Why are all the cool girls making That Face?

You've heard of the millennial pies.You've heard of the Gen Z stare.But have you heard of the Gen Z pout?Next thing you know, we'll get the Gen Alpha lip bite and the Gen Beta wince.Stupid naming conventions aside, the Gen Z pout is what a lot of news media has been complaining about recently.It describes a facial expression commonly worn by Gen Z in selfies, TikToks and on red carpets.

Most often displayed by young stars, the facial expression involves the lower lip tucking inward and pushing the upper lip into a slight pout or frown, like so.

Now pout for me, John!Pout!

From a purely visual standpoint, the expression feels in line with how beauty trends have developed in the 2020s, specifically lip trends.In contrast, the plump, filler -enhanced lips that dominated the past decade and which could be achieved temporarily by the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge.Proud to say I never participated in that.

Wait, how long does it last?

The 2020s have called for more subtlety.Nowadays, trendy facial procedures are designed to look less obvious.The goal everyone in Hollywood seems to be gunning for is to look younger, not necessarily to look different.Whether that agenda is successful is up to interpretation.

There's a lot of people just starting to look a bit weird.

Dr. Bob Basu, a Texas -based plastic surgeon, says that Gen Z is more concerned with refinement than volume when it comes to lips.He told Yahoo, It's very different from what we saw years ago, where the trend was larger volume, more forward projection, more overfilled.This slightly defined lip can be achieved through a non -surgical procedure called the lip flip, which uses neuromodulators like Botox to relax the muscles on the upper lip and give the appearance of fullness.This procedure is designed to look more natural than lip filler, which is injected directly into the lips to plump them up.However, instead of getting a lip flip, which can still cost hundreds of dollars and require routine maintenance,many zoomers may just be mimicking one in photos.

Back in 2024, TikTok creator Shannon Zhao credited lip flips as one of the main drivers of the Gen Z pout, saying in a video, I feel like a lot of people in my generation either have lip flips or they try to do that face in photos.Writer Sable Young similarly thinks that the Gen Z pout is intended to draw eyes to one's lips, or more specifically, one's fashionable lip liner.The pout may be less of an attempt to replicate a lip flip and more of a way to just signal membership to a younger, trendier generation.She writes that when she sees the Gen Z pout, all she thinks is, look at my perfect lip liner combo.It took me so long to perfect this lip liner technique, so please admire all the contours and dimensions of my lips.This did not take a long time, by the way, and I feel like you can probably tell, so don't look too closely at what's going on here.

Despite what older generations say, a signature facial expression isn't exclusive to Gen Z, though.Every generation develops its own photo face informed by the beauty trends and technology of that period.For example, the selfie developed as a result of web and smartphone cameras, which enable the photo subject to see themselves as a photo is being taken.The term first entered the English lexicon via an Australian online forum in 2002, when personal computers were becoming more ubiquitous.So yes, technology informs the way we take photos.For example, Keri Justich dubs the classic 2000s selfie pose the MySpace Angle.

It was often shot dramatically overhead, showing more of the body, slimming the face.As smartphone cameras improved in the 2010s, the selfie pose shifted towards HD perfection.The camera was now held much closer to the face, showing off heavy contour, defined brows, and duck lips, all designed to stand out under an influencer ring light.Today smartphones have only become more omnipresent and smartphone cameras have only gotten better at capturing sharp images So I guess the question why everyone's confused why we're what we're allis, why then are Gen Z opting for less perfection and more nonchalance in their photos?The girl who wears Buongiorno Giocol del Destino wakes up buzzing with energy, ready for whatever surprises the day has in store.

A girl who wears Biongiorno Dolce Farniente celebrates the sweet pleasure of doing absolutely nothing when time slows beneath the branches of a lemon tree.A girl who wears Biongiorno Buonanotte lingers with the calm of watching the first light of day rise.A lot of older generations ask us, why can't you guys smile?But I feel like a lot of them don't know that smiling wasn't always the universal photo pose.Smiling in photos didn't actually become the norm until the early 20th century.Before then, for pretty much everyone, hundreds of years, the common expression in oil paintings and then in early photographs was a neutral expression.

face, mouth closed, staring deadpan at the camera.The common reason for this that people have come up with is that early cameras had long exposure times.Imagine holding your face frozen like this for hours.I don't know, a while.While this reason may be partially true, in actuality, by the 1850s and 1860s, it became possible, in the right conditions, to capture a photo within only a few seconds of exposure time.And yet, people continued to deadpan in photos for 70 -ish years later.

So that can't be the whole story.Another common myth is that people began smiling in photos as dentistry developed, but did you know braces didn't become widely adopted until the late 1970s?A national study found that between 1966 and 1970, only 10 .7 % of American children between the ages of 12 to 17 had used braces.These figures are just too low to solely credit orthodontics for the influx of smiling photos in the 1920s and 30s.So what's up?Well, The reasons why people didn't smile, the same reasons we've started pouting, might actually be cultural.

People didn't smile in older photos because etiquette codes and beauty standards in the 19th century called for a carefully controlled small mouth.Professor Kristina Koshimadova writes that in fine arts, smiles were only depicted on peasants, drunkards, children, and halfwits, suggesting low class or I don't know, some other deficiency.Thus to appear more refined, those sitting for photos solemnly hid their teeth.In 1841, the first photo studio in London told portrait sitters to say prunes so they would display a smaller mouth.Ironically, prune is also the word the Olsen twins famously say to get their signature red carpet face today.And in reality, people start smiling more in photos because of a shift in the cultural perception of photography.

Due in part to Kodak's advertising efforts, photography went from being this occasional serious practice to something fun and accessible.In the first half of the 20th century,century, the Eastman Kodak Company had a near monopoly over the American photography market.They developed many industry products for filmmaking and developing, but they also created a mass market by selling photography to the public.Between 1910 and 1950, the company's figure, the Kodak Girl, was the brand's most prominent sales icon.She was Flo before Progressive, the Kool -Aid Man before Kool -Aid, She was a stylishly dressed girl who captured photos on a portable camera wherever she went.

Vacations, family outings, picnics, you name it.And importantly, the Kodak girl was always featured with a striking smile, delighting in taking photos any chance she could.And it makes sense why she was always smiling because, you know, advertising likes to evoke pleasure.No one wants to buy a product where the sales girl looks unhappy to be using it.But the thing was, pleasure was also baked into the product too.Cameras were advertised as a tool to capture pleasurable experiences.

Kodak emphasized that their camera was light enough for customers to take with them anywhere.The company especially liked to emphasize travel and leisure with taglines like, all outdoors invites your Kodak.Don't let another weekend slip by without a Kodak.Vacation days are Kodak days.And save your happy moments with a Kodak.I mean, in their guidebooks, photography kept getting described in the same vein as like shopping or playing.

Previously, a photographer was called an operator and he worked in an operation room.But that sounds like surgical and scary.So his operation room became known colloquially as his photography studio.Kodak was so intent on this pleasurable marketing direction that they only briefly consider promoting post -mortem photography, which was, you know, a very valid reason to use photography, but then they abandoned the idea under the motto that Kodak knows no dark days.As I say all this, I do think it's worth mentioning that there were some photos that did feature smiles.before the 20th century.

It's not like there were no smiling photos, it just wasn't mainstream.For example, in 1904, photographer and anthropologist Berthold Loeffer captured images of smiling faces on an expedition to China.Notably, this famous photo of a Chinese man smiling with a bowl of rice.Loeffer sought to record life as he found it instead of posing it, which is probably why this photo turned out the way it did.I mean, I don't know how anyone could look at food and not grin with excitement, but maybe that's just me.Honestly, it's starting to feel like it's just me these days.

Since neutral expressions were standard in the 19th century, smiling in photographs became a way of breaking the norm in the 1900s.In the early 20th century, smiles and photographs were thus seen as less posed and more reflective of reality.Loeffer was actually doing something pretty artistic and interesting with his photo project.But as we know, trends are cyclical.When something countercultural becomes popular, it loses its prestige.The pendulum swings the other way and the process cycles again and again, with different poses gaining and losing meaning depending on the cultural context.

Only a few decades later, the smile would gain a highly cheesy commercial connotation thanks to its omnipresence in advertising, making more subdued expressions aspirational again.

What do you think?Is it cool or what?

One argument I've come across is the idea that, given our current cultural context, not smiling in photos is feminist, because by doing so, a woman is not performing the kindness expected from her.She's able to just be neutral, to exist.I'm holding space for that theory, because who among us hasn't heard that annoying comment from some man?You should smile more!It's exhausting.A polite smile is sometimes even called the Pan Am smile, a name taken from the way that 20th century flight attendants, who were mostly women, had to constantly flash smiles at guests regardless of how they were feeling, a phenomenon we now call a

labor.In this way, reserving your smile can be a way of retaining your power.One study also found that smiles are perceived as embarrassed expressions as well as less dominant.Research also shows that football players who don't smile are perceived as being more masculine and of higher status.Thus, some women may subconsciously reject smiling as a way to better align with masculinity and thus social power.Fellas, is it gay to smile?

Is it gay to be having fun?I think this definitely can be a reason why an individual person might choose to not smile, like in their day -to -day life, but I feel like it's probably not the reason why pouting has hit mainstream photography.My theory is that it's actually because we're in a culture that is so image conscious.The natural desire to be perceived as cool, this translates to our online presence through these curated photos we post on Instagram and TikTok.And what's as cool better than the fashion model?If you're wondering why fashion models tend to perform detachment, look no further than the mannequin.

No, not that plastic thing.A human mannequin, who was essentially a fashion model, but in the late 1800s, fashion models were ubiquitously called mannequins.The word model was reserved for art models, such as those posing for nudes and dresses within the dressmaking trade.While describing a woman as a mannequin today sounds, you know, horribly derogatory because it conjures images of inanimate objects, describing a woman as a mannequin in the late 1800s was, um, Wait, also derogatory!Yeah, before being adopted by the fashion industry, the term mannequin already had some bad connotations attached to it.In Caroline Evans' book, The Mechanical Smile, she writes that in the late 18th century, mannequin had been used to describe an empty -headed, fashionable man of straw.

In the late 19th century, it had shifted in slang to mean an insignificant or contemptible person.Within couture houses, its connotations would shift even darkersuggesting the theme of femininity as a mechanical performance.Early fashion mannequins wore a neutral expression to obscure real emotions, and they moved their bodies in a controlled manner so as to not pull focus from the clothing.But as Evans writes, blank expressions also obscured the model's history and humanity, allowing onlookers to project their own ideas onto her.For example, the first mannequin parade, an early kind of fashion show, was staged in 1900 by renowned British fashion designer Lucille.

According to Evans, the mannequins in Lucille's show struck dramatic poses, but never smiled or spoke.She writes that the mannequin's working class identity was concealed as she posed, rendering her merely a beautiful body in the face of middle and upper class onlookers.Evidently, fashion mannequins also made people a bit uncomfortable.They were perceived as not quite living, breathing individuals and not quite inanimate, but somewhere in between.People would describe a mannequin's facial expressions and movements as unnatural and uncanny.For example, in the late 1800s, Emile Pingott's Parisian couture house was described as follows, women promenading in their dresses, women who, because of this work as coat hangers, have lost a degree of life and gained a certain automatism.

Yeah, the fact that these models were expected to be robotic didn't help these connotations.You know, they were expected to work in perfect synchronicity with one another and the photographer to create composite photographs.This was part of the job.Evans relates their work to other types of laborers whose tasks were made to be mechanical, repetitive, and boring during the Industrial Revolution.Relatedly, mannequins were also expected to maintain a certain standard size, with many employers regulating their diets to ensure they stayed slender.This effort to standardize mannequins' bodies and expressions only served to further cement their characterization as dolls, robots, or powerless cogs in the hands

And they are still standards we see fashion models forced to meet today, lest we forget the whole Victoria's Secret dieting controversy in which models brought attention to all these crazy regimens they were encouraged to follow.For example, Adriana Lima said that she would work out twice a day with a personal trainer, drink only protein shakes for nine days before the big VS show, and go so far as to deprive herself from consuming anything, even water, for 12 hours ahead of the event.While it's been a while since we've had such like a publicized account of model restrictions hitting the mainstream, the fact that model sizes are shrinking, thanks to the return of like the heroin chic body trend, raises concerns about what models might be doing behind closed doors to keep up today.Fashion commentator Hassan Bestavik even noted how unnaturally skinny the models were looking at Prada menswear early this year.Bringing it back to facial expressions, Caroline Evans points out that the composed demeanor that fashion mannequins were known for wasn't necessarily natural to them.I mean, is it natural for anyone?

Before the parades, the mannequins would hang out and they would gossip and she describes couture houses being rife with chatter, not too different from an aviary full of chirping birds.But when it came time to model, the mannequins became calm and controlled and the salon fell silent.As such, Evans argues that fashion models participate in their own objectification, making themselves appear more like abstractions than real women.Part of that participation comes down to the fact that a model must adopt a third person's perspective, anticipating how others will perceive her.As a result, Evans writes that fashion modeling dislocates and alienates women from their natural femininity by requiring them to perform versions of it for money rather than leisure.In turn, the model detaches from herself.

The classic fashion model facial expression is ultimately a performance of apathy.Unapproachability is at the heart of the model's appeal and is often carried over to the mannequin's performances off the runways.Evan writes that models were known for acting above those around them, often operating with cold nonchalance.Models Hebe and Dolores, who trained under Lucille, were even known to refuse job offers to maintain this image of indifference.So why am I even talking about this, right?Other than because it's interesting, of course.

Well, I think that the way some people are posing in photos are deliberate attempts to mimic models because You know, models are like the poster children of all things glamorous, chic, and expensive.Elise van der Laan writes, not smiling helps high fashion models distinguish themselves aesthetically and stylistically from all the smiling people we see depicted in, for example, the IKEA catalog, family snapshots, or mainstream magazines.In short, fashion models don't smile because they are fashion models.Claudia LeDrew, president of LeDrew Models, also shares that stoicism reflects an air of wealth and status.A non -smiling expression is also associated with a metropolitan identity, which is linked to tastefulness and style.Like when you picture the typical New Yorker or Londoner shuffling by on the street or in the subway station, they often have their head down, mentally distancing themselves from the other people around them, and rarely smiling.

I think our generational obsession with emulating coolness and status.You know, these of course are things that every generation looks to emulate, but it's more pervasive among young people online because we're just doing less offline.And so our desire for coolness thus is fully channeled through the medium of social media, leading to more curation and more pouting.We're also all inundated with advertisements online.And so the sort of a glazed over look that we project signals to other people, other creators,that we're aware of the cheesy sponsorship environment that we all live in and we're actively subverting against it in our own personal photos.

However, You know, this over curation can also lead to feelings of detachment and depersonalization.And it also can be a bit futile because as we know, the fashion model, regardless of their expression, is essentially still a walking billboard for the clothes that they wear.

Stop pouting.I was only teasing.How did you know I was pouting?

At the same time, performing a pout might also be a coping mechanism in the current world.As I've said, being in service usually comes with having to perform aesthetic labor.It's not enough to merely complete your job's task.You must also regulate your face, your body, and fashion to adequately fit the part.In her book, The Managed Heart Commercialization of Human Feeling, Arlie Russell Hoth's child stresses that maintaining a smile is incredibly taxing and self -denying work.Service workers suffer the plight of being always on, one, not only maintaining competency to perform their job functions, but acting and appearing calm and pleasant in the process.

Well, of course, not all of Gen Z work a service job.The generation as a whole, I'd argue, experiences a similar burden of being always on due to their smartphone being constantly on them.I would say that even before we got these insane algorithms on social media that encourage us to be online all the time, the loss of personhood stems from the sole act of being able to take selfies on a smartphone to begin with.This is because unlike formal portraits, selfies are taken quickly, casually, and spontaneously with the intention of being shared instantly.Photographs previously served as records of the past, but they now also function as communication devices that construct and broadcast our identities in the present.Selfies also turn us into our best fans and worst enemies.

Obviously, when we take a good photo of ourselves, it boosts our confidence, but if we take a bad photo, our egos get to take a hit.and due to the omnipresence of a camera, we've all adopted this perpetual third perspective, like the model, like the mannequin, constantly aware of how we'll be perceived by an outside viewpoint.I talk more about this panoptic feeling in my Stop Filming Strangers video, by the way, if you're interested.Personally, I just started to feel kind of detached from photos of myself entirely, just because I'm so used to seeing photos of myself all the time and video.I have like over 100 videos on this channel.The novelty has worn off.

But there are also deeper consequences to being exposed to our own image so constantly than just feeling blasé about the whole thing.According to media theorist Marshall McLuhan, the act of viewing our own image generates a feeling of numbness that I'm referring to, but also self amplification.reality.Critic Brooke Wendt writes that many young people capture and send selfies as if on autopilot.This was especially the case in the 2010s when high schoolers would fire off consecutive blank face selfies for the sole purpose of maintaining Snapchat streaks, which I was definitely guilty of.And then we saw that again with like the whole like be real thing where they just encourage you to take a photo of whatever you're doing for the moment, regardless of what it is that you're doing.

Wendt compares this phenomenon to what McLuhan calls the narcissist's role of subliminal awareness in his 1964 essay, The Gadget Lover.In the essay, McLuhan argues that Narcissus didn't fall in love with his own image per se, but became numb to it, resulting in him viewing his reflection with a sense of misrecognition.In the end, Narcissus could not recognize his image as belonging to him, but rather thought it was another reflection.Wendt highlights that Instagram offers ample opportunities to become mesmerized and numb to one's own image.We can even identify this numbness in the sort of like empty or dazed expressions commonly worn by people taking selfies.In the allure of the selfie, Brent compares two mirror selfies, a self -portrait captured between 1900 and 1910, and an iPhone selfie taken in May 2013.

In the self -portrait from the early 1900s, the woman taking the photo stares straight into the mirror rather than the camera.Her posture is stiff and her smile is uncertain and a bit strained, perhaps alluding to her discomfort and curiosity about the camera, a novel device.She's unaware of how the image will turn out until the negative is actually developed, which might bring some, you know, extra apprehension as she releases the shutter.On the other hand, in the iPhone mirror selfie, the subject is seen staring blankly at her smartphone, which overlaps with her face.Of the image, Brent writes, her expression is relaxed but also dulled.She knows how her picture will turn out and shows no sign of surprise.

It's as if she is in a narcissist -like state.Whereas the 1900s portrait appears to be taken out of curiosity, the 2013 selfie feels more self -indulgent and, at the very least, bored.We're just too aware of our appearances and we can't help but contort our bodies and faces to get the shot that we want.This self -conscious way of taking selfies is totally normal, by the way.I'm not trying to dunk on this lady from 2013.I did it all the time.

It's just not something most of us can help because we're literally seeing ourselves while the photo is being taken.At the same time, however, since we've all used smartphones for a while now, it's become cringe to us as viewers to see someone taking a selfie like this now because we're aware of our own self -absorption when we do it, and thus that makes us aware of other people's subconscious self -absorption.Enter the Point 5 selfie.Unlike the front camera selfie, a Point 5 is takenusing the back camera, meaning you can't see the picture until after it's taken, similar to a digital photo or Polaroid.The wide .5 angle also distorts the image slightly, warping the photo in a way that's out of your control and adding a degree of playfulness.

Rather than staring directly at the screen, the subjects of .5 selfies often look directly at the camera or away from it altogether.engaged in another activity that the camera just happens to be capturing.The .5 selfie falls in love with the larger Gen Z movement to make Instagram casual again.Compared to the self -conscious mirror or front -facing selfie, the .5 photo feels less curated and more like an authentic, lively snapshot of a moment.In an interview with the New York Times, 21 -year -old Sol Park shares that when she takes a .5 picture, she doesn't usually look at it until later, emphasizing that the photo is, quote, more about capturing the moment versus seeing what everything looks like.22 -year -old Hannah points out the tongue -in -cheek quality of the .5, highlighting that the photo breaks a fourth wall, acknowledging that you're taking a photo for the sake of it.

The popularity of the .5 photo among Gen Z showcases a desire to subvert presentation norms on social media.The generation has an aversion to photos that are clearly staged and a tendency to favor those that appear candid and low effort.This also speaks to the draw of the Gen Z pout.Smiles feel inherently more effortful in pose than frowns, so the pout can feel more natural.I mean, personally, for the last few years, I've sort of just like blankly stared at the camera when I'm getting my photo taken.Of course, part of that is because I worked in fashion and I'm susceptible to the industry's codes of glamour, like I mentioned before, but also because a blank stare just feels more correct and like less fake in the actual moment of picture taking.

The novelty of picture taking has off because we do it all the time so I personally don't think of it as like a special occasion like people did maybe in the 20th century when they bought their first Kodak cameras most of the time when I'm genuinely happy I'm actually notthinking of taking a picture at all.The pout may also be kind of a subconscious statement about the state of sociopolitics in the United States and abroad.This display of apathy may be less of an outright performance and more of a reflection of actual lethargy in the face of political turmoil.The Gen Z digital footprint is, you know, rife with sarcasm and nihilistic memes, often in response to current events.The pout may simply be an extension of that expression.

But as Kyle Raymond Fitzpatrick writes in his newsletter, The Trend Report, indifferent feelings and inactions will do nothing to change the bleak state of the world.He writes, in will they won't they times staring blankly at the world as it happens to you isn't working as life is already too close to the knives.You can't just lie there edging yourself through life.Caring says a lot about you and to not care marks you as just that, a mark, someone or worse, something to be exploited.But I don't think it's just a way to broadcast you're upset with the world.It can also be a way to protect yourself from the world.

In a world that demands a public online presence to achieve anything from a career to a healthy social life to like a date, a pout prevents strangers from gaining too much access.Malvika Sheth, a 22 -year -old content creator, told Allure that she avoids smiling in her Instagram photos to set boundaries.She explains that a smile feels like an open book and she doesn't necessarily want followers to have complete access to her.Schatz shares that her neutral expression is a way of saying, welcome to a portion of my world rather than my entire world.Professor Catherine Perkins likewise suggests that our smiling selves reflect our fullest selves, the selves we show our friends and family when we're free from the pressures of appearing cool and polite in public.Ironically, social media used to be those connective platforms where we could show our true selves to our community, hence maybe the smiling selfies, but now it feels more like a LinkedIn.

As Perkins writes, in a world where our lives are increasingly public, there's nothing left to hide.except for our true selves.Honestly, despite talking at length about this, I think most of the ideas that I presented operate on a subconscious level, and it's not something that Zoomers are actively thinking about when they pose for a photo.It's not like a political movement.It's not like we're pouting to say something about the world.Also, it's a trend that a number of people are participating in, but not every single person.

And just as duck lips were a kind of ironic photo trend that came and went for certain people, the Gen Z pout is simply the next evolution of human social behavior digital age.That is just at this point, it's my resting face.In the words of Kamala Harris, But I understand the curiosity, right?We love to make inferences when we look at photographs throughout history.When we look back on smile -less expressions in photos from the 19th century, we might assume that people from that period were unhappy, humorless, or making some kind of statement dentistry or whatever.In reality, people were simply adhering to the photographic conventions of that time.

Yeah, we can talk about how those photographic conventions were shaped, but the bottom line is, the people weren't actually as miserable as they appeared.Abraham Lincoln and Queen Victoria are on record as being actually pretty funny.Therefore, we're always performing to some degree when we take a photo of ourselves, even when we try to make the photo appear natural or candid.As long as we acknowledge that photographs are performance, I honestly don't see a problem with playing with the form.Also, I talked about so many reasons for why someone might pout in a photo, but that doesn't mean that everyone doing it is just doing it for all thereasons I said.

Just FYI, if you ever see me pouting, it's because I probably think it just looks cool.Someone else might be pouting to hide themselves from the world, or because they're feeling like shit.Maybe they're pouting because they actually just want to pout.Dr. Perkins agrees with this sentiment.Sharing that's not smiling in photos is fine, so long as women aren't missing out on real joy in life.Women is also the key word here that I found was interesting because even though young men aren't necessarily smiling either, I feel like women get the brunt of this discourse because, again, women are expected to perform kindness to an unfair and unrealistic degree.

It's more concerning and scary to society if a woman is not smiling versus a man.So the question is, should you start smiling?Well, it's worth mentioning that some studies have found a positive relationship between smiling and health.A 1998 study found that positive facial expressions were associated with positive moods and vice versa.And a 2012 study found that smiling can lead to less of a decrease in positive affect during a stressful task and lower heart rates during stress recovery.I can actually attest to all this because I, you know, worked at Disney World.

This is like some lore that some people know about me, um, when I was in college and, um, I was forced to smile every day at work.Just all day long.I was like, have a magical day.How may I help you?Oh my god, we lost your stroller.Yeah, I was forced to smile essentially.

And the weird thing was that I was actually happy at work most of the time.Because even though I was dealing with like, you know, customer service work and like, the heat the florida heat um i feel like because we were all just sort of like trying to put on our best face it did kind of force me to be more positive you know i don't know if that's like necessarily healthy but um it did work scarily enough however as i say this a 2016 study also found that fake or forced smiles can elicit stressspeaking to the strain of aesthetic labor when performed on a surface level.In that way, a fake smile may be worse than no smile.Clearly a fake smile was fine for me, but maybe not for everyone.So the bottom line is, if you're not feeling it, there's probably no harm in keeping your smile flipped upside down.

This is the end of the video.Let me know what kind of expression you like to make in your photos and if you can figure out why you do it.That would be fun to hear as well.Let me know if you think this topic was just too deep or you thought it was interesting.I personally think all the history stuff is so interesting.If this video didn't serve you, it definitely served me.

Thanks so much for tuning in everyone.I hope you have a lovely rest of your day and I'll see you next time.Bye.