The term `plastic surgery` is full of curiosity. There are a couple of possible different meanings it could be invoking. Probably in some sort of slippery way, I'm sure, at least two of these are implied in this common phrase. I'm thinking of the sense of plastic as an actual chemical product, but also "plastic" in the slang jargon of our time, referring to something as cosmetic, artificial or even phony.
As a general rule, though the chemically based material called plastic is used, plastic isn`t really so much the ideal ingredient. Skin grafts from other parts of the body generally provide a better effect. So its not inaccurate to call it plastic surgery in this sense, it is a little misleading.
And, as to plastic in the aesthetic or ethical sense, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. But there is something about the association of such surgery to the celebrities trying to hang onto their glamour and appeal that leads so many of us to thoughtlessly let the description roll glibly off the tongue. Perhaps it is something like this subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use it that explains the widespread fascination with examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong.
We are certainly intrigued by the picture of the charmed who have fallen from grace; the rich who apparently are unable to find or maybe even afford a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their deal with the Lucifer's scalpel. As though there is some subliminal retribution for the years of our admiration and sense of inferiority. The tables are suddenly turned and the beautiful now have become mere frogs. Princes and princesses into frogs, the fairy tale in reverse. So seems to be the comeuppance for celebrities and a faint sense of redemption and vindication for many of us who have viewed them from afar.
Or, you might want to think of it another way, slightly more stylized: those who have lived by the charms of beauty shall die by the charms of beauty. You understand we're speaking metaphorically, here! Surely though at some level, even if only unconscious, there is some kind of poetic justice being relished.
Consider though an even bleaker possibility: something more sinister yet may lie at the heart of it all. This prospect came to my attention recently in recalling that popular FX television show, Nip/Tuck. If you don't know it, you should. It was the story of a pair of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, famous and beautiful. A fascinating fact though is that the pilot episode was not actually focused on the rich, famous or beautiful. Rather its story revolved around a mercy surgery to relieve a man with a horribly disfigured face.
The episode though took a surprising turn at the end. Only once the surgery was completed did the protagonist surgeons discover that their patient was a pedophile. Without any realization of the consequences of their actions, they eliminated the one natural obstacle that had previously hindered his capacity to draw children into his influence. It was indeed a dark and striking choice for the pilot show of a series that would focus so much on the beauty-pursuit of the rich, famous and handsome.
And so I find myself wondering if that story actually captures a deeper truth. Or, at least, a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: might we suspect, even if only secretly, that it hides something true? Something dark and sinister? Perhaps the popular fixation on celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something real has been revealed. Has a disguised ugliness been duly disclosed? Might we believe on a deeper level that the princess or prince was always, in some way, really a frog and only now we finally see the truth?
Am I making too much out of this? Possibly, but I think it's something worth reflecting upon. That the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong says something about the very concept of celebrity and about us.
As a general rule, though the chemically based material called plastic is used, plastic isn`t really so much the ideal ingredient. Skin grafts from other parts of the body generally provide a better effect. So its not inaccurate to call it plastic surgery in this sense, it is a little misleading.
And, as to plastic in the aesthetic or ethical sense, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. But there is something about the association of such surgery to the celebrities trying to hang onto their glamour and appeal that leads so many of us to thoughtlessly let the description roll glibly off the tongue. Perhaps it is something like this subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use it that explains the widespread fascination with examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong.
We are certainly intrigued by the picture of the charmed who have fallen from grace; the rich who apparently are unable to find or maybe even afford a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their deal with the Lucifer's scalpel. As though there is some subliminal retribution for the years of our admiration and sense of inferiority. The tables are suddenly turned and the beautiful now have become mere frogs. Princes and princesses into frogs, the fairy tale in reverse. So seems to be the comeuppance for celebrities and a faint sense of redemption and vindication for many of us who have viewed them from afar.
Or, you might want to think of it another way, slightly more stylized: those who have lived by the charms of beauty shall die by the charms of beauty. You understand we're speaking metaphorically, here! Surely though at some level, even if only unconscious, there is some kind of poetic justice being relished.
Consider though an even bleaker possibility: something more sinister yet may lie at the heart of it all. This prospect came to my attention recently in recalling that popular FX television show, Nip/Tuck. If you don't know it, you should. It was the story of a pair of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, famous and beautiful. A fascinating fact though is that the pilot episode was not actually focused on the rich, famous or beautiful. Rather its story revolved around a mercy surgery to relieve a man with a horribly disfigured face.
The episode though took a surprising turn at the end. Only once the surgery was completed did the protagonist surgeons discover that their patient was a pedophile. Without any realization of the consequences of their actions, they eliminated the one natural obstacle that had previously hindered his capacity to draw children into his influence. It was indeed a dark and striking choice for the pilot show of a series that would focus so much on the beauty-pursuit of the rich, famous and handsome.
And so I find myself wondering if that story actually captures a deeper truth. Or, at least, a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: might we suspect, even if only secretly, that it hides something true? Something dark and sinister? Perhaps the popular fixation on celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something real has been revealed. Has a disguised ugliness been duly disclosed? Might we believe on a deeper level that the princess or prince was always, in some way, really a frog and only now we finally see the truth?
Am I making too much out of this? Possibly, but I think it's something worth reflecting upon. That the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong says something about the very concept of celebrity and about us.
About the Author:
The Celebrity Plastic Surgery Gone Wrong promo YouTube video is stirring up all kinds of controversy.
