NARS x Andy Warhol Collection – Sneak Peek
NARS x Andy Warhol Collection – Sneak Peek
I will not have full information, photos, etc. until NARS releases the information next week.
According to WWD, Sephora exclusive pieces will launch October 1st. Additional products will be available at department and specialty stores on November 1st.
Sephora’s collection will be an ode to Warhol’s Pop Art with products like a Debbie Harry Cheek & Eye Palette ($65), Kiss Mini Larger Than Life Lip Gloss Coffret ($55) which features Silver Factory, Drella, Chelsea Girls, Blue Movie, and Myths, Walk on the Wild Side Set ($39), and three eyeshadow palettes (Flowers 1, Flowers, 2, Flowers 3, each $55).
For department and specialty stores, they will see a Silver Factory Set ($200) that includes a Silver Factory multiple, new Eyeshadow Trios, Chelsea Girls Pure Matte Lipstick, Desire Blush, Via Veneto Larger Than Life Long-Wear Eyeliner, and a large domed eyeshadow and blush brush. The Edie Set ($75) contains Film Star Pure Matte Lipstick, Edie Eyeshadow, Carpates Eyeliner Stylo, and Deep Throat/Amour Blush DuoShadow. The Beautiful Darling Set ($49) contains Candy Darling Nail Polish, Femme Fatale Duo Eyeshadow, and Woman in Revolt Larger Than Life Lip Gloss. The Photo Booth Set ($35) contains a mini nail polish lineup with Back Room, Soup Can, Chelsea Girls, and Silver Factory. Three different eyeshadow palettes (Self Portrait 1, Self Portrait 2, Self Portrait 3, each $55) will have new shades.
There is an additional 16-piece holiday color cosmetics collection sold at both Sephora and department/specialty locations and features five nail polishes ($18 each), Satellite of Love Highlighting Blush ($28), 47th Street Larger Than Life Long-Wear Eyeliner ($23), four Soft Touch Shadow Pencils ($24 each), five new Larger Than Life Lip Glosses ($26 each).
See more photos!
I need all of this! Especially all of the Edie products.
actually andy warhol made a movie called chelsea girls, about the chelsea hotel in manhattan new york, anyway i used to live at that hotel, not at the same time as he was around but a family member who passed away he did work for calvin klein as a photographer and also did andy warhols silkscreens, worked in that business, then owned nightclubs around the time of studio 54, and afterwards, and then went back to making his own silkscreens and painting over it, and making disks with light piercing through an image on the disks and he was a real genius my friend who passed and he did a lot of artistic work, and i do agree that edie sedgwick is not someone to glamorize, and that drug culture ultimately led this man to his death, he died of cancer at 60 years old, after living that type of “glamorous night lifestyle” he had numerous addictions and for decades and had cancer as a result, so theres a part about andy warhols work that i like some of it, but i dont liken the work to the drug culture or to the person its attached to, my friend i only saw him for the good person he was at heart, and i ignored the fact he was on drugs. However I do find theres something wrong with edie sedgwick on the cover of any makeup for woman thats definitely glamorizing the death and overdose and heroin chic type of lifestyle, but i dont think andy warhols art glamorizes that as a whole, the art is seperate from the things that went on durring the time (besides the films). Im just speaking about warhols silkscreens. The body of art work, not the films, or the drug scene or the 15 minutes of fame individuals like edie sedgwick he capitalized on. When we see the mona lisa painting, we dont think about what was going on at that time we see the body of work, of the person who made it, so i feel like his work is his work that should speak for itself, it doesnt have to be attached to that negative lifestyle or people from that negative lifestyle.
I know another person named Richard Bernstein who did the “Interview magazine” covers, and he too worked with anti warhol he too died of aids. He too lived at the chelsea hotel, in new york, but he was good guy, he was a nice man, and his work was really terrific, so yes most artists are on drugs or egocentric or a little something extra, if i told you all the artists i knew who have passed that i was friends with, i could write a book, however, artists are a little different then regular people they have to be, they are excentric they do usually take drugs, they do usually have a different perception, i personally dont do drugs, but i have sadly known plenty who have, and some who died from it, its not a glamorous lifestyle when your friends die from it. But that has nothing to do with the work they have left behind, which a lot of it is something that meant a lot to that time period or to others, and is a part of history. So i really dont see anything wrong with pop art, but i do get the person who said that about edie sedgwick, i definitely agree that that is totally wrong to put her photo on any case of makeup and i most certainly wouldnt buy it, and i wouldnt want if i had children for them to buy it either because its not cool, she spent her last days strung out at the chelsea hotel and with nothing and died a sad death. And once she had no money andy warhol was onto his next star….
I don’t know, I’m not impressed by the…promos (? not sure that’s the word I’m looking for) but maybe they’ll be more spectacular IRL.
ohmyohmyohmyohmy
Gotta have it alllllll!!! Love the concept and the packaging!
I REALLY want to leave a snarky comment on this one! Can I PLEASE?!?! LOL!
Because I’ve never been a fan of Andy Warhol. You’d think so. Maybe? But no. (I can doodle on a TV guide cover myself and call it art).
Love The Velvet Underground but their best work came well AFTER they got rid of him.
Edie Sedgwick? She had a look. She was pretty. I’m just a little tired of people idolizing drug addicts from the past. Why is this okay?! Seriously, someone please tell me what’s SO fabulous about a wealthy heiress with a drug problem. Tragic, sad, yes I get that… but glamorous and sexy? No thanks.
I *am* a huge Warhol fan, love Velvet Underground (from beginning to end), and Debbie Harry, so I was really looking forward to something über-exciting, especially from a collaboration with NARS. However, I’ve been seriously let down. I’m really curious about the Femme Fatale duo, but nothing else really calls to me. Oh, well, more money for other NARS products I’ve been wanting to add to my stash.
i agree on your mini sedgwick rant. it’s the same reason I don’t understand why women quote Marylin Monroe. She was a troubled woman with a substance abuse problem.
I’m sort of “whatever” about the general theme (I have a fairly neutral opinion on Warhol), but I really like the look of this collection. I am all over that large palette and illuminator, that’s for certain. (Well, I’ll wait for reviews on the palette. If I recall, NARS’ LE collections are a less frantic buying rush than MAC’s, right?)
Whoops – sorry Mirian, this wasn’t meant as a response to your post! I’ve no idea why it didn’t post on the main page. 🙂 CARRY ON.
Yes a thousand times YES! Warhol was also a nasty piece of work. I love Debbie Harry and The New York Dolls, but I’m so ruddy sick of Warhol worship. He was terribly nasty to women in particular.
In what way(s) did Warhol treat women badly? Even in his films (Women In Revolt, in particular) showed women in a positive light. I don’t recall eading anything about him being particularly nasty toward women.
I read two Sedgewick biographies and took a Cinema class that spent a good amount of time on his films. I feel confident that was a master manipulator most comfortable with a two dimensional version of women. Despite the fact that Nico, Ondine and all the others found some creative freedom with him, I also think they found a withholding father figure who comfortably encouraged drug use as a means of controlling others. I think women had a very limited value in his world and he would gladly work to disassemble that which he found so alluring-Beauty! Sorry to blather- he rubs me against the grain
IMO, Warhol is important to American art – not so much for what he produced but for what he had to say about the pop cultural phenomenon and the business aspect of the art industry. This being said, I completely agree with your point about the irresponsibility of glorifying troubled icons without including the more problematic aspects of their fame in the narrative.
I find this discussion to be utterly fascinating. I’ve never thought about makeup pieces or collections like this as approvingly glorifying troubled drug users/icons. But, in a way, many of you are right in that it is presenting these women as embodiments of glamour, style or beauty. Can they be seen as just that and without considering the other aspects of their personality? Obviously, it depends on the individual person and on the icon in question.
I despise Hemingway with a virulent passion *because* of because of his behavior and treatment of others. But do I limit myself from admiring or buying prints of Toulouse-Lautrec because he did drugs and lived a sordid life? Dante Gabriel Rosetti is my absolute favorite artist in the world and he was a terrible person, one could argue. Let’s not start on Wagner (particularly raging anti-semite Wagner!), Picasso, Beethoven, Von Karajan and some others.
The thing is, when we’re talking about makeup collections, why single out Warhol, NARS, Edie Sedgewick, Marilyn Monroe or any of these people? We don’t do it for Chanel and surely Coco Chanel deserves endless opprobrium for her collaboration with the Nazis, even if not her venality and opportunistic social-climbing? No-one talks about that when celebrating a new Chanel perfume, a new collection or even when talking about general Chanel style. And, in a way, why should they? These things are all divorced from each other now. The world is about commerce and corporations more than history these days (unfortunately for poor history). To the average person, buying Chanel doesn’t mean you approve of Coco’s Nazi involvement; it’s just Chanel, a brand! Just as the annual Bayreuth festival is a famous Wagnerian music festival and not a glorification of anti-semitism or the Nazis.
So, really, at what point does one draw the line in criticising art or a beautiful product because of the person and their lifestyle decades or centuries ago? It’s just a thought. Devil’s Advocate, if you will. As I said, I find this conversation fascinating and it raised some points I hadn’t thought about before. That said, for me personally, I’m going to go back to thinking of makeup as makeup, without considering the legends behind it. 🙂 I completely respect and understand those who feel differently.
Here’s my problem- I am completely ” That Friend” that won’t buy Chanel specifically because of her anti-semitism and additionally won’t buy bL Wallis np or Madonna CDs because of her glorifying of Wallis. I’m not kidding- I am balls to the wall about my hypersensitivity to these things. I am super Judgey McJudgerson! Now, I don’t expect that of ANY around me, nor do I burn their ear off talking about it. I just have a very strong sense of *my* moral compass and it eclipses time, art, circumstances etcetera. Like with the passing of Helen Gurley Brown- Jezebel was tripping over themselves to declare her the unrecognized feminist of her time. I beg to disagree. Under all those perky soundbytes were some nasty interviews. No thanks, I believe she spread her poison for far too long. Again, these are only my extreme measures, I would hardly expect others to behave similarly. I would NEVER think less of someone who purchased the collection.
See, I think the consistency of your position is not only very cool but admirable. I have this thing about logical consistency, so you wouldn’t be “That Friend” to me. 🙂 I knew you had issues with Lagerfeld (but that’s Lagerfeld and who doesn’t have issues with the chap?), but I had no idea your Chanel dislike pertained to Coco. So, is it more Coco than Lagerfeld, or both?
As for Wallis, well, she wasn’t a particularly lovely woman but I don’t think she was an anti-semite. (*He,* on the other hand, fully bought into the Fuhrer Myth and was a thoroughly revolting, despicable man. On *EVERY* level!) But Wallis? No. In fact, she may have been Jewish herself. She may have said nothing to his views for pragmatic reasons and went along with him but I don’t think she believed them deep down. Plus, I think some of the historiography on her must be questioned due to the authors themselves, their agenda and their sources. As a whole, I think a lot of her reputation is unfairly deserved. In fact, one of my historian friends has championed her in various historical articles and I agree that evidence shows Wallis’ reputation has been maligned for various political, anti-feminist and PR reasons. (And don’t get me started on the Queen Mum or, as I call her, the Old Bat.) I think a lot of the justified hatred against Edward/David has been directed and placed fully on Wallis, in part due to the traditional scapegoating of a woman and the hesitancy to blame a royal male. (See also, Anne Boleyn, Lucretia Borgia & Cleopatra.) I’d wish I could talk to you about all that in some forum where it wouldn’t be OT since Wallis is not a black-and-white issue, imo.
Sticking to the topic, I don’t know how far back one can carry this sort of value or morality-based assessment of things and still be consistent (art, music, literature…. some loathsome people are behind some of our greatest things) but, for you, I’d say Rock On! Boycott Chanel and the NARS Warhol collection with my full respect.
I firmly believe in History being written by the victors and all that, and people are rarely all good/bad. Hence why History and Anthropology fascinate me so. I never “boycott” anything without reading up, viewing the art, hearing the music, watching the films. How self righteous to blindly write off things without ever experiencing them as much as possible- doesnt this *just* make up the religious right?I actually dislike Wallis for a number of reasons, but I absolutely believe the Queen has done a number on those she decided were not worthy ( Oh, Diana) I quite feel for Lucretia Borgia, from what I’ve read the men in that house took away all her choices. I’d love to think there is so much more to every story then we will ever know- just saw Farewell, My Queen last night. It’s always fascinating to see how Marie Antoinette will be portrayed!
“Oh Diana”? Between that, your comment on Lucrezia & that on the religious right, I could hug you right now. I blame the Old Bat/Queen Mum for a lot of things (much more she than the actual Queen, imo) and yes, Wallis’ reputation as well, *in part.* I would love to know more about your reasons for loathing Wallis but, alas, this is not the forum and we’ve probably aggravated people enormously as it is. So I’ll shut up and just say that I wish I knew you in real life. *hugs*
@ Kafka:
Wallis was more than likely a closet anti-semite and probably more. She was not Jewish, her first husband was. His father changed his name to keep himself WASP-Y and marry into a WASP-Y family. It was not that unusual at that time for a person to change their name to become more ‘American-ized’. Dads family came through Boston and they removed one of the ‘N’s at the end of the surname.
BTW, I enjoyed reading your post along with the other posts. As diverse as WE are, WE have at least one common cause: TEMPTALIA! LOL!
Dinitchka, see, that’s the thing about Wallis, the historiography is often muddied by rumours and a politically-driven agenda. I thought I read recently that there was a chance she herself had Jewish roots that were hidden, not just Ernest. But everything is such a mess when it comes to her and some of the claims are probably much more rooted in malicious gossip and don’t hold up to close scrutiny. Like, for example, the hermaphrodite thing or the sexual tricks learnt in a Shanghai bordello as a reason for her hold over David/Edward. That is why I think Wallis can be a much trickier subject than someone like Coco Chanel. Believe me, I’m not excusing her one whit. I just happen to think *some* of her rap is unfair and that HE was the absolute worst thing EVER, a thousand times more so than she was. (The depths of my loathing for him knows few boundaries. Thank GOD he abdicated. If anything, we should be thanking her for that or else god knows what world we would be living in today since England would probably have joined Hitler’s Germany.)
I’m still not convinced though that she herself was an anti-semite, as opposed to someone who just went along with his views for pragmatic reasons. If she had hard-core hatred against the Jews, she wouldn’t have married Ernest or had Jewish friends, esp. later in her NY Society days. Wallis was fueled by social ambition, regardless of who the person was and/or their political ideology. But you can definitely damn her for acquiescence and silent complicity. Absolutely no doubt about that at all.
Yes! Three cheers for diversity and interesting respectful discussions! P.S. fellow Ukranian Jew here! And I watched all..8? hours of the Shoah film. Just.. wow.
Grrrr, I think I am doing these posts out of order. Sorry to discombobulate yall.
@ Ms Fox: Oy vey! Another Ukrainian Yiddelach on here?? Freakin cool! Dad’s family came from Nizhyn Kiev Gubernia (they were not allowed to live in Kiev and had to have special permission to go into Kiev). I have a hard time watching Shoah movies and doumentries. You know how your parents would say “Finish your plate of food, their are starving kids in China?” Well, mum would say, “Finish your food! The people in the camps would have been very happy with that plate.” OMG! I think that has caused my unhealthy look and struggle with food.
I’ll preface this by saying I am Jewish (since Mt Sinai my parents say LOL!) and I am also the grand-daughter of a German Shoah surviver and the great great grand-daughter of Ukrainian Jews who had to escape the Anti-Jewish pogroms of the 1880’s. With that being said, I try not to buy from anti-semites and I try not to buy made in Germany eye kohls it’s sort of difficult though 🙁
@ Ms Fox: I had NO clue BL’s Wallis was named after Wallis Simpson. I thought it was named after the UK retailer Wallis. I’m crushed as this was one of the 3 I first bought. I will be keeping it since I feel BL is not run by a bunch of anti-semites.
I always knew Chanel was an anti-Semitic but since she died and Alain and Gerard Wertheimer (I believe they are Jewish) took over the perfume end I don’t have a problem buying their products.
I pick my battles as you do. It’s nice to know that others feel the same way as i do. It’s also a good thing I read your posts! 🙂
I think we are on the same page.. I had such a dilemma with the whole Galliano fiasco. Christian Dior, from my understanding, is AOK in my book. I get so tired of apologists and those who use the ” I was inebriated/intoxicated and therefore not responsible for my actions/words” excuse. Pitiful and complete bunkum! He said what he thought and what a creep! Kate Moss having him create her wedding dress just reenforced my long established bargain basement opinion of her.
@ Kafka: Yes, I have too read so much about Wallis and am hard pressed to believe she had male parts AND learned to hoe around in Shanghi. I never have read about her ‘Jewishness’. That’s interesting. I don’t think Wallis knew her hubby was Jewish. Ernest’s father threw himself into WASP-Y America. And I made a mistake. He was her SECOND husband. At that time we were banned from many places: Universities, clubs, buying homes in certain areas etc. I think for many Jews who could ‘pass’, they did. It made life so much easier.
This NARS post has become such a History lesson. LOL!
Could not agree more. Edie was a spoiled brat who killed herself, why do we care? I’m still waiting for an Aaliyah or Left Eye collection.
*flails about, moans & then collapses into an incoherent, gibberish-spewing, hyperventilating heap. Finally falls into a coma of shock and awe.*
*giggling* When I saw the post in my email my first thought was “I have to go see what Kafka had to say about this”! I will probably not get anything from this collection so I’ll have to live vicariously through you.
Ha, your first thought… *smooch* The best part of friendship is that one gets to live vicariously through the other. Thanks to you, I feel as though I have Burberry and you can feel you have NARS. 😀 In the meantime, go get that Zoya FeiFei polish. It’s to die for and it’s NOT sheer (at least not on me)! I think you’d love it.
The Flower eyeshadow palettes are a bit of a let-down, but I can’t wait to see the eye palettes.
UPDATE: I just saw pics of the Self Portrait palettes, and I’m not interested. I was really hoping for more “traditional” NARS products, with spectacular packaging, not the other way around. The Beautiful Darling set may be a go, but only because of the name of the eyeshadow duo (I’m a huge fan of Nico). As much as I love Debbie Harry, the palette looks too glittery (although it makes perfect sense), so I’ll have to see it in person.
The Debbie Harry palette looks way too glittery for me too! That one I’m sure will be a complete pass, but I want to see what’s inside that round Edie silver compact (palette?). I also want to see — desperately — what the 2 matte lipsticks (Film Star & Chelsea Girls) are like. I’m so relieved that you can buy each piece individually instead of en masse because that $200 set is steep for something that I’d only want a portion of. The eye palettes are pretty but usually I’m not gaga about swirling designs within eyeshadows sets. Still, the individual flower colours look large enough to avoid a lot of overlap problems. We’ll see how the reviews are. I know for a fact and personally that the New York Dolls nail varnish is stunning; purple with a grey tint in some lights. Have the swatches still. LOL. That one is a must have, imo. As a whole though, thank God they’re spacing this out over enough time to make it more financially feasible.
I was really hoping for more exciting packaging, so I’m a bit bummed. At least I can focus more on some of the perm items I’ve been coveting.
I think there’s a Lip Laquer called Chelsea Girls, and it’s a pinky nude, but I’m thinking it’ll just be a matte version of the same color.
The shadows in the DH palette look like Night Star, Pandora or Night Snow, the purple from Arabian Nights, and Tropic.
I’m most curious about the duo in Femme Fatale. If it’s purple, then I’m definitely in, LOL.
Oh my God, I bet you’re totally right about Tropic and Arabesque’s purple being part of that Debbie Harry palette. It definitely looks like it. Some people have said that the items in the Warhol collection are all new but that has to be wrong though, since they’re including the Desire blush, Amour/Deep Throat (albeit in a new combo), the Edie duo & the Carpates eyeliner. I bet that it’s a mix of new and old.
As for the packaging, I really love that round, silver Edie compact/palette and I know from the purple New York Girls nail varnish that the box was silver with black letters, but generally I agree. I thought it would be a little more different for things like the eye shadow packaging.
Cannot wait to see what that Illuminator is like though! And, yes, I want to see what the Femme Fatale duo looks like too.
If those shades were part of the permanent collection, it would be specified as such on the product description of the Debbie Harry palette. It’s not, I’ve seen it. Moreover, those colors are made with a new diamond dust formula. Those are brand new colors *not* part of the permanent collection.
Only the Edie set and the Silver Factory set include colors that already exist.
OMG I cant wait to buy these. They are beautiful….
I am SO excited.
Wait. You wont have full info until next week , or you wont have full info about this collection at all?
I like the palette, not so much the flower palettes. I think I want this though ( bank account starts to scream )
I won’t have full information until next week 🙂
Ok, thanks ! I was just confused because of this: ” I will not have full information, photos, etc. when NARS releases the information next week.”
I am kinda digging the flower palette with the yellow shadow now that I have gotten a closer look. My bank account will definitely not like me after this. Good thing I am on a no buy until October( even though I will be buying something tomorrow to help my coworker get her sale for the day at my job )
For some reason, this collection doesn’t excite me at all. I guess that’s good – I’ll save some money! Lol.
I’m super psyched about this collection also. I’m going to be so broke!!!! As of now, I want the Debbie Harry palette because I’m a huge fan of hers and have been for many many years. The lipglosses interest me also. I’m a tad bummed that their aren’t more lippies and blushes with this collection in some unusual shades. Still buying though.
i haaaaaaate eyeshadow “palettes” where the colours aren’t in seperate pans – it gets messy and hard to use.
Way, way – COOL! This is the first collection that .. WOW, I’m drooling over. You know MAC comes out with these celeb collections and they’re like meh. But this Nars/A Warhol collection is the bomb!!!
Isnt the talented man deceased? Now if I had my pics program like that, then it would be worthwhile. Nars is starting to be like MAC…too gimmicky.
SO gimmicky- but really we don’t need anymore Warhol anything. If it had to be pop art, why not Lichtenstein? So tired of glamorized drug culture because thats what so much of it was. Edie Sedgewick was fodder for the charnel mill.
Gimmicky? Sure. But that is exactly what Warhol was all about. He started as a commercial illustrator in NYC doing prints of shoes and fashion accessories, which made his transition to be taken seriously as a “fine artist” more difficult. His prints that accompanied his meteoric rise to fame were of everyday items- soupcans & celebrity images (from newspapers, naturally). These images were blasted with unnatural, neon colors and done in a screen-printing process that standardized the process in a rather mechanical manner. Gimmicky is Warhol to a T.
There is nothing int he collection that glamorizes drug use per say, 18thcenturyfox. Compare the names of the products in this collection with a host of products in the Urban Decay permanent line. UD has products with “glamorous” drug-related names like Big Fatty, Roach, Baked, Blunt, Toasted.
I would beg to ask where the drug use of his Factory Superstars is glamorized or highlighted in the collection.
FYI- During his life, Warhol marketed himself like no other; his licensed image and screen-printed works appeared on many products during his own lifetime. If anything, he would probably have approved this makeup line with a smirk. Warhol was very concerned about physical appearances and was no stranger to using wigs and makeup to look his best.
Well said!
Uh, after seeing it I’m only interested in that one bottle of nail polish. Nars needs to concentrate on coming out with new shades with the quality that we’re used to.
I actually got that purple nail varnish months ago, though I no longer have it now (I’ll spare you the long story involved) and it’s gorgeous. Simply gorgeous. Comes in a silver box with black letters, unlike the usual NARS black box with white letters. I took photos of some quick swatches I did and what amazed me was how the colour looked different depending on light. In bright light, it was a gorgeous purple with blue tones. In indoor, muted light, it was a purple with a really chic grey hue. Really chic and elegant overall. It also went on like a dream with perfect texture. It’s DEFINITELY worth getting, imo.
Is the nail polish you’re referring to named New York Dolls by any chance?
Nevermind, I see that’s the one you had. That’s not the one pictured above, I think.
I’m pretty sure actually, they don’t have the same name.
Sorry about the triple post! 🙁
I think it is. My New York Dolls looked almost blue purple in bright light outside. It looked *exactly* like what is pictured up there. http://gi27.photobucket.com/groups/c181/SY4TC2ZMWJ/IMAG0440.jpg Inside and on the nails, it looked totally different but outside, in natural light? No question in my mind.
The nail polish in the Walk on the Wild Side set is *not* called New York Dolls. Different name = different nail polish.
Moreover New York Dolls np has an individual silver cardboard packaging, which means it’s not part of a gift set.
I guess we’ll see next week!
My jaw literally dropped (well, not literally literally but you know what I mean :-p) when I saw those palettes. How amazing is that print?! Gorgeous! I’d get two if I could: one to use and one to look at 😉
I don’t know how I feel about this collection. I was expecting new shades and products, not gimmicky packaging. When I read this post, I felt only disappointment not excitement.
Mmmm there *are* new shades and products. All you see above are new shades. You’ll see.
Hi Marie: I did catch the new palettes, but I stay away from this type of pretty ‘collector’ palette all intermingled. They drive me crazy. If I bought one, I wouldn’t be able to use it and mess it up. In addition, the colour combos just are not that exciting. I was referring to the combo packs in my comment 🙂 But yeah, maybe on release I’ll find something to love. Right now, it looks like a pass for me.
I’m confused. The way it’s written looks like there’s 2 prices for the lipgloss set, $55 or $39.
Christine, do you know which one is the right price?
Oh, never mind. I re-read it. The lipgloss is $55, and the Walk on the Wild Side set is $39. Derp.
Are you referring to this line? “Kiss Mini Larger Than Life Lip Gloss Coffret ($55) which features Silver Factory, Drella, Chelsea Girls, Blue Movie, and Myths, Walk on the Wild Side Set ($39)”
Those are two different sets!
My biggest style icons are Candy Darling, Debbie Harry, and Edie Sedwick. HOW DID YOU KNOW, NARS?
*Sigh*, I’ll just have to buy a few hundred dollars worth of makeup now!
This was a great move for Nars. I can’t imagine an artist they’d be better suited to “interpret”. I’m not crazy about the flower palettes, but I’m willing to look at just about everything else.
If you compare them to last year’s Asian flower-themed holiday palette they look much prettier/user friendly.
No Marilyn one??? :,(
MAC has a Marilyn collection coming out, so maybe they thought it would be repetition.
For me this is about as appealing as NARS presents Allen Ginsberg’s Howl. I will surely pass. I didn’t find any of The Factory business entertaining and I think he was an absolute lech.
Ah-mazing. Pretty and functional. Totes picking up the Debbie Harry palette! Love love love!!!
My father had a crush on Debbie Harry when he was a young boy, any chance I can convince him to give me the palette? haha
I’m definitely passing on the Flower shadow palettes…they look more like collectible makeup than something that could actually be used. But I’m kind of excited for everything else. Less so than I was a month ago, but still excited. I just wish they were selling things individually instead of JUST in huge sets. I’m definitely interested in some of the items included in the Silver Factory set, but there’s no way I’m going to shell out $200 for the whole thing when I only want 2 or 3 items 🙁
Nacacijin, from what I’ve read elsewhere, you can buy everything individually but you’ll save more money if you want everything if you buy it in the set form. Otherwise, the individual items will be at regular NARS prices. That’s what I’ve read, at least, and I hope it is the case because, like you, I don’t want everything in the $200 set. Hope that helps! 🙂
That’s not it, actually.
There will be:
– a holiday collection of 16 individual items (like a regular holiday collection)
– a Sephora collection of gift sets
– a NARS websites and counters collection of gift sets.
For example if you want just the nail polish of the Walk on the Wild Size Set, you would have to buy the whole set.
Not sure about this, the packaging/idea is great but the colours don’t really interest me. I might change my mind if/when I can see more of the nail polishes.
I’ve been waiting to see even a smidgen of this upcoming collection. Thank you so much for posting about it. I’m definitely excited.
Whew, this is a little overwhelming. 🙂 It’s going to be hard to decide what to buy and what to leave.
I don’t really buy NARS but this Andy Warhol stuff is killing me. Edie Sedgewick? Yes please!
I can easily pass on this. Don’t like the packaging, the way the products are place in the containers (too easy for them to blur all together in some of these) and I guess I really have issues with people who had too much and messed up their short (or longer) lives, like Edie Sedgwick and Andy himself being made into icons in this way.
This looks sooo much better than MAC’s Marilyn collection (some promo shots have been leaked). Think I’m going to have to go NARS for holiday, sorry MAC.
Hm… I thought the concept would be too overdone to offer anything unique (kind of feel the same way about MAC’s Marilyn) but this is definitely interesting. I can’t wait to see swatches. This also makes me look forward to the Marilyn collection more, maybe MAC will also have a new take.
OMG THIS LOOKS TOO EXCITING. <3
sigh… I was hoping there would be a cheek palette without orgasm in it. I like NARS blushes but the past blush sets all have orgasm in it and I already own orgasm.
Those floral palettes look pretty fab☆彡
Is this going to be available in european retailers? I loved everything, even though I’m not a Warhol fan! After seeing the prices though, I’m going to wait for your reviews Christine (should you decide to review this collection) and then decide!
Im super stoked about this collection being a huge, and long time Warhol fan, but….. wtf NARS this collection is HUGE!!
Its okay cuz of the large amount of sweet warhol themed products, however some of us are still students on a budget. lol.
Oh wellz, start saving ppl!!
Wow thats pretty amazing i love andy warhol and nars so together that makes a pretty awesome team.
looking forward to have the great collection launched in the UK!! pls do an updated review so I will know what to buy :-))
Hi! I’m interested in the Eddie Sedgwick gift set…will that be out in November? Can you PLEASE swatch and review the products? Thanks!