Were they not rather transgressive? Were they not something more than the combination of the styles of the time and studio managing and her own follicular biology? They were extraordinary, bold things, weirder and bigger than any I ever see. They are the biggest thing on her face. They really worked.
2 comments:
The arch is key. The darkness is, if I'm not seriously mistaken, pencil.
I do it sometimes if I know I'm going to be photographed, to create a stronger brow with a very defined shape. Stray or errant hairs basically disappear when you do this, esp. in photos.
The arch is definitely key--her arch is so bold, shapes the whole face. I think what you said is part of my fascination with her brows--the fact that they are at least to some degree human-engineered! I am glad she didn't hit her stride in the over-plucked 30s.
Post a Comment