’s just that one tries to masquerade as something else.
Consider a few examples of this contradiction. Firstly, Alicia Keys. She eschewed makeup in 2016, citing the need to opt out of beauty standards and the limitations that it placed on women. She also aimed to liberate herself from the insecurity she felt when not wearing makeup, instead encouraging self-connection and self-acceptance. But her brand Keys Soulcare, founded in 2020, seems to represent the duality I describe above. Though mostly focused on skin and body care, it’s now entered the cosmetics category with a range of tinted complexion perfectors and cheek and lip color. The photography is stunning, and in it Keys looks decidedly flawless. It makes sense, right? From a consumer standpoint, this is what they are asking for from other brands—attainable aspiration. And the pressure to grow via expanding product portfolios is an evergreen mandate. But it does beg the question, what happened to Keys’ original intent–rebelling against conformity and denouncing makeup?
The aforementioned Christina Aguilera Instagram page is filled with posts claiming empowerment and self-acceptance. Her buzzy January post encouraged her fans to “allow yourself grace, patience, and respect.” Elsewhere, she proclaims her focus on self-love, embracing confidence, and being comfortable in her own skin. But since January, all of the singer’s posts feature her in full glam and flaunting new tight jawline, taut skin, conspicuously inflated lips and thin body. Self-love? Again, no wonder consumers are confused.
I also spoke to Malvika Menon, otherwise known as Mal the Skinimalist, whose blog offers advice and perspectives about beauty consumption—she states she is “recovering from my skincare addiction (or obsession) one step at a time.” Menon had what she described as a “bizarre experience” with skincare.
“The more I knew, the less I actually knew,” she explained. “There is so much misinformation…pseudo science and consumerism being sold as genuine advice, that it made me want to create a space that advocated for a simpler, more honest and personalized way.”
However, upon a glance at her blog topics, a recent one covered her experience with microneedling. Are expensive in-clinic procedures really “opting out"? When I pointed this out, she explained that it’s something she’s wrestling with internally.
“Personally, my skincare philosophy is rooted in what I can do to improve my skin’s health and not just the way it looks,” she said. “For that reason, I’ve always stayed away from procedures like Botox, fillers, any kind of plastic surgery, or even the now fashionable, ‘bio stimulators,’ and don’t plan to try any for now.”
She attempts to view her skincare use “through the lens of skin health versus appearance alteration, and that’s kept me in a sane place.”
In keeping with the skin health insight, “I realized that most of them are unnecessary if the goal is skin health, rather than molding your skin to meet this, like, hyperreal aesthetic,” said DeFino. This stems from her work researching the science of the skin, and her observation about the beauty industry’s endless proliferation of products that claim to be effective at producing results, but most of which are mostly aesthetically based vs. truly improving skin health.
Relative to this push-pull, DeFino observed, “I think it's like there's this real psychological conflict happening inside of us with what our obsession with beauty says about what we care about, and what we value. I think the bifurcation that really jumps out to me is our beliefs versus our behavior, and the way that our actions sort of betray what we say we value.” We say we want to divest from beauty, to be comfortable in our own skin, to be liberated from beauty standards—but our actions (and purchase decisions) in fact point to a wholly different mindset toward obsession with the aesthetic.
The Path Forward
When asked about what, if any, brands are doing it right, DeFino pointed to Australian brand Fluff Makeup, a “casual cosmetics company” that offers luxe refillable products across lip, face, and eye, along with makeup brushes. The brand’s “About” statement feels simple and somewhat radical at the same time. “The future of beauty is more than makeup. Our products are all about keeping it simple: good for your skin, your thoughts, and the planet. We believe that it’s ok to feel more with makeup, so long as you don’t feel less without it.” This echoes sentiments expressed by Hitchcock: “Brands will always be drawn to whatever drives revenue, but they also have a responsibility to their audiences. They can’t keep profiting off mixed messages that undermine self-worth. They owe consumers thoughtful, consistent, and non-harmful communication, especially in a cultural moment as charged as this one."
Another brand that seems to be leaning into this dichotomy is doctor-founded probiotic skincare brand TULA. The brand consistently uses compelling before-and-after imagery to demonstrate the performance of its formulas. But the side-by-sides feature an interesting caption: “Beautiful Before” and “Beautiful After.” This, too, somehow feels relatable and radical at the same time.
It begs the question, how do especially bigger brands (who are largely targeting the middle) go about unpacking the inconsistent and seemingly opaque attitudes that modern consumers have toward beauty? How to respond with new concepts, storytelling, strategies, and, yes, products that speak to this deeper insight? A few recommendations:
Regarding my newfound #skiplistic routine, I may stick with it, and just rotate more proven, potent actives a few times a week (skin cycling). But I’m keeping my overflowing makeup bag containing no fewer than six shades of blush.
