Skip to main content

making faces :: quick peek [dior spring 2012]

i know that readers in the united states have had spring programs on their shelves since before christmas [which, frankly, should be illegal, because it's way too confusing], but here in canada, we're just starting to get the first hints of spring colour in cosmetic displays. sure, we can order from the u.s., but that's cheating... in a way. and besides, if you live in montreal in january, you know that spring is a distant mirage that exists merely to tease you with the promise of its eventual visit. in the meantime, we know it's going to be cold and miserable until the middle of april. and even then, i wouldn't bet serious money on a thaw.

nonetheless, as i mentioned, some bold folk are starting to dangle their springy bits in our faces, at least in certain retail locations. this past week, i spotted the new dior "garden party" collection [because, really, who doesn't want to have a garden party when it's -17 a snowing?]. i was able to grab some very rough photos with my phone and i thought i'd share them with you, as well as some of my initial thoughts on what i saw.

i have to say, this collection is really well named. looking at the soft florals and pastels, one of the first things that springs to mind is a highly civilised garden party, complete with butlers serving crustless sandwiches, blush-coloured wine, intricate centrepieces on perfectly laid-out tables and ladies in old-fashioned hats. trust me, i lived next to the lieutenant-governor's house in halifax and the annual garden party there is a big deal. and it's bursting with hues like those found in dior's spring collection.

IMAGES AND FIRST THOUGHTS AFTER THE BREAK...



everything here is soft- lilacs, pistachio greens, peachy pinks, ivory shimmer- there is not a heavyweight among the group. the collection boasts two "quints", or five-shadow palettes of harmonised colours. the first is a combination of light pinks and violets called "garden roses". it's super-pretty, feminine and delicate, like the blossoms of spring venturing out from their buds. or something more poetic. you'll have to imagine it, because apparently the blossoms don't take well to being photographed under fluorescent lighting on someone's hand. they're particular that way.

the second quint, "garden pastels" is slightly more varied in terms of its colour selection, but still very springy. featuring shades of pearly white, buttercream, seafoam, spring green and, of course, a delicate pink, it's the sort of thing that could appeal to a variety of complexions and skin tones [whereas "garden roses" seems more appropriate for the very fair and those with the skin of an english rose]. the colours aren't tremendously unique, so if this interests you, it's worth checking to see how many of the shades you can duplicate with your existing collection. if it's more than half, you might want to look into buying individual shades to replace the ones you're missing. if you only have one or two similar, you're probably better off buying the palette.

dior "garden pastels" five shadow palette


honestly, the colour payoff on both of these was phenomenal. each of the colours was smooth and rich, even though i was simply applying a quick swatch with my finger. the finishes are quite frosty, which might be an issue for some.

there were four lipsticks in the display, although only two of them are new with the collection- the permanent shades andalouse and diorama were included as well. the two new shades "corolle pink" and "tulip pink" are examples of the kind of colour dior does really well- pretty, soft feminine shades in the pink-coral family that go everywhere and suit most complexions. to me, they're actually very reminiscent of the two shades released with their 2011 spring collection, just a little less peach and more pink.

l to r :: andalouse, diorama, corolle pink, tulip pink top :: party lilac, pretty rose


there are two glosses as well- "pretty rose" and "party lilac". both more or less live up to their name, impart a little bit of colour and a lot of shine. i didn't put much effort into photographing these, i'll admit [you can see them on top of the lipstick swatches], because they're too sheer to capture properly without careful lighting. i'll admit straight up that i'm not a fan of dior's glosses, because i find that they're almost all so close to clear that they're indistinguishable from one another.

there is a smaller eye palette and a blush that are supposed to be included with the new collection, but this counter didn't have either one. they did have the two nail polishes- a medium lilac-purple called "forget-me-not" and a slightly shimmery soft green [which was actually my favourite part] called "water lily".you can see good images of both polishes here.

overall, it looks like a classic interpretation of spring. if you like soft pastels, it's bound to be your thing.

best bets :: water lily nail polish, garden pastels palette

meh :: glosses

Comments

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

making faces :: fall for all, part 2 [a seasonal colour analysis experiment]

well, installment one was the easy part: coming up with autumn looks for the autumn seasons. now we move into seasonal colour types that aren't as well-aligned with the typical autumn palette. first up, we deal with the winter seasons: dark, true and bright.

in colour analysis, each "parent" season- spring, summer, autumn, winter- overlap with each other season in one colour dimension- hue [warm/ cool], value [light/ dark] and chroma [saturated/ muted]. autumn is warm, dark and muted [relatively speaking], whereas winter is cool, dark and saturated. so you can see that the points of crossover in palettes, the places where you can emphasize autumn's attributes, is in the darker shades.

it's unsurprising that as fall transitions into winter, you get the darkest shades of all. we've seen the warmer equivalent in the dark autumn look from last time, so from there, as with all neutral seasons, we move from the warmer to the cooler cognate...


white trash

yes, my lovelies, i have returned from the dead, at least for the time it takes me to write this post. this is not just another piece of observational drivel about how i haven't been taking care of the blog lately, although i clearly haven't. on that front, though, the principal cause of my absence has actually been due to me trying to get another, somewhat related project, off the ground. unfortunately, that project has met with some frustrating delays which means that anyone who follows this blog [perhaps there are still a few of you who haven't entirely given up] would understandably be left with the impression that i'd simply forsaken more like space to marvel at the complexity of my own belly button lint. [it's possible you had that impression even before i disappeared.]

ok, enough with that. i have a subject i wanted to discuss with you, in the sense that i will want and encourage you to respond with questions, concerns and criticism in the comments or by em…

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…