Skip to main content

making faces :: meant for me

kate on kate
i don't have a lot to say about this, because, when it comes to the subject of nars audacious lipsticks, i've already said a lot. but in this case, i have to say something, because, despite the fact that i've collected several more of these little lovelies since i last wrote of them, there are a couple of things that need to be said:

1. this fall, they released the first new additions to the lineup since its launch in 2014.

2. one of the shades is called "kate".

now, my first inclination was to think that francois nars was simply continuing to name the lipsticks of this collection after stars of the silver screen, and that "kate" in this case referred to katharine hepburn, who was informally referred to as kate. [the spelling clearly indicates that it could not be referring to cate blanchett, who coincidentally won her first oscar for playing katharine hepburn.] but the names of the new shades don't actually line up as well with iconic actresses as the first round: shirley could refer to temple or maclaine, but stefania? mona? apoline? those don't line up so well.

so, i'm choosing to believe that this round of audacious lipsticks was inspired by lipstick-obsessed fans who've gleefully followed mr. nars' evolution [tossing money at him all the way] and that "kate" is, in fact, named after me.

i mean, it's called kate and it's purple. and everyone who reads the beauty portions of this blog knows that i have a bit of a thing for purple to begin with. it's not one of those "calls itself purple but is really just a berry/ pink shade with a bit more blue added in" purples, either. no, this is the real deal, a full-bodied, regal purple that's basically everything i could have asked for in a lipstick that would bear my name.

kate

kate

like a lot of the nars audacious line, this is a shade that looks like it should be fairly easy to match to an existing shade, but it really isn't. and this is coming from someone who has a not inconsiderable stash of purples at her disposal. behold my best effort:

l to r :: mac up the amp, kate, mac heroine, bite beauty taro
the first thing i couldn't get over was how red "up the amp" looked next to "kate". just a few years ago, that was one of the cooler-toned purples on the market. that's how the market has changed.

mac "heroine" is brighter and bluer. i find that "kate" looks a bit more sophisticated, while "heroine" is more of a fun shade. "heroine" has an almost candy-like quality to it when you see it next to muted shades [which all the others pictured are].

i initially thought that bite beauty "taro" would be a closer match, because "kate" looks quite cool seen next to other shades in a display, and it does have just a bit of grey in the undertone, but they're not similar at all, beyond the general purpleness.

beyond the considerations of colour, "kate" ticks all the boxes on the list of "things i have grown to expect from a nars audacious lipstick": it's a very smooth, lightweight formula that's a satiny matte on my lips [more of a satin-cream on others]; it's not moisturising, but it does feel quite nice on the lips and seems to make them look smoother; the lasting time is good.

of course, all this is for nought if "kate" the lipstick doesn't work for kate the person.




me likey.

as someone who does best in fully saturated, bold colours, anything with a hint of grey in it is moving into risky territory. shades that look fresh and lively on others make me look like i haven't slept in a week. but purples are more forgiving than a lot of shades, which i'm going to ascribe to the fact that both bright winter and bright spring people have a healthy amount of yellow hidden in their complexions, creating a nice counter balance. in this case, the fact that the colour is just a little tamped down would make it appropriate for an office or a business meeting. it's also enough that i think that people whose colouring leans cooler could get away with this, although on those whose complexion is also muted, it's going to look brighter than it does here.

i apologise for the fact that i'm not super-sure what else i'm wearing in those photos. the main shade on my lids is armani's eye tint in "rose ashes", paired with rouge bunny rouge "solstice halcyon" in the crease, and the liner is nars "baalbek". i believe the cheeks are a combination of mac "next to skin" [used to contour] and mac "vibrant grape". this is what happens when i think that i'm going to post something within twenty-four hours, so i don't need to bother writing anything down.

so is "kate" my lipstick soulmate? well, i don't believe in lipstick monogamy, so i wouldn't go so far. but i do feel like we share something pretty special.

Comments

When I saw that NARS had released a purple lipstick named Kate, I knew it would be only a matter of time before it showed up on your blog! It really is perfect for you. I'd be seriously tempted if I liked the Audacious formula.
P.S. I, too, remember when Up the Amp was the purplest purple on the market. I bought it in the spring of 2012, when MAC Heroine wasn't even permanent yet. How times have changed...
Kate MacDonald said…
If there were an award for most predictable beauty post of the year, this would definitely be it...

The thing that the Audacious range has going for it (or against it, depending on your feelings) is that it is extremely consistent. Other than the darkest shade I own (Bette), I've found the differences from one shade to another to be pretty marginal. Unfortunately, if you don't like the formula, you can pretty much expect that you're going to dislike the entire range.

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 …