UK Glamour magazine is giving away full size Benefit pencils. So for £2 magazine cost, you get a £15 full size pencil. Unless you live in my area, as then you'll be out of luck I'm afraid.
[evil cackle]
TOP TIP:
I went to a dozen newsagents who were ALL sold out. Then I went to Tesco, who had 2. Then I went to Sainsbury's, who had 7. Moral of the story: supermarkets are more likely to replenish the shelf, so go there first.
I was reading this article, about a certain Debrahlee Lorenzana, who despite a penchant for cosmetic surgery, laments: “Are you saying just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?” She alleges that Citibank fired her for being "too distracting". Her rightful use of polished makeup and fitted clothes, she speculates, were the cause of their unease. She has made her point via, paradoxically, a series of seductive shots in The Village Voice, culminating in a 26 page spread! One lawyer's blog posed the question, "Did curvaceous New York banker Debrahlee Lorenzana get fired for being too sexy? Or do you think, as I do, that her lawsuit over it is merely a publicity ploy for a modelling career?"
This fraught topic, of how attractive a woman can be before it pools into 'unprofessionalism' reminds me of the recent tweet by the makeup artist Jenny Patinkin, who incidentally I only just realised actually read my piece on her! (due to being effectively ostracized from social networking as no facebook account nor twitter account for me, I only just saw this as I was checking for her latest gems). Jenny Patinkin had offhandedly observed that "Smokey eyes + office job = not being taken seriously. Would u hire anyone w/makeup like Kim Kardashian? Smokey is 2 distracting 4 work."
Prior to that comment, I had never considered it. My logic was, as long as the colours are neutral, anything goes. But the truth is, there is an unwritten rule.
I was reminded of the case won not that long ago in UK. Amitjo Kajla, a young and pretty prison guard, argued that she had been bullied for wearing makeup and having her uniform tailored to fit, and that being caught within the "macho" prison attitude had effectively resulted in her unfair dismissal. She settled out of court. Officers had defended their postion by insisting her makeup and outfits could pose a danger to her safety: "When Miss Kajla came to the centre she was wearing a very tight fitted v-neck woolen jumper - far too revealing in my opinion.'I said it was not appropriate and all the prisoners were ringing bells to get her attention.' Michael Doolan, acting governor at the time of the incident, told the tribunal Miss Kajla's appearance was 'overwhelming' in terms of make-up. He said she wore heavy eye-liner, mascara, glossy lipstick and had rouge cheeks. Miss Kajla[...]toned down her make-up after an informal chat with prison governor".
Amitjo Kajla bought lighter makeup but wrote in her diary: "Make-up is me, I don't want to change me". When accused of going to work "glammed up", she, like Debrahlee Lorenzana, cited her upbringing as the catalyst: "I was taught by my parents to take a pride in my appearance."
Personally I am pleased that this right to use makeup, even in the harshest and most inglorious of environments, was upheld. In the Daily Mail's coverage as well as other tabloids, I noticed the comments were overridingly hostile, insinuating that by wearing her habitual makeup and nose stud, she was showing a flagrant disregard for the status quo. But that is the Daily Mail. Although Amitjo Kajla maintained that by being friendly and behaving as normal, she was treating the offenders with respect, it is obvious that when dealing with volatile offenders, one must be extra vigilant. However, that shouldn't mean that she has to eliminate her self-confidence altogether. Makeup can be worn for one's own wellbeing, not necessarily for others. Her safety as a prison officer shouldn't be compromised depending on her attractiveness, and furthermore why should the inmates get the privilege of dictating the prison staff's makeup regimen? With so much bureaucracy in the public sector, which allows prisoners to hold officers to ransom via various human rights, this trend should not be exacerbated by co-workers.
Another recent case won was a disabled Law student working at Abercrombie & Fitch, who succesfully claimed that the stores "look policy" was used as an excuse to keep her hidden away in the stockroom. This followed a recently settled a £25 million lawsuit brought by nine former employees, all from ethnic minority groups, who similarly said that they were forced to work in stockrooms or on night shifts because they did not fit the Abercrombie "look". Tellingly, the case was won on the grounds that by wearing a cardigan to conceal the join between her skin and the prosthetic arm, the "look" was compromised, and not by being the fact of her being disabled. This scathing article charts Abercrombie &Fitch's various PR disasters.
Again within the US retail sector, American Apparel has been exposed for its shallow entrance policies. Making a mockery of any notions of the American Dream and confusing an aspirational image with being elitist and even racist, the store has been repeatedly chastised by Gawker, who managed to leak an internal memo where it was stipulated that all job applicants must send in a full body shot.
American Apparel concede, "We do screen, but not for beauty. What we look for is personal style [...] The line consists of a tremendous number of colors that are more like art supplies than fashion, so when we're hiring, one of the things we look for is an ability to take our products, make them exciting, and show how cool they can look, which doesn't have much to do with just being pretty."
- Yes that's about as convincing as A&F hiding the disabled worker away because her cardigan was offensive. And how pretentious does it sound to call your clothes "more like art supplies than fashion"?! Please!
Abercrombie & Fitch and American Apparel both have strict guidelines on hair and makeup; for A&F this means minimal, natural makeup and for American Apparel similarly makeup and hair is policed. One hiring manager recalls being instructed:"Try to find some of these classy black girls, with nice hair, you know?"
American Apparel is currently struggling and tilting dangerously towards bankruptcy, although it has found investment for now.
I understand the need for good presentation, and perhaps that does mean not wearing lipgloss or glitter, but I fail to see why even a (ok subtle) smokey brown eye and nude lips can't be acceptable, whatever your job is. The fact that these chains force their staff to be treated as models rather than sales staff, would deter me from buying there. And indeed has even been read as a major contributing factor to AA's demise.
I know certain sectors have different allowances, i.e working at a funeral parlour vs working at a Sephora, but surely there must be a universal happy medium? How much makeup is too much? And is it ever fair to constrict makeup?
What do You think??
Yes, apparently new research funded by Olay and printed in the June issue of the British Journal of Dermatology has shown that moisturisers are the key – women with well-hydrated faces tend to develop persistent wrinkles more slowly than those with dry skin.
The Proctor & Gamble funded study traces the key between facial expressions and wrinkles. The results showed that an average 28 year old woman with dry skin would have increased the amount of visible wrinkles by 52% by the time she reached 36. However if she had well-hydrated skin, the visible wrinkles would have increased by just 22% over the same time frame. In short, the state of their skin at 28 dictated the rate they would age and "was predicted by the pattern of lines observed with a smiling expression at baseline."
The concept of oily skin and the link between moisturising and ageing is nothing new: "Ageing is all about moisture loss. As skin cells grow older, they lose their ability to keep in moisture and this results in drier skin and the appearance of lines and wrinkles. Dry skin is brittle and cannot hold its shape fully during daily movement. Hydrated skin is much more flexible and able to crease without permanently changing superficially. This is why anti-ageing creams are all based on the moisturising principle."
But the link between dry skin and wrinkles had never been investigated until this study established that repeated facial expression caused persistent wrinkles - which can only be softened by moisturising well in advance. This information hardly seems groundbreaking, the term "laughter lines" has been around a while, after all. But having it all in black and white, even if it is sponsored by an Olay moisturiser, means that there really is no excuse to not moisturise well in advance of your thirties.
However it is interesting that the emphasis is simply on moisture, not "peptides" or other buzz words that make skincare sound so promising. It has been widely noted that these ingredients in any case would need specific lab conditions, or at least the right packaging, to keep the active ingredients balanced and effective. And notwithstanding pipette packaging etc, the fact remains that only prescription retinoids have been shown to work - and if an over the counter remedy really does work, it risks being labelled a medicine, and thus can't be a shelf product advertised and sold in bulk...
As if to corroborate this evidence, Kylie Minogue has sensationally revealed that she has turned her back on the botox and similar treatments which have preserved her youth. Perhaps because botox supposedly causes its own wrinkles. Instead, her secret is nothing more than a humble jar of Ponds Cold cream. Next week: Simon Cowell reveals his mega watt smile is down to Colgate.
I was privileged to attend an evening showcase of the new offerings. I was secretly hoping Tom Pecheux would be there in person, but the venue was instead merely decorated with images of his handsome visage peering confidently down, with quotes elaborating on his inspiration. The best thing about this launch is the sense that it does indeed truly feel inspired. The colours and finishes reveal a master who has seen it all, yet still now reinvents and reinterprets those classic winning colours. Whoever chose Tom Pecheux for Lauder, hit gold. His collection is modern, but respects - venerates - the class and elegance that the Estée Lauder name has nurtured for so long.
There was champagne and great company, especially Pixiwoo! (love them!) The swatching began, and everyone was unanimously impressed.
*The lipglosses are available now and will be permanent, the eyeshadows come out in July, and the eyeshadow palettes and nail polishes also come out in July (Selfridges; Brown Thomas) or August (nationwide counters).
The wide array of lipglosses (£15) supposedly come in three finishes: Shine, Shimmer and Sparkle - good luck to anyone who can group them.
I tested a few and can broadly advise that the glittery ones are the stickiest. I am fussy about lipgloss and think Guerlain is the benchmark for brilliance in that field. The one I chose, Simply Pink, is the least sticky and is in fact very pleasant with a fruity scent. It gives lips a subtle peachy pink tint and is very juicy and glossy. It looks like this:
Simply Pink is not as pigmented as it swatches, but it's a wonderful understated luscious lip to go with dramatic eyes. The collection, as seen on the model, is matte face (no blushers or bronzers were launched), heavy smoked eyes, and natural shiny lips. The gloss has a doe foot aplicator and the colour and shine last a good few hours.
The eyeshadows are the standout though. These shadows are superb! Smooth, creamy, pigmented, and you get 2.1g for £15.50, which is effectively the same price point as MAC, yet the gold luxe packaging and mirror really make it feel reliably high end. These will last you a while. The colours are beautiful and dynamic, and even the pale shades manage to be surprisingly individual.
Twilight Rose and Enchanted Meadow (a pale pink and pale green respectively) are interpreted as delicate peachy sheen, and cool pistachio. These work well as lid colours, highlight colours, accent colours or worn together... which is like an angel wing! The deepest sparkle shades (dark navy Midnight Star, pictured, and shimmering black) are intense and work brilliantly as eye liners or lid colours. They have masses of silver flecks but the blue I have has not suffered fallout. I use it with a MAC 219 brush to outline my eyes.
The palettes (£34.50), Blue Dahlia and Surreal Violet, are cleverly assembled to collect every facet of blue and purple, which allows for a multitude of eyeshadow creations. The white shades in both palettes are wonderful: the Blue Dahlia white can actually be used as an eyeshadow transformer, as it's iridescent! And the white in the Surreal Violet palette is silver toned and takes on a lilac cast. The purples and greys effortlessly achieve the ultimate Autumn smokey eye. The best shade is the blackberry square, so creamy - and expertly pitched to intensify the other colours.
All of the eyeshadows last really well through a long day. They are buildable, so can either be worn demure or intensely layered for bold smokey looks. I highly recommend you pick at least one up! This is how an eyshadow should be folks.
And finally, the nail polish (£12). There are two: the eponymous Blue Dahlia, which is a dark almost blackened navy, and Surreal Violet, a hybrid of the trend for grey beige (Chanel Particuliere, Essie Mink Muffs, etc) but with a secret peach pearl undertone, all enveloped in lilac. It simply is un-dupeable, and a must-have. I am wearing it with Essie topcoat and it's been on almost a week!
Check out your nearest Estée Lauder counter this summer, to get your winter makeup in the bag! Oh and P.S, you might want to grab Bronze Goddess Bronzing gel if you haven't already - it's been on heavy rotation for me and has made it possible for me to use these distinctly wintry shades but still look summery.
Thanks so much to Estee Lauder for a wonderful event, and this beautiful goody bag.
www.esteelauder.co.uk
www.esteelauder.com
direct link to eyeshadows, currently exclusively online:
http://www.esteelauder.co.uk/templates/product/spp.tmpl?CATEGORY_ID=CAT21351&PRODUCT_ID=PROD98823
It's nothing new to speculate as to the ethical implications of a popular guru advising their minions to go buy a fabulous new item, yet here we are again. This article in the New York Times , crudely titled "Look What I Bought (or Got Free)" has exposed the trend further.
The tone of the article is rather derogatory, as in this segment describing the narrative of a "haul":
“If you follow me on Twitter, you know I was Twittering about my dilemma,” she said earnestly to her audience. “Should I get the gray or should I get the black?” She held up a pair of black Uggs. Mystery solved.
Recently when the somewhat notorious "Elle" and "Blair" featured on Good Morning America, the TV hosts concluded, "Did I hear it right, this young girl had to quit school because she's so busy shopping?!" (this comment provoked ire from Blair, in the only video I've seen of hers, where she responded - but also included outtakes where she spoke about "putting on her voice" and how "no, I can't say that or they'll think..." which ironically added credence to the accusation of the sisters as a business enterprise controlling a huge, dumb audience.)
Celebrities front ad campaigns all the time (just ask disgruntled models!) but I don't think anyone accepts that a YouTube celebrity is afforded the same luxury. Whereas when Eva Longoria fronts a L'Oreal home dye we all know there is hardly a more unlikely scenario than her dyeing her own hair at home, with plastic gloves on - when a YouTube guru does the same pitch, we accept it as genuine. Afterall, invariably the reason a YouTube personality is embraced by so many, is because of their 'homeliness'.
So when emails were leaked (linked in the NYT article) which revealed the fact that once a Guru is popular, an agent will come along and poach them, and demand money for reviews... we feel betrayed. FTC rules only go so far; there is no reveal of how much consideration is given, let alone any bribes/"gifts".
The article speaks of a trend for "haulers" and avoids the heart of the makeup community, which is arguably makeup tutorials. The beauty community is described as having been fully absorbed into a shallow hauling frenzy. Perhaps it has, and perhaps, as the article suggests, it is a tonic for these recession hit times, "a voyeuristic thrill: seeing how other people spend money".
I am unfamiliar with any of the Gurus profiled by the NYT, except Lauren Luke, who they describe as: "a role model to many haulers (she parlayed her YouTube videos into a career as a makeup artist with her own product line and TV show)". This does her a huge disservice, as she is in fact a prime example of a Guru who has got to her exalted position purely through tutorials.
I know the beauty community is insular, and we bond because we know most people would mock the way a certain tone of lipstick can make our day (!), but even so, I feel upset to see how the article denies any scope of intelligence, as it sums up: "Then she caught herself with a philosophical thought, which seems to be a rarity among haulers. 'When is it going to be enough stuff?' "
But some of the videos I watch are very articulate and informative. It's a shame to see the dumb airhead stereotype being reinforced like this. Having said that, dozens of Gurus enjoy nothing more than to be called Barbie, they revel in the shallowness. But in the main they do it self-effacingly and for effect, right? Right?? (just hope so.)
And if you can harness such a huge audience and companies approach you for a review, why should the company get away with free publicity? Some Gurus can rival a TV show audience, and what's more, an audience saturated with admiration and trust. So, in many ways, it is unfair that companies balk at paying for a spotlight review! On the other hand, viewers feel personally affronted to see that an honest review is inevitably compromised once sums change hands. Making money by becoming a partner is fine, making money with your own TV show, makeup line, T Shirt selling, website... all fine. But undermining the integrity of your channel is surely very different. Perhaps they could set up a different channel for paid reviews, would that be a solution?
It is a fine line, and it's hard to argue that if your position allows you to cream off money with endless reviews, you wouldn't take it. YouTube is an unknown quantity, relatively new. Will a major Guru always retain their power or will it fade away? Should one seize the free money and assume that viewers should rely on their own judgement, 'a fool and their money, and so on?'
It is a tricky situation. I have been watching makeup videos for a while, and there is an argument to say that the mass of haul videos and review videos have corrupted YouTube. The Partnership programme has corrupted YouTube. But everything gets commercialised.
Luckily when a blog or YouTube personality gets a great reputation, they can be loath to lose it. "Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial!" Temptalia is the clearest example. As a long-standing blog resource, it has set its own pace and tone and is never compromised. I am grateful that when I'm considering a purchase, I can go there for an objective analysis. And the brands continue to send products whatever the review, because any self-respecting beauty company knows, blogs are the lifeblood of a true beauty consumer, and the only thing worse than being trashed, is being ignored.
I would like to review more makeup, but reviews take time and ultimately can lead to sales, so if it can be a gifted product, I would see no harm at all. And luckily many successful reviewers go by that maxim. I wish articles and news segments would focus more on well written blogs, or well executed YouTube reviews. That might allow makeup to be aligned with art, rather than tart. Or something.
Once again, Eyeko's polishes have left me VERY impressed. These are £3.50 for 8.5ml and are "a nail friendly formula that is Toluene, Formaldehyde, DBP and Camphor FREE! No Colour fade thanks to UV absorbers and an amazing glossy, chip resistant finish which strengthens nails too!"
I think these are the BEST budget nail polishes out there - for instance, I find Barry M very thick and prone to streaking, also the Barry M smell horrible and cheap to me.
These polishes (I received three: Posh polish, Coral polish, and Vampire polish) go on very watery but as I explained in my last review, this enables them to create a glossy smooth finish. Indeed, I was on the verge of ordering a backup of the great MAC Blue India nail polish from Liberty of London when these arrived, but after loving these £3.50 bottles, suddenly £8 didn't seem as much of a bargain. And I think the Coral one looks a lot like the new MAC To The Beach from promo shots, so I'd say these are totally comparable and a lot more affordable!
Coral polish (above) is designed to "get your toes resort-ready". I love the Eyeko website and descriptions! They are so fun, yet very accurate - swatches are also completely on the mark. It's a lively very orange red that indeed would make a fabulous toe colour or look striking with a tan. Essentially, it's the ultimate holiday nail shade! This can be worn with just one coat, but two coats, with all of the Eyeko polishes, creates a true deluxe finish. They all look expensive on! Totally could be high end, seriously!! - Unbelieveable really, as most drugstore nail polishes betray their cheapness on some level. Not these. The only hint of their economical status is their runny texture - but as I said, I don't mind that aspect at all.
Then there is the famous Posh Polish. Taking their cue from Chanel as they did with the stunning Vintage Polish (now back in stock after being LE by the way)this one is Particuliere by another name. And seeing as the Chanel is waiting list only....
This one has to be my favourite. Like the green Chanel one, it's a shade I would never have been drawn to, for fear it would make my hands look corpse-like. But instead, as Eyeko explain: "For ladylike nails this chic taupe shade wins hands down." It simply is, well, a posh polish. And, best of all, this lasted SO well, even without a Top coat it just didn't chip all week! Wonderful stuff.
And I was also sent the Graffiti liner, which is limited edition too. The shade is Navy Blue. I noticed XSparkage using one of these pens in a recent tutorial. These are just like using a pen on your eye, which is either a good or a bad thing. I noticed the swatch on my hand just refused to budge - so I never used this on my eye, just too long wearing - can you imagine. But for anyone who needs help perfecting a winged eyeliner, this liner will be extremely easy - and it'll stay put. It definitely is smudge-proof and fade-proof for a long day's wear. It removes with an oil-based eye makeup remover such as Lancome Bi-Facil. The colour is a deep blackened teal. These are priced at £5 - so again, great price. Shipping to UK is free, and you currently get a free Fat Balm if you spend £10 or more. International shipping is very reasonable, only £3.50 or FREE if it's an order over £35. And it's sent fully tracked. Can't say fairer than that. I highly recommend these and will definitely be keen to try the other 3 limited colours next!!!
website here: http://www.eyeko.com/
...I'd follow this hilarious and insightful makeup artist, Jenny Patinkin:
http://twitter.com/jennypatinkin
for gems such as:
If your eyes turn down at outer corners, try shortening the tail on your brow by a few hairs to give illusion of lift. Just don't overpluck!
You know it's bad MU when: A 12-year-old girl comments on the color disparity in some random woman's face and neck.
Lash extensions, I'm just not that into you. You're pricey, time consuming, needy & leave gaps when u shed. Don't call me, I'll call u.
Dear Gray-Haired-Lady-with-Penciled-Eyebrows-in-Matching-Gray: Your brows look blue. Taupe is a more flattering shade. Use powder not wax.
It's hard for me to think of @lancomeparis as anything but a dull mall line, but kinda like their Effacernes Waterproof Concealer. [-agreed!!]
If u attempt hot pink shadow, u gotta go all out or risk looking like you have conjunctivitis. Pink eyeshadow=trendy. Pink Eye=infectious.
Smokey eyes + office job = not being taken seriously. Would u hire anyone w/makeup like Kim Kardashian? Smokey is 2 distracting 4 work. [-hate to agree, but, agreed!]
Attn Sephora employee who pointed me to product with your foot: U just lost my business. Embarrassing customer service. Sheesh.
Equal parts hilarious and useful, her tips and insider opinions are well worth a follow. Her website shows some of her work, and this video I found gives great tips on foundation and concealer for everyday. And see this one for blue eyes to look electric.
Twitter has never appealed to me because of the notorious spats, swearing, accusations, gloating, competetiveness and all manner of mindless chatter that beauty "gurus" seem to get absorbed into. And although as Kim Kardashian (!) or Michelle Phan show, Twitter is a great networking device, I can't avoid remembering people who have deleted their accounts because of some puerile Twitter fight, etc. I also find it so ridiculous that many high profile companies use Twitter as a personal account and really forget it is still on Google. I remember looking up a certain PR company because I was being ignored, and finding all sorts of swearing and low brow humour revealing exactly who was in the office. It is so baffling how people think Twitter or any social network is a bubble where they can let loose.
However, if I knew it was aswash with makeup artists giving out entertaining pearls of wisdom...
For now I have bookmarked her Twitter feed, but I highly recommend it for any bona fide Twitter followers, if only to diversify the "beauty voice" out there! You won't regret it.
