Skip to main content

making faces :: cheeky!

here's a quick post for you about one of my cosmetic experiments. i am by no means a professional, but i have assembled my own little laboratory...


[un]fortunately, i don't have an assistant to use as a guinea pig subject, so i have to work on myself. this is how tesla got started, i'm certain.

most makeup looks focus on whether to put the emphasis on the eyes or the lips, but i started to wonder: what if i lead with my cheeks? not those cheeks, perverts! [please never change, though.] rather than making the boldest element of a look my eyes or my lips, i thought that it would be fun to have blush be the star and the eyes and lips more supporting players. 


now, while i love bright blushes and doll cheeks, i realised that i couldn't just apply a bright blush and go with nudes everywhere else. even i know that would be silly. [or do i?] so what i decided to do was use a more natural shade, but build up the application so that it was a bit more prominent. and rather than go really light on the eyes and lips, i decided to go more mid-range. 

and here's what happened...



well, it's not exactly earth-shattering, but it is different, at least for me. you could easily react by saying "you're wearing too much blush", but it does sort of give a very wind-kissed "i've been out traipsing across the moors" kind of look, i think. the shades i used were rouge bunny rouge "gracilis", applied in layers for more impact. i swept hourglass "mood light" over it to give a bit more glow and a slightly warmer tone. 

for the eyes, the shades are mostly from rouge bunny rouge as well. i used "golden rhea" over the inner two-thirds of the lid, with "whispering ibis" on the outer third. i used a little of the black shade from armani's "neo-black" palette to deepen the outer corners slightly. i brushed rbr "bohemian waxwing" along the upper part of the crease and inglot "351" under my brows as a matte highlight. then i finished up by lining my upper lash lines with urban decay "invasion" liner [a gorgeous dark green-teal] and the perfunctory mascara- upper and lower. 

the lipstick is a limited shade that mac put out a few years ago called "blooming lovely". it's a very greyed lavender shade that came out as part of their collaboration with british fashion label liberty of london, a small but excellent collection in adorable packaging. with all of the shades that mac has brought back multiple times in the last few years and excitement that a purple lipstick usually generates, i'm kind of astonished that this one has never made a second appearance. there really has never been anything quite like it, although inglot has a shade that's close, just lighter and icier [and, as a result, more difficult to pull off].

so what do you think? is this a trend of the future? or a mistake made eternal through the power of the internet? 

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 …