Face and Image. Cosmetics and Art, 1500–1800

The English word painting had been literally associated with makeup since the 14th century: It meant equally the painting of canvas and face with color. Writings on cosmetics equated makeup with painting. Art literature sometimes treated makeup as well. For example, we know that painters such Velzquez (in the 17th century) and Goya (in the 18th century), both from Spain, were also paid to put makeup on women. In such cases, painting and makeup merge. In the project, I investigate the meaning of cosmetics as an art of beautification. To do this, I study images of the face (portraits) and writings about the face and makeup. I analyze the role of cosmetics in writings about the human face as well as pictures of the face: In the arts, in philosophy, in medicine, in science. The project explores how these different fields are connected through cosmetics. Especially in the period from the 16th to the 18th century this question was important: It was then that the modern natural sciences came into being. The modern concepts of the artist and the physician were developed. Because both, women and men used makeup, there was also the question of which profession should be responsible for cosmetics and the beautification of the human face: (male) doctors, female artists or artists. Connected with this was always the question of who can be the author or creator of a painted face: nature, the person who applies makeup on to the face, or the artist who paints a picture of it? In this way, the project also deals with the history of the creation of the modern artwork in the period before 1800.

This project demonstrates for the first time that cosmetics were a central component of art, medicine, and social life in the early modern period. Contrary to modern assumptions, between approximately 1500 and 1700 beauty was not considered something natural or given. Instead, the human body was understood as malleable: it could be improved and transformed through care and medical treatment. Cosmetics were by no means limited to make-up. They encompassed a wide range of bodily practices, from skincare and remedies to hair dyes and even toothpicks. The project has shown that art and art theory served as important models for these ideas. Painting on canvas and painting the face were often described in the same terms, and artists, physicians, and other practitioners sometimes worked with the same materials. Colours, ointments, and pigments were applied both to canvas and to the skin. This demonstrates that, in the thinking of the time, art and body care were not separate domains. A key finding is that cosmetics can be understood as a form of "artistic practice." They played an important role in shaping ideas about what art is, how images are created, and how reality can be represented. At the same time, historical texts and objects, such as recipe books or cosmetic containers, show that this knowledge circulated not only among learned experts, but also in everyday life. Women and men alike were involved in producing and using these practices. Furthermore, the project demonstrates that beauty practices were closely linked to social and political issues. In courtly contexts, for example, a well-groomed appearance and a healthy body were important means of self-presentation and the exercise of power. Beauty was therefore not only an aesthetic category, but also an expression of status, identity, and social order. The results contribute to a fundamental rethinking of art history. They show that visual culture cannot be fully understood without considering the history of the body, medicine, and everyday practices. At the same time, they offer new perspectives on contemporary topics such as beauty ideals, body care, and cosmetic interventions, which continue to be shaped by similar ideas today.