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?

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 …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…