First things first: I watch YouTube videos to relax. Specifically, I watch makeup gurus’ (barf) hauls (barf) and tutorials (barf) when I have a really massive migraine and the darkest room and the strongest pills won’t help. Since their world has very little to do with mine, I almost immediately feel better or fall asleep while watching. Through the right-hand “Suggestions” bar YouTube offers alongside videos, I met City & Makeup. Canadian, twenty-years old, and an interior design student, I thought her videos would be charged with the lullabye-ing banality I love about makeup videos. However, it seems like City & Makeup wants to make a bigger splash then her contemporaries. Hence, “Moments.”
In “Moments,” City & Makeup reads a prose poem or an epic or a Jerry MaGuire-esque mission statement about, well, something. I think it’s about moments. Can you help the paper decode this rhetorical masterwork?
“We cannot embellish our present choices with previous ones.” I would like to say: these words don’t swirl around right in my brain tubes. Is she talking Eternal Sunshine shit, or a more Rousseauian return to nature?
“Who you are and what you did to get to that point doesn’t matter,” she continues, reaching into a honey pot of logic that alludes convicted felons and enchants the world’s Ben Roethlisbergers.
“Why is it that an aging homeless person can say ‘Have a happy life’ when their’s was the exact opposite? It’s because he knows what matters.” Have you ever made an argument in a philosophy class talking about happiness where you say that the starving children in India have it right because they are the only truly happy ones? Stop it. Don’t do that again. Arguments like that one and City & Makeup’s show a dominant power creepily fetishizing the disenfranchised Other. City & Makeup is at once allured by and complimentary to the “aging homeless person” while dehumanizing (no name) and dismissing him with disgust (his life “was the exact opposite” of happy/good). Now, I can’t speak for homeless people, but I’m guessing from the work I’ve done with homeless populations (not to challenge City & Makeup to a white-privileged-but-does-charity-off, but just sayin’ I’d probably win) (and noting that by homeless populations I do not mean the intentionally destitute) your average homeless person is not part of an oppressing shelter system and homeless because they want to get all spiritual and find real happiness, and stuff. As far as I know, in New York City if you’re “homeless” you’re most likely a child. And if you’re homeless and not a child, it can be hard to cherish the moment when you’re fighting for a bed or want to go to the doctor or worried because most homeless women are sexually assaulted. Jinkies, that’s probably not the type of sage archetype City & Makeup was hoping to invoke. But that’s just me! You know, being a buzzkill and whatnot.
In conclusion: “Currency and social status won’t go with you in the end,” says the girl while flashing the brand label on her coat and her leather boots. God bless you, City & Makeup.