Skip to main content

making faces :: point/ counterpoint

look up? look down? look away.
traditional logic holds that, when you're putting on a face [ok, wearing makeup, but it sounds cooler to say "putting on a face", don't you think?], you should choose to emphasise either your lips or your eyes. i'm not generally much for following rules, but i will say that if you're planning to split the focus, you should be prepared to work carefully or have people assume you're on your way to a convention of clowns or [if you're really clumsy] zombies. i usually reserve those "bold, dramatic" looks for occasions where i'm going out at night, especially with my clown and zombie friends, or where lighting will be lower, so that the effect is less overwhelming.

normally, though, i do generally try to choose one point of visual focus, alternating from one to the other. i've never developed a clear preference either way. obviously, if you have a clear preference for one feature over the other, that would probably be what you'd want to work on. in a hurry, it's a lot faster to do a look with a bold lip, whereas more dramatic colour around the eye will be more finicky, but tend to have more impact. but why choose? try both!

here are a couple of looks i've tried out recently, one on each side of the fence.




up top

this isn't a super-dramatic smoky look, but the eyes are definitely the focus. the colours at play here tend to be more obvious when you get up close, which is something i always like to do. what appears sort of charcoal from a distance actual has a lot of gold and khaki tones when you see it sitting next to you, or across the table over a glass of red wine at a candlelit restaurant.

one of the things that actually inspired me to do this was that i wanted to pull out my favourite mac blush ever, a slightly pink taupe shade that works perfectly as a contour on porcelain skin called "strada". for some reason, probably because i liked it, mac chose to discontinue the shade last year. however, it will be returning as part of their collaboration with designer gareth pugh, due out in november. definitely worth picking up for anyone with a lighter skin tone.

i've labeled other limited edition products with an asterisk. although they may not be available, it's easy enough to find duplicates. 

products used ::

face [same for both looks]::
mac prolongwear foundation "nc15"
diorskin nude hydrating concealer "001"

eyes ::
mac e/s "creamy bisque"* [light cream with fine shimmer]
mac e/s "gaellic gold" [frosted dirty gold]*
chanel e/s "khaki vert"
mac pigment "the family crest"* [black with gold/ bronze shimmer]
mac eye kohl "smolder" [black]
diorshow mascara

cheeks ::
mac mineralize skinfinish "perfect topping"* [beige with hint of lavender-pink]
mac blush "strada"* [slightly pinkish light taupe]

lips ::
mac l/s "call my bluff"* [sheer grey-taupe]

suggested replacements ::
creamy bisque = mac dazzlelight; gaellic gold = nars etrusque [gaellic gold is also being reissued in one of mac's holiday palettes this year], the family crest = mac dark soul pigment, perfect topping = mac soft 'n' gentle [has a lot more shimmer]; strada = wait for november re-release, call my bluff = mac freckletone

down low

i adore fuchsia. i've already talked about this at length, but when it comes to trying out a "punch in the face" lip, it's a great choice. red is more classic, purple is more eccentric and i love both of those options, but i find that fuchsia is a shade that virtually anyone can pull off- light or dark, warm or cool- it tends to cooperate really well with skin tones.

in this case, i used nars "funny face" which is a red-toned fuchsia shade. it's a fairly matte texture and after wearing it, you'll probably want a little lip balm [particularly in fall/ winter], but it has a great impact. in this case, i paired it with fairly subtle, shimmery shades from the urban decay naked palette. gives a little colour to the eye area, but never competes with the lips.



products used ::

eyes ::
urban decay e/s "virgin" [shimmery off-white]
urban decay e/s "sin" [frosted pinkish beige]
urban decay e/s "hustle" [glittery brown plum]
urban decay e/s "sidecar" [rosy medium bronze]
mac eye kohl "i get no kick"* [shimmery champagne]
diorshow mascara

cheeks ::
mac mineralize skinfinish "by candlelight"* [warm golden pink]
mac blush "her blooming cheek"* [bright cool fuchsia]

lips ::
nars l/s "funny face" [bright reddened fuchsia]

suggested replacements ::
i get no kick = nars rue larger than life eye liner "rue bonaparte"; by candlelight = soft 'n' gentle [a better match would be "porcelain pink", which is also limited, but currently available as part of mac's "fall colour collection"], her blooming cheek = full fuchsia

so, which would you choose for yourself [if, for some weird reason, you had to]: bold eyes or bold lips?

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …