Skip to main content

making faces :: my life as a nudist

as i was reviewing what i've been wearing on my face lately, i made a startling discovery: i've been going nude a lot. yes, i've been wearing clothes and yes, i've been wearing makeup, but, much more than usual, i've been favouring colours that are either neutral/ nude in tone, or qualify as "my lips but better". [i'm never 100% sure what separates those things, because surely a tone described as "nude" should mimic the colour of natural, nude lips, right? not so much.] these sorts of colours aren't necessarily ones that i avoid, but they're ones i find that i generally should avoid, because a lot of them just don't look good on my colouring.

nonetheless, i thought i'd share some of what i've been doing, because the last month has seen me come to terms with the potential of lip shades that area less bold, as something other than a balancing point for a smoky-eyed look. i'm slowly discovering why these are the colours that people turn to every day. doesn't mean i'm giving up on saturated colours, not by a long shot. after all, having gone through over a year of playing around with my amateur take on personal colour analysis, it turns out that those are likely the best shades on me, while nudes and neutrals should come with a giant warning sign over them "may make you look dead, and not in a cool way".

PLEASE MEET ME BEHIND THE BREAK


although they're not the only brand whose nudes i like, i find that nars has a talent for theses shades, so i thought i'd focus on some looks i've done with them lately, especially since i worry that their fine regular lipsticks are being forgotten in the wake of their incredibly [and justifiably] successful audacious lipsticks. 

mayflower




i've reviewed this colour and featured it in a series of posts about my favourite shades for spring, so i'm not left with a lot to say. this is definitely more in the "my lips but better" camp, since it's somewhat close to my lip colour, but a bit warmer. of any of the lipsticks in my collection, it's the one i'm closest to finishing, and no wonder. this is a great softer shade for women who can't pull off softer shades, because it has enough pigment that it will show up, but won't wash you out.

i'm wearing it here with marc jacobs "the mod" eye shadow trio [white, dirty silver and black] and yves st. laurent "rose baby doll" liquid eye liner. clearly, the liner is the star here, because it's really difficult to wear pink eye liner and have it not be the star. i also tried the combination of a cool pink blush [mac "dame"] and a bronzer [guerlain "terra inca", one of the very few bronzers i own], an effect i quite liked.

bilbao




this is one of these shades that i love and that i'm going to continue to wear even though logic dictates it shouldn't work on me. [it's one of my favourite browns.]it's a warm, softly shimmery kind of golden caramel brown. it's muted, light and warm, or, everything that i shouldn't look for in a lipstick. i don't care. i love this colour and, surprisingly, i love it on me. this is why i admire nars' nude shades. there is something about them that just seems to adapt a little better to individual skin tones.

that's nars "dolomites" on the eyes, combined with armani "eccentrico" blush and hourglass "radiant light" powder on the cheeks. none of this should work for me and certainly not together and maybe i'm deceiving myself, but i feel like it does come off rather nicely. [on top of the makeup, the clothes i'm wearing are low-contrast and muted, which are also things that shouldn't work for me. i'm just breaking all the rules.]

pago pago




this was another shade that i featured on my "spring flings" post a few years back. it's on the edge of what i can get away with, because it's light enough that it threatens to drain the colour out of my face. [it looks lighter in the photos than it actually is, though.] i find that it's redeemed by the shimmer, which adds a springtime radiance to both the lips and the look.

i've combined it here with mac's "a novel romance" eye shadow palette, along with estée lauder's limited beauty "sea star" [both a blush and a bronzer] and hourglass "luminous light". i think that this look might have been a little drab on me if i weren't wearing that very bold tomato red, because everything in the makeup, other than the eye liner [another important factor] is soft and muted.

of course, i do like softer colours from other brands as well and in the interests of balance, i thought i'd include a couple of them here.

fawn



when i look for something in the nude family, i think i have different ideas in my head than a lot of people. i absolutely do not want something that's closely matched to the colour of my skin. instead, i want something that is a muted version of something i'd normally wear. for instance, if you dialed down the saturation on something like dior "montmartre" and added a bit of brown-beige, i think the end result would probably look a lot like hourglass "fawn". 

raspberry zincite



it wouldn't be me if i didn't include at least one thing that wasn't available anymore. believe me, i mourn this one every time i look at my tube of this armani gloss, because it's my ultimate natural tone. it is actually very close to the colour of my lips. it's a bit darker, but not by much [unless i apply it quite heavily]. i know i have to save this shade, because i can't replace it, but it's just so easy to wear with anything. i'm going to hang my head for a few minutes now.

ok, i have to admit that a lot of these shades aren't even what most people would consider nudes. if you look at the photo at the top of this post [i have no idea who did this image originally, but i'd love to shake her hand], you'll see that most "nudes" are warm and peachy. but those kinds of shades are almost impossible for me to pull off. in fact, i think they're almost impossible for the majority of people to pull off [although power to you if you're one of them]. so i'll just stick with my slightly deeper, often pinker definition of a nude shade, because that's what works for me. 

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 …