Skip to main content

making faces :: little red book, part 7

i'm actually at the point where i'm realising how long i could potentially continue this series and i'm wondering a couple of things:

1. could it actually be possible for one person to own too many red lipsticks?

2. is it time that i started throwing out my older red lipsticks, even if they still smell fine [i.e., no "red crayolas" with that distinct eau-de-crayon stench], since they've long passed their best before date?

with regard to point #2, i have to admit that i only found out in the last couple of years or so that lipsticks have a best before date. previously, i stopped using them generally only when they developed crayola-stink or when they became too dry to deposit colour without being melted a bit first. turns out, you're actually supposed to throw out cream-based products, including lipsticks, after about six months, whether or not they've "turned". but seriously, no one actually does that, right? i have a gorgeous red lipstick from mac that dates from their holiday 2000 collection and i have no intention of giving it up as long as it works. does this mean my lips will fall off?

the thing is, despite the fact that i have collected a red army that could conquer a small country, i still keep adding more of them, because i always find ones with elements that are distinct from ones i already possess. witness my latest red acquisition, chanel's holiday red, "famous". it's a rouge allure, meaning it's softer and a little less opaque [although in this case, it's pretty close to opaque, even with a single pass] and for once, i didn't find that it made my lips feel tight. [some rouge allures do, despite the fact that every other person who's ever tried one insists that they're moisturising.]

this particular red is very pink-toned and it has lots of fine fuchsia shimmer throughout, which emphasises the pink-ness. although i generally don't put a lot of stock in warm vs. cool debates, i do think that this one cuts particularly cool and wouldn't be as well suited to those with golden or olive undertones. sorry ladies, more for the rest of us.




i know that some chanel fans were annoyed because this colour is very close to the limited edition shade "rouge byzantin" that was released as part of a chanel-boutique-only limited edition collection this summer, but in chanel's defense, it's important to note that i didn't have the opportunity to buy anything from that collection, since i don't live near a chanel boutique and chanel.com won't ship to canada. so even though it may look like a repeat to some, the real point here was that chanel obviously felt it was important that i have a chance to get this lovely colour. i hope that clears things up.

not how the lipstick wanted to spend its day
the second i put this on, i felt like i should immediately rush out and do something bold, something daring, something that would make me, well, famous. however, all the ideas that sprung to mind carried prison sentences, so i just went out and bought cat food instead. but let me tell you, i was the most ravishing diva in the pet food store, by far.


because this lipstick is so undeniably fabulous, i did feel the need to take it out for a stroll and a coffee, but it's made me promise that next time, we can go to a chic restaurant, or out for cocktails, because, being created for holiday party season, it's a shade that likes to socialise.

since i wanted to make myself feel like i was going somewhere special, i also decided to try something i'd been thinking about for a while, which was using one of mac's crushed metal pigments as an eye liner. i'm pretty happy with the way this experiment went, actually. the shade showed as a true gold and it remained in place all day. i've opened a new door here. [also, i found that the pigment doesn't irritate my eyes when used as a liner, which is always a bonus.] there are a bunch of these pigments available with the mac holiday collection, if you've an interest in trying this experiment for yourself. or you could just use them as eye shadows like the man says you should.

here's a look at what i used...

face ::
mac prolongwear foundation "nc15"
lush colour supplement "jackie oates"

eyes ::
chanel e/s "fauve" [light mauve-plum with silver shimmer]
mac pigment "circa plum"* [shimmery cool plum]
mac crushed metal pigment "gold"* [exactly what it sounds like]
makeup forever concealer pencil "light" [nude- used along my water line]
benefit they're real mascara

cheeks ::
mac blush duo "amazon princess"* [wild rose pink]

lips ::
chanel rouge allure l/s "famous"* [pink-red with magenta shimmer]

*suggested alternates :: circa plum = just hold tight, it'll be back in mac stores as part of the "daphne guinness" collection launching on boxing day!; crushed metal gold = mac gold pigment [a little less yellow]; amazon princess = mac "love thing" + mac "dollymix", although this one is still available on the canadian mac cosmetics web site and is worth picking up on its own

famous is currently available from chanel retailers and on line. it might not make you famous, but it will make you feel famous. and fabulous. which you should.

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…