Sign up for the Independent Women email for the latest news, opinion and features
Get the Independent Women email for free
Get the Independent Women email for free
Meghan Markle’s latest move? Posing on the cover of the American edition of fashion mag Harper’s Bazaar. As far as high-end cover shoots go, it’s pretty minimalist, with the Duchess of Sussex perched on a stool in front of a grey background, dressed in a black Dior jacket with her hair swept back from her face.
And it’s her face – or, more pressingly, what’s on or not on her face – that has got people talking. Because, in keeping with this pared-back aesthetic, Meghan appears to be pretty much makeup-free, skin, brows that are sculpted-but-not-too-sculpted and a smattering of freckles. I should add, of course, for accuracy’s sake, that Harper’s has credited the veteran makeup artist Diane Kendal for the shoot, so it’s probably not the case that the Duchess just rolled out of bed beforehand, but the overall feel is natural and low-key.
There’s no denying that Meghan looks incredible, and that her fresh face nicely complements the clean lines of the understated outfits she’s been styled in. But what can’t help but needle me is the way that this cover – and the many, many celebrities that have followed a similar formula – are using going makeup-free as a sort of shorthand for honesty, relatability and (my personal bugbear) bravery. You can practically visualise the words “authentic” and “real” pinned on the mood board beforehand.
Indeed, when the actor Jamie Lee Curtis hailed Pamela Anderson’s decision to go makeup-free on the red carpet as an act of “courage and rebellion” in 2023, I couldn’t help but cringe. Anderson is, objectively, one of the most beautiful women in the world; if she doesn’t want to wear makeup, that’s great, but let’s not act like seeing her bare face is suddenly going to make women everywhere feel better about themselves.
Over the past couple of decades, the “makeup-free” magazine cover has become a way for stars to signal that, hey, they have flaws, too! In her latest interview with Bazaar, Meghan attempts to position herself as the poster woman for embracing imperfections. “There’s no such thing as perfect,” she reminds us, before noting that “I, too, get to make mistakes”, and that “there’s also not a lot of fun in trying to be perfect”.
open image in gallery
Meghan appears barefaced on the cover of ‘Harper’s Bazaar’ (Malick Bodian/Harpers Bazar)
Her truisms would possibly carry more weight if she hadn’t spent most of the past year trying to sell all of us a lifestyle that seems, to the casual observer at least, pretty perfect: the Loro Piana knitwear, the Nancy Meyers movie-worthy kitchen, the homemade jam. Sure, said flaws might be barely perceptible with the naked eye, but that doesn’t matter. They’re actually just like you! Showing off glowing skin and perfect bone structure has been reframed as some sort of radical act that is somehow supposed to empower the rest of us.
And as the media landscape has changed, we’ve been introduced to more opportunities for celebrities to supposedly defy the norm by eschewing foundation and mascara. Earlier this year, Meghan went makeup-free for her podcast interview with friend Jamie Kern Lima. “She and I decided to do the episode the same way we spend most of our time together – with no makeup on, in our sweats, and cosied up in these two rocking chairs I have at my house,” Lima gushed as she introduced the recording. The implication, of course, was that by swerving cosmetics, their chat was somehow more real and unfiltered.
But barefaced shoots (and their close relation, the makeup-free Instagram selfie) aren’t really relatable. They have just become another way to force actual average women to compare themselves to unrealistic standards. What feels most egregious, though, is when these objectively beautiful images are positioned as somehow imperfect, and when we are supposed to believe that posing for them is some kind of act that benefits us all. If this is imperfect and raw, where the hell do the rest of us civilian goblins sit on this aesthetic scale?
Photos like these are humblebrags, packaged up as empowerment, and I’m not convinced that they’re helping anyone. Plus, making it matter so much seems to reinforce regressive old ideas about a woman’s looks being indicative of her character.
open image in gallery
Pamela Anderson regularly attends high-profile events without makeup (Getty)
Is my distrust of the makeup-free cover shoot tinged with a bit of jealousy? Of course it is! I’m writing this with a face full of spot stickers that I’m praying will do some overtime on yet another adult acne flare-up. When you have bad skin, sometimes just leaving the house covered in foundation can feel pretty brave; hiding away seems like a preferable option.
A genuinely “brave” move would be for a celebrity with acne, rosacea or another skin issue (statistically, at least, there must be some of them) to pose without makeup. But that would never happen, because properly stripped back, imperfect skin is still something that we baulk at. You only have to look at the cruel jibes that the 17-year-old Scottish footballer Skye Stout received earlier this year when her new club shared a photo of her with – the horror, the horror – visible spots to mark her signing (grown adults mocking a teenager for her skin? Yes, really).
Bare female faces are only acceptable when they are radiant, blemish-free free and largely ageless, much like Meghan’s. So, can we please acknowledge that going makeup-free is about branding, not bravery?
