When I was growing up the beauty pages of magazines were all obsessed with something called "the natural look".
I had no idea what it meant. My natural look as a teenager (oily skin, spots, redness – all the flattering dermal attributes) was not the kind of thing I wanted to put on display.
Who wants make-up to celebrate their flaws? I don't, which is why throughout my years of wearing cosmetics I've eschewed that particular perspective.
The magazines would still try and tempt me though. Their front covers would read: "Kate Moss looks natural – get her look." Inside, they teased: "Another famous face without any make-up on who looks great - here's how you too can appear fabulously air-brushed without wearing a scrap of slap."
I didn't buy it. Instead, I trowelled the make-up on in my teens and, although my application process has since been refined (I use brushes rather than gardening equipment), I adhere to the same cosmetics policy. It is this: when you're wearing make-up, it is not a "natural look".
Yes, you can get tinted moisturisers. Sure, there are sheer cheek tints, lip balms and translucent powders that all attempt to create the illusion of no make-up, but they still exist to accentuate your features and hide flaws.
In terms of cosmetics which improve your look, mascara comes top of my list. It is my desert island make-up choice – the cosmetic product I have discovered I cannot live without.
Mascara, which creates the opposite of the natural look for your eyes, does exactly what make-up is designed to do: it makes you look better.
Here are some of my favourite lash-defining mascaras: Illamasqua Masquara (£15); Clarins Instant Definition Mascara (£20); and Mac Studio Fix Lash (£14).
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article