Skip to main content

making faces :: smoky-eyed saturday

to be fair, if you've been following my adventures in hair, you'll be able to tell from the photos that this look is not from today, but from a little while ago. you'd be surprised how carefully i log what i wear so that i can resurrect it on the blog if the urge strikes me and so that i can monitor if there are any things that aren't getting much love, so that i can decide what to cull. and it is absolutely not because i show signs of ocd, no matter what dom says.

i did an extensive post on smoky-eyed looks last year, but i thought i resurrect the subject, since it is both one of my favourite looks and because it's something that i firmly believe anyone can master. after all, the whole point of the look is that it should be smudgy and inexact, which is perfect if you have no idea what the hell you're doing. or if you're clumsy. hint: both of these descriptors apply to me.

this falls into the category of a more dramatic, evening-out type look. [in fact, this is what i had on at the last caustic lounge.] that said, it's a pretty quick thing to do when you're more interested in doing other things- like getting your cd's together and thinking of what you're going to play- or when you just want something to put on in a hurry that doesn't look like it was done in a hurry.

one of my favourite products to use for this sort of look is mac's loose pigments. these might be my favourite thing that mac produces, since the colours have incredible depth- much more so than most regular eye shadows- and because, while they might cost $24cad, chances are they'll bury you with them, because you need very little.




the downside of loose powders is that they can get a little getting used to, because they can make a mess and it does take some skill to apply them precisely. of course, one of the cool things about loose pigments is that you can apply them wet, which makes it a lot easier to get them where you want them. all you have to keep in mind is that the wetter the brush you use to apply them [although it might be tempting in a preschooler with paints kind of way, i really don't recommend fingers for this], the more pigment you're going to pick up and the more intense the result is going to be.

mac sells a fantastic substance called fix+ that is perfect for spritzing on brushes and applying loose product, or a water-based mixing medium which will make them cling to you like a piece of toilet paper to your heel, but honestly, water works almost as well. i usually just dampen the brush and pat colour on roughly where i need it- it doesn't have to be perfect, just more or less even so that you don't look inebriated or crazy.

once that's done, it's just a matter of taking a blending brush and gently smudging the colours so that they run smoothly together, and making them soft around the edges. blending shadows allows them to mix, but remember that it will also remove some product, so don't press too hard, or you'll end up having to reapply and you'll probably have bits of pigment all over your face. not a good look for anybody.

there are makeup artists who are far more skilled than i who doubtless have special techniques for making these things look perfect, but i generally go for uncomplicated. i don't possess the patience and dexterity needed to get everything just so, because honestly, i don't think anyone's looking at me that intently. and if they are, i'm probably too occupied being creeped out by them to worry what they think of my eye makeup.

here's the end result!

products used

face ::
marcelle new age foundation "ivory"
smashbox high definition liquid concealer "fair/ light"

eyes ::
mac pigment "the family crest"* [warm black with gold/ bronze shimmer]
mac pigment "deep purple" [dark shimmery aubergine]
mac pigment "mauvement"* [frosted light tan]
armani eyes to kill e/s "19"* [shimmery platinum]
inglot e/s "351" [matte ivory]
mac eye kohl "smolder" [black]
chanel inimitable intense mascara

cheeks ::
edward bess quad royale "south of france" [mauve- sand]
mac beauty powder "oh so fair"* [soft light pink]

lips ::
armani l/g "greige d'armani"* [sheer grey-taupe]

*suggested alternates :: the family crest = mac dark soul pigment; mauvement = mac tan pigment or mac e/s "sweet satisfaction"; armani 19 is limited but still available; oh so fair = benefit hervana; greige d'armani is still available and i truly can't think of a dupe for it- it's quite a unique colour. it looks a unwearable in the tube [or as dom put it: "it looks like santorum- and you're putting it on your lips!"], but the relative sheerness makes it very user friendly.

Comments

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

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…

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 …