So I got invited to blog as part of the fashion Week blog carnival over at almost Girl, as well as of program I stated indeed — who *doesn’t* want to pontificate about fashion? as well as the very first topic is supposed to be The specify of the fashion Union.
And then I believed — heck, what on earth do I understand about the specify of the fashion Union? sometimes I believe it’s quite dire. The models get younger as well as thinner as well as shaped less as well as less like the typical woman; the logos get bigger as well as bigger; the clothes barer as well as barer to ensure that even daywear looks appropriate only for the boudoir since it needs abandoning even the pretense of undergarments; the heels get higher as well as spindlier, making a ten-block walk more daunting than a marathon; the costs soar as well as yet there’s a hundred-person waiting listing for whatever the “it” bag or coat is.
Sometimes, I want to quote Elizabeth Hawes, as well as state “fashion is spinach,” as well as I want to state to hell with it.
However, when speaking about fashion, I firmly insist on making the distinction between fashion as well as style. fashion is of the now; style is perennial. fashion is something you follow; style is something you forge. fashion is about being part of the herd; in with the in-crowd; style is about one’s own vision, about idiosyncracies as well as quirks. stylish people commonly set fashions–in truth fashion designers commonly have incredibly narrow personal styles: look at The Lagerfeld, Elbaz, as well as Carolina Herrera as well as try to tell me they are fashionable rather than stylish!–and fashionable people may in truth have style, however one does not necessarily comply with from the other.
In fact, even though fashion may be anemic, style is bigger as well as much better than ever. people are more as well as more comfortable with the concept of a personal style, one that may or may not flirt with being fashionable, as well as are persuaded that such a thing is within their grasp — even if they have to hire a “stylist” to get them there. (In my haughty opinion, a stylist is somebody who should interrogate you to discover out what you want to look like–REALLY want to look like, not just “I want to look good”–and assist you discover the look that is most YOU. I don’t believe a stylist is somebody whose task is to make it easier for starlets to look like somebody dragged them backwards with a hedge. A hedge full of large sunglasses.)
To somebody who is fashionable (or somebody who has a crappy stylist), fashion with a capital-F–the runway, Vogue, Chanel-Gaultier-Dior Fashion–is like a menu. select an appetizer (bag), primary program (dress), as well as dessert (shoes), as well as gobble it down. next day, do everything over again. To somebody who is bricolage-ing a style, fashion is the Greenmarket. You take a color here, a shape there, a heel height from someplace else, as well as you cook everything up together, together with stuff that’s already in your pantry as well as cupboards — YOUR shade of lipstick, of course, or the bag shape you have always carried, or your trademark watch. as well as you eat off that for a long time. Capital-F fashion is one huge kaleidoscope of possibilities as well as inspiration, even if you never buy a single “designer” item. (I believe I have *one* fashion-y possession — a eco-friendly Cynthia Rowley purse that I bought mainly since the pockets were completely sized for my Treo as well as iPod, as well as didn’t have magnetic clasps–why on earth would I put something that is essentially a small difficult drive near a magnet? however I digress.)
Some people’s styles ended up being set (La Vreeland as well as her rouge as well as her Balenciaga); some styles revolve around a style (one Hepburn mannish, the other gamine; Chloe Sevigny always circling a type of deliberate awkwardness); some evolve (Jackie Kennedy to Jackie O) however genuine style is always a projection of the wearer’s personality, not the designer’s. When I wear something, I want people’s very first reaction to be “That’s so ERIN,” not “That’s so [insert designer name here]!” When Audrey used Givenchy, it was since Givenchy was right for Audrey, not the other method around.
When a fashionable person sees a dress, or a bag, or a shoe, they tend to believe in absolutes: “love it!” “hate it!” After long [over]exposure, like can ended up being indifference (think Uggs, which were when fashionable however have never been stylish) or sometimes hate can ended up being tolerance (high-waisted denim are on the method back, mark my words!) however mainly it’s black or white. indeed or No. In or Out. fashionable or Unfashionable.
Now, when somebody whose goal is not fashion, however style, sees a dress, her reaction is apt to be “I such as this as well as this, however would modification this, that, as well as the other.” For instance, I saw this sweatshirt in a magazine:
I *love* polka dots. as well as I like short-sleeve cardigans. Adore. Am always looking for them (and I am totally offering a bounty of truly great chocolate for people who track them down for me). however they have to be round-neck (which this is) as well as have midsection as well as sleeve bands (which this does). However, I hate fake-button plackets that fasten with snaps, so this is out. Gone. Can’t countenance it. So I’m not plunking down money for it, even though you may believe “two out of three ain’t bad, plus POLKA DOTS!” however it would irk me so much I wouldn’t ever wear it. (Goddamn you, Tommy Hilfiger! The number of things you have kept from being perfect by one small flaw–or usually, one big-ass logo!)
Now from all this ranting, it may seem that I am privileging style over fashion, which is not the situation at all. Without fashion, I don’t believe there might be style, since there has to be interplay, tension, between what is being used everywhere as well as what you are wearing. An allusion, a wink, a nod, at least. as well as being fashionable, truly fashionable, needs a type of extremely challenging pattern-recognition as well as predictive ability, to select which of the numerous possibilities, in what combination, will be the one absolutely au courant ensemble, as well as the will as well as the self-control (or the very, extremely great genes) to conform your shape to the shape that the clothes were built for. The stylish truly only have to satisfy themselves, where the fashionable have to satisfy an ever-changing as well as always-judging audience. I would like to believe that the fashionable get the exact same excitement from being fashionable that the stylish get in coming ever-closer to some Platonic suitable of exactly how they should look, however I don’t truly know.
That’s my take. fashion is both a sport for those who want to play it (but a sport that’s ending up being more as well as more difficult to play without performance-enhancing drugs) as well as a smorgasbord of possibilities for those who want to utilize it as a basis for improvisation. And, of course, something treated with total indifference by a big majority of human beings. always keep in mind that!
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
How Not To respond To CriticismApril 18, 2008
The bit Black book of style by Nina GarciaSeptember 5, 2007
Dress A Day Says: two Thumbs Up!April 3, 2008With 25 comments