Skip to main content

making faces :: tiny vices, part 2

in case you're not sure what this is about, you could go back and read last month's post, where you'll also learn about my criminal mastermind past.

here's this month's recap photo, a quick look at everything that i've put on my face [makeup-wise] in the last twenty-eight days:


i cannot tell a lie: there are three repeats in there from the month of january:

  • armani rouge ecstasy "sultan" [second row, second from right]
  • dior rouge baume "coquette" [second row, extreme right]
  • nars audacious "vivien" [third row, third from right]

but i can explain!! well, sort of, anyway. it's been so bitterly cold that despite the fact that i try to stay hydrated and moisturized, my lips have been in turribul shape. that means i can either just give up on the cosmetics and go naked [which i did in a few cases, as will become clear if you count through the photos], or i can limit myself to extremely forgiving formulas. rouge ecstasy is definitely my preference for such situations. [i could have used another shade, of course, but i was already dressed and that was the best shade i had to go with what i was wearing. if i feel poorly put together, it's like i have a stone in my shoe all day. i'm not joking.] i wanted to test the dior rouge baume to see if it could withstand the crackling, since i really have to review this little pretty that's been sitting on my vanity for two months. there will be a review forthcoming but chapped lip spoiler alert: it's good but not great.

the third repeat, "vivien" was because i felt that the original shots i took made it look very severe, which it isn't. [top row, second from right in the january photo, if you'd like to take a gander. i wonder if anyone ever got confused by that saying and stole a male goose? "what? you told me to come over and take a gander. what were you expecting me to do?" things like that keep me up at night. i've heard of studies showing that people who are night owls and who sleep less are more creative, but i'm still waiting for that to kick in, evidently.] i did say at the outset [i don't know if i said it out loud, but i thought it very clearly] that i was going to give myself some leeway on new shades, because it's not their fault that they arrived late.

but other than those three, yes, these are all different shades. i took one of those "test your vision" things online a little while ago that evaluated your ability to differentiate between colours. i scored in the top 2%, which may mean that i'm one of the very few people who can tell the difference between all these shades. it's possible that some of you are looking at the above picture and thinking i'm wearing the same lipstick in every picture. [although if you think the first two are the same, i'd feel more comfortable if i knew you weren't getting behind the wheel of a vehicle any time soon.]

some stats to make it more science-y:

  • most worn brand this month :: nars [6]
  • most worn brand overall :: guerlain [12]
  • first-timers :: 2 [1 purchase, 1 gift with purchase i'd forgotten]
  • repeats from previous month :: 3

the second thing i've noticed is that there is clearly more light showing on balance throughout the month. yes! the sun is coming back! it may still be freezing or well below it outside, but there is hope somewhere. [cynical me is snickering a little at the idea that i'm implying that the weather improves in montreal in march. it tends not to. in fact, what often happens is that it just gets warm and humid enough for a few major snowstorms. but after the coldest february on record, i'll take hope where i can find it.]

there are a couple of looks in here that you might recognise from previous review posts, but if you have any questions about any shades or looks above, please feel free to ask. does the challenge continue? it does. i'm not promising there won't be repeats, but there i can keep a high level of variety going for a long time. how long? stay tuned...

Comments

Would you mind telling me which lipsticks you're wearing in the first and last photos in the first row and the last photo in the entire series?

Also, I love this idea! I might do it if I ever get around to setting up Instagram...
Kate MacDonald said…
My pleasure! In the first row, the first photo is Guerlain "Rouge Parade" and the last one is my special Bite Beauty custom shade "Flora Mundi". The very last shade is Guerlain "L'Heure Bleue". Sorry that the first two are unavailable, but the third one is, and comes highly recommended if you like red/ berry tones.

It's a fun process to go through, although it does make you conscious of what really *doesn't* work, which can be frustrating... Then again, it also makes you conscious of what *does* work, which is rewarding. It also makes me conscious of just how many lipsticks I own...
Oh, I remember when you reviewed Rouge Parade! What a beautiful red that is.

In the interest of spring cleaning (not that it feels remotely like spring here), I've been making an effort to identify which lipsticks don't work on me. Quite a few, it turns out! I was thinking of having a blogsale at some point, though I doubt I could get much for my drugstore lipsticks, even the practically new ones...
Kate MacDonald said…
Rouge Parade is a beauty, but if you try either Givenchy Rouge Egerie or Guerlain Garconne, they're pretty close. (How close they seem is sort of dependent on how many degrees of red you can stand to have in your collection.)

It is embarrassing how unwilling I am to part with any of my lipstick collection. I keep thinking "but what if I really want to wear it some day?" or "what if I want to swatch it as a comparison against another shade?" It's quite pathetic, really. So right now, cleaning out my collection involves putting things in a sort of storage box, where I can access them, but where they're not taking up space in my regular collection...

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

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: hot stuff, comin' through

i don't even know what to say about the weather. the end of september saw temperatures at a scalding 36c/ 97f outside. this is especially annoying because we've had a moderate summer. most days it rained a little in the morning, the temperatures didn't creep into the 30s too often and there wasn't the normal stretch of a few weeks when it felt like we were living on the sun. now, we've receded into more normal fall weather, although it's still on the warm side for mid-october. that climate change thing is a bitch.

trying to think of something positive in the situation, it does put me in a perfect frame of mind to write about urban decay's naked heat palette. it's the latest in what appears to be an endless series of warm neutral and red eyeshadow palettes that have followed in the footsteps of anastasia's modern renaissance. [which i ultimately decided i didn't need after doing a thorough search of my considerable stash.] i do think that it'…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…