If you're anything like me, you've been missing your daily dose of genius while the women over at Threadbared have been working diligently on their manuscripts.
Today, though, they've posted an awesome set of links to articles/blog posts/etc that grapple in different ways with this question:
How is fashion an instrument of gender oppression and how is it a means to feminist liberation?
Please visit their post, "F Bombs," if you'd like to check out the list and/or add your own suggestions to it in the comments.
I've read many of these before, and I can't wait to look through the rest between semesters, when time allows!
-Liz
Showing posts with label in the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label in the news. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
In the News: Leopard Print
In lieu of a new outfit today, I wanted to do a quick post about this article, "Leopard print vs. 'the investment piece,'" in Slate by Simon Doonan, creative director at Barneys, commentator on VH1's I Love the 70s/80s/90s series, and occasional America's Next Top Model style mentor guest. While Doonan's article is a bit all over the place, I think it raises interesting issues about the marketing of fashion pieces, how trends are identified, and what gets to be called an "investment piece" and what doesn't.
Doonan observes that seasonal trends are anointed in "a desperate attempt to spot the glimmerings of a coherent message" in order to "help you, the ordinary woman in the street, navigate the vast and unpredictable terrain of the fashion apocalypse." In other words, trends are imposed narratives designed to organize and neatly delineate the intrinsically incohesive fashion world. Furthermore, certain trends are actually classic, perennial looks that the fashion world simply relabels as "trendy" - a move that Doonan calls "cheating."
I like how Doonan uses the supposedly new leopard print trend to interrogate this trend "cheating" and to complicate our notion of "investment pieces." He acknowledges the boldness of leopard print and its cultural connotation of tackiness, but juxtaposes this "tacky, theatrical, and sad, albeit fabulously so" print with various examples of leopard print's endurance through time. To conclude, he puts leopard print in conversation with talk of "investment pieces" - which he interestingly labels as a trend - to say that no one in fashion marketing is "ballsy enough to actually claim that a leopard print, with its nod to Bettie Page's pastie-twirling, burlesque high jinks, could ever be packaged and sold as an investment." Leopard print, though a perennial look, has too much cultural baggage to be called an "investment piece" though it otherwise would be, just like a "Reed Krakoff military great coat." And Doonan blames that marketing problem for the lack of leopard print he sees on the subway - basically, the label of safe "investment piece" has killed the recent bolder leopard print "trend."
I previous wrote about my own experience with leopard print. In that post, I acknowledge that animal prints can be "tricky," but that "my approach to animal prints has been to either use them as accents or to use them to spice up more conservative styles."
This shirt's classic and relatively conservative shape lets the leopard print stand out but not overwhelm. I consider this top an investment piece, and I get a lot of wear out of it: as I stated in the post about it, "I can wear it with a pencil skirt and heels or, as I do here, with jeans." While leopard print may not suit everyone's taste, and while it can veer into the absurd, I think with the right, measured approach, it can be an investment piece.
Prompts:
Doonan observes that seasonal trends are anointed in "a desperate attempt to spot the glimmerings of a coherent message" in order to "help you, the ordinary woman in the street, navigate the vast and unpredictable terrain of the fashion apocalypse." In other words, trends are imposed narratives designed to organize and neatly delineate the intrinsically incohesive fashion world. Furthermore, certain trends are actually classic, perennial looks that the fashion world simply relabels as "trendy" - a move that Doonan calls "cheating."
I like how Doonan uses the supposedly new leopard print trend to interrogate this trend "cheating" and to complicate our notion of "investment pieces." He acknowledges the boldness of leopard print and its cultural connotation of tackiness, but juxtaposes this "tacky, theatrical, and sad, albeit fabulously so" print with various examples of leopard print's endurance through time. To conclude, he puts leopard print in conversation with talk of "investment pieces" - which he interestingly labels as a trend - to say that no one in fashion marketing is "ballsy enough to actually claim that a leopard print, with its nod to Bettie Page's pastie-twirling, burlesque high jinks, could ever be packaged and sold as an investment." Leopard print, though a perennial look, has too much cultural baggage to be called an "investment piece" though it otherwise would be, just like a "Reed Krakoff military great coat." And Doonan blames that marketing problem for the lack of leopard print he sees on the subway - basically, the label of safe "investment piece" has killed the recent bolder leopard print "trend."
I previous wrote about my own experience with leopard print. In that post, I acknowledge that animal prints can be "tricky," but that "my approach to animal prints has been to either use them as accents or to use them to spice up more conservative styles."
This shirt's classic and relatively conservative shape lets the leopard print stand out but not overwhelm. I consider this top an investment piece, and I get a lot of wear out of it: as I stated in the post about it, "I can wear it with a pencil skirt and heels or, as I do here, with jeans." While leopard print may not suit everyone's taste, and while it can veer into the absurd, I think with the right, measured approach, it can be an investment piece.
Prompts:
- Can leopard print - or any animal print - be an investment piece?
- How do you define an investment piece?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Cancer Awareness
I don't have an outfit for you today; I have something to say from my heart.
Like many of you, my life has been profoundly impacted by cancer. I've been touched by the number of style bloggers who have participated in October's "Breast Cancer Awareness" month. I see it as a real, visible, material manifestation of their desire to help fight cancer and reach out to those who have experienced it.
I can't help but be bothered, though, by the commodification and commercialization of the "breast cancer awareness" movement. I appreciate the questions posed by Breast Cancer Action's "Think Before You Pink" initiative. They suggest that before we purchase something to benefit breast cancer awareness, we ask:
How much money actually goes toward breast cancer programs and services?
Where is the money going?
What types of programs are being supported?
What is the company doing to assure that its products are not contributing to the breast cancer epidemic?
One of my colleagues has been researching the rhetoric of various breast cancer "awareness" initiatives, and she first exposed me to Babara Ehrenreich's important 2001 essay, "Cancerland." I'll admit that when I first read the article, I thought she was being overly cynical. As time has progressed, though, and I've seen cancer cells refuse to respond to treatments in the bodies of those I love, I can't help but feel indebted to Dr. Ehrenreich. I appreciate her willingness to voice an unpopular but very important perspective on the "fight against cancer," and I hope that some of you will take the time to read her thoughts on the issue. If you or anyone you know has ever been just downright angry about cancer, you might be able to relate to her article as strongly as I do.
I wanted to write today, also, because as breast cancer awareness month comes to an end, those of us in the States are faced with a different type of opportunity to "do something" on November 2. If you're committed to fighting cancer, I'd like to encourage you to do some extra research into which elected officials have proven their own commitment to the same. While this is just one of the many important factors I weigh when I cast my ballot, I hope you'll agree that it's one worth considering.
With my most sincere wishes of happiness and health to all of you,
Liz
Monday, August 30, 2010
"The Beauty of the Power Game"
Drafts:
Composition:
Left, from top:
Elena Dementieva, Kim Clijsters, Victoria Azarenka, and Jelena Jankovic
Right, from top:
Serena Williams, Vera Zvonareva, and Samantha Stosur
Usage:
I (Liz) hope you guys don't mind too much if I depart a little from our normal post content to discuss this New York Times Video Gallery, released last week in preparation for the US Open, which begins today. I've told you before that I am a big tennis fan and an athlete, so I find myself both excited by the premise of this video gallery and disappointed by its execution. I'll share my reaction to the videos, but I'm most curious to hear what the rest of you think.
First, a few thoughts on what I liked about the video gallery. I really appreciate what I understand as the premise: to show female professional tennis players in slow motion in order to help us recognize the "beauty" of their bodily movements. I know "beauty" is a loaded and sometimes dangerous word, but as a student of aesthetic theory, I do think appreciating "beauty" in itself is a worthwhile pursuit. The title suggests that a woman's physical strength and power can be beautiful, which I think is a step in the right direction. A few of them are even sweating noticeably! I was fascinated by watching the women move in slow motion. I've seen Kim Clijsters perform that split hundreds of times, but this was the first time I noticed that she placed her left hand on the ground to push herself back up. I was intrigued by where their eyes were focused as they struck the ball. The movement of their muscles in slow motion is, I think, quite beautiful. The music does an interesting job of encouraging us to make a connection between these athletic movements and the bodily movements of dancers, particularly ballet dancers, which are more traditionally recognized as "beautiful."
But I think that's where my appreciation for the piece ends. As I continued to think about it, all I could find were more points of frustration. I'm bothered by the decision to put the women in designer costumes and, in 5 of the 7 videos, to leave their hair down so it could float around. I think these editorial decisions reinforce the suggestion that women need to fancy themselves up in order for their appearance to read as "beautiful." If the intent was really to have highlighted the beauty in their movement or their power, I can't understand why they weren't dressed in either their regular court clothes or even a more neutral ensemble. If each of them were wearing the same black tank and shorts, for example, I think our focus would have been directed more toward their bodily movements. Instead, I was thinking "Is JJ playing tennis in Herve Leger? How is that possible?"
At first, I was delighted to see Samantha Stosur included in the gallery. Of all the ladies included, she cultivates an appearance that is the least traditionally "feminine." On court, she wears a dress with athletic-inspired styling accents, hats and visors, and wraparound sunglasses. She pulls her hair into a tight ponytail and doesn't wear noticeable makeup. Aside from Serena Williams, Stosur is easily the most muscular woman in the top 20. It's the combination of these factors, I think, which results in rumors that she is a lesbian (as if that matters) and a steroid user (though she must consent to regular random drug screenings and has never tested positive). Since I know these things about her, I was both glad to see her in a montage dedicated to "beauty" and surprised that she's been styled in a bandeau top with a bare midriff. It seems completely inconsistent with her persona, whereas everyone else seems to at least be dressed in something she might have picked up off the stylist's rack.
Stosur's one of the ladies whose hair is pulled back, but you might not notice it, because her face is completely outside the fame within 5 seconds of the 23 second clip. What gives, New York Times? In four of the videos, the player's face is prominently featured for the entire clip. The videos of Jankovic and Azarenka only show their faces for about half the time, but the camera pans up toward their faces rather than panning away from them immediately, as is the case in the Stosur clip. Stosur's body is prominently featured, and had they focused only on her face, I probably would have complained that they seemed uncomfortable with her physical strength. But the decision to figuratively cut off her head in a video that purports to celebrate the beauty of her power doesn't sit well with me, either.
My frustration about the refusal to feature Stosur's face was only heightened when I got to the final video. The clip of Vera Zvonarava is focused almost entirely on her vibrant blue eyes and her floating hair. Her arm only comes into the picture to strike the ball near the end of the clip. The darkness of the scene behind her also serves to emphasize her hair and eyes, which I think we can agree fit the traditional Western standards of beauty.
So while I think this video gallery had great potential to ask its viewers to reconsider how they define "beauty" or "power," I think it ultimately fails to do so. Maybe I wouldn't have expected so much from it if they'd titled it "Nice looking girls in nice looking clothes in slow motion." But the title drew me in before, ultimately, the content let me down.
Prompts:
(These images are screen grabs from this NYT video gallery directed by Dewey Nicks)
Composition:
Left, from top:
Elena Dementieva, Kim Clijsters, Victoria Azarenka, and Jelena Jankovic
Right, from top:
Serena Williams, Vera Zvonareva, and Samantha Stosur
Usage:
I (Liz) hope you guys don't mind too much if I depart a little from our normal post content to discuss this New York Times Video Gallery, released last week in preparation for the US Open, which begins today. I've told you before that I am a big tennis fan and an athlete, so I find myself both excited by the premise of this video gallery and disappointed by its execution. I'll share my reaction to the videos, but I'm most curious to hear what the rest of you think.
First, a few thoughts on what I liked about the video gallery. I really appreciate what I understand as the premise: to show female professional tennis players in slow motion in order to help us recognize the "beauty" of their bodily movements. I know "beauty" is a loaded and sometimes dangerous word, but as a student of aesthetic theory, I do think appreciating "beauty" in itself is a worthwhile pursuit. The title suggests that a woman's physical strength and power can be beautiful, which I think is a step in the right direction. A few of them are even sweating noticeably! I was fascinated by watching the women move in slow motion. I've seen Kim Clijsters perform that split hundreds of times, but this was the first time I noticed that she placed her left hand on the ground to push herself back up. I was intrigued by where their eyes were focused as they struck the ball. The movement of their muscles in slow motion is, I think, quite beautiful. The music does an interesting job of encouraging us to make a connection between these athletic movements and the bodily movements of dancers, particularly ballet dancers, which are more traditionally recognized as "beautiful."
But I think that's where my appreciation for the piece ends. As I continued to think about it, all I could find were more points of frustration. I'm bothered by the decision to put the women in designer costumes and, in 5 of the 7 videos, to leave their hair down so it could float around. I think these editorial decisions reinforce the suggestion that women need to fancy themselves up in order for their appearance to read as "beautiful." If the intent was really to have highlighted the beauty in their movement or their power, I can't understand why they weren't dressed in either their regular court clothes or even a more neutral ensemble. If each of them were wearing the same black tank and shorts, for example, I think our focus would have been directed more toward their bodily movements. Instead, I was thinking "Is JJ playing tennis in Herve Leger? How is that possible?"
At first, I was delighted to see Samantha Stosur included in the gallery. Of all the ladies included, she cultivates an appearance that is the least traditionally "feminine." On court, she wears a dress with athletic-inspired styling accents, hats and visors, and wraparound sunglasses. She pulls her hair into a tight ponytail and doesn't wear noticeable makeup. Aside from Serena Williams, Stosur is easily the most muscular woman in the top 20. It's the combination of these factors, I think, which results in rumors that she is a lesbian (as if that matters) and a steroid user (though she must consent to regular random drug screenings and has never tested positive). Since I know these things about her, I was both glad to see her in a montage dedicated to "beauty" and surprised that she's been styled in a bandeau top with a bare midriff. It seems completely inconsistent with her persona, whereas everyone else seems to at least be dressed in something she might have picked up off the stylist's rack.
Stosur's one of the ladies whose hair is pulled back, but you might not notice it, because her face is completely outside the fame within 5 seconds of the 23 second clip. What gives, New York Times? In four of the videos, the player's face is prominently featured for the entire clip. The videos of Jankovic and Azarenka only show their faces for about half the time, but the camera pans up toward their faces rather than panning away from them immediately, as is the case in the Stosur clip. Stosur's body is prominently featured, and had they focused only on her face, I probably would have complained that they seemed uncomfortable with her physical strength. But the decision to figuratively cut off her head in a video that purports to celebrate the beauty of her power doesn't sit well with me, either.
My frustration about the refusal to feature Stosur's face was only heightened when I got to the final video. The clip of Vera Zvonarava is focused almost entirely on her vibrant blue eyes and her floating hair. Her arm only comes into the picture to strike the ball near the end of the clip. The darkness of the scene behind her also serves to emphasize her hair and eyes, which I think we can agree fit the traditional Western standards of beauty.
So while I think this video gallery had great potential to ask its viewers to reconsider how they define "beauty" or "power," I think it ultimately fails to do so. Maybe I wouldn't have expected so much from it if they'd titled it "Nice looking girls in nice looking clothes in slow motion." But the title drew me in before, ultimately, the content let me down.
Prompts:
- What's your take on the video gallery? Which elements of the players' movements or the video production stood out the most to you? Am I being too critical or not critical enough?
Monday, August 23, 2010
Gingham Getup and Bygone Girliness
Draft:
Earlier Drafts:
These versatile wedges might be my favorite purchase of the season.
This punchy clutch has accompanied me to both semi-formal and casual outings.
Composition:
blue gingham button-down shirt (Brina & Em via Marshalls)
black or navy (?) pleated skirt (handmade via Parts & Labour)
leather belt (Anthropologie)
wedge sandals (RJ Girl via Piperlime)
yellow clutch (SR Squared by Sondra Roberts)
reading glasses (United Colors of Benetton)
Usage:
I wore a version of this outfit two weeks ago, when I tagged along with Liz to Legg Mason Tennis Classic. It was a humid 97 degrees that day. Note to self: belted ensembles are not bright ideas for sitting outside in sweltering temperatures. I returned home that evening with an attractive ring of perspiration around my midsection, but I liked the outfit enough to take another crack at it. Today's iteration is my re-do.
This skirt is a dream come true, even though it's big on me at the waist, and even though I cannot determine whether it's black or navy. (Liz thinks it's black. I think it's navy. What's your assessment?) I want to suade this pleated wonder toward the blue color family, so I've paired it with a gingham shirt in an obvious cornflower shade. The combination of gingham with a high-waisted, short-hemlined, full-bodied skirt screams 1960s Throwback to me. Maybe I've been watching too much Mad Men, but I'm fairly confident Peggy Olson would wear a version of this outfit on her off days.
That's why, for fun, I've accessorized with a pair of brown tortoiseshell frames. They make me look like the spitting image of my mother, a child of the '60s herself. On some days I'm bummed to live so far from home, but when I want to experiment with being my mom's doppelganger, it's nice to set foot in public without hearing, "Ohmygawd, you look just like Paula!"
(Love you, Mom.)
Which brings me to this thought: almost every magazine I've read this month has featured the new "ladylike" throwback silhouettes for fall. Real Simple magazine, to which I subscribe, even went so far as to title its featured spread after a Henry James novel. Here's the lede text:
"Portrait of a Lady: As any great literary heroine knows, being your own woman is never without a few bumps in the road. But, thankfully, the clothes that will hit stores this fall - sophisticated instead of girlie, tasteful without being stodgy, and figure flattering without revealing it all - will at least make the getting dressed part smooth and drama-free."
The magazine's editor wrote this in the same issue:
"Ladylike dressing is making a comeback and, as far as I'm concerned, not a minute too soon. Whenever I've gone to any mall, anywhere in this country in the past few years, I've walked around in disbelief, looking in the store windows and thinking, Is anybody over the age of 13 actually wearing these clothes? ... Where were the clothes for a woman who wants to look modern but appropriate? Could I be the only one?"
I'll admit I've given these upcoming fall fashion trends a fist-pump or two. What woman doesn't look great in a full skirt, and what woman wouldn't want to rock a jeweled brooch and simple wool shift dress like Christina Hendricks? I wonder, though: are these revitalized trends by nature coded with the fraught femininity which characterized them in their heyday? Should we then embrace them and their social implications cautiously? Or have gender relationships - and apparel technologies - so evolved that women can now confidently don clothing which only decades prior symbolized female social oppression? Liz began a discussion on this topic when she wrote about Adrienne Rich's 1980 essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Essentially, Liz asked the question, "Are women wearing heels differently in 2010 than they might have in 1980?" That is, are they rewriting old sartorial choices with new social meaning?
I hope the current fashions represent a recoding of femininity, because I, for one, do not envy Isabel Archer's "bumps in the road."
Prompts:
These versatile wedges might be my favorite purchase of the season.
This punchy clutch has accompanied me to both semi-formal and casual outings.
Composition:
blue gingham button-down shirt (Brina & Em via Marshalls)
black or navy (?) pleated skirt (handmade via Parts & Labour)
leather belt (Anthropologie)
wedge sandals (RJ Girl via Piperlime)
yellow clutch (SR Squared by Sondra Roberts)
reading glasses (United Colors of Benetton)
Usage:
I wore a version of this outfit two weeks ago, when I tagged along with Liz to Legg Mason Tennis Classic. It was a humid 97 degrees that day. Note to self: belted ensembles are not bright ideas for sitting outside in sweltering temperatures. I returned home that evening with an attractive ring of perspiration around my midsection, but I liked the outfit enough to take another crack at it. Today's iteration is my re-do.
This skirt is a dream come true, even though it's big on me at the waist, and even though I cannot determine whether it's black or navy. (Liz thinks it's black. I think it's navy. What's your assessment?) I want to suade this pleated wonder toward the blue color family, so I've paired it with a gingham shirt in an obvious cornflower shade. The combination of gingham with a high-waisted, short-hemlined, full-bodied skirt screams 1960s Throwback to me. Maybe I've been watching too much Mad Men, but I'm fairly confident Peggy Olson would wear a version of this outfit on her off days.
That's why, for fun, I've accessorized with a pair of brown tortoiseshell frames. They make me look like the spitting image of my mother, a child of the '60s herself. On some days I'm bummed to live so far from home, but when I want to experiment with being my mom's doppelganger, it's nice to set foot in public without hearing, "Ohmygawd, you look just like Paula!"
(Love you, Mom.)
Which brings me to this thought: almost every magazine I've read this month has featured the new "ladylike" throwback silhouettes for fall. Real Simple magazine, to which I subscribe, even went so far as to title its featured spread after a Henry James novel. Here's the lede text:
"Portrait of a Lady: As any great literary heroine knows, being your own woman is never without a few bumps in the road. But, thankfully, the clothes that will hit stores this fall - sophisticated instead of girlie, tasteful without being stodgy, and figure flattering without revealing it all - will at least make the getting dressed part smooth and drama-free."
The magazine's editor wrote this in the same issue:
"Ladylike dressing is making a comeback and, as far as I'm concerned, not a minute too soon. Whenever I've gone to any mall, anywhere in this country in the past few years, I've walked around in disbelief, looking in the store windows and thinking, Is anybody over the age of 13 actually wearing these clothes? ... Where were the clothes for a woman who wants to look modern but appropriate? Could I be the only one?"
I'll admit I've given these upcoming fall fashion trends a fist-pump or two. What woman doesn't look great in a full skirt, and what woman wouldn't want to rock a jeweled brooch and simple wool shift dress like Christina Hendricks? I wonder, though: are these revitalized trends by nature coded with the fraught femininity which characterized them in their heyday? Should we then embrace them and their social implications cautiously? Or have gender relationships - and apparel technologies - so evolved that women can now confidently don clothing which only decades prior symbolized female social oppression? Liz began a discussion on this topic when she wrote about Adrienne Rich's 1980 essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Essentially, Liz asked the question, "Are women wearing heels differently in 2010 than they might have in 1980?" That is, are they rewriting old sartorial choices with new social meaning?
I hope the current fashions represent a recoding of femininity, because I, for one, do not envy Isabel Archer's "bumps in the road."
Prompts:
- How do you interpret the revival of 1950s - 60s era fashion trends? What does such a revival mean for women in 2010?
- What do you think of the term "ladylike," an adjective which fashion gurus everywhere are already using to describe next season's throwback trends? What does "ladylike" mean for you? Why do you think it has so far applied to vintage designs?
- Does this skirt look black or navy to you? Would your interpretation of its color affect the way you'd style it?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
R-R-R-Remix
Draft:
Earlier Drafts:
I pulled this dress out of the closet on the first day that was warm enough for bare legs.
Composition:
eyeglasses (Kate Spade)
acrylic necklace (Kohl's)
print sheath dress (H&M)
boring, uncomfortable white wedges (Michael Shannon via DSW)
Usage:
I'm experiencing a shopping slump. I keep going to all my favorite stores in search of a few new summer dresses to spice up my warm weather wardrobe, and I keep failing. Everything costs too much or doesn't fit well enough. Even when I find something that fits at an affordable price, I just can't get myself excited enough about it to actually take it to the register. Does this happen to you?
I've identified the following as possible reasons for my shopping slump:
Since I am trying to focus on why accessories matter, I decided that these shoes are giving me a bad attitude toward my summer wardrobe. They're not comfortable. They're not interesting. Because they only have front straps, I feel like I have to use my toes to grip them as I walk. So, they're on their way out. I purchased a new pair of summer wedges this week to replace them, and if all goes well, I'll debut those on the blog soon. I hope to wear them to death this summer as I experiment with remixing all the clothes I already own (but many of which you haven't seen yet)! I've also ordered some new nail polishes in bright, summer hues that I am hoping will add some much-needed pops of color to my summer attire.
Prompts:
Earlier Drafts:
I pulled this dress out of the closet on the first day that was warm enough for bare legs.
Composition:
eyeglasses (Kate Spade)
acrylic necklace (Kohl's)
print sheath dress (H&M)
boring, uncomfortable white wedges (Michael Shannon via DSW)
Usage:
I'm experiencing a shopping slump. I keep going to all my favorite stores in search of a few new summer dresses to spice up my warm weather wardrobe, and I keep failing. Everything costs too much or doesn't fit well enough. Even when I find something that fits at an affordable price, I just can't get myself excited enough about it to actually take it to the register. Does this happen to you?
I've identified the following as possible reasons for my shopping slump:
- I have switched my brain over to "money-saving" mode, so unless something is a steal, it seems too expensive.
- I already love my own clothes much more than I like anything I'm finding in the stores.
- I know that if I buy something I like but don't love, I probably won't wear it more than 2 or 3 times this summer.
- I'm conscious that I might be trying to buy new things just for the sake of buying new things, so I can't decide if I really want to buy anything or not.
- I've just seen SATC2 and am becoming increasingly afraid that shopping turned the interesting women I met in season 1 into the mindless consumers I just saw in the theater. (There are great conversations about the film going on at Cohabitating Closet and Fashionable Academics, btw. My blogging buddies are helping me remain confident that loving clothes and thinking critically are not mutually exclusive.)
Since I am trying to focus on why accessories matter, I decided that these shoes are giving me a bad attitude toward my summer wardrobe. They're not comfortable. They're not interesting. Because they only have front straps, I feel like I have to use my toes to grip them as I walk. So, they're on their way out. I purchased a new pair of summer wedges this week to replace them, and if all goes well, I'll debut those on the blog soon. I hope to wear them to death this summer as I experiment with remixing all the clothes I already own (but many of which you haven't seen yet)! I've also ordered some new nail polishes in bright, summer hues that I am hoping will add some much-needed pops of color to my summer attire.
Prompts:
- What puts you in a shopping slump? What gets you out of one?
- What role do accessories play in how you think about the clothes in your wardrobe?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
American Woman: Fashioning a National Identity
Over the past week, we've been having an interesting conversation about whether one can identify characteristics of "American" style and how we might differentiate between it and "European" style. We began discussing it in Anne-Marie's post, Dressing simply with patterns, and Liz followed up by posting Pattern Styling Experiment, Take Two. As it turns out, this is a great time to be exploring this question! This spring's exhibit at The Costume Institute of The Metropolitan Museum of Art is going to be called "American Woman: Fashioning a National Identity." The Met's press release for the exhibit explains,
"The exhibition, on view from May 5 through August 15, 2010 (preceded on May 3 by The Costume Institute Gala Benefit), will explore developing perceptions of the modern American woman from the 1890s to the 1940s, and how they have affected the way American women are seen today. Focusing on archetypes of American femininity through dress, the exhibition will reveal how the American woman initiated style revolutions that mirrored her social, political, and sexual emancipation. Early mass-media representations of American women established the fundamental characteristics of American style – a theme that will be explored via a multimedia installation in the final gallery."
For more information, visit the press release here. Looks like it might be time for a Scholar Style Guide field trip!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
