Skip to main content

making faces :: one more bite won't kill me

i've always imagined that "one more bite won't kill me" will actually be my last words [or, alternately "what does this button do?"], but i hadn't until recently thought that the direct cause would be lipstick-related. now, when i look at the extent of my collection, i'm forced to acknowledge that there is a very good chance that i'll be unable to resist a new bite beauty amuse bouche and get crushed in a very colourful avalanche as i am trying to put everything away. i don't know how much time i've got left, but given the strength of my addiction and the limitations of space, things are likely to get dangerous soon. and yet, here i am, about to tell you about the next new shade of bite lipstick i brought home.

it wasn't that long ago that my principal issue with bite [and it wasn't a big issue, given the quality of their products] was that their shade range, while broad, tended to be the sorts of shades that lots of other brands had already. their new amuse bouche lipsticks showed some increased signs of originality, but their six-shade "sweet and savoury" collection for summer just smashed right through the wall. ok, not every shade is 100% original [deep brown "whiskey" seems like the sort of thing i've seen before, although i couldn't swear that there's an exact duplicate out there], but it's pretty damn close. having already succumbed to the allure of "kale" and "lavender jam", i couldn't resist going back for seconds.

taro
taro
"taro" is a very greyed purple, definitely muted in tone, but dark enough to give a bit of drama as well. intense and muted? that combination seems like it should be impossible, but clearly, it isn't. it's all about the darkness here: depth is what gives the colour both its intensity and its uniqueness. most muted purple tones are softer looking because they are lighter. and for that matter, most of them are pinker. one of the only permanent shades i have that dabbles in this range is mac's "up the amp", but it just looks like a medium sweetheart pink compared to "taro".

l to r :: taro, mac up the amp
with bright blues and swampy greens and even shades of yellow marching into lipstick collections everywhere this year, a shade of purple doesn't seem all that dramatic, but this is a bold choice for a colour. truly cool, muted tones are incredibly rare. when i did my series on lipsticks to suit all the sci\art seasons, true summer ended up with tamped down shades of cool pink and fuchsia. "taro" is something that's meant for a true summer complexion, especially for those who have darker hair.

in theory, that makes it a very difficult colour for me, since, as a bright [probably] winter, clarity of colour is the most important thing to bring out the best in my complexion. and, as much as i enjoy exploring and am impressed with the results of seasonal colour analysis, i have to say that i'm willing to take the risk for such a unique shade. i adore purples. i have nothing like it. it's saturated enough that it doesn't look insipid on me. i'll accept a less than ideal colour match for a colour this enchanting.

here it is in action...




i wish i could say with certainty what the shades i'm wearing are, but i failed to make proper notes. i reasonably certain it's an assortment of rouge bunny rouge, alongside nars "lhasa" and i'm reasonably sure that the blush is nars "sin", topped with colour pop "stole the show".

since the last review i posted, i notice that the sephora website [sephora being the exclusive distributor for bite beauty] has listed "taro" and "lavender jam" as limited edition, while the other shades from the sweet and savoury summer collection appear to be joining the permanent assortment. so, if you want to prioritize shades, put purple first.

"taro" once again showcases bite at their best. it's getting difficult for me to even look at other brands and let me tell you, that is shocking. and believe me, if i can find unique gems in their collection, healthy, non-addicted folk should have no problem. 

Comments

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

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 …

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…

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 …