Skip to main content

making faces :: experiments in colour contrast, purple and red edition

the field of what colours are seen as going together is constantly shifting. i remember years ago a friend of mine told me with utter certainty that one never wore navy and black together. a few years later, the same friend was caught by surprise to find out that navy and black together was the look for that year. this year, pairing black with dark blue is said to "weigh down" a look too much. so colour combinations are much more about what looks current as opposed to dated and not about timeless maxims. that's one way to keep you on your toes, always looking for something 'modern', although it doesn't take long before you've more or less assembled all you will ever need to create any colour combination imaginable. [that's when they make you start worrying about shapes. -ed.]

what seems to be big right now is analogous colours- shades that sit side by side on the colour wheel. for years, that was one of the biggest no-nos. but now, "blue and green should never be seen" sounds like a piece of advice from grandma and runways abound with cosy combos of colours that rub shoulders on the colour wheel.

one of the ways i like to try these things out is by trying a contrast between makeup and clothing, rather than leaping into a relationship with a brightly coloured skirt or blouse. makeup seems like safe ground for experimentation.



so i thought i'd share one of my analogous colour experiments, trying out a "fresh" combo of intense violet purple [ralph lauren turtleneck picked up from the bay during one of their post-holiday sales] and coral red. the latter brings a little warmth to the look, while the purple is a solid, cool option. i find that i look better when i have a balance of cool and warm, although i don't necessarily need to balance both clothes and makeup.

the look features some eye colours i picked up from inglot:



#351m, a matte light ivory
#368m, a matte orange coral
#495ds, a coral red with pink and gold shimmer

inglot are a great place to start if you want to play around with colour. for my money, they're probably the best place to start, since they have a massive variety, a good range of finishes and are very affordable compared to any higher end brands.

also featured on the inner third of my lids is rouge bunny rouge "golden rhea". the finishing touches are urban decay "perversion" eye liner and armani "eyes to kill" mascara.

for the rest of the look, i went with the same sorts of shades, including:



nars blush "boys don't cry"
hourglass ambient lighting powder "diffused light"
guerlain rouge g lipstick "rouge sensuel"

the base is urban decay naked skin foundation in "1.0" and nars radiant creamy concealer "vanilla".

now that i've seen it in action, i quite like the combination and, surprisingly, i find the colours complement each other nicely. in a few years, i'm sure this will look hideously dated. but by then i'll probably have moved on to lasers no my eyebrows or something. get on that will you, beauty industry?

Comments

That's a lovely look, on paper I wouldn't have thought they would go but they really do work well. I think Inglot is a great brand to go to for trying more vibrant shades as well :)
Kate MacDonald said…
Thanks Clare! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I wasn't sure that it would work either, so it was kind of a surprise for me as well.
We're lucky enough to have an Inglot store here in Montreal, so I have quick access to a lot of their products. I always recommend people check them out if they're interested in playing with colour, but don't necessarily want to invest a lot.

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

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …