Skip to main content

making faces :: little red book, part 8

bold eyes, red lips. normally a bad idea
the problem with wearing red lips all the time- if there is a problem- is that it tends to limit how imaginative you can get in other areas. for some, that's a good thing. a lot of people i've met over the years prefer to establish one look and return to that, possibly with very minor variations, every day. the reasons that i get for this are usually that it's quicker [although not wearing makeup at all would really be the fastest way out of the house] or that their face is always the same and so they get used to seeing it a certain way. i have to say that when i hear that, i picture those people as children in art class, drawing the same picture over and over again, because the paper always looked the same.

but i get it. when you find a particular arrangement of colours, light and shadow that hides what needs to be hidden and calls attention to your assets, there are a lot of reasons to keep right on riding that wave. and the fact is that various shades of red, even more subdued ones, look really nice with understated, neutral eye makeup. but for those of us who like to play with all our crayons, we're usually forced to relinquish the reds when we start getting too wild with the other colours.

usually.



then along comes a beautiful, quiet rose shade like guerlain's "grenade", part of their "rouge g" line, which i think of as the more ladylike of their lipstick collections compared to the audacity of their "rouge automatiques". although "grenade" [which is french for pomegranate and you should make an effort to think of the word with a french accent, or else it just seems weird] is clearly a red shade, it almost has more in common with toned down shades of medium pink than with shades one normally thinks of as "lipstick red". it's office-friendly, casual-friendly, court-friendly... it's just a generally friendly sort of colour that gets along well with everyone.

which is why it's one of those rare reds that allows you to do something more dramatic to accompany it. personally, i figured that since red and green are kind of a classic holiday combination, that i'd go for that. except that at the same moment, i decided that i kind of wanted a bit of a "surprise" element to the whole thing, so i used a pop of chartreuse, a colour i love because it almost defies you to love it, being that sort of eerie, almost suckly point between yellow and green, just to liven things up.

i think that the end result is still a bit dramatic, something for a night out, but it's still different than the usual red lip/ neutral eye combination. thank you, guerlain, for making me think outside the tube.

here's what i used:

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

eyes ::
mac e/s "sour lemon" [bright yellow chartreuse]
mac e/s "humid" [deep forest green]
mac e/s "banshee"* [sparkly light pinkish brown]
chanel e/s "khaki vert" [shimmery khaki green]
mac e/s "manila paper"* [warm ivory]
mac greasepaint stick "greengrease"* [blackened green- used as an eye liner]
benefit they're real mascara

cheeks ::
guerlain blush g "serie noire"* [bright coral pink]

lips ::
guerlain rouge g "grenade" [soft rosebud red]

*suggested alternates :: banshee = mac naked lunch; manila paper = mac nylon [yellower, frostier] or dazzlelight [paler, cooler]; greengrease = couldn't think of one dark enough, although a soft black liner would give a similar effect, possibly combined with urban decay's 24/7 liner in "stash"; blush g serie noire = yikes, another tricky one... benefit bella bamba, although it's more shimmery, less pink and more coral

and for any eagle-eyed followers of this blog who might have checked out that middle picture, yes, those are the original drawings of neville sitting next to me. and yes, he's still around. we had tea last night and he talked to me about dreams. then i finally fell asleep and dreamed that i was living in an apartment with a close friend, who occasionally turned into a very pretty dior lipstick. that's right people, i dream in lipstick.

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…