Skip to main content

making faces :: summertime blues? nars has the cure!

i keep mentioning how my infatuation with nars took hold because of their product names. not just the ubiquitous "orgasm", but the fact that they have products named after classic low-brow films ["night breed" and, of course, "deep throat"], marlene dietrich ["scarlet empress", "lola lola", "blonde venus", etc.], under-appreciated cinematic classics ["night porter", "blade runner"] and some of my musical icons ["blondie", "heart of glass", "new order", transeurope express"]. so when i heard that nars was releasing a blush called "boys don't cry", it was pretty much a done deal. i knew it was coming home with me and it didn't matter if the blush turned out to be green. because it's called "boys don't cry".

it's released as part of a collaborative collection with french designer pierre hardy of two super-sized blushes and a half a dozen nail polish duos. one of the associates at murale described them as being sets "one for the fingers, one for the toes", which i hadn't thought of, but which actually makes perfect sense. thus far, i've limited myself to the one blush, but there's nothing to say that's final.

emblazoned with hardy's geometric cube pattern, "boys don't cry" is an intense red-coral that reads very warm in the pan, but that looks more neutral on application. it's a matte finish [the gold pattern is an overspray that disappears almost immediately, but doesn't look like a heavy or dead-seeming matte. in fact, it brightens the cheeks quite noticeably.

it is a colour that pale ladies [like me] will want to use lightly. there's a ton of pigment, which means that it's a little too easy to overdo it and end up with the sunburnt/ drunk look. not what you want. even lightly applied, it's going to be a fairly intense blush, but i like the fact that it blends so nicely and evenly, allowing for quite a natural flushed look.

boys don't cry
by way of comparison, mac "salsarose" is a bit pinker, but the two are definitely in the same ballpark. rouge bunny rouge "florita" is much softer- which should give you an idea of the intensity we're talking about.

l to r :: mac salsarose, boys don't cry, rbr florita
the only drawback to this blush is that it's more expensive- a lot more expensive- than a regular nars blush; $48cad compared to $30. that's a big jump, but the compact is a lot larger and the intensity of the colour basically means that you're not ever going to run out. it also means that "boys don't cry" is the same price as a chanel "joues contraste" blush, which is a lot smaller.

it's a limited edition piece, but it's still widely available wherever nars is sold, along with the other elements of the pierre hardy collection. nars are generally excellent about making sure that everyone gets a fair shot at finding their limited items before they're discontinued, which is just one more reason to love them.

here's the blush in action. [for those of you following my sci-art adventures, i'd call this one a bright spring look, although it's not nearly as intense as one could get with a bright spring colour palette.]



products used ::

the base ::
marcelle beauty balm "light/ medium"
mac paint pot "painterly"
nars radiant tinted moisturiser "terre neuve"
nars radiant creamy concealer "vanilla"

the eyes ::
chanel e/s "sable emouvante" [shimmery peach. warm brown]
chanel e/s "tiger lily" [soft tangerine with white shimmer]
nars e/s "mekong" [espresso brown with gold shimmer]
stila e/l "lionfish" [shimmery bronze brown]
urban decay 24/7 e/l "underground" [shimmery taupe]
korres volcanic lash mascra "black"
givenchy noir couture mascara "brun satin"

the cheeks ::
nars blush "boys don't cry" [bright coral red]
chanel poudre signe [white-gold highlight]

the lips ::
chanel rouge coco shine "antigone" [strawberry red]

and of course, i can't let this post go without posting...

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 …