making faces :: hot stuff

it's hot in here. it's not you.

ah yes, it's that time of year when the sun is strong, the humidity is high and most people are a little leery of putting a layer of paint on their faces, even a light one. after all, the inclination in the summer is to remove layers rather than add them and hot, humid weather has a way of taking your nicely done makeup and turning it into something from the climax of "raiders of the lost ark" in a hurry.

if you live your life moving from one air-conditioned spot to another [home, car, office], that's very comfortable for you. but chances are that you're going to have to sit on a terrace to have a drink or visit a friend who find that air conditioning aggravates their asthma [me] or get on a bus because your brakes are being repaired. and there are a lot of people [me included] who just have to do battle with the elements every day.

no one is likely to force you to wear makeup [put on the mascara or we'll kill grandma!], so a lot of people just don't bother with it in the warmer seasons. but there are places- often workplaces- that do sort of tacitly expect that you make some attempt to hide the embarrassment of morning face and, if you're the kind of person who likes to put on makeup anyway, you're probably not interested in just stowing your collection until the mercury drops.

so, here are a few things that i find work for me... feel free to agree, disagree or add your own.

1. hot weather tends to make you perspire. i don't think anyone is going to disagree with that, but a lot of people use cosmetic products- creams, colour cosmetics, anything- that are actually intended to be quite moisturising. unless your skin runs quite dry [in which case, for once, you can laugh at the rest of us] you're at least going to want to move away from putting a lot of products on your face that are too rich or sebaceous. anything that has the keyword "glow" in it is suspect, because products that make your skin "glow" do so by imparting it with rich, nutritious oily goodness. doesn't mean you can't wear them [i've stuck it out with my nars' sheer glow foundation], but keep in mind that you'll be compounding what nature is doing to you anyway.

one thing that you can do is get yourself a nice mattifying primer. yes, it's another layer, but the whole point of these is that they help absorb. there are a lot of them around and i don't claim to have tried all of them, but nars has a very nice one that's light without being drying and neostrata in canada has one that leaves the skin feeling quite velvety. for a cheaper variant, apparently using milk of magnesia accomplishes the same goal, although i'd really recommend this only for oilier skins.

2. it's bright. again, probably not a lot of people are going to disagree with this one. the fact that you can't really do anything about the fact that you're under bright light all the time, though, means that there are a few things to keep in mind. very elaborate, detailed makeup under bright lights tends to look a bit overdone. keeping things simple- fewer shades, less blending, etc., tends to work better for me.

of course, that doesn't mean that you have to be overly subtle. under bright conditions, bold colours can really work. simple can mean one big punch in the nose of colour. 

3. heat makes things messy. makeup is certainly no exception. to get around this, i usually try not to get around it at all. bring on the mess and make it your friend. i like to do things that start out looking a little smudged and imprecise, because that way, when the heat inevitably takes its toll, it at least won't be quite so obvious. mac's sadly discontinued greasepaint sticks are amazing for this sort of work and give you the awesome sensation of literally colouring your face with big crayons. benefit's creaseless cream shadows and armani's eyes to kill powder-that-you'll-think-is-cream shadows are also very effective. essentially, a creamier product can go on looking a little blurry and inexact, but still look good. if you want to put shadow or liner over top of that base, it'll also help them last longer.

4. moisture feels good. i'm not being really controversial here, am i? but one of the things that i avoided for a long time, but now keep as a staple for everyday use is mac's fix+ spray. it purports to make your cosmetics last longer and is perfect for applying powder products [especially loose pigments] or priming your skin. i don't know that my makeup lasts longer with it, but what i will say is that it definitely keeps it looking fresher for the time it does last. it really seems to stop the fading that occurs, especially in warmer times. i also find that it softens the appearance of makeup slightly, making it look a little more natural and relaxed.

and you can spritz it on your face when you start applying and when you finish, to give an incredibly refreshing feeling. i swear i'm going to start carrying bottles of this stuff in my purse for those moments when i need something to relax me. it's probably better than vodka. well, the two go hand in hand, really.

here are a few things that i've done to my face that illustrate these points...

this is a sort of hot-weather variant on a smoky eye, where i just smudged a cream shadow over my lids, set it with a bit of a darker pigment and was basically ready to go.

face ::

nars sheer glow foundation "mont blanc"
diorskin nude hydrating concealer "001"

eyes ::
benefit creaseless cream shadow "skinny jeans"
mac pigment "the family crest"
mac eye kohl "smolder"
inglot e/s "352"
diorshow mascara

cheeks ::
mac blush "my highland honey"

lips ::
mac l/s "out-minxed"



here's one using one of mac's greasepaint sticks. i basically just used it all over my lid- more towards the outer corners, since that's where i like to concentrate colour- and the quickly blended a shadow over it. this actually held up remarkably well during a particularly hot day and i credit that to the fact that it looked all mussed-up to begin with. i only put eye kohl [also known as "liner", but i like to talk fancy] on my upper lash line, since, when it's really hot, it lasts less time on my water line than it takes me to apply it.

face ::

lush colour supplement "jackie oates"
diorskin nude hydrating concealer "001"

eyes ::
mac greasepaint stick "french quarter"
mac e/s "patina"
mac e/s "dazzlelight" [as a highlight along the brow bone]

cheeks ::
mac mineralize skinfinish "by candlelight"

lips ::
urban decay l/s "voodoo"


this is the sort of thing i was talking about in terms of using bold colours very simply. i'm kind of proud of the fact that this looks complicated, but actually took all of five minutes to do. because the colours are separated into blocks, there was really nothing to do other than just apply. they more or less blended themselves, clever buggers. i think that this shows off the lovely, intense pigmentation of the shadows that came out with mac's "surf baby" collection. there's a reason i got almost all of them.

face ::
nars sheer glow foundation "mont blanc"
diorskin nude hydrating concealer "001"

eyes ::
mac e/s "saffron"
mac e/s "sun blonde"
mac e/s "manila paper"
mac greasepaint stick "dirty"
ysl faux cils mascara

cheeks ::
mac cheek powder [aka blush] "my paradise"

lips ::
ysl rouge pur shine l/s "blood orange"


and, finally, another more colourful look. normally, i don't do this sort of pronounced liner in the summer, because it ends up looking a hot mess in short order, but one of the nice things i've noticed about the armani "eyes to kill" shadows is that they actually hold other products in place fairly well. it's like they're having a little colour competition on my face. these photos were taken not long after application, but i was floored six or eight hours later to notice that i looked more or less exactly the same. no summer-smudging, no fading, no creasing. i also decided to take another of the dangers of summer in hand when i did this by anticipating that i was going to get flushed in the heat. i started out with a fairly bright pop of blush on the cheeks and presto- i meant to look like that.

face ::
lush colour supplement "jackie oates"
diorskin nude hydrating concealer "001"

eyes ::
armani eyes to kill e/s "pulp fiction"
nars e/s "dogon" [dark side only]
mac mega metal e/s "prance"
mac e/s "all races"
mac fluidline "blacktrack"
ysl faux cils mascara

cheeks ::
guerlain blush g

lips
nars l/g "strawberry fields"

the currency gouging index

i'm starting to include references to this more and more as i post. you'll notice it mostly in posts related to cosmetics, because those are where there is a clear difference in canadian versus u.s. prices.

canadian vs u.s. dollar 2010- 2011

basically, the story is this:

the canadian dollar is worth more than the american dollar and has been for several months. in fact, for the last couple of years, we've been dancing with parity on an ongoing basis. many canadian consumers can accept the fact that our import taxes are a little higher, or that there is duty to be paid on imported goods, but considering that for every canadian dollar paid, american companies are making money if they charge the same price as they do to americans. [e.g., using yesterday's exchange rate from the bank of canada- a product sold at $25usd to a canadian customer would net $25.81usd if the customer paid in canadian dollars]

we are a reasonable people. most of us do not mind paying a couple of extra dollars for the convenience of being able to buy in our own country [although even saying that seems weird], but there are limits and many companies insist on pushing those limits. and so i give you the cosmetics "currency gouging" hall of shame/ fame for summer 2011. [i'm choosing cosmetics because the price changes from country to country. buying music is paid in usd and costs the same no matter what currency is in your bank account, which makes it an awesome time to buy music. i'm perfectly willing to look at any other industries if people are interested.]

hall of shame

armani- hmm... one eyes to kill eye shadow in the u.s.= $32. in canada? $42. one rouge d'armani lipstick in the u.s.= $30. in canada? $38. are you f**king kidding me? armani products are stellar, but you're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to believe they're that much better in canada than they are in the united states.

m.a.c.- well, at first glance, the differences don't seem so huge- $14.50usd vs. $17.50cad for a lipstick or eye shadow- until you consider that m.a.c. are a f**king canadian company. seriously, despite the fact that they were purchased by estee lauder, their head office is still located in toronto [ok, technically newmarket, but they're seriously a block and a half north]. they should be charging us less!

givenchy- you'll see in my previous post that the pricing for a gloss from givenchy is $29cad versus $26.50usd. that's not so bad, right? well no, but on my on line order, i got dinged an extra $1.88 on the givenchy gloss only for "duty". what the hell is the inflated canadian price covering if it's not the extra import taxes we call "duty"? you're double dipping, givenchy.

hall of fame

guerlain- i was originally just going to make this a hall of shame, but i felt that i would be doing a disservice. guerlain are a really expensive brand, which is kind of sad because more people should be able to enjoy their products. the one thing that you can say about guerlain is that they're pretty much equally out of reach no matter what side of the border you stand on. price of a rouge g in the u.s.? $46. in canada? $50. price of a limited edition rouge g lipstick in the u.s.? $47. in canada? $50. that little differential is actually a key component of the guerlain pricing strategy. in fact, permanent products are priced above [but not grossly above] the exchange rate, but limited edition products are priced much closer to the current exchange rate. in fact, guerlain's limited edition blush/ bronzer powders are priced the same or less in canada as they are in the u.s. why do that when the regular products maintain a difference? guerlain is being very smart. they know that with the canadian dollar at parity or above, selling at the same price is a winning proposition. so for products that are only available a limited time, why not offer them at the same price? for permanent products, they are betting that, over the long term, the canadian dollar will be lower than the american, so it makes sense to guard permanent prices higher to protect themselves from a cad collapse. smart, smart, smart business and an excellent way to curry favour with the folks north of the border.

making faces :: product review [armani, chanel, estee lauder, nars]

oh yes, everyone is coming out with new things these days. so here's a great, big omnibus review of a bunch of things i've accumulated over the last little while. some are here for a limited time, some will be around for the long haul, so pace yourselves accordingly.

armani "eyes to kill" eye shadow :: it's not often that i find something in the cosmetic world that makes me think "wow, that is really different", but these shimmery shadows are one of them. they come in pots, like cream shadows. they apply super-smoothly wet or dry, like cream shadows, but they aren't messy or prone to smudging. really, they're powders with multiple colours in one.

the colours are all quite breathtaking and, when applied, while they smooth into a single, nuanced shade, you can see elements of all the different colour "components" inside. who doesn't want an excuse to have people look at their eyes? the fact that they are quite shimmery makes them quite dramatic to look at, but there is a good range of colours from light to dark, with a few medium shades thrown in.

READ MORE REVIEWS AND SEE THE PRODUCTS IN ACTION!

lust red

the real magic in these is in their "technical" aspects, though. i got "lust red", a black shade replete with purple and red shimmer, and i had some trepidation because i'd been let down by such colours before. with other shades that have this effect, i find that, unless you really pack on the colour, they tend to just look like slightly muddy shades of black. worse yet, a lot of them are prone to fallout, so you end up with a lot of sparkle on your face, but very little on your eyes. when i first applied "lust red", i noticed a bit of sparkle spreading and was worried, but i brushed it away and persevered. once applied, i was amazed at the fact that the shade showed its base and shimmer perfectly and i was even more amazed when it looked exactly the same hours later. these shadows don't fade, don't smudge and don't move. however, when you clean them away with water or a moist cleanser, they come right off. i was skeptical when armani's publicity claimed this but this is one of those few times where the product deserves the hype.

the photo of the pot is more accurate...

these are permanent, which is good, because the price tag is a little hard to swallow. they're $32usd, which is bad enough, but some genius has determine that this should equate to $42. huh??? our dollar has been above par with the american dollar for weeks. how is it even possible that we should be paying $10 more?? someone needs to look at this, pronto.

the lady at the armani counter [only at holt renfrew in canada, as far as i'm aware] warned me that it's important to keep these babies tightly sealed when they're not in use, including keeping the small plastic inner cover in place. this helps them retain the amount of moisture that lets them do what they do.

yes, they're pricy, particularly if you're canadian, but these are innovative gems and, i'm not kidding, worth the investment.

chanel "rouge coco shine" lipsticks :: it seems that everybody is coming out with lip products that are a hybrid between a lipstick and a gloss and the most recent entrant into the category is chanel. as with all new chanel products, these have been hotly anticipated, especially as they did a limited release of one shade for valentine's day.

antigone

i'm a big fan of chanel's rouge coco lipsticks, but these don't really bear any resemblance save the name. these shades are quite sheer, whereas the rouge coco's are extremely pigmented. the coco shines are super-soft on the lips and don't have the stickiness one normally associates with glosses. the formula is like a very moist lipstick- comparable to mac's lustre finish, but without the tendency to bleed around the lip contour.

i picked up "antigone" [partly because of the name, i'll admit], which is a strawberry reddish-pink. although it really just augments the colour of my own lips, it's one of the more pigmented shades, which leads me to believe that the lighter ones wouldn't show up at all on me. it's the kind of lipstick i can wear for anything and i imagine that it'll be a particularly nice option for summer, where i don't want to feel like i'm wearing anything heavy.

for $39cad [$32usd... growl], though, i don't know that i'd find it necessary to buy a variety of shades. generally, i find them too sheer for the differences in the colours to show up in a lot of cases. the colour doesn't fade overly quickly, but, being a gloss-like formula, any amount of friction [from eating, drinking, etc.] will wipe it away. i'd recommend finding one colour you like and choosing that one.

sea star bronzing blush

estée lauder "sea star bronzing blush" :: this is one of those things that you want to have simply because it looks so cool. it's a bronze-y powder with a pink starfish debossed in it. the starfish is not an overspray, but an intrinsic part of the product. while i've heard it suggested that you could use the colours separately, i think that the pattern would make that very difficult and would require more patience than i can muster.

mixed shade

mixed together, the two shades form a lovely warm rosy peach shade that definitely functions as a blush more than as a bronzer [there are proper bronzers available as part of lauder's summer collection for that purpose]. it can be built up to a fair intensity, although it's never going to be super-dark. i definitely think it's better suited to fair-skinned complexions, since the colour is fairly subtle. i had no problem seeing the colour it added to my cheeks, but i'm definitely on the pale side of the skin spectrum. i like anything that makes me look radiant without making me look brown or orange.

this is limited edition and, i think, will sell pretty fast. it's $40cad/ $34usd [better, but still more than it should be], which is higher than a regular blush, but it is a fairly large compact.

nars "copacabana illuminator" :: finally, this is a product i tried from a fairly generous sample. it's part of a line of skin illuminators that nars has launched. these products are designed to give skin an all-over glow with just a hint of colour and can be applied either on their own or mixed with foundation. there are four shades- orgasm, which is a natural peach, super orgasm, which is a similar shade with a slightly golden tone, laguna, which is more bronze and copacabana, which is a white-gold highlighter.

the texture is like a fairly light lotion and i found it easy to blend it in quickly with foundation. the effect is extremely subtle. my skin looked a bit brighter, but i don't know that i would pay the asking price [$29usd/ not sure on the canadian price, but undoubtedly higher] for the effect it gives. i found that if i added more than a little of the illuminator, it had the effect of making my face a little too white in comparison with the rest of me.

used on its own, over bare skin, it was more visible and definitely added a pale sheen to the skin. it reminded me a lot of benefit's high beam or moon beam highlighters, in that the effect was pretty enough, but i found that it had a tendency to make my pores more obvious. i think that whether or not you like the effect is very much a subjective thing. i liked it mixed with foundation, but i don't know that i'd pay upwards of $30 for it. the illuminators are a permanent part of the nars line up and there will likely be more shades to come.

and, to give you an idea of what these things are like in the field, here are a few things i've tried with them in the last couple of weeks.

"eyes to kill"
i decided i wanted to try something dramatic to test drive the armani shadow and i only wish that i'd remembered to snap photos when i got home, so that you could see that my makeup basically looked exactly the same as when i went out. of course, i'm not sure the face underneath fared so well, but i'll have to wait a while for armani to come up with a fix for that. the since it was night time, i had to use a flash for the photos, which i don't normally like to do.

face ::

nars sheer glow foundation mont blanc
mac prolongwear concealer nw20
mac prep & prime finishing powder

eyes ::
armani eyes to kill shadow lust red
mac pigment new fixation
mac pigment pink opal
mac fluidline eye liner blacktrack
ysl faux ciles mascara

cheeks ::
estée lauder sea star bronzing blush

lips ::
chanel glossimer myriade




"not quite cute"
last week, i reviewed mac's "quite cute" collection and, having done so, it occurred to me that i had a lot of products already that could easily give me the same look as the new ones i opted to skip [for varying reasons] from the new collection. so this is something i threw together to remind myself that sometimes what's new bares a striking resemblance to what's gone before. i'm wearing the nars illuminator in this one, but i don't know how different it would look if i weren't.

face ::
nars sheerglow foundation mont blanc
mac prolongwear concealer nw20
nars copacabana illuminator
mac prep & prime finishing powder

eyes ::
mac crystal avalanche e/s
mac aquavert e/s
mac smudged violet e/s
mac mating call e/s
mac blacktrack fluidline eye liner
ysl faux cils mascara

cheeks ::
mac azalea blossom blush ombre
mac hang loose mineralize blush

lips ::
inglot l/s 151

"antigone"
as you can probably tell, i've gone on a bit of a kick with red eye shadow lately. inglot has a program whereby you can build your own shadow, blush or combination palette for well less than you can get a palette anywhere else, so i made myself a custom job with a matte, neutral highlighter, a matte coral and an amazing tomato red shade with a stunning gold shimmer. sadly, the shimmer doesn't really show up when the shadow was applied, although the colour is quite intense [and it's damn difficult to find a good red shadow]. all inglot shadows tend to be a bit powdery, which makes them difficult to work with- you can see from the shots that i couldn't get the colour perfectly even. my advice would be to work patiently [which is a problem for me], mind the excess and pat rather than swipe. the colour payoff is intense, which is a relief at least.


face ::
nars sheer glow foundation mont blanc
mac prolongwear concealer nw20

eyes ::
inglot 351 e/s [matte buttercream]
inglot 495 e/s [warm red with pink/ gold shimmer]
inglot 368 e/s [matte peach-coral]

cheeks ::
mac marine life highlight powder

lips ::
chanel rouge coco shine antigone

making faces

i remember someone i used to work with commented on my eye makeup one time saying with a certain surprise that i always did it differently. i guess i understand the perspective, because some people- a majority, most likely- choose a particular look that they feel emphasises their best features, they've found a mask that represents them. personally, i change the mask i wear every day for the same reason i wear different clothes every day- because i generally feel differently every day. perhaps some day i'll discover a singular look that sums me up, but i generally find that there are just too many mes waiting to get out and play.

trust me- i'm understated

there are times when i'm forced to tweak my appearance. when i'm looking for work, or starting work, i cultivate a sort of muted, restrained look, the kind of thing that most people seem to associate with maturity and responsibility. and i generally keep that up until such time as i feel comfortable pushing the boundaries. (i don't think i'd last long in any place where i felt that the boundaries truly could not be pushed.) i think that everyone has that sort of persona that they drag out like an outfit reserved for special occasions. this is the face that makes me seem like a rational, trustworthy sort. i just usually have to wait a while for it to sink in that i am those things, no matter what i look like. it's a quiet version of me, but it has its purposes.

as i mentioned last week, there are certain associations with strong, red lips. so that's something that i crack out when i need or want to command attention. as a result, when wearing my bossy lips, i tend to leave everything else played down. no need to set up competing teams on your face. this is a very straightforward mask, no complexity to it. and no, it's not like i wear this only when i have to do a presentation, or yell at someone, or have an important meeting. but it helps.

is it hot in here?

of course, sometimes, it's more about the eyes. it's never been a mystery to me why dark-rimmed, smoky eyes came into fashion. it's actually an incredibly easy look to do (you can make it as complicated and layered as you like, but you can accomplish the effect with literally one dark colour smudged all around your eye) and because the contrast it creates with the whites of the eyes is wonderfully striking. personally, i have a variation on this that i keep as a mask for summer nights when i'm going out. it involves combining a lot of smudgy, dark, sparkly eye makeup with warm, shimmery colours over the rest of my face and lips. the idea is that, if it's hot and i'm going to be somewhere packed with people, i'm going to be glistening with sweat and my makeup is going to get messy anyway. i might as well look like i did that on purpose.

this is my happy face

conventional logic holds that you should choose to emphasise either eyes or lips but never both. i have the same respect for that little nugget as i do for other bits of lore that are accepted just because lots of people say them. yes, the fact is that it will look a little extreme, if for no other reason than it's not what people are used to seeing. but sometimes, extremity is what you want. sometimes, exaggeration sums up your mood. and aren't all masks on one level or another an exaggeration of some part of you?

really, i just rolled out of bed

even what looks natural can sometimes be carefully constructed. the entire advertising industry is built on this. we know, each of us, what we look like when we are completely unkempt, unadorned and there are people (how many people varies from one to another) who we allow to see us that way. really, this is another face we put on- the one that expresses ease and comfort. in my case, i don't think it's any more or less genuine than any of the other faces i have. it has its audience, like all the others. but of course, i always keep a natural-looking mask around as well, because you never know when it might come in handy.

many believe that masks imply a certain cowardice, that they are something behind which one hides. i'm sure that there are instances where that is the case. but i tend to takea more expressionist view. my various masks aren't things that are constructed, that i use as cover, but things that i draw (double entendre!) from inside that are small expressions of whatever part of me is at the forefront at that particular moment. so yes, what i look like can change, sometimes dramatically, from one moment to another. i just happen to think that all the mes i have deserve their time in the spotlight.

feel free to share descriptions and images of the yous you love to share as well.

i won't go through all the details, but i had help in creating the masks i'm modeling (plus many others) from mac cosmetics, nars, dior, guerlain, chanel, bobbi brown, lancome, armani and others...

how do you like me now?