Skip to main content

making faces :: daytime dramatic

not me
it's not fair. when i was younger, i went out at night a fair amount. i could have worn whatever craziness i wanted on my face, but i generally didn't because i had less makeup and even more because i had absolutely no idea what i was doing. it was a very long time before i realised that you could put eye liner on your upper lids. i'm not talking as a teenager, i'm talking about when i was in my mid-twenties. mid-to-late. and the first few times i attempted it i just sort of smeared a circle around my eye, which didn't make me too confident about trying it out a lot.

now, i've picked up a few tips and can do more interesting things with makeup brushes, but i don't have a lot of occasions to use them, because i just don't feel the impetus to go out as much as i once did. i'm not a complete homebody [yet] but it does take a fair amount of pressure to convince me that i'd be better off heading out at night than sitting at home with a book, a film and/ or a nice glass of wine.

WHAT'S A GIRL TO DO?



still, i do long to do things that are a little more interesting with my still-developing makeup skills, which is why i welcome opportunities like a sunday brunch to try my hand at a new thing. i've tried to do cut-crease looks before, but found them a bit tricky. either i make my lines too sharp or i don't blend them well enough. i love the look though, where a lighter lid colour meets a [fairly] distinct crease shade. what i've recently discovered is that, if you want to get these things right, it helps to have the right tools.




so i tried out a fairly dramatic cut crease, using marc jacobs "the mod" shadow palette. i applied the white shade over my lids fairly heavily and lightly under my brows and a little of the soft grey in the outer corners. i then used a pencil brush to draw a line along the crease with the sparkly black shadow. the first time i tried this, i used a thicker brush and i didn't do any blending, a tragic mistake. [also stupid -ed.] older and wiser, i used a small blending brush to soften the top of the line, as well as a little of the grey shadow. i think i could have gotten away with blending less, but since the line wasn't quite as straight as i wanted to begin with, i thought i would be best to disguise that. [doing intricate makeup work requires the sort of steady hand i have never possessed.]

to mirror the arc on my crease, i did a thick, slightly winged black liner and circled my entire eye. for the winged part on the upper lid, i used my trusty combination of illamasqua precision gel liner and urban decay 24/7 pencil in "perversion". and i went all around the eye with the pencil, upper and lower rims. most people council against this, because it's supposed to make the eye look closed in, but i find that it has the opposite effect, enlarging the eye by exaggerating its outline. maybe that's the magic of the wing.

i was thinking of doing a bright pink lip to go with the "moddish" theme, but opted instead to stay a little restrained.  besides, i wear bright, bold shades so often that my neutrals are starting to feel neglected. this one is a particular favourite, rouge bunny rouge "dark juices". [you like it? it's on sale right now. go here.]

here's a full breakdown of what i used:

the base ::
marcelle cc cream
nars smudgeproof e/s base
urban decay naked skin foundation "1.0"
nars radiant creamy concealer "vanilla"
nars light reflecting setting powder

the eyes ::
marc jacobs e/s palette "the mod" [satiny white, soft grey, black with silver shimmer]
illamasqua precision gel liner
urban decay 24/7 e/l "perversion" [blackest black]
hourglass film noir mascara

the cheeks ::
dior blush "happy cherry" [bright cherry blossom pink]
hourglass ambient lighting powder "incandescent light" [lavender-white highlight]*

the lips ::
rouge bunny rouge l/s "dark juices" [silvery mauve-taupe]

*suggested alternates :: incandescent light = mac "lightscapade" is reasonably close, if you get one that has more blue threading in it, but it's much more reflective.

overall, i'd say that i feel reasonably good about the look. it's something that i'd be willing to try again, having figured out what tools will help me achieve it. and i can only get better, right?

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 …