House Bill No. 4574 has recently been reintroduced into the Committee of Regulatory Affairs for consideration. The “Makeup School” ASTUTE ARTISTRY is petitioning for it. The Professional Makeup Artist community became aware of the bill because the school is currently seeking signatures to gain support. The bill is being promoted as a means to separate the definition of "Cosmetologist" and "Makeup Artist" from the current legislation, and to offer Artists the "Opportunity" to become “Legally Certified".
Many within the Professional Makeup Artist community agree that formal changes to the current legislation could be a positive thing. If proper consideration is given to the diversity of the Makeup Artist Community, and any unique training requirements needed (in the various mediums it's applied), it could help legitimize the trade and offer more opportunity.
However, Bill No. 4574 was petitioned by a “Makeup School” and not by the artist community (nor were members of the community consulted prior to this being proposed). The wording in Bill No.4574 leaves significant room for “Makeup Schools” to potentially impose unfair restrictions on new and existing Artists in Michigan should further amendments ever made making certification mandatory. Largely these restrictions could end up benefiting the schools more than the students or artist community itself.
The definition of "instructor" is worded so as to not apply to “Makeup Schools” (only Cosmetology Schools). This allows for “Makeup Schools” to operate without any accountability to the state for the qualifications of their educator's experience within the production field. Proper consideration needs to be made to any licensing an educator should be required to apply for, and the credentials they must provide to the state. More clarification also needs to be made as to what these educational requirements would be, and the specific course content. There is also no specification as to what the course hour requirements would be.
It is of great concern to the pre-established Makeup Artist Community that no "grandfather" clauses were included as part of this bill to make them eligible for “certification” through a means of “testing in” or proving credentials. This effectively leaves open the possibility (if later amendments were made) for "Makeup Schools" to force certification onto artists If they wish to be considered “Legal”. Many of these artists already possess the necessary experience and skill set to work in the field, which makes this possibility unfair. Without clauses determining what qualifications could be provided to bypass the course requirements by a means of "testing in", this leaves significant room for "Makeup Schools" to take advantage of the pre-established Makeup Artist Community. Any amendments making "certification" mandatory or offering benefit to its “legality” need to include clauses that do not exclude the pre-established artist community, or force them into courses they do not need.
The definition of "Makeup Artistry" as listed in the bill also causes concern to those in the Makeup Artistry Community, because it largely identifies Makeup as being a "Production" related trade. The definition as listed is:
"MAKEUP ARTISTRY" MEANS THE APPLICATION OF COSMETICS OR 6 MAKEUP DESIGNED FOR FILM PRODUCTION, TELEVISION BROADCAST, STAGE 7 PRODUCTION, FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY, OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT-RELATED 8 INDUSTRIES."
This leaves room for the state to start imposing restrictions on production work locations (Video and Photo Production Studios) if certification were ever to be amended as mandatory. It is also of concern to the Artist Community that the "Makeup School" petitioning for this bill does not currently have restrictions placed upon them as to the experience of their instructors in the production related fields. If no requirements are placed upon the schools to obtain instructor licensing (with instructors proving years of production related experience as qualification), then it leaves room for this school to largely give instruction in areas to which their instructors are not qualified. This floods the market with students who are not experienced to work in any of the production industry mediums. This definition also does not seek to separate out the Production related Makeup Artistry Industry from the Consumer related Makeup Artist Industry, which is also cause for concern.
It is strongly believed by the majority of the artist community that this bill was created as a means to primarily obtain federal loan funding, to help serve this "Makeup School's" own agenda. Little regard was given to the effects this would place on the pre-existing artist community. It is strongly believed that "Makeup Schools" should be held accountable for the level of education they are offering, before having the ability to give certification or obtain access to student loan funding. Heavy debate also needs to be made as to how to define each of the makeup artistry trades, it's corresponding course/hour requirements, and the experience and qualifications required by instructors to teach each of these various courses. Alternative means of certification need to also be readily made available, whether it is through apprenticeship or private instruction given by state licensed instructors.
Without proper measures taken to ensure any changes made to the current educational requirements don't leave room for exploitation, this bill should be blocked until amendments can be made.
Please sign and protect the Michigan Artist Community!
The current bill as it is being proposed:
House Representative John Walsh
N-698 House Office Building P.O. Box 30014 Lansing, MI 48909
House Representative: Hugh Crawford
887 House Office Building P.O. Box 30014 Lansing, MI 48909
- REP. CRAWFORD AND REP. WALSH
I just signed the following petition addressed to: ASTUTE ARTISTRY.
WITHDRAW OR AMEND HOUSE BILL No. 4574!!!
Why This Is Important
House Bill No. 4574 has recently been reintroduced to the Michigan Senate, and the "Makeup School" ASTUTE ARTISTRY is currently seeking signatures to gain support. This bill is being promoted as a means to separate the definition of "Cosmetologist" and "Makeup Artist" from the current legislation and to offer Artists the "Opportunity" to become formally "Certified".
There is no doubt that initiating formal changes to the current legislation could be a positive thing to help legalize Makeup Artistry as a "Legal" trade, and offer more opportunity and protection to existing and aspiring artists. HOWEVER, the way the current bill is proposed seeks to force restrictions on new and existing Artists in Michigan that largely only benefit the school proposing the changes, and exclude opportunities for artists to pursue education or certification through other more financially reasonable means. This effectively would create a monopoly between the existing institutions, and put money into the pockets of institutions asking to not be held accountable for the education they are offering, qualifications for educators in the courses they are seeking to teach, providing other options of obtaining certification, or the pricing they seek to force on those hoping to obtain certification.
What this bill is being PROMOTED as a means to:
"Stimulate economic growth in Michigan", "Open up the door to more opportunity for Michigan Makeup Artists", and to give aspiring artists the "support" they need to "help open up doors for them".
What the bill really seeks to do:
1) Define Makeup Artistry as:
""MAKEUP ARTISTRY" MEANS THE APPLICATION OF COSMETICS OR 6 MAKEUP DESIGNED FOR FILM PRODUCTION, TELEVISION BROADCAST, STAGE 7 PRODUCTION, FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY, OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT-RELATED 8 INDUSTRIES."
This is a huge conflict of interest as the institution seeking this bill to be passed is employing educators who have no formal experience in the above mentioned mediums of Makeup Artistry. This would effectively place education of these trades into the hands of people with no qualifications in these industries, and open up the door for many students to be mislead into thinking they are receiving a proper education and job placement to work in these industries. The institution seeking this and the current educators working there have experience SOLELY in the "Cosmetic Retail", "Esthetician", and "Special Event" areas of Makeup Artistry. These areas are completely different industries, linked solely on the premise of BASIC practical "makeup application" alone, and do not have any correlation to the specialized training requirements needed to work in the Production Makeup Artistry trades.
2) This institution also seeks to enforce certification onto pre-established artists currently working in these trades in order to receive the benefits of working "legally" in the State of Michigan. There are no "grandfathering in" clauses written in that would enable artists who already have YEARS of experience to "test in", prove their qualifications, and bypass being forced to spend THOUSANDS of dollars to take courses in areas of instruction they already have experience in (many largely more experienced than the instructors themselves).
3) The bill would also effectively make the term "instructor" only apply to "cosmetology school" which would be made separate from "makeup school" and the term would not apply to the latter. This would mean that these "Makeup Schools" would have no accountability for the people who are instructing, and these educators would not be forced to prove their qualifications or industry experience to the state in order to be able to teach.
4) The bill would also effectively make the term "apprentice" only apply to "cosmetology establishment" (salons), which would in turn mean that Makeup Artists seeking to become certified would not have the option of apprenticing to obtain their certification. This is largely unfair to Artists who do not have the financial means to pay for schooling, and forces them to have to take out large student loans in order to finance becoming certified. Hairstylists have this option available to them, why should Makeup Artists be not given this option? This largely works to benefit the "Makeup Schools" by giving prospective artists no other choice but to invest in their programs.
5) The bill also does not list any other options for obtaining certification through private instruction, or other educational means such as "workshops" taught by qualified instructors. This effectively places Makeup Schools (who have no accountability for their instructors qualifications) as the sole means to obtain certification vs. placing this ability into the hands of qualified artists who could alternatively seek instructor licensing given they had the proper qualifications.
6) The bill also would remove the term "Makeup Artistry" from applying to any Esthetician program currently offered by Cosmetology Schools. This would effectively mean that those seeking to obtain Esthetician licensing, would be forced to also attend a "Makeup School" if they wish to do Esthetician work as well as Makeup Artistry in a salon environment.
Hundreds of makeup artists have attempted to reason with the initiator of this bill to make amendments that would benefit ALL artists and also give people the ability to obtain certification through additional means, make these schools accountable for the education they are providing, and not leave any room for these schools to monopolize the market. These attempts have gone unanswered, leaving the artist community with no choice but to stand up for itself to protect not only the existing artist community but future generations from being taken advantage of. This bill is nothing but a ploy to give these institutions access to federal loaning so that they can enforce certification with no accountability for their quality of education, and profit solely for their own benefit.
This institution seeks to flood the market with hundreds of industry "hopefuls" who have been misguided of their true job potential, educated by people who do not have the qualifications, and being forced to spend thousands of dollars on course programs not needed (the full course programs being currently offered by this institution are priced at $25,000!!!!!).
Please sign and protect the Michigan Artist Community from being taken advantage of!!!!!!!
Michigan Makeup Artists started this petition with a single signature, and now has 660 supporters. Start a petition today to change something you care about.