Nuclear Power

We are now, more than ever, confronted with a new trend: nuclear power support. Is nuclear power a safe source of energy? When we have evidence of how harmful and hazardous this energy generation type may be, the government appears to promote it.

The UK government defends their support by stating, "in light of high global gas prices, we need to ensure Britain’s future energy supply is bolstered by reliable, affordable, low carbon power that is generated in this country." 

Nuclear power is a critical component of the government's objectives to achieve greater energy independence, as well as to bring higher employment and spur economic growth.

Greenpeace, on the other hand, claims that nuclear power is too expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming to construct. Although it is frequently referred to as "clean" energy since it does not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases when power is created, it is not a viable alternative to renewable energy sources.

Nuclear power is also hazardous, and we are still dealing with the consequences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, which discharged massive volumes of radioactive material. Even in the absence of such mishaps, nuclear power generates radioactive waste at every phase of production, including uranium mining and spent reactor fuel reprocessing. Some of this waste will be extremely radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, but no one knows how to securely store it so that future generations are not adversely affected.

While the UK government claims that nuclear energy is also less expensive to generate, Andrew Stirling and Phil Johnstone of Open Democracy argue that nuclear energy currently costs about three times as much as wind or solar electricity at current rates. And that's before you include the whole cost of waste management, sophisticated security, anti-proliferation measures, or occasional mishaps. Nuclear power has been distraught by rising prices, longer development periods, and dwindling orders for more than a decade. In recent years, all trends have been signed in the wrong direction.

When planning and studying for this make-up look, I came across two make-up artists who, despite having quite distinct styles and works, employ comparable techniques to draw attention to the spectator and to criticise society trends when appropriate. Christina Lutz's art is concerned with the transformational power of cosmetics. Her love processes, whether it's very creative or just beauty boosting. Colours, pigments, and materials all interact in her work in a continuous way. Christina Lutz was picked as an inspiration for this work because of her use of vivid colours and textures. Ellis Faas' characteristic style is a flowing, non-precision approach. She says that instead of focusing on the smallest details, she will create a large streak of colour and movement. She goes on to state that she prefers to do quick makeup because she believes that if you spend too much time on it, the appearance will become flat. "Makeup lives. It’s alive. It moves and has energy. I love it to be instant".

Ellis believes that everyone should let go of their restraint and try new things, at least if they want to. Most individuals are terrified of restrictions imposed by famous or not-so-famous individuals who wish to impose make-up dos and don'ts. She suggests tossing everything in the trash and simply trying.  " If you don’t like the result, just take it off because, for crying out loud, it’s only make-up." ​​​​​​​

For this look, it was tried to be recreated an ash look, inspired by the explosions provoked by nuclear power, as well as the side effects this energy source can have on the environment. The reds and yellows symbolize the explosion and the fire created by it, and the black refers to the ash and the burned left after it. It was chosen a macro look to demonstrate the powerful impact the destruction created by nuclear energy can be on the world.

Photography: Luna

Make-up: Luna

Model: Felícia Abreu