fashion! I've got it, you haven't, which is why I read Handbag's forum of that name.
But there are some code-words on there I still don't understand. Indeed, much of the Fashion Forum, home to Sushiflower, Yingers and CurlsAloud, is like a wonderful jargon-poem of arcane phrases... the sounds are evocative but the words are meaningless music. Only yesterday I read about a shimmery toffee-colour sloggi and a biscuity bandeau. Gorgeous language, but only a transvestite would hope to decipher it! Could I ask Modge? Yes. Would that help the boards I love? Not unless I do it "where it counts", on TMO.
So, come on ladies and gays. Can you explain to me
1. what these things are 2. are they any good 3. are they expensive or hard to get hold of 4. other information such as "they were big in Spring when everyone had them but they're a bit old now" or "they became a must-have after SJP wore them". 5. a very big thank-you bonus if you can provide a picture
-------------
berry print mini hobo
taupey
ruching
salmon
kick flare
7FAMK
racer back
wedge boots
court shoes
bandeau top
teal pointelle knit shrug
C&C
bucket bag
asymetrical hem and collar
chestnut Uggs
gypsy skirt
disk belt
tan Fryes
prada flats
maroon cropped cardigan, brora
boogie bag
MJ-esque hobo
black vintage lace clutch
dark green and white print chiffon top with split back and short puff sleeves and dark green camisole underneath
I could go on. And on. That was just a trawl from three pages.
Now, obviously I can work out what some of these are, eg. "flats", and I know what colour "maroon" is, but I'd still very much like to see a picture of what they look like, and to know whether in the opinion of girls on this board (and metrosexual "men") these items sound, well, nice or grotesque.
[ 30.11.2004, 12:28: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I realise that I'm not a girl, but this is an area of expertise.
I work in ladies fashion, and I can advise on the following:
[*]court shoes Dressy shoes with a sling back heel. Currently fashionable in extra-pointy length
[*]wedge boots Not so fashionable, a high boot with a wedge sole. Casualwear.
Extra points: This season is all about peg heels, cowboy boots, and Liberty boots. Don't make the mistake of ugg boots. They never were, and they never will be. Hot tip for spring: citrus pastel colours & birkenstocks back in again.
[ 30.11.2004, 12:33: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
berry print mini hobo - good - everyone loves a hobo
taupey - good - like taupe
ruching - good - sounds quite erotic
salmon - good - smells of fish
kick flare - good - flares are bound to be in
7FAMK - bad - this is a numberplate
racer back - good - sounds sporty
wedge boots - good - they're boots that wedge
court shoes - bad - they sound like they should be worn only by women over 54
bandeau top - good - sounds french
teal pointelle knit shrug - bad - whatever it is, it's teal
C&C - good - a music factory
bucket bag - good - for vomitting into when clubbin'
asymetrical hem and collar - bad - symetrical stuff rules
chestnut Uggs - good - what better colour for uggs?
gypsy skirt - good - all attractive girls have one
disk belt - good - useful for storing 3.5" floppies when on the move
tan Fryes - bad - tanning is so "out"
prada flats - good - but a very expensive place to live
maroon cropped cardigan, brora - bad - it's a cardie but it's been cropped
boogie bag - good - I bet Jools Holland has one
MJ-esque hobo - good - again with the hobos!
black vintage lace clutch - bad - would you want to be clutched by a vintage in lace?
dark green and white print chiffon top with split back and short puff sleeves and dark green camisole underneath - good - the split back sounds intriguing
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Okay, I must be having some sort of nervous breakdown as I'm going to take on your challenge without a hint of irony. But no pictures. That would be just a bit like responding to the teenage boys who transparently post in fashion forums asking about knickers. Which is what sloggis are btw.
berry print mini hobo
- Designer handbag (I'm going to let you down at the first hurdle by not knowing or caring which designer). Mini size, berry coloured. That's reddy purple to you.
taupey
- beige (if in doubt, this could be the answer to many of your questions)
ruching
- gathered. Particularly favoured for disguising bumpy bits. Not to be confused with flouncy.
salmon
- see Pam St. Clements' lipstick
kick flare
- not much different from bootleg
7FAMK
- £150+ jeans that claim to be designed in 7 styles to flatter all mankind. They're queueing up for the "Three years worth of international aid super skinnies" in Sudan.
racer back
- like the back of a racing vest. probably referring to a bra or a vest.
wedge boots
- boots with a wedge heel better suited to espadrilles. Oops, just introduced another word.
court shoes
- see your auntie pamela and bank clerks everywhere
bandeau top
- no straps. It holds itself up like magic. Or quite frequently doesn't after a few vodkaredbulls
teal pointelle knit shrug
- fuck knows. Okay, a shrug is the new name for a bolero. Teal is a shade of green, you can make ther rest up as you go along...
C&C
- you've got me there
bucket bag
- a wide, roundish bag, usually with only a button or something to fasten it. Suitable for carrying the kitchen sink.
asymetrical hem and collar
- raggedy hem a la the latin dancers on Strictly Come Dancing. Never seen an asymmetrical collar though.
chestnut Uggs
- those hideous smurf style fluffy, stumpy boots. In a warm chestnut brown.
gypsy skirt
- tiered, flouncy. I mean ruched...
disk belt
- really stupid this. A belt made from lots of metal (or faux metal effect) disks strung together. Worn by people who think they look like Sienna Miller. See Uggs.
tan Fryes
- those wide leather boots, across between cowboy boots and wellies. For tan see "taupey"
prada flats
- flat shoes. from prada.
maroon cropped cardigan, brora
- maroon is another reddy purple (school uniform shade). Brora is a well known brand of cashmere retailers.
boogie bag
- er? It dances by itself on the dancefloor. I'm lying about this one.
MJ-esque hobo
- MJ stands for Marc Jacobs. See my eariler comments on hobos.
black vintage lace clutch
- bag without a strap, particularly stupid idea that. vintage means old. or these days something you bought off ebay from someone who bought it last year from River Island.
dark green and white print chiffon top with split back and short puff sleeves and dark green camisole underneath
- the fast train to hideous. that's just the puff sleeves.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
Ha! I teach fashion! I can do this! Well, most of it anyway. But not the pictures, sadly, because I'm a technofucktard. So, its "imagine, if you will....."
1. berry print mini hobo. A hobo, as I understand it, it a type of bag. berry print means a berry shade (purple - red - pink) with a printed pattern or design on it. Mini is the small version.
2. taupey. Adjective, from the colour taupe, which is a kind of beige.
3. ruching. Is a decorative effect produced on a garment by running a line of loose stitches through it and then pulling the thread to gather the material together. It is usually vertical, running up the side of garments, or else it will appear as a detail at the bust of a v-neck or low-cut top. Its an '80's thing, as far as I remember.
4. salmon. Shorthand for salmon pink. Its a shade of pink.
5. kick flare. Similar to bootcut - a pair of trousers cut to fit closely to the thigh and widen towards the ankle. If anything, on kick flared trousers, the flare is a little more pronounced than on bootcut. It is a style more commonly found on casual trousers and sportswear.
6. 7FAMK. Shorthand for a coveted American brand of jeans called "Seven For All Mankind." One of these celebrity-endorsed brands. The sort of brand Kate Moss and Angelina Jolie would have worn about two years ago.
7. racer back. This is a style of vest top - for either casual wear or sportswear - or sports bra, that has a broader strap that runs between the shoulder blades rather than the more usual cut that covers the shoulders and the back.
8. wedge boots. Boots (Ususally knee high) that have the sole and heel as one unit that tapers from low at the front by the toe, to higher at the heel. If you look at it from the side it is wedge-shaped. Not as cool as they were in the mid-late '90's, or the 70's originals.
9. court shoes. Standard smart shoes with a thin-ish high-ish (2" or above) heel. They can be either pointy or round-toed, or somewhere in between. Usually considered suitable footwear for office-based or indoor work.
10. bandeau top. A strapless top. It's the current version of the boob tube. The potential for disaster is enormous with these things, and they only look good if you've got thin shoulders anyway.
11. teal pointelle knit shrug. Teal is a shade of green. Pointelle is a style of knit, usually cotton or light wool rather than chunky. Shrug is a small garment that covers the shoulders. It has replaced the pashmina (big scarf) as the fashionistas garment of choice to finish an evening look.
12. C&C. not sure. What context did this appear in?
13. bucket bag - a fairly capacious bag, usually for casual daywear, that has a circular base, and upright shape.
14. asymetrical hem and collar - the hem and collar is longer at one side of the garment than the other. It usually runs from left to right rather than front to back.
15. chestnut Uggs. Uggs are a brand of boots, casual in style, made from suede and coming about halfway up the calf of the leg. Chestnut refers to the colour. Another celebrity brand, on their way out and replaced in the fashionistas affections by mukluks (which are controversial because they are made with real fur.)
16. gypsy skirt. A skirt that is tiered and long, made either of exotic fabric and colour (for winter) or cotton (for summer) that references the romantic notion of what constitutes gypsy style. What Sienna Miller might wear.
17. disk belt. A belt made from discs, usually metal, linked together. Another Sienna-ism. Think slightly bohemian Notting Hill trustafarian.
18. tan Fryes - Fryes are a footwear brand. I'm not sure but I think they specialise in riding-style boots. Tan refers to the colour of the item.
19. prada flats. Flat shoes, by Prada (the Italian premium fashion brand.)
20. maroon cropped cardigan, brora. Is brora a typo? The rest should be selfevident. (Cropped means short - in the case of a cardigan waist height or higher.)
21. boogie bag - not sure.
22. MJ-esque hobo. Don't know what MJ refers to, but its either a celeb or a brand.
23. black vintage lace clutch. Clutch is a type of bag, without straps or handles, held in the hand. Vintage is anything that either conspicuously references earlier styles or which is a genuine artefact from earlier eras. Vintage Chanel would be an original Chanel design from 1920's onwards. Top Shop at Oxford Circus has a Vintage department.
24. dark green and white print chiffon top with split back and short puff sleeves and dark green camisole underneath. Chiffon is a type of fabric, light and semi translucent, usually layered and used for evening wear. Think the dress that Sandy wore to the prom in Grease. A split back would imply an inverted pleat has been put into the back of the garment to add volume and shape. Puff sleeves are gathered at the shoulder (a detail reinvented most recently by Marc Jacobs.) and a camisole is a small vest top with thin straps that can be worn either by itself or as an undergarment.
Right, I'm off to Camden to see I *heart* Huckabees. I'll take questions from the floor, apologise for typos, etc, when I get back.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
and Ally
I admit I did know or suspect some of these already. I had even worked out 7FAMK, and of course I do know what colour a salmon is.
C&C appeared in this post from "Mitchey", where the happy fashion family reveal what they are wearing RIGHT NOW. This thread differs from similar discussions on TMO in that underwear is never mentioned (perhaps because they know boys like me will be reading it) and that they are always, even when they claim to be "just lounging around indoors on a dress-down day" wearing stuff so fancy I would only drag it out for a ball with Kirsten Dunst, were I a girl. I must assume they're never lying and that anyone who posts on that forum really does spend most of their life thinking about, and money purchasing, these exotic items.
quote:today I'm wearing my new Jimmy Choo black boots!!! black reaiss cropped trousers grey C&C californa top thick black belt black blazer black shawl Big nairobi YSL bag
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Ah, C&C stands for Claire and Cheyann, trendy California clothing designers who are making big bucks with the simplest of concepts: wispy thin shirts worn layered (to me seems like an update on the 1980s style where you turned up the different colored sleeves).
See their page. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
How do girls know all this stuff?
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Hmm, for my tiny bit of knowledge it was google coupled with the memory of such shirts in some VH1 special. Maybe it was one of those "Fabulous life of..." things where I was informed that Brittney Spears spends $10,000 a year on C&C shirts alone.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: How do girls know all this stuff?
Probably for the same reasons you know so much about comics. Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
That's what university will do for you! Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Next! A few more terms I half-recognise or alternatively respond to only as fascinating sounds rather than words with a meaning.
bias cut
True Religions...my Joeys...the Bobby
'squirrely'*
'platinum' long cardi
cap sleeved
diamonte broach
threadbare vest top
blue fender plectrum earrings
slouchy handheld bag
mottled olive green
gathered cuffs and sides
long line slash neck jumper
weave belt with gold disc buckle
ruched knee highs
bone cuff
stone blazer
kitten-heel boots with ribbon-ties
Balenciagas in pink and turquoise
*surely one for Philomel.
I'm kind of torn here because I found it very interesting discovering what the terms above meant -- and witnessing some discussion and ambiguity around a few of them -- but I honestly think the words have a kind of...charm about them, almost carrying the charge of a magick spell. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps they have the same seduction for the girls on Fashion. They are like a chant.
They also remind me, listed like that, of the way computer games in the 80s would boast all their "features"!
Multi-Directional Quad Laser
Hi-Resolution Graphics
Attract Mode
Diamonte Broach
Threadbare Vest Top
Blue Fender Plectrum Earrings
The ones I've included above were in capitals in the original Fashion thread, which was probably why I made that particular link. Anyway... just a different type of fascinating jargon. NB. I know which ones are spelled wrong. But the spelling is also charming.
[ 30.11.2004, 19:41: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Yes, I'd like to know what a bias cut is. Never been quite sure about mules or chinos either.
One of my housemates got some of them ugg boots. I pissed myself laughing and asked if she was going to a fancy dress party as the ravaged corpse of a yeti. This was the wrong response. Apparently you are supposed to say, "wow, they're lovely! Where did you get them?"
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Yes, I'd like to know what a bias cut is.
I believe it is when the fabric is cut and stiched in a way which isn't perpendicular to the top seam and - in effect - better traces the curve of the body (cf italian suits for men and other stuff for women).
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
Bias cut refers to the way a patern is lain on a fabric. The way the the pattern is laid on the fabric, either vertically, horizontally or diagonally, will have a bearing on the way the finished garment behaves. Bias cut is a garment that has been pattern cut diagonally from the fabric, and so has a lot of movement to it. A bias cut skirt will be floaty, swishy and romantic, even if it has been cut from a minimal amount of fabric.
quote: That's what university will do for you!
This is nothing, oobs. People write whole books on this shit. Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
What she said.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
God this is depressing. I knew about a third of those things, and most of those were just the colours, and I do not possess, have never possessed, and probably will never possess any of them. Am fake girl. Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
This is probably the first completely educational thread I've ever read anywhere on the Woob. I mean, one often reads a particular post and goes, oh, that's Quite Interesting, but this is a whole thread about completely mysterious, almost paranormal things. I feel empowered with this knowledge and plan to stun my wife by dropping it into conversation over the next few days. Hmm, would that be a good move? Where's he suddenly got that information from? [*suspicious glare*] No, I see I shall have to use these powers with great discretion and careful timing.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
Yes, because she'll assume that your new young mistress has been educating you with a view to imminent presents of Christmas.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Wow! I have learnt from this.
My current fasion favorites are the Gothic Poncho as advertised in the pages of Alternative London magazine. The popular portable blankets are now available in black with an attractive tribal design!
And small women with long trousers! I just love that special high-knee stompy walk they do because the ends of the trousers keep catching on their heels.
stomp stomp stomp... Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: How do girls know all this stuff?
Because, whereas light reading material for boys usually features a naked Lisa Faulkner or must have gadgets, women's magazines just bombard us with clothes, beauty advice and brand names.
I'm no sociologist but it's generally accepted that shopping is now a leisure activity. And being seen wearing the right stuff - whether that be designer labels or artfully stupid looking (sorry, I mean boho) - is part of belonging. Like playground bullying, there can be very serious consequences for transgressing the fashion rules if you want to be part of some groups of women.
Sorry, I'm not bitter, honest.
And thanks Kovacs for my first Photoshop-job post. I'm very flattered and it is very droll. I do forget that my moniker can be seen as gender ambiguous....
Back on the subject of fashion, you might like to note that the current phrases doing the rounds are:
Fashionista I hate this one. Guerrillas on the front line of the style battle? They should all be shot
Butter-soft Soft. Usually of leather. Feel free to read as rancid.
Yummy mummy Going out a bit. Refers to young mothers who, shockingly, don't turn into old hags immediately upon giving birth. Usually used to market overpriced luxe brands of yoga mat.
Luxe Luxury. Probably butter soft at that....
Now go forth and amaze your female friends.
[ 01.12.2004, 05:31: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Keep up! what's a 'squirrely' slouchy bag with bone cuff and stone blazer, in 'platinum' with Joeys. No prize for the best photoshop but you know you want to.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I really hate the phrase "chunky knits". Who the fuck says this instead of "woolly jumpers"? I read it in a copy of Marie Claire that one of my hateful housemates left in the bathroom.
We have stupid magazines but NO BOG ROLL. Currently there is a bog roll stand off; I am not buying it because I buy it all the time and it's somebody else's turn. Who's going to crack first?
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
'Squirrely' bags...
1) Good for keeping acorns in. 2) Made of squirrel fur, perhaps with a number of tails hanging from it. Ok as long as it is not red squirels - they are endangerd you see. 3) ?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: We have stupid magazines but NO BOG ROLL.
There's a very obvious solution to this problem. Let's face it - it beats using someone else's beanie hat.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Who's going to crack first?
Couldn't you have picked a better term of phrase VP or is my sick and twisted mind to crass for TMO?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: a 'squirrely' slouchy bag with bone cuff and stone blazer, in 'platinum' with Joeys.
Hang on - that description's a cut-and-shut.
Bone and stone are both beige. Don't say I didn't warn you. There are millions of words for beige and light brown (caramel).
Squirrely probably refers to fur (grrrr), but I can't really tell without the context.
Platinum is a popular colour this season, especially for leather (e.g. shoes and bags). It's silver only not quite as shiny.
A slouchy bag is just that. Soft leather, not rigid. Ally will probably have a better description.
A joey is a baby marsupial, carried about in its fleabitten mother's leathery pouch. I refer you to Geri Halliwell's Shitzu...
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
What is 'cut-and-shut'?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
A cut and shut is a second-hand car that's been welded together from different shells.
I will look up the context of squirrely. I'm not sure anyone has quite hit on the intended meaning yet.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Gosh, today Kel Kat is wearing a chocolate gypsy dress with spaghetti straps, tan suede pointy toed kitten heel boots, a beige wool coat and a stone panelled (?) bag!
And Moulin Rouge has got 5 replies already to a thread asking what people are wearing on Christmas Day... which helps answer my question above. Obviously these gals really do spend absolutely ages planning in advance, and take great pleasure in it. Which is absolutely fair enough -- I am not taking the piss with this thread, and their knowledge inspires a certain kind of wonder in me.
No I can't find 'squirrely'. I didn't just invent it though.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
She's wearing a brown flouncy dress with thin straps, light brown boots and a beige bag made from different pieces of leather. Hope she's wearing a cardie.... it's a bit cold.
I should just point out that not all women, not even all the women who post in Handbag fashion I suspect, plan their outfits that far in advance.
In fact I reckon the commonest question in there is the panicked one that says "I've got to go to a posh wedding/mother in law's party/big work do - what the hell am I going to wear so I don't look stupid?"
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Obviously these gals really do spend absolutely ages planning in advance, and take great pleasure in it.
But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
[ 01.12.2004, 06:17: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
But these women have achieved something... they are writing a form of poetry.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
Today I am wearing: knuckle dusters and a snarl of derision.
Do you write for the Daily Mail London or are you labouring under the delusion that you're being cute and ironic? Either way - feel free to kiss my very pointy kick-arse boots.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
And I wonder why I use a gender ambiguous name on forums.....
[ 01.12.2004, 06:33: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
OMG wicked I can't believe London came back and got challenged by my favourite newbie! Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Today I am wearing: knuckle dusters and a snarl of derision.
Do you write for the Daily Mail London or are you labouring under the delusion that you're being cute and ironic? Either way - feel free to kiss my very pointy kick-arse boots.
Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
Incidentally, the Mail do pay two pounds a word.
[ 01.12.2004, 06:44: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
two quid a word??????? Here's my soul, where do I sign up?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I've never been paid £2 a word by the Mail. That can't be their standard freelance rate. I don't think I got anywhere near half that.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
From reading the Bill Brydon science book it is painfully obvious that women haven't made scientific acheivements on as considerable a scale as men for the simple reason that, for an awfully long time, they simply weren't allowed to.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
Oh, on Saturday (Sunday?) I came across reruns of the now incredibly dated and ponderous Dawson's Creek on Five, in which some alpha--girl postulated that women were so obssessed with fashion because they were essentially insecure and desperate for acceptance.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Incidentally, the Mail do pay two pounds a word.
Don't get excited, chickens. The two pound figure is probably granted only for long words like antidisestablishmentarianism, floccinaucinihilipilification or honorificabilitudinitatibus.
Words like the or a are probably only worth
.
[ 01.12.2004, 07:01: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
Incidentally, the Mail do pay two pounds a word.
Well, young master London (since we're being sneeringly archaic) - I was not actually arguing any of those points, which lets face it you did not originally make in your flippant dismissal of womankind.
As briefly as possible -
a) Women have proven themselves perfectly capable of scientific and artistic achievements. See Marie Curie etc. They have not always had either the opportunity or, crucially the recognition of their achievements that men have. Go away and look up Ada Lovelace and Rosalind Franklin if science is your thing.
b) Women do not have a stranglehold on either transient fripperies or pointless activity. I give you Sunday league football, FHM magazine, any number of hobbies involving electronic gadgets, compiling lists of best bands on internet forums (and activity I have partaken of alongside many blokes).
c) I would agree with you that there's been a traditional downgrading of any field associated with the "feminine".
d) But I would also add that women in the workplace (underpaid) are under pressure to impress and conform in their appearance in a way that men aren't. See numerous Daily Mail (pound of flesh a word) articles about wearing just the right amount of makeup to get promoted.
e) I am very humbled that you could drag yourself away from making an important scientific breakthrough to benefit all mankind (sic) - to engage in putting down a few inconsequential women.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bandy: From reading the Bill Brydon science book it is painfully obvious that women haven't made scientific acheivements on as considerable a scale as men for the simple reason that, for an awfully long time, they simply weren't allowed to.
A point that I was going to make too. In their role of carers and housewifes, when were they going to be out in the lab conducting experiments and cooking up new medicines?
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: Oh, on Saturday (Sunday?) I came across reruns of the now incredibly dated and ponderous Dawson's Creek on Five, in which some alpha--girl postulated that women were so obssessed with fashion because they were essentially insecure and desperate for acceptance.
And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way. Body, hair, clothes. They are all perceived to be a symbol of success and popularity. If you are a fat girl with mousey-greasy hair and wearing a Demis Roussos flowered kaftan, people just ain't going to take the time to find out if you have a sterling personality lurking underneath.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way.
I dunno. I don't think women can blame the media for any of this - it's hardly as though anyone's exempt from this aspirational advertising guff. Everyone, at every stage of their life is bombarded with ideas of what you should be looking like, how you should be acting, what you should be driving. Why are women so much more likely than men to be affected by these things?
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: fat girl with mousey-greasy hair and wearing a Demis Roussos flowered kaftan
Tag for Saltrock, if Darryn were feeling mean.
I've never really "got" fashion as I've never seen the point of looking exactly the same as everyone else.
Conversation with my dippy friend Heather:
Me: general bile at tacky 80s monstrosities clogging up the shops for most of 2003/2004, focussing particularly on neon leggings.
Heth: yes, but soon lots of people will be wearing them
Me: oh.
Edit: yes, the "the media made me think it!" is a particularly nonsense argument regarding women and their appearance.
[ 01.12.2004, 07:18: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And also, I would agree with the above to a certain degree. Most of the females on here [from what I can gather] are intelligent and articulate and not too likely to follow fashion trends just because of the media. But I would think that most females under the age of around 35 just aren't like this. The media puts immense pressure on girls to be a certain way.
I dunno. I don't think women can blame the media for any of this - it's hardly as though anyone's exempt from this aspirational advertising guff. Everyone, at every stage of their life is bombarded with ideas of what you should be looking like, how you should be acting, what you should be driving. Why are women so much more likely than men to be affected by these things?
Because there is a whole load more of the advertising/general media directed that way. It's not often you will see a picture of a sexy man, wearing something revealing, sprawled across the bonnet of a car to sell it. There are pictures of thin, beautifully made up and polished women every where you look. And a lot of women feel that this is what they are being measured against. If there were pictures of women of say, size 16, with their hair a bit squizzy and a pair of jeans and a t-shirt on advertising stuff it would make these "normal" women feel more comfortable about how they look and not feel that these glossy chicks are some kind of benchmark. But as we all know, that wouldn't sell the products, would it?
And VP - I'm not I don't prefer that to the one that I have now!
[ 01.12.2004, 07:27: Message edited by: saltrock ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Perhaps one reason why fashion marketing is so effective is the way it is teamed with fashion critique. It's become okay to be hyper-critical of minor flaws. Pick up any celeb mag, and the fashion selling parts are outweighed by headlines of "CELEBS IN ARMPIT STUBBLE DISASTER!" or "CELEBRITY HAT HORROR!". Blokes' lifestyle mags and guides don't seem to do this quite so much. I'm only talking about "Zoo", and "Nuts", as these are the only ones I am in contact with. Marketing seems to be carried out using style guides, the same as in the female mags, but it's backed up mostly by tales of blokey wit, prowess, and love of cars, babes, and footie. It flatters the men into identifying with brands, rather than scares them. Maybe it's only a matter of time.
These critical articles that point out physical 'flaws' and fashion 'disasters' can only fuel insecurity. The mags then offer solutions, which is usually to dress either like Kate Moss (ACNE!) or Kylie (BOOB JOB!). Trinny and Susannah have paved the way for this cold war girl vs. girl approach to fashion. In order to survive, everybody has to be an expert, hence the kind of talk that Kovacs mentions, which ten years ago would have been relegated to the designer's studio. Of course, fashion has always been about attempting to look better than your neighbour, but it seems as if resentment and jealousy are now things to be celebrated. In the end, we're all losing out Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: Because there is a whole load more of the advertising/general media directed that way.
This isn't true - you're just noticing the stuff that's directed at you.
quote: It's not often you will see a picture of a sexy man, wearing something revealing, sprawled across the bonnet of a car to sell it. There are pictures of thin, beautifully made up and polished women every where you look. And a lot of women feel that this is what they are being measured against.
I don't know what kind of advertising they have in Cornwall, but I can honestly say that every single day I see images of topless men with buff abs trying to sell me stuff to make me look like them. I don't know how that counts as "not often", but every single shaver, aftershave, underwear, deoderant and car ad follows pretty much that formula. It's also hardly a rare thing to see women getting "what they want", and what they want is a handsome, toned, wealthy looking fella who bears almost no relation to me. I'm not asking for sympathy, obviously. I'm capable of dismissing this imagery as aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world, and I credit women with the same ability.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: young master London
lol - I see OJ has met my sister before!
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I'm sure that you could tie in some kind of post-feminist thread into this as well. I'm not going to, because I've already proven an outrageous lack of insight into the world of fashion. But I bet you could. It's interesting what thorn says though, about crediting women with enough intelligence to be able to withstand the marketing. Not being a woman, I don't know for sure, but it seems as if by turning the focus onto editorial driven marketing, it causes readers to then discuss the products. It is no longer a case of the ad people telling the readers, but the readers telling each other. It's an environment that has been partly manufactured, but mostly just tended to, and as such, cack-handed "topless in black and white" approaches that are used to sell things to men are no longer appropriate for the female market.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
lol, I attended a talk on marketing strategies recently; can you tell?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: But isn't that why women never achieve anything / there are no female geniuses etc (delete as appropriate): because they're planning stupid shit like what to wear on Christmas Day and whether that slate-grey/ moss green shrug will accentuate or detract from the silkysmooth-whisperline of hairs above their upper lips?
Rather than acting like a dribbling teenboy in the audience of an all-girl wrestling match, I should offer useful comment.
Firstly, we have no way of knowing, but I presume it's not the case that the women on HB Fasion do nothing but plan their outfits and post about them. Most people would not take such care over what they're wearing if they weren't going to work; I assume from the styles and the prices that many of these HB contributors must be professional women. Constructing your own professional image and visual brand is not trivial and frivolous, and I'm sure someone could argue that they're taking control over their projected selves, manipulating the way people respond to them.
Secondly, I wasn't messing around when I said I felt there was a form of poetry in those posts. Admittedly, I selected the phrases that chimed most resonantly for me, but some of the words they use for colours are fantastic. Maybe they're just using terms they've picked up from the magazine or store description. But surely also, fashion is an art, a language. Is it frippery to be expert in such a field, any more than it would be girly timewasting to enjoy a knowledgable discussion of, say, chord progression or calligraphy?
Thirdly, we could look at a forum of boys' hobby-chatter and draw the conclusion that these people do nothing but obsess about gigabytes, GTA, woofers, weights. Nobody would use a Star Wars forum, with all its intense debate about nonsense, as evidence that men will never achieve anything in society; it represents only a single strand of people's lives.
NB. I was interrupted in the middle of writing this post for 45 minutes! the impertinence! so I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion has moved on in my absence Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I'm capable of dismissing this imagery as aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world, and I credit women with the same ability.
Good! I am glad that someone has made this point! We all have a choice as to whether we want to live our lives according to the impossibly high aspirational standards set by glossy magazines and the like. I once received a subscription to Glamour magazine (yes, lol, I know) and having read the first two issues, decided to donate the next ten to my local GP’s surgery without actually reading them. The truth is, as much as I ignore or refuse to conform to the Hollyoaks brand of beige attractiveness increasingly promoted as covetable, I found reading Glamour a crushing and slightly depressing experience. I would go so far as to suggest that, in the 2 copies I read at least, the magazine promoted acquiring a Beach Babe Bikini Body, a Perfect Tan Without Ageing and a Wardrobe Full of Manolos as the only achievements a woman should ever be bothered to strive for. Even the token ‘serious’ articles harked back to how spectacularly important the right make up, hairstyle and outfit are. In fact, the article that caused me to banish the magazine to a germ infected waiting room was one about how a woman can never expect to be taken seriously, further her career or meet a man with honourable intentions if she has curly hair. I mean, honestly. Whilst I can sit back and relax in the knowledge that I quite sensibly made a choice not to continue to read such guff, it does concern me that not every other woman will react in the same way as me. For example, women with self esteem issues may feel more compelled to strive for something that they think will guarantee them affirmation and acceptance. More impressionable women, perhaps girls more than women, may feel the same. They may read magazines like Glamour and interpret it as some sort of Gospel for Womanhood. So yes, it is important to recognise that such imagery and rhetoric is aspirational bollocks with little relevance to the real world and that women have the ability to dismiss it. However, I would place equal importance on recognising that not all women are able to or choose to do this.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Sidney, one of my non-bogroll-buying housemates has a subscription to Glamour. Please can I come and live with you?
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
You would be most welcome, Veep. Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Maybe you should just wipe your arse on Glamour magazine instead.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Maybe you should just wipe your arse on Glamour magazine instead.
And then leave it in the local GP's waiting room.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: b) Women do not have a stranglehold on either transient fripperies or pointless activity. I give you Sunday league football, FHM magazine, any number of hobbies involving electronic gadgets, compiling lists of best bands on internet forums (and activity I have partaken of alongside many blokes).
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: Thirdly, we could look at a forum of boys' hobby-chatter and draw the conclusion that these people do nothing but obsess about gigabytes, GTA, woofers, weights. Nobody would use a Star Wars forum, with all its intense debate about nonsense, as evidence that men will never achieve anything in society; it represents only a single strand of people's lives.
I think my gripe with fashion, dressing-up and artifice is that it is an end in itself. These things you cite as male equivalents – football, technology, music – they’re conduits to something else. Sure, boys obsess about football, but it's also a game they can, if they so choose, enjoy themselves, getting exercise, experience the thrill of competition and fresh air. Technology is a means to an end, whether that end is to listen to music, communicate with others, or simply kill a few hours enjoying a video game. Compiling a best band list entails engagement with that band’s music, both on CD and possibly live: an obsession with music is more likely than not going to inspire the listener to pick up their own cheap guitar or synth and mess around creatively. A gamer unpacking an X-box has hours of entertainment ahead: whereas a new sequin-bedecked top isn’t going to replace TV or reading as the number one thing to fiddle with after work on a weeknight, it is? The only pleasure derived from that top, once the purchase is completed, is the pleasure of appearing, of seeming, of being admired.
Which leads into your other points.
quote:Originally posted by OJ: d) But I would also add that women in the workplace (underpaid) are under pressure to impress and conform in their appearance in a way that men aren't. See numerous Daily Mail (pound of flesh a word) articles about wearing just the right amount of makeup to get promoted.
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: Constructing your own professional image and visual brand is not trivial and frivolous, and I'm sure someone could argue that they're taking control over their projected selves, manipulating the way people respond to them.
Of course, these women have to dress a certain way to be promoted. (Be promoted into an industry which is no doubt staffed entirely by women at lower levels, with males taking up all the positions of real power at the top.) They must spend their salaries (a salary which still, in 2004, sits at about 80% of what an equivalent male will earn for an equivalent job) on adorning themselves, to better present themselves to achieve their aims. I just can’t buy this fashion obsession as a reasonable way for anyone to spend their time and money.
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: But surely also, fashion is an art, a language. Is it frippery to be expert in such a field, any more than it would be girly timewasting to enjoy a knowledgable discussion of, say, chord progression or calligraphy?
While I’m not arguing with the seductiveness of a specific, unfamiliar vocabulary – I spent the morning on a train entranced by lines like ‘polyurethene body atop Eiffel tower construction of chrome legs’ in a book about chair design, ffs – I can’t buy fashion as an art. Chord progression is relating to songs, music, a form that communicates with many others, durable in recorded form – fashion is but an appearance, specific only to the viewer, transitory, ephemeral. It’s an illusion. Momentary. It appears, it does not do. Fashion is a sop to women. Women have yet to achieve as men have achieved. Blame biology or culture as you wish: I see trivial obsession with fashion as an additional factor hampering women from engaging with the real issues that hold them back.
/ends
[ 01.12.2004, 09:01: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Well, it's a good answer. I think Ally does theoretical work on fashion as language, so I hope she might weigh in with her view.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Obviously there is more pressure on women to be into fashion within our/their culture than on men, but that is changing, and will continue to do so.
Obviously people should have the sense or wherewithall to take as much or as little notice of this as they see fit. Obviously some won't. There is a difference between an interest and an obsession.
I don't find these terms particularly exciting or alien, but then I understand/understood the majority of them without explanation, having had some interest in 'fashion' from a design perspective.
I would also take issue with London's suggestion that an interest in fashion is de facto uncreative, surely the combination of clothes in outfits is creative in itself? Not to mention people who make, or customise, their own clothing?
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
I now know that I can turn to Benway with all my accounting and fashion questions. He truly is the oracle of all knowledge.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
He's also really useful if you need information on how to turn yellow.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: A gamer unpacking an X-box has hours of entertainment ahead: whereas a new sequin-bedecked top isn’t going to replace TV or reading as the number one thing to fiddle with after work on a weeknight, it is? The only pleasure derived from that top, once the purchase is completed, is the pleasure of appearing, of seeming, of being admired.
Blame biology or culture as you wish: I see trivial obsession with fashion as an additional factor hampering women from engaging with the real issues that hold them back.
/ends
A lot of this debate has already been had whilst I've been off having meetings - very unfashionably clad today, I might add....
But I'm going to both agree and disagree with London. There are so many factors hampering, tripping up and otherwise booby-trapping women's lives that I'm sometimes driven to outbursts of aggressive "kiss my boots" behaviour.
I have been known to post in the Handbag fashion forum, which anyone who knows me IRL might find rather ironic. The body fascism, the self-esteem crushing ideas of being fashionable to fit in, be taken seriously, be liked etc. that are perpetuated there sometimes frustrate me incredibly. Which is probably the perverse reason, I have been known to engage with it - as a sort of counterbalance. See numerous fights about the word "chav".... So yes, I do agree to an extent that a trivial obsession with appearance could be a factor holding women back.
But as I think Benway has said previously, fashion can be a form of creative expression. It can also be used to subvert, to rebel, to reinforce counter-cultural group identities etc.
To dismiss all that because it's also part of consumerism - which is a wider force you might like to argue keeps us all on the treadmill and stops us from engaging with the real issues - is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To mix a few metaphors....
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
It's 'dress to impress', isn't it. Yes, you can dress to express your own creativity, but the vast majority of people buy clothes that will make themselves look good. And good generally equates to various things, depending on circumstance: worksmart; datesexxxy; casualcool. Even people who like to think they're alternative tend to conform to a civilian uniform. Yes, yes, we're all like peacocks flashing our be-jewelled wares (only in reverse: male fashion doesn't quite have the sparkling display aspect of ladiesware yet).
Anyway! Today I purchased a veritable treasure trove of frills and fripperies:
brown tweedy a-line skirt with faux-pleat panelling and string tie belt.
peppermint t-shirt with cut-out pattern detail and slight gathering under the bust.
dusty pink v-neck short-sleeved fine-knit sweater with mock pearl button detail at the waist and lace and pearl edging.
Wow!
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
i only like to do exercise so its better when I wank off in the mirror.
Posted by dervish (Member # 727) on :
quote:Originally posted by jnhoj: i only like to do exercise so its better when I wank off in the mirror.
I am truly grateful that you decided, many moons past, to write only brief posts.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by jnhoj: i only like to do exercise so its better when I wank off in the mirror.
I suppose if you're vigourous enough, it could be counted as exercise. Hadn't really thought about it before.
No wonder teenagers are usually so fit.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
Well, this thread grew legs in my absence. There is a limit to how many points I can respond to and still get some sleep tonight, so I'll give some thoughts that I have on the subject of fashion generally instead. I hope they're of interest.
Can we have a definition of fashion? Its a term everyone understand and has an opinion on, but which is never really explained fully.
Fashion is dress subject to rapid and constant change. It is therefore one of the forms of creativity that is paradigmatic of the modern age. Whether we are talking about the large fashion houses and their brands, or high street stores, the rapidity of change, and the variety of choice we have with each change, is really quite remarkable. Was it Karl Marx who characterised the 20th century as a time when "all that is solid melts into air"? So it is with dress. Just when you think you've got it, it changes again.
Fashion is a discourse. The language of clothes is a communicative structure we all inhabit. Even if you are unfashionable, or antifashion, you are still occupying a position within the fashion system. A pair of nondescript five year old slacks from Marks and Spencers say as much about the wearer's demographic group, belief system, etc, as a pair of bootcut tweed trousers or a pair of 7FAMK jeans. ( I assume we're all familiar with that acronym now? )
Fashion is an extension of ourselves, and the surface upon which the world projects its ideas onto us. It is a boundary, but an inherently unstable one. Think about tattoos, or piercings, for example. Are they an addition to the body or an extension of it? Where does the body end and fashion start?
I appreciate London's position, about the link between women's historic exclusion from the world of science and letters and the association of fripparies and shallow pursuits with the female sex. However, I cannot support that view for two reasons. Firstly, it assumes that these fripparies are of no consequence, when I hope the points I have outlined above show that they are indeed consequential, sometimes quite profoundly so. OK, so the consequences are neither achievement nor goal oriented, (themselves rather masculine traits) but instead are processual, negotiable and fluid. Secondly, it assumes that an interest in these pursuits is used as a tool of oppression by men and, further, that women are complicit in this. On the contrary, I'd suggest that these pursuits are a valid mode of expression that is readily available to those excluded, for whatever reason, from other discourses (political, scientific, etc) by a culture that has been shaped by several thousand years of patriarchal ideology.
Fashion as art. There will be many people who don't get this idea at all, and that's OK. What I would say is that fashion is a triumverate creative process. The designer is creative when they design a garment. The wearer is creative, when they choose what to wear and put together a style of their own. And we are creative in the ways we interpret the clothes we see on others. An example of someone who employed all three strands of this creativity at once is the performance artist Leigh Bowery. And if you want to really want to refuse the idea that fashion can be artistic, if not art, please look at the work of the surrealist designer Elsa Schiapparelli before you make your mind up on this one.
I'll post more as it comes to me.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ally: Fashion is a discourse. The language of clothes is a communicative structure we all inhabit. Even if you are unfashionable, or antifashion, you are still occupying a position within the fashion system. A pair of nondescript five year old slacks from Marks and Spencers say as much about the wearer's demographic group, belief system, etc, as a pair of bootcut tweed trousers or a pair of 7FAMK jeans.
It says something about their place in the fashion system, but I don't agree it tells you so much, necessarily, about their demographic group... and arguably nothing about their belief system.
For a start, you could own both the 7FAMK jeans and the nondescript old M&S ones, and you could be wearing the latter because you'd been decorating, or were just going to buy milk. Your belief system and demographic wouldn't have changed depending on which pair of jeans you had on.
Secondly, I suspect these garments cross several demographic groups. 7FAMK is available on ebay, for instance, for a lot less than £150. People on a lower income can save for more expensive garments. Working-class girls might have more aspirational dress sense and care more about the status-charge of brands and labels than do middle-class girls with more cultural security and self-confidence. Brands slide down the scale, losing their cachet (Burberry) and instant-celebrity shows catapult people with no class and money to a level where they have no class but much money.
I suppose an outfit could reveal someone's belief system, but I wouldn't guarantee that at all.
quote:What I would say is that fashion is a triumverate creative process. The designer is creative when they design a garment. The wearer is creative, when they choose what to wear and put together a style of their own. And we are creative in the ways we interpret the clothes we see on others.
By this system, everything is a creative process, if an object becomes "creative" when people view and interpret it. As everything we encounter is interpreted, and everything we see involves a process of making meaning/making sense, nothing would be exempt from this. A landscape, for instance, becomes a creative process in this system because in looking at it we gauge distances, perspectives, planes, colours, and make sense of what we're looking at.
I think this is taking it a little too far, if the act of viewing something, in its meaning-making, dignifies that thing with the label "creative" -- even if no creative talent has been involved in its production or use.
I would love to have some regular from HB Fashion read this thread and comment. I can't PM them for obvious reasons, and I wouldn't want to start some sort of interboard ruck, but I think it would be interesting to see the response from one of the people who celebrates this kind of fashion-discourse on the HB forum.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by ally: Fashion is a discourse. The language of clothes is a communicative structure we all inhabit. Even if you are unfashionable, or antifashion, you are still occupying a position within the fashion system. A pair of nondescript five year old slacks from Marks and Spencers say as much about the wearer's demographic group, belief system, etc, as a pair of bootcut tweed trousers or a pair of 7FAMK jeans.
It says something about their place in the fashion system, but I don't agree it tells you so much, necessarily, about their demographic group... and arguably nothing about their belief system.
For a start, you could own both the 7FAMK jeans and the nondescript old M&S ones, and you could be wearing the latter because you'd been decorating, or were just going to buy milk. Your belief system and demographic wouldn't have changed depending on which pair of jeans you had on.
Secondly, I suspect these garments cross several demographic groups. 7FAMK is available on ebay, for instance, for a lot less than £150. People on a lower income can save for more expensive garments. Working-class girls might have more aspirational dress sense and care more about the status-charge of brands and labels than do middle-class girls with more cultural security and self-confidence. Brands slide down the scale, losing their cachet (Burberry) and instant-celebrity shows catapult people with no class and money to a level where they have no class but much money.
I suppose an outfit could reveal someone's belief system, but I wouldn't guarantee that at all.
I think an outfit can speak volumes about a person. Clothes are a part of a quite complex system of identity, so a pair of nondescript M&S trousers will be worn, and interpreted, quite differently depending on the wearer. My point was that clothes tell you an awful lot about a person's social and cultural identity and location. It is precisely the issue of branding/insecurity that allows you to identify the working class girl from the middle class girl with more cultural security and self-confidence. I was not suggesting that one can make a blanket association between expensive clothes and wealthy people. My choice of examples may have misled you here.
I often conduct an exercise with my students, where I get them to guess what newspaper a person in an image would read, what radio station they listen to, where they went for their holidays, etc. A whole character, and usually a fairly accurate one, can be built by assessing someone visually.
quote:
quote:What I would say is that fashion is a triumverate creative process. The designer is creative when they design a garment. The wearer is creative, when they choose what to wear and put together a style of their own. And we are creative in the ways we interpret the clothes we see on others.
By this system, everything is a creative process, if an object becomes "creative" when people view and interpret it. As everything we encounter is interpreted, and everything we see involves a process of making meaning/making sense, nothing would be exempt from this. A landscape, for instance, becomes a creative process in this system because in looking at it we gauge distances, perspectives, planes, colours, and make sense of what we're looking at.
I think this is taking it a little too far, if the act of viewing something, in its meaning-making, dignifies that thing with the label "creative" -- even if no creative talent has been involved in its production or use.
I think that the process of interpretation, of reading, is a creative process, albeit one that is qualitively different to the process of creating an object, an artefact or an image. If we do not accept that interpretation is a creative process, we are left with the understanding of the viewer, or reader, as being someone inherently passive, who accepts what is put before them rather than actively engaging with it. I should have qualified what I'd said by saying that the creative process of interpretation takes place in an encounter with "man-made" (for want of a better expression) artefacts, rather than the natural world.
quote: I would love to have some regular from HB Fashion read this thread and comment. I can't PM them for obvious reasons, and I wouldn't want to start some sort of interboard ruck, but I think it would be interesting to see the response from one of the people who celebrates this kind of fashion-discourse on the HB forum.
Why not post a link to this thread, or get someone else to do it?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ally: I think an outfit can speak volumes about a person. My point was that clothes tell you an awful lot about a person's social and cultural identity and location.
I think they can do. I also think they might tell you volumes of misleading information.
quote:It is precisely the issue of branding/insecurity that allows you to identify the working class girl from the middle class girl with more cultural security and self-confidence.
I think a working-class girl with desperate aspirations could be wearing precisely the same outfit as a middle-class girl with cultural comfort. You might say that you could read the difference in the way they carry themselves and their outfit, but obviously two very different people from different social positions could end up wearing the same combination of clothes... and I would say they could also be wearing them in the same way. I suggested that items cross those kinds of boundaries, through people saving and through second-hand sales.
There are, of course, distinctions between suits, but I expect that, say, a £200 Next suit could be worn (with the same shoes and hairstyle) by a whole range of men with very different demographic positions and certainly with different belief systems. The clothing would not necessarily allow you to read off a great ream of information about who they are.
quote:Why not post a link to this thread, or get someone else to do it?
OK, someone else is welcome to do it but I don't want it to be obvious that "this is Kovacs off of TMO linking to my own thread" -- as it would be obvious.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by ally: I think an outfit can speak volumes about a person. My point was that clothes tell you an awful lot about a person's social and cultural identity and location.
I think they can do. I also think they might tell you volumes of misleading information.
quote:It is precisely the issue of branding/insecurity that allows you to identify the working class girl from the middle class girl with more cultural security and self-confidence.
I think a working-class girl with desperate aspirations could be wearing precisely the same outfit as a middle-class girl with cultural comfort. You might say that you could read the difference in the way they carry themselves and their outfit, but obviously two very different people from different social positions could end up wearing the same combination of clothes... and I would say they could also be wearing them in the same way. I suggested that items cross those kinds of boundaries, through people saving and through second-hand sales.
There are, of course, distinctions between suits, but I expect that, say, a £200 Next suit could be worn (with the same shoes and hairstyle) by a whole range of men with very different demographic positions and certainly with different belief systems. The clothing would not necessarily allow you to read off a great ream of information about who they are.
This is perfectly feasible. However, shared the cultural codes that make it possible for us to understand our world make it a rare event. While there may be the odd instance where we misread the visual language, and draw misplaced conclusions as a result, on the whole, the wearer, the clothes and the viewer will "work together" to create a stable and unchallenging connection. Where this connection is disrupted, it can be quite subversive. The transsexual's attempts to "pass" as a member of their assumed sex, and the confusion that can create in peoples minds, might be an example of this subversion in action. On a day-to-day basis, though, the information you get from reading a person's clothes is more often accurate than misleading.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ally: On a day-to-day basis, though, the information you get from reading a person's clothes is more often accurate than misleading.
So you're saying that assumptions about demographic and belief systems, based on seeing a stranger's outfit, are correct more than 50% of the time. I'm not sure about it. We would have to carry out some research. You may say "O it's been done!" but I say we would have to carry out some research.
I'm really not convinced that it's rare for people from different demographics, with different belief systems, to buy and wear the same outfit. How many copies of a top does Top Shop ship? Isn't it in the millions? Isn't it likely that two girls with very different political beliefs, incomes, cultural capital, backgrounds, aspirations could be wearing the same top and trousers from the same shop -- that, say, Kate Lawler and a girl in an office down at my local industrial estate could both have bought them?
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: So you're saying that assumptions about demographic and belief systems, based on seeing a stranger's outfit, are correct more than 50% of the time. I'm not sure about it. We would have to carry out some research. You may say "O it's been done!" but I say we would have to carry out some research.
More or less, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Who's "we" by the way? I'd be more than happy to contribute to an exercise that would support my point. I think I'm right, but if I'm proved wrong it means I'll have to rethink, which is no bad thing.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
We = you and I. But I have to admit I'm not actually going to do it. If you carried out this research with 100 strangers, making assessments on various aspects of their lives (inc. demographic and belief system, as the latter point is contentious in my opinion) and then asked them to confirm details about those aspects of their lives... and if your results showed you were "correct" (which would have to be defined... would you have to be broadly right, or precisely right?) over 50% of the time, then I will say you seem to be right on this occasion! Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
ally, as a matter of interest, do the images you provide your students with include any fashion "curve balls" or do the pictured individuals always conform to what one might naturally expect from their outfits? Kovacs has suggested examples where to two varying characters could wear the identical outfit; are these kind of discrepancies accounted for in the range of images you provide for visual assessment?
Also, would it be possible to post the images here for TMO to play Man in the Crowd with them? Or would that be too much like a busman's posting break for you?
[ 02.12.2004, 06:04: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
I think not, senor K, but thanks for the challenge. Instead of me getting cold with a clipboard on Oxford Street, why don't you read Alison Lurie's The Language of Clothes instead? Or, we could agree to differ. Whaddaya say?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Jonesey had a good idea. Why don't you try it online, just for fun? It might not prove anything but it could make us all think about the issues.
Note that I am not entirely disagreeing with you Ally, nor am I at all resistant to the idea of a "language of clothes" -- I have at least read Barthes! -- I am only disputing whether this language always gives us an accurate account of the person "speaking" it, hem-hem, or whether it can't often be ambiguous or misleading.
I am happy to agree to differ on the extent to which clothes can clearly reveal a person's ideological beliefs. I still think a bit of a visual experiment might liven up what is already a good, but text-heavy thread.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: ally, as a matter of interest, do the images you provide your students with include any fashion "curve balls" or do the pictured individuals always conform to what one might naturally expect from their outfits? Kovacs has suggested examples where to two varying characters could wear the identical outfit; are these kind of discrepancies accounted for in the range of images you provide for visual assessment?
Also, would it be possible to post the images here for TMO to play Man in the Crowd with them? Or would that be too much like a busman's posting break for you?
I don't do pics on tinternet 'cos I'm technostupid - sorry.
In answer to your first point, I do provide students with more challenging images, usually of people who look slightly androgynous, or I show them the Coober Pedy scene from the Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, to make the point that if there is a slippage between what you see and how you understand/interpret what you see, it can be confusing, disrupting, challenging, and so on. The example of two people wearing exactly the same outfits? Clothes do not function on their own. There is always interplay with other factors. If you think that what I'm saying, that for the bulk of the time you can gather a quite sophisticated level of information from a person's dress and appearance, is fundamentally wrong, why don't you try it next time you're out? Look at what people around you are wearing. You'll see what I mean. If you don't I'll buy you a pint at the next meet.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
I would love to have some regular from HB Fashion read this thread and comment. I can't PM them for obvious reasons, and I wouldn't want to start some sort of interboard ruck, but I think it would be interesting to see the response from one of the people who celebrates this kind of fashion-discourse on the HB forum.
I could post it there quite easily but I'm not going to do so. As you rightly identify, it could well cause a ruck and I can't be arsed with that today, frankly.
There seems to be an over-simplistic assumption about the "sort of people who celebrate this fashion-discourse" running through this thread. Many of us (us being mainly, but not exclusively, females) have a degree of fluency in it, but we speak other languages as well.
Going back to the original question - about the rich tapestry of the language.... I imagine that lots of the HB regulars would have a lot to say about the language used in fashion - it changes along with the looks. At the moment it's about (this is just my take)
Antiqueness and authenticity - lots of vintage words - tea dresses and shrugs, snoods and capelets
Luxury expressed through food - chocolate, butter-soft, caramel, biscuit
BUT you'd have to ask the question in the right way. Imply, as this thread does at times, that you're engaged in an anthropological study of more trivial beings, and you're not going to get very far.
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am only disputing whether this language always gives us an accurate account of the person "speaking" it, hem-hem, or whether it can't often be ambiguous or misleading.
Of course, it can be ambiguous or misleading. The thing is, when it is ambiguous or misleading, it is usually challenging and disruptive. (See the examples on my earlier post) On the whole, communication, whether verbal or visual, tends to be clear and unequivocal.
I will do some homework and try and work out how to post pics on TMO.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by ally: Of course, it can be ambiguous or misleading. The thing is, when it is ambiguous or misleading, it is usually challenging and disruptive. (See the examples on my earlier post) On the whole, communication, whether verbal or visual, tends to be clear and unequivocal.
I don't think that on the whole communication is usually clear and unequivocal, partly because of intention and interpretation, as already discussed above, and partly because of the individuals (lack of) ability to communicate.
I would also argue that ambiguous clothing choices are not always challenging or disruptive, at least not consciously. It may be challenging to the viewer, to see something they can't define/didn't expect, but it can't be the case that this is the intention of the wearer. I agree that sometimes this will be true, but I think it would be a mistake to suggest that someone who has made an ambiguous (to the viewer) clothes choice is necessarily being deliberately subversive and/or challenging.
edit: to post images, you need to upload them to the internet somewhere, then in your reply here click on the 'image' button and type the url of your picture into the box that pops up.
[ 02.12.2004, 06:44: Message edited by: Modge ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by ally: Of course, it can be ambiguous or misleading. The thing is, when it is ambiguous or misleading, it is usually challenging and disruptive. (See the examples on my earlier post) On the whole, communication, whether verbal or visual, tends to be clear and unequivocal.
I don't think that is true at all. It's a common notion in cultural studies, which includes your study of fashion discourse, that texts can be interpreted in a vast variety of ways depending on cultural background, interpretive community and so on.. (I simplify, because I'm sure you are more than familiar with all this.)
"Visual communication" would include propaganda, feature films, advertisements, right? "Verbal communication" would include the reading of a poem. It is not the case by any means that these texts tend to carry a direct unequivocal meaning from the producer through the object to the receiver/consumer/viewer.
You could fill a library with research that demonstrates the way meaning is read in different ways by different people, from the same text. They all think the meaning they got out of it was "obvious" and common sense. Often it is not just different from the next viewer or reader's interpretation, but different from the meaning the producer intended.
So it would be very surprising if fashion was the one form of visual communication that carries a clear, unambiguous message through this system, with the intended meaning being transmitted exactly as the producer of the garments or the wearer of the outfit intended and being received and understood in that way by the person viewing the outfit.
Your examples of fashion language being disruptive or surprising are all about transsexuals, as though the only way we can read an outfit and get it "wrong" are when we try to read codes of gender off it. So you're saying that we can't look at someone in an outfit and judge their class, education and profession wrongly? Or that this might happen but it's very rare? I honestly don't agree with that. I think it could happen quite frequently. Of course I can think of examples where dress does indicate clearly someone's job and enables me to make fairly safe guesses about their personality, but I think a lot of the time it's not that obvious.
To return to my earlier two examples, about suits and Top Shop outfits. Around Charing Cross at midday during the week you will see thousands of men wearing similar suits. There will be incredible variation among those men in terms of their job, their voting intentions, their sexual orientation, their family status, their education. Yes, you could pick out clear examples where, for instance, one guy has a cheap tie and badly-cut suit and you might guess correctly that he's a young man in his first office job, or where another is wearing a suit of good material with silver cufflinks and nice shoes, and you guess correctly that he's a successful member of the board. But I would say those are easy extremes. There are masses of people inbetween from whose outfits I don't think you would be able to make many guesses about their demographic or "belief systems".
If you hang around outside Top Shop at the same time you will see thousands of young women in similar outfits. Yes, one of them might have a designer bag and another might have big Argos earrings, and you could point out that despite them wearing the same top, we can read off certain probabilities about their demographic. But those are, again, obvious and extreme examples, and I think there are a lot of people between those two poles who would not be giving away a lot about themselves through their outfits.
OJ, your points about the specific strands of discourse running thru the Fashion forum at the moment -- vintage and "food" -- are fascinating. I agree that anyone coming from one forum and seeing a bunch of people on another trying to analyse them and the stuff they say would be likely to take offence. But if they could get over that reaction, I think the input of an intelligent HB Fashion contributor on this thread would be valuable.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
You have to go *here and upload your picture, then just paste in the IMG link it gives you.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Darryn: Feel free to stick the image upload link in the TMO menu structure if you want. There seem to be quite a few people asking about it these days.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Sorry if all this has become irrelevant over the last half hour...
ally
Firstly, I'd point out that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your suggestions that dress and appearance can provide all kinds of information about the wearer. This is an interesting thread and, like Kovacs, I was trying to keep it unraveling at an interesting pace by throwing some questions into the mix. The only difference being, I'd happily admit if I don't know what I'm talking about or when I am wrong. But I digress. I already do look around and attempt to read the text of strangers from their clothes. I think most people do. In fact I'd suggest that many do it automatically and subconsciously. I can just about cast my mind back to lectures on semiotics and recall blurry bits of Barthes so perhaps I attempt it on a more conscious level, but I do think everyone does it. So there's no need to buy me a pint, but thanks anyway
It's a given really that people make judgments about, and gather information about, people from their outfit. I don't think they need to understand how they do it. The person wearing the clothes doesn't need a particularly sophisticated understanding of the language of fashion and clothes to subvert expectations. I'm thinking of the shoplifter who wears a suit and carries a briefcase to appear respectable or the dustman dressed in a suit for his daughter's wedding. Obviously the interplay between clothes and other factors could hold the answer to reading someone from their outfit but how important do the other factors have to be before they become the essence of the interpretation and the clothes secondary?
For instance, if my Daily Star reading dustman is dressed in the same suit as a privately educated, middle class, Times reading businessman, I might note that Dusty's tie isn't knotted like that of someone who wears ties frequently. I might observe that he has rough, dirty hands, that he looks uncomfortable in a suit, and deduce that this isn't his everyday attire. Fine, some of these factors can arguably fall within the realm of clothing, so I'm still largely gathering information from this person through his outfit. However, if I need to bring into play things like his accent, location (he's wearing a suit but he's at the British Legion), what car he's driving, what he's drinking, then we've moved beyond reading him from his outfit and on to a far broader level of interpretation. If Dusty's standing next to a girl about 25 years his junior, who bears a striking family resemblance and wears a wedding dress, if he holds a bunch of flowers and is covered in confetti then I might reasonably conclude that Dusty's wearing a suit because it's his daughters wedding and that he probably isn't a middle class businessman.
I don't think I'm making much sense and can't really dedicate the time this thread deserves, so to spare you any more meandering bollox, I suppose my question is really, when you talk about the interplay between clothing and other factors, what other factors are you talking about? And at what point is clothing just one of many signifiers you're using to draw information about an individual.
[ 02.12.2004, 07:49: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: like Kovacs, I was trying to keep it unraveling at an interesting pace by throwing some questions into the mix. The only difference being, I'd happily admit if I don't know what I'm talking about or when I am wrong.
b-but that happens so rarely with me I do try
I agree with many of your points above: ie. I think there are a host of other factors we would usually have to recognise and take into account before we could confidently read off someone's demographic and certainly other aspects about them, like "belief systems". I agree we can read a certain amount from dress, and everyone can come up with blatant examples where it's easy (most obviously, uniforms) but I think there are more cases where it's harder to get a clear, detailed and deep reading just from someone's outfit.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: b-but that happens so rarely with me
Mine was merely a feeder line to allow you to say the above.
Happy to help.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Where is that Government initiative to stop bullying, I want to sign up.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
On a lighter note, I am tempted to either....
a) List what I am wearing and ask Ally/anyone what they can surmise about my socio-economic group etc. from that.
or
b) Ask the same question in reverse. From what you know about me from my posts here, can you surmise what I would look like.
This doesn't just apply to me obviously - I mean to anyone here present.
I think B would be more interesting, but probably more difficult. A might be slightly creepy ?? But probably no more so than the HB what are you wearing thread.
eta: Come to think of it, it all depends on "how" you describe. Most of the posts on the HB thread rely heavily on brand names and fellow users' shared knowledge about merchandise currently in the shops. Whereas I would probably be more descriptive and possibly leave out brands altogether.
[ 02.12.2004, 08:39: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I get the impression that OJ has a critical enjoyment of fashion -- a level of cynicism combined with a genuine pleasure in clothes, their connotations, the way they're discussed and described.
I'm not sure how this would manifest itself but my guess would be that you would go for expensive pieces when you knew it guaranteed quality, detailing and investment, combined with some elements of more ephemeral, high street fun trends, but not a wholesale "look" that would risk putting you in a bracket or risk making you into a clone of a social type or celebrity. I would guesstimate you at late 20s.
I expect I am just being flattering and that this tells everyone more about how I want my favourite forumette to look Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Most of the posts on the HB thread rely heavily on brand names and fellow users' shared knowledge about merchandise currently in the shops. Whereas I would probably be more descriptive and possibly leave out brands altogether.
i think i see what you mean. i would describe my outfit today thus on handbag:
black capsleeved stretch cotton tshirt teal-blue kneelength light cotton skirt with small knife-pleats at waist and plastic bead belt black schoolgirl knee-socks black ballerina-esque flatties
dont i sound fash. on here, i would point out that everything i am wearing today comes from primark with the exception of my bra, and that in fact the whole of the rest of my outfit put together cost ten pounds less than the bra did. i would feel compelled to add that here. on handbag, i would keep it quiet.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
You don't have to say "teal-blue", Discodamage. Teal is a shade of blue. You will never "pass" on there.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
You don't need to say 'guesstimate', Kovacs. A guess is an estimate. You will never pass on here.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
on here everyone has said that teal is a shade of green. now maybe im colourblind, but i disagree. the skirt i am wearing said it was 'teal' on the label, and it is definitely more blue than green. i suspect conflict about whether the shade known as teal was green or blue is the reason it is called teal. is it blue? green? blue? green? neither and both. its teal, motherfucker.
i dont suspect i would get far on a handbag fashion thread using the word motherfucker either. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
lol I am shit... in 2 different ways!
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Teal!
Bluey-green I would say, if pressed.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Actually that looks a bit bright, like an ill advised bridesmaids dress. I think this is better teal.
In case anyone was wondering at my teal obsession then I am trying to pass the time as I cleverly managed to forget to add a crucial ingredient to my experiment thismorning. So I cannot do any work until 6pm. Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Misc's Dad has a teal car! (nearly)
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I'm not sure how this would manifest itself but my guess would be that you would go for expensive pieces when you knew it guaranteed quality, detailing and investment, combined with some elements of more ephemeral, high street fun trends, but not a wholesale "look" that would risk putting you in a bracket or risk making you into a clone of a social type or celebrity. I would guesstimate you at late 20s.
Er, not bad. And I guess being about 6 months off 30 is about as late in your 20s as you can get. Doesn't really give an impression of how I do look though - not that that's a criticism. I just think it's very difficult to deduce.
Discodamage's look on the other hand is telling me....
- She's not brand driven? Could be a No-logo reading leftie. Or might not be...
- She's quite feminine but maybe with a sense of irony (schoolgirl socks, ballerina shoes)
- She's younger than me. Maybe early 20s (again schoolgirl socks)
- She doesn't feel the cold or isn't in the UK. T shirt and cotton skirt in this weather???
- She doesn't work in a formal City or law type office environment. Perhaps a student or in a creative field. But probably not an ultra-creative field as her look isn't all that pretentious.... (unless that T-shirt is by an obscure japanese designer and the belt is home-made from lacquered liquorice allsorts)
eta: Teal is a blue based green. Anyone got the pantone code for that?
[ 02.12.2004, 12:01: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Teal is a blue based green. Anyone got the pantone code for that?
Pantone 328U ETA: That's the uncoated variant, obviously.
[ 02.12.2004, 12:14: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Well, according to this site, teal is hex code #008080. That means there is no red in it, and equal parts of blue and green. So yes it is both blue and green.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by SilverGinger5: That means there is no red in it, and equal parts of blue and green. So yes it is both blue and green.
A pedant would say that teal contains blue and green, but is neither.
Teal's way Windows 95, isn't it?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
RGB = 0, 128, 128 CMYK = 86,31,49,8
The RGB values suggest that Teal is poised on the exact cusp of blue and green....making you all right.
Obviously I'm basing all calculations on a [gulp] Microsoft standard Teal - as used in basic font colour options etc. I wonder if there's a Linux Teal....
Perhaps I should nip into HB and kindly request that all descriptions conform to the nearest shade on the websafe colour palette.
ps. I fear that the use of a car as an illustration may be a little misguided. Completely different lexicons I would imagine. Please feel free to correct me, if you're the owner of a butter-soft caramel runaround with chocolate bumpers and a walnut embellished dashboard. Mmmmm, my kind of car.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: eta: Teal is a blue based green. Anyone got the pantone code for that?
I used to be a colour co-ordinator designing the colour schemes for toys. Just to fuck up your theory, in my Pantone chart book teal was always listed in the greens. Cerise was in with the pinks. We all know that Pantone is the colour law.
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Teal defines an enormous ocean that angrily throws fresh water pearls upon the sandy shore, bony hands and lips show frozen veins as though life is a numbing freezer, patient days go by quicker than ever as beautiful airy clouds turn heavy with rain, the sadness of a dispirited being who was shunned from the face of the Earth. Teal.
according to Chelsea Nugent Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I fucked up my own theory (cross-posted with Miscallaneous Files above).
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Teal sounds like one awesome mother fucker. I wouldn't call his mum teal-blue down a dark alley.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: [QUOTE]Discodamage's look on the other hand is telling me....
- She's not brand driven? Could be a No-logo reading leftie. Or might not be...
no, im not in the least; yes, well done; but also- too poor for top shop, let alone gucci.
quote:- She's quite feminine but maybe with a sense of irony (schoolgirl socks, ballerina shoes)[
lol, im quite feminine in so far as on the butch/ femme lesbain continuum, im femme. but then that really means nothing unless you compare me to most butch lesbains. compare me to your average handbag fashion dolly and im hufty from the word.
quote:- She's younger than me. Maybe early 20s (again schoolgirl socks)
too old for the socks. damn. we're pretty much the same age, oj. but i dont know how to grow old gracefully. also according to raz i look about 12.
quote:- She doesn't feel the cold or isn't in the UK. T shirt and cotton skirt in this weather???
or...the computer is in a room with central heating, and not in the middle of a field?
i did buy a coat today! 20 pounds from h and m. it is purple wool and has a hood.
quote:- She doesn't work in a formal City or law type office environment. Perhaps a student or in a creative field. But probably not an ultra-creative field as her look isn't all that pretentious.... (unless that T-shirt is by an obscure japanese designer and the belt is home-made from lacquered liquorice allsorts)
i am a charity volunteer, bar supervisor at an upscale london cultural destination, and a writer.
so not bad, missus.
quote:eta: Teal is a blue based green. Anyone got the pantone code for that?
my newmittens are also teal,but theymake the skirt look even bluer by comparison.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I was out tonight wearing
a navy blue Next shirt over a mud-(or better, moss?)-green Zara t-shirt and indigo Levi's, never washed and barely worn but a couple of years old in style, and so in a conventional, regular fit. and black chunky Cat boots with black socks plus a Nato-issue "coat, cold weather, man's field", big zips, waist-length, padded out with a lining that matches the tshirt. teamed with a black rucksack from John Lewis
Now, I maintain that this outfit does not reveal my job at all. What does it really tell a stranger?
CONCEIVABLY:
that I don't realise the navy and moss-green might not be the best partners. I did get dressed in 2 minutes and rush for a train.
that I am favouring fairly conservative, safely smart casual high street menswear.
with a slight "military" spin that might make me feel more "tough".
that I am unadventurous with colour.
that I am either not on my way to or from work, or that my work doesn't require me to wear a suit or a uniform.
that I am not going to or from a job of manual labour.
that I am not going to a dressy club or restaurant.
that I earn enough to not shop at Woolwich market, and not enough to shop at Paul Smith.
I don't honestly think you could get much more than that, and that information is also misleading. On my money I could still choose to shop at Woolwich market, and I could afford to shop at Paul Smith too. That I have chosen to do neither isn't to do with my salary but my attitude towards appearance and investment.
I don't strictly have to wear a suit for work, but I choose to. I was going to a venue on Wardour Street to meet people from work, but as it wasn't a work day, I wasn't dressed as I would have been for my job.
Does that outfit tell you I have a PhD? I don't think it says much about education. I don't think it even tells you whether I have a BA or not. It might distinguish me from someone who left school at 16; I'm not sure.
Does it tell you whether I am working or middle-class? I don't really think so. A BT engineer could wear that during the evening, going for a drink; so could someone with a job in publishing. Does it tell you about my family background? Again, I don't think it does. Does it tell you what area I live in? Or "belief systems", that term I keep coming back to, like how I'd vote, or what I think about Iraq, or whether I give regularly to charity?
So apart from certain psychological and character traits that I'm allowing you could possibly read correctly from what I was wearing tonight, I dispute whether that outfit would provide you with a language through which you could place me socially in anything but a very general way -- ie. not very rich and not very poor. And even those categories, as I said, aren't entirely safe because I could have dressed with more class or more slum: that I didn't is a sign of my attitude to clothing, not my money.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
i'm wearing: dark blue regular fit (nonbootleg) gstar jeans a green h+m tshirt with holes at the bottom that look like hot rock burns. but can't be as i haven't smoked in years. so its either moths or my old belt chewing it up. black framed glasses. a green and white checked h+m shortsleeved shirt missing a button and in need of an iron. a grey uniqlo crewneck sweatshirt. black merrell boots. a black army field jacket (think travis bickle in black). a grey wool hat. no bag.
what does this look like? does it say "student" "worker" "inconspicuous"?
it certainly doesn't say "student" here. what with the majority of male students popping collars, wearing abercrombie jeans and flip flops.
does it say worker? possibly. certainly not a creative type. or indeed the kind of person who is required to look smart. however the jeans are smart. maybe the tshirt and shirt are a sign. do they indicate that he's going for the "just got out of bed look"? why yes. his hairs unkempt and he appears to have forgotten how to shave. the glasses look like he wants to be an individual but forgot that emo is in. he may have been going for smart and everyone else is going for morrissey 2k4.
does it say anything about my class background? i don't know. if anything the look i was going for was/is scruffy but with good stuff.
i'm thinking its a functioning outfit to get me through the rigours of molecular biology, yet still look different from the mds and the grad students and mark me out as english at the same time.
i know for a fact when i replace the boots with white adidas campus it goes all retro.
[ 02.12.2004, 17:19: Message edited by: damo ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Maybe we have really similar jackets.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
maybe. i think we're both looking the same but from different start points. and with different references.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Your look sounded better, to me. But if we were dressed kind of similarly today, and yet are very different in many respects including geography, that supports the idea that an outfit doesn't necessarily provide a visual key to someone's lifestyle.
Posted by damo (Member # 722) on :
well i'm not sure, becuase its only the addition of boots that makes our looks very similar. i'd normally wear trainers (sneakers language fans) and that really makes it different.
we'd look similar but if you were interpreting properly you'd pick up on the nuances and the starting points. maybe. i don't know. really.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
I would see the difference of the jeans immediately, and the boots, but then I'm very down with "scruffy but with good things".
I think it's very important not to overlook the way in which people wear clothes, I'd be surprised for example if Kovacs can do convincing, natural looking, scruffy.
It's just occured to me that I'm wearing exactly the same clothes as last Friday:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Dark grey and red DCShoeUSA 'skate' shoes Black Primark socks Black Calvin Klein cotton shorts Dark Blue denim Carhartt jeans Mid-grey Triple 5 Soul T-shirt Black Canvas Boxfresh jacket
Only today my black socks and black cotton shorts/trunks are from M&S.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Can someone answer me this?
Why is Phillip Green (BHS) always bigged up as some sort of retail genius whenever Marks and Sparks gets its regular kicking?
BHS has always struck me as a total shithole with fuck-all worth buying... and everyone I've ever discussed the subject with has either agreed or made the same observation.
How did this Green/BHS=awesoma thing come about - or is BHS in the south of England somehow totally shit-hot?
Posted by Bailey (Member # 261) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Can someone answer me this?
Why is Phillip Green (BHS) always bigged up as some sort of retail genius whenever Marks and Sparks gets its regular kicking?
BHS has always struck me as a total shithole with fuck-all worth buying... and everyone I've ever discussed the subject with has either agreed or made the same observation.
How did this Green/BHS=awesoma thing come about - or is BHS in the south of England somehow totally shit-hot?
Isn't it because the older ladies love BHS and the younger ones love TopShop and Dorothy Perkins?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I think it's very important not to overlook the way in which people wear clothes, I'd be surprised for example if Kovacs can do convincing, natural looking, scruffy.
This is so ironic because whenever I'm at home I look like someone who'd be sneered at by Oxfam assistants.
I am wearing
powder-blue button-neck baggy top from Next 1995 (this is actually not in bad condition though it soon will be) over
faded, stained ribbed navy blue v-neck t-shirt, Principles 1999 (I'm sure Principles for Men closed that year)
black tie-waist baggy leg-things... like a cross between pyjama trousers and tracksuit bottoms. The label is a little red arrow, probably Primark or something. They have a massive split in the back, at arse, revealing
faded black boxer-trunks, Next 01
hair in a kind of "Young Einstein" electroshock
a blob of Dr Haushka's Rejuvenating Face Mask on a red bit of my cheek
an edging of toothpaste (blue and white one) around corners of mouth.
ragged toenails on bare feet
Go on what does that tell anyone about the fact that this morning I am grading undergraduate essays.
[ 03.12.2004, 05:49: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage:
quote:- She's quite feminine but maybe with a sense of irony (schoolgirl socks, ballerina shoes)[
lol, im quite feminine in so far as on the butch/ femme lesbain continuum, im femme. but then that really means nothing unless you compare me to most butch lesbains. compare me to your average handbag fashion dolly and im hufty from the word.
Well I didn't get that you were a lesbian from the outfit description. Which would tend to suggest that the theory has some pretty big holes in it. But then that's a whole different question....
Since I started this particular strand of the thread I should probably take part myself....
Today I am wearing:
- Apple green v neck fine knit (Whistles) - Standard brown flat front trousers (H&M) - Brown high heeled boots just visible under trousers (Topshop) - Jewellery (3 rings and a watch) - Glasses (supra style)
Out in the cold this morning I was also wearing
- Emerald green cloche/ beret (vintage/charity shop) - Heavy green silk scarf shot with dark fuschia (bought on holiday) - Ankle length black wool coat in the style of Darth Vader - Black leather gloves
Posted by Grianagh (Member # 583) on :
i'm curious, where do subtle fashion accessories fall into play here?
surely if we form social/economic opinions on one's clothing we also form opinions by one's scent, hair,nail, skin condition?
an example.
subject wearing:
a grey oversized man's t shirt beneath a grey Hanes sweatshirt worn inside out dark bootcut denim from Zara wooly socks, no shoes
based upon above i'm sure a few opinions could be formed.
however - do those opinions change if the following subtle fashion accessories are noted?
haircut and style - 500 quid plus perfume - couture, subtle skin - spa advocate, no visible peircing, one visible tattoo jewelry - simplistic white gold wedding band
or did we cover this already?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I think my account of OJ's attitude to fashion was pretty good, going by the above run-down. But OJ! you are getting a 2 out of 2 strike-out at reading the language of English let alone the language of fashion. Not only is London female, Discodamage is no lezzer.
edit: the idea of fashion including the way your body and hair are styled is valid. I always notice girls' nails, for instance, and reckon it into my assessment of them if they're manicured (inc. what type of manicure).
[ 03.12.2004, 06:26: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Oh dear. That'll be the hangover brain. You wouldn't have got that I have a hangover combined with evil menstrual cramps and nausea from my outfit would you?
Still, it's a good thing that calling someone a lesbian isn't an insult these days isn't it? Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: This is so ironic because whenever I'm at home I look like someone who'd be sneered at by Oxfam assistants.
Ah yes, but I think the significant factor in your statement is "at home".
I still seriously doubt that you could look naturally scruffy outdoors, in the world. In defence of this claim, I'd suggest that this:
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [*]a blob of Dr Haushka's Rejuvenating Face Mask on a red bit of my cheek
Is the dead giveaway.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Can I play too?
Who am I:-
I've got on a pink, cable knit Fat Face jumper over a simple grey long sleeved cotton t from M&S. Evisu bootcut jeans. Trainer type shoes in silvery grey with kind of elastic laces from Clarks. Purple undie's set from M&S. Socks - grey cotton from Laura Ashley.
Kovacs, I've never imagined you to look scruffy either. I would imagine you always manage to give off a kind of scrubbed look whatever you are wearing. You know, kinda wholesome.
OJ, you sound to me - well, a bit like me actually. Like to look nice, and can afford to buy a few designer items, but not an entire wardrobe full. You sound quite serious and no-nonsense too. Not too frivolous in your dress but with the odd quirky item.
As for BHS, I very ocassionally go in there if I need "blouses" for under my suit at work and some of their sports wear is actually pretty good. But as a general rule - unless you want a crimplene 2 piece, don't bother. By contrast, their homeware stuff if fantabulous!
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Dr Haushka's Rejuvenating Face Mask
thank you Handbag Beauty forum!
and thanks Saltrock for bringing underwear back into the arena. I think it is such a cop-out when the HB Fashion girls just detail their outer garms.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
Well, you guys are splashing your Calvins around the place.
Also, Kovacs, do you remember the date of purchase of all the clothes you have?
Posted by Grianagh (Member # 583) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: edit: the idea of fashion including the way your body and hair are styled is valid. I always notice girls' nails, for instance, and reckon it into my assessment of them if they're manicured (inc. what type of manicure).
glad it's not just me that notices such things.
in your example above, what opinions do you form of someone with manicured nails? of someone without? if said person is wearing high fashion clothing but ragged skin/nails which fashion aspect would weigh your opinion?
i tend to form opinions by scent. this is most likely related to my acute sense of smell. if someone is dressed in rather unique and creative clothing but wearing a cheap/trendy/inappropriate-for-the-occassion scent i take away 'mental fashion points'. if a person is wearing scruffy clothing but is fresh faced and aromatically appropriate = points in favour.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Oddly, I tend to mentally mark down women with manicures, especially French ones with square tips. Who in their right mind would paint on a white stripe thta's already there? Madness.
Fashion question: I'm shortly to go to an interview. What's a better outfit? Three-year-old slightly too small suit, or new bouclé wool pinafore dress over blouse? Underwear irrelevant in this instance.
Posted by Bailey (Member # 261) on :
That's interesting about noticing someone's scent. Can you discern particular perfumes? Which ones are good and bad? For me it's about whether or not someone looks comfortable, or if they're playing at dressing up. I'm quite envious of girls/women who can do the chic-smart look well because I simply cannot wear heels.
I once worked with a transexual for two years before noticing he had breasts and long fingernails, so I'm clearly not very observant of these things.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grianagh: in your example above, what opinions do you form of someone with manicured nails? of someone without? if said person is wearing high fashion clothing but ragged skin/nails which fashion aspect would weigh your opinion?
I am always quietly impressed by a girl having clearly neat, shaped and polished pale-pink nails -- though a massive claw painted with palm trees, Black Brockley style, doesn't have this effect.
I would say, though I haven't thought about this consciously before, that skin and nails are more fundamental to beauty and general presentation than are clothes, so I'd take those as my priority guidelines to whether the person I'm looking at cares about their appearance. Looking after your skin and nails is more of a basic, primary regime that doesn't vary day to day. You could quite easily be having a scruffy day clothes-wise, but you wouldn't be likely to have nicely cared-for skin and nails one day, and rough them up the next. Having said that, I find I can assess a girl's make-up at first glance also. I wouldn't judge someone negatively for clearly having no make-up on, but it is factored into an impression of them and in turn, into my idea of the impression they are wanting to give.
It's also fair to point out that someone can only do so much about their skin, and that of course them having a spot doesn't mean they are necessarily "dirty" or careless about appearance. Nails are something you can do a lot more about.
My nails are not all that, actually. I have had a couple of manicures in my life and I am aware that my nails aren't really at a professional standard most of the time.
quote: Kovacs, do you remember the date of purchase of all the clothes you have?
I was only really pointing out that certain things I was wearing are "old", in some cases to the extent that the shop doesn't exist anymore. In the case of Levi's I think it helps indicate the style, because they're not those anti-fit cut -- which again didn't exist when I bought the jeans I referred to.
[ 03.12.2004, 07:57: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: You know, kinda wholesome.
Lol.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Note the sweat forming on his brow as he refuses to take his coat off in the sauna.
Posted by I am not... (Member # 25) on :
Is that a quiff?
Posted by Grianagh (Member # 583) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bailey: That's interesting about noticing someone's scent. Can you discern particular perfumes? Which ones are good and bad?
yes. i have a knack for being able to not only 'name' the scent someone is wearing but also top notes, overtones, middle medleys or any additional 'scent static' - i.e body lotions, hair spray, chewing gum, fabric softner. while this is a great party trick, it's also aggrivating. especially when ill.
calling a perfume is good or bad is complete personal preference. i favour classic scents with very few layers. oldies but goodies. some scents, especially inexpensive trendy fashion scents, have a tendency to break down quickly and leave a not-so-subtle chemical odour. that odour mixed with perspiration and ..oh,fruityflavoured hairspray.. would make me suspicious of someone in say...an interviewing situation. too many conflicting messages.
i would (embarassingly so) probably even assume that a person careless with scent layering would also wear cheap and/or mismatched fundies.
gawd i sound horrid.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grianagh: calling a perfume is good or bad is complete personal preference. i favour classic scents with very few layers. oldies but goodies. some scents, especially inexpensive trendy fashion scents, have a tendency to break down quickly and leave a not-so-subtle chemical odour. that odour mixed with perspiration and ..oh,fruityflavoured hairspray.. would make me suspicious of someone in say...an interviewing situation. too many conflicting messages.
i would (embarassingly so) probably even assume that a person careless with scent layering would also wear cheap and/or mismatched fundies.
gawd i sound horrid.
Ha! I do this too. There are some cheaper perfumes that give me a headache to the extent that I will leave a shop if someone else in there is wearing a particular perfume. And it's always the cheapy ones. And yes, I too would imagine them to be wearing greying Primark briefs. And a non-matching bra.
I think that keeping your nails nice is just a sign that you like to be well groomed. If I had on my best outfit ever, it would still feel a bit scruffy if my nails were broken or dirty and unpolished. A bit like your hair being a mess I guess.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Wow - you two scare me (Grianagh and saltrock). Because I don't share your fantastically developed sense of smell, I could be wafting around commiting all sorts of olfactory faux pas and being judged on them.
Since I happen to know that my sister has bought me Bvlgari Omnia eau de parfum for Christmas, could you just give me the heads up on whether it's likely to cause offence in TM0-smellyvision?
Mind you, since giving up smoking (ahem, mostly), I now know that you can sniff out a smoker at about a thousand paces. How come I just didn't know that for the best part of a decade???
As for fingernails, it seems that I have shockingly low standards on this front too. Clean and short will do me. Which incidentally is a good indicator that a woman might be a lesbian....
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And a non-matching bra.
This, er, non-matching bra thing. If all your pants are black, it doesn't matter what kind of bra you've got on, because everything goes with black, right?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And a non-matching bra.
This, er, non-matching bra thing. If all your pants are black, it doesn't matter what kind of bra you've got on, because everything goes with black, right?
I'd have to agree with you there.
But the underwear thing is a moot point (unless you'd like to see people posting about what unerwear they're wearing).
There are very few circumstances in which you're projecting a certain image of yourself to the general public based on your underwear.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And a non-matching bra.
This, er, non-matching bra thing. If all your pants are black, it doesn't matter what kind of bra you've got on, because everything goes with black, right?
To a degree, but I don't like to wear white pants with a black bra or vice versa. I prefer them to be the same colour. Why this is, I have no idea. Perhaps it was some wierd thing I read when I was 13 which has stuck with me ever since.
NB: The only time this can be justified is if wearing white trousers and a black top thin enough to see what colour bra you have on through it. Nobody likes to see a white bra shining through a black top.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I don't mind.
[ 03.12.2004, 09:27: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
There was a time, shortly after I moved to London, when I used to try and appear fashionable in some way. I remember the day it happened, the transition from student waster to lad about town, and it was a tight fitting bright yellow t-shirt with a picture of a target from a firing range on it. Doesn't sound very 'now' now, so to speak, but at the time it was a big step away from the blues and greys of university smoking clothes. That was the summer of 2000, and some glorious sun had 'teamed' with a publishing job in Kensington to impress on me the importance of style.
I can pretty much remember when I stopped as well. After a ridiculously expensive shirt that was universally derided, I realised that I'd dropped the fashion ball. My final stab was equally misplaced - some Diesel jeans complete with rip, reduced down from £150 to £100, and a eye-fucking camoflage coat, which some of you may have been assaulted by.
This year, I have bought
Two work shirts
One pair of trainers
And that's it. I think that my clothes speak for themselves pretty clearly. I spend my entire life outside of work wearing:
Grey hooded top white t-shirt blue jeans brown trainers
I don't even put my earrings in any more.
Maybe it's just me, but when I see a bloke chasing 'fashion', it seems faintly ridiculous. I've spied that having blonde highlights has been de rigeur of late, along with a kind of shabby half-mohiccan hair cut. The boys in Busted Blue seem to have been this year's pioneers, and any male who has followed suit just looks like a man who wants to look like they're in a boy band. Female fashion seems to change all the time, and a lady who is on top of it, bar ugg boots, looks good, lively, and cool. A man who looks on top of fashion looks like an ass. As I said, it could just be me, but these extravagant male styles are never to be fully trusted when there are steady black jumpers and dependable blue jeans.
Of course, this doesn't apply to those who pioneer their own style, like TMO's very own Jean Paul Gaultier, Michael Television.
[ 03.12.2004, 09:51: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
matching bra and pants is all very well if you have ordinary size tits. if you have enormonungas like me its just a fools errand to think about being coordinated unless you want to wear black and white pants all the time. which i dont especially.
eta: which is to say, if a decent bra costs £30 then youre unlikely to be able to afford pants to go with. and when i say 'decent' bra, i dont want you thinking i mean something that is a pretty colour or anything extravagant like that. i have owned one bra that wasnt black, cream or white since 1995. when i can only afford one bra at a time i pick white, obviously. which is why the brastrap poking out of my lovely primark tops is usually white. or possibly grey.
[ 03.12.2004, 09:45: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
The only reason not to have your underwear matching is if you have to match it to your outfit. And I think it is relevant. You can often see what colour bra a girl has on, especially if she has a strappy top, and if it totally doesn't go, that says something about her attitude to clothing and appearance in general. Similarly, if you shouldn't see a bra, and it's showing, that mean she hasn't really thought about what was most suitable; and if you can see a girl's knickers when you shouldn't, that also tells you something about her planning and her attention to how she looks. Some slappers, after all, deliberately have "diamonte fongs" showing above their waistbands. Avoiding VPL shows a certain attitude to appearance: so not seeing any knickerline, the absence of any sign, obviously shows that the woman has given it some thought.
What I basically mean is that a lot of the time, underwear is not entirely private and hidden, and when it shows, or how much of it shows, is a factor in overall appearance.
I used to find those "invisible" (lol!) bra straps intriguing but I think they have really plummeted in status very quickly, sinking from "cunning" to "naff". Nevertheless I thought it was interesting the way they felt plasticky.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: and if you can see a girl's knickers when you shouldn't, that also tells you something about where you should and should not be looking.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Nevertheless I thought it was interesting the way they felt plasticky when I stroked the strap of Modge's pretty friend's bra in a faux-naive "what does the material feel like though?" move
[ 03.12.2004, 09:54: Message edited by: Modge ]
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Grr! Boys expect us to wear matching underwear!?! Pshaw. Forget that. When I’m not pregnant, I’m totally of the cute little cotton undies school, but can never find a cute little cotton bra to go with – comfort is a must, sorry.
But to be hypocritical, I think guys that still wear tighty whities are gross.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Maybe I was being a bit strict about girls' underwear. It isn't for me to make rules. But I would still draw those conclusions from the points I raised above. It's quite probable that no girl really cares what conclusions I draw about her and her underthings.
[ 03.12.2004, 10:12: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I'm still not even vaguely tempted to post about my underwear on here.... apart from to sympathise/empathise with discodamage.
And to add that never mind £30, a nice bra can cost upwards of £50 and the co-ordinating uncomfy knickers are usually around £20. You do the maths. (There's some inverse rule which relates the attractiveness of the bustenhalter to the corresponding painfulness of the pants.)
Benway - I'm still not sure *why* the male follower of fashion should be inherently a figure of fun. Apart from of course the metrosexual's fear of looking like a real gay man.
The looks you describe seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. Back in the dotcom boom days those very spiky acupuncture trainers were my standard office wear. Probably coupled with a fin hairdo and enough fudge hair putty to give saltrock sugar cravings.... And I'm female.
Aren't you just describing a reaction against a certain ostentation and pretentiousness which has now gone out of fashion?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by saltrock:
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
quote:Originally posted by saltrock: And a non-matching bra.
This, er, non-matching bra thing. If all your pants are black, it doesn't matter what kind of bra you've got on, because everything goes with black, right?
To a degree, but I don't like to wear white pants with a black bra or vice versa. I prefer them to be the same colour. Why this is, I have no idea. Perhaps it was some wierd thing I read when I was 13 which has stuck with me ever since.
NB: The only time this can be justified is if wearing white trousers and a black top thin enough to see what colour bra you have on through it. Nobody likes to see a white bra shining through a black top.
lol - if these 'women' ever develop opposable thumbs we men will be in serious peril.
Posted by Grianagh (Member # 583) on :
oj - bvlgari omnia reminds me of a bit of shalimar or opium w/ a citrus twist. nice but can be overwhelming.
we all have to wear clothing. unless we live in a climate and culture suitable for nudeness, of course. most of us buy our clothes from stores that stock whatever the fashion illuminati deem trendy that quarter. much a sameness. our creativity or personal style is then a deriviative of how we throw these things together and present ourself to the world.
or something like that. right?
i feel that we all basically walk around looking purty much the same. alike with in and out variations. so, i am one of those people that believe what we wear under our clothing is much more important than what we show the world. a well built foundation, if you will.
(i'm not going to describe my fundies)
that said, most of the money i spend towards fashion is allocated to- perfume make-up lingerie spa treatments
and it makes me wonder - am i old fashioned? anyone else do this? not just women - men too. who else would prefer a nice facial and well knitted socks to a trendy 150 quid jumper?
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
I wouldn't, I'm a jumper-buyer. I spend lots of money on clothes because I like stuff that is good quality and I have expensive taste. Maybe that's the same thing. Anyway, clothes and shoes are my biggest money-eaters. After that, cosmetics - again, because I have expensive taste. I don't wear makeup though, so it's all lotions and potions. After that, I suppose I spend the most on books.
I have to say I did recognise most of those 'fashion terms' from magazines I have read.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grianagh: oj - bvlgari omnia reminds me of a bit of shalimar or opium w/ a citrus twist. nice but can be overwhelming.
That's pretty much what I thought - I liked it, but as a winter/evening scent. Actually, I thought "mmm, amber and oranges". Will probably have to stick to Bvlgari Pour Femme for daywear (jasmine tea).
quote:
that said, most of the money i spend towards fashion is allocated to- perfume make-up lingerie spa treatments
and it makes me wonder - am i old fashioned? anyone else do this? not just women - men too. who else would prefer a nice facial and well knitted socks to a trendy 150 quid jumper?
Not necessarily a spa treatment....but money burning a hole in my pocket (a rare occurence) usually makes me think "where can I go for a weekend away?" There is a difference between "trendy" ie. nasty polyester but it says Paul Smith on it and "a thing of beauty and quality" ie. a Jil Sander cashmere coat, a Vivienne Westwood tailored wool suit Neither of which you'd get for £150. Consequently neither of which I possess....
[ 03.12.2004, 11:54: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: ie. nasty polyester but it says Paul Smith on it
Are you being specific or just generalising here OJ, I'm not convinced Paul Smith would produce anything in nasty polyester.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Good News! According to the Daily Mail, shopping is the new feminism. I think that we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief, knowing that issues of gender politics can be understood and addressed by spending money on shoes.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Are you being specific or just generalising here OJ, I'm not convinced Paul Smith would produce anything in nasty polyester.
She's thinking of Paul Smythe, who sells his stuff in Redhill market.
[ 06.12.2004, 05:46: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: Maybe it's just me, but when I see a bloke chasing 'fashion', it seems faintly ridiculous. I've spied that having blonde highlights has been de rigeur of late, along with a kind of shabby half-mohiccan hair cut. The boys in Busted Blue seem to have been this year's pioneers, and any male who has followed suit just looks like a man who wants to look like they're in a boy band.
Yeah I agree with this, although maybe it's just an excuse for me to not spend any money on clothes, ever. I did have a splurge a couple of months ago - Allders were having a One Day Spectacular, and I bought two pairs of trousers, a a shirt and a t shirt. All that came to about £45. Add a Slayer T-Shirt I bought in June, and 2004's clothing budget comes to £57. That seems quite reasonable to me, even if it does mean that a look like a tramp most of the time. It's my 'look'.
Also: I'm astonished at the amount of time some people seem to put into their underwear, literally astonished.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: Good News! According to the Daily Mail, shopping is the new feminism.
Oh? I thought that feminism was the new devil worship .
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Oh? I thought that feminism was the new devil worship .
Devil worshippers are better looking:
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
Let us not get too critical now, boys. Label-chasing boy fashionistas may look ridiculously try-hard slaves to USC, but if the only alternative is blue&grey t-shirt / plain jeans / brown Burtons shoes - perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to mock. Catalogue is better than drab, is it not? Doesn't matter. Thankfully, there is another alternative, but before we explore it, can we stop pretending our fashion qualms have anything to do with money, and admit that we are in fact terrified of looking way out of our league fashionwise? What I mean is. Expensive boy fashion demands hott boys wear it. It's a risk we take. Wearing Diesel means I Am Worth This Fashion Label; I Am Hott Enough To Carry This Off; You Want To Fuck Me, Ladies, For I Am One Hot Fuck Of A Catch. Have we the confidence, boys?
What we could do, as an alternative, is sneak into the charity shop. We're still pretending it's the money issue, you see. 'We can't afford it! We have better things to spend our money on!' Quite right! So. Oxfam. Is where the real fashion hides. Hold my arm: we're going in.
We're rattling through clothes hangers and rummaging in massive wire bins. I'm pressing dresses against your shoulders but - what's this! - you're shying away! It's CHEAP, boys. I said it's CHEAP. That's what you're worried about, is it not? Oh look! A fancy dress sailor suit. We'll take the jacket, but the rest is too ... navy, haha, get it? NAVY. Shut up and tie the sash around your neck, it'll be hott. Why not? Fine. What about this belt, then: half-green, half-black, whole-hideous, faux leather, huge gold buckle, scratched to fuck. You'd never catch a popstar wearing it. And it's CHEAP. Here, try it -
WHERE ARE YOU GOING.
TELL ME THE TRUTH. Posted by Raz (Member # 449) on :
God you're so alarmingly gay
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
I'm not really. Gays hate me.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Fantastic rant Fionnula. I was in the shop with you....
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Kovacs is going to be plenty pissed - out-carsonned on his own fashion thread.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
I don't buy Deisel because I think it's too expensive for what it is, not because I don't think I'm hott enough for it. Same goes for most things in trendy expenso shops like urban outfitters, I'm not prepared to pay £50 for a t-shirt even if it has got a really cool design on it.
Charity shops you say? I live in London where the professionals have all raided the charity shops and taken anything even half acceptable to their market stalls and boutiques to sell it to the kind of people who can afford to spunk 50 quid on a t-shirt. Anyway most stuff in charity shops is literally rubbish.
I lament the death of the local army surplus store. I want new combats, proper cotton ones that have decent pockets, but all the army surplus shops in my area have shut down. I'm loathe to go to Camden.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I'm loathe to go to Camden.
I'd recommend Paris's marché aux puces de saint ouen, within which I was lucky enough to spend three of yesterday's hours. Don't bother with the first part of the market - it's nothing more than Camden Lock plus a bunch of crippled homelesses lying in the road, displaying their wounds in exchange for a few euro cents. The food is alright, if you're prepared to eat maïs, maïs, maïs which has been warmed in an oil drum, or greasily overpriced crêpes. The clothing on sale in this part of the market looks exactly the same as Camden, apart from the slightly inflated prices - with which some friendly haggling is expected.
Delve deeper and you will find a treasure pot (troves are so clichéd) of intriguing stalls selling everything from 1930s wireless units, to nazi helmets (snort), to qualtiy, modern-day combat trousers of exactly the kind you describe, Boy R. Ticketed prices of €18 were often bargained down to €10.
So why not set your unstylish derriere on the grey and yellow seats of a Eurostar, and hunt though the fleas for something you might never find amongst the vegans of Camden.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Fionnula, 1994 just called and it wants all your posts back.
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
when people with strong perfume walk past me I feel like a rapist. I DONT WANT YOUR SMELL THANKS.
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
oh and www.threadless.com have a sale on. next meat all the lamer boys on here are going to turn up in the same tshirt i think
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
Tell it I will swap all my posts for my then beautiful pre-pubescent skin. Or. Ask it to describe 1994 to me because I cannot remember much apart from maybe Oasis whining behind my brother's bedroom door? raves? Suede being fashion pioneers? Irvine Welsh being a shit writer? Millie punching Egg's secret girlfriend at an end-of-series party? and so I am struggling to decipher your insult. Will you ask 1994 for me?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fionnula the Cooler: Tell it I will swap all my posts for my then beautiful pre-pubescent skin. Or. Ask it to describe 1994 to me because I cannot remember much apart from maybe Oasis whining behind my brother's bedroom door? raves? Suede being fashion pioneers? Irvine Welsh being a shit writer? Millie punching Egg's secret girlfriend at an end-of-series party? and so I am struggling to decipher your insult. Will you ask 1994 for me?
I suspect 1994 is busy dressing like Brett Anderson, dancing to Underworld and feeling slightly nauseous from the poppers stuck up its nose. (Whatever anyone says, I'll always maintain that cheap drugs are seedier).
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Maybe it was a compliment.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Maybe this was a compliment too.
quote:there were 5 pages and I was getting bored after the first one.
Ho hum, another bulletin board debating fashion versus feminism, intelligence and socio-economic class.
Kind of takes the fun out of it
Oh forgodsake this kovacs person sounds like a complete prick.
it is rather reminicent of the dining rooms at work where crusty old academics argue about who has the oldest car
I think they missed the bit where I was hailing them as poets and celebrating their beautiful language of fashion I am misunderstood and hated on every board in the world I think Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Lol someone is getting a tongue-lashing.
quote:i'm a little concerned by the people who work in fashion/ teach it / whatever and yet still don't really know what most of these things are. You teach fashion and haven't heard of Marc Jacobs?
Seriously HB Fashion girls! (if any of you get this far down the long thread, and admittedly I don't think I would read it myself if I came to it from another board. You can always just jump to the end like I do.) I was not mocking or insulting you on this thread.
I admit some of your discussion seems specialist and obscure to me, but that kind of expertise in an area I know next to nothing about, and the whole vocabulary I barely understood, is exactly why I found your forum really fascinating.
I meant what I said about the language of fashion having lovely sounds and a kind of poetry to it. Your forum does convey the appeal and excitement of clothes, even if I don't recognise what items you mean from the descriptions... I have asked what the terms meant and have learned something on this thread.
I'm sorry if this, too, sounds a bit dusty and academic. The bottom line is that, knowing little about the stuff you discuss, I still find your forum really interesting and I wanted to know more about the words that, to me, were mysterious... I didn't feel I could really pop up on your board and ask.
eta how can I keep away when you come up with everyday beauty like this
quote:i would describe the grey blazer as 'mink' - it was a taupey grey rather than a charcoal.
PS. should have called your thread "Fame". HtH!
[ 06.12.2004, 18:58: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
FAO Curls Aloud off of Fashion!
This is not the most elegant way of communicating with you. Perhaps I should register on HB again.
But, thanks for your post. I'm glad you see where I'm coming from.
Lovin' the Sugar Plum...so pretty. nm magnoliawine
nyc: recs to get knee high-boots shafts taken in? Hopefully btwn midtown and East Vil.
seven dojos - non-stretch, should I get the same size as my bootcut stretch? tia! hgoodfel the oxblood looks gorgeous! roughtop
How much pain will I be in if I get these boots 1/2 size big, but AA?? r/o LuckyRedLisa
fantastic but you need to register to read more.
[ 06.12.2004, 19:36: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Mentalism indeed! The MUA board is where my ability to speak the language of fashion grinds to a stuttering halt. Say what?
Today is an important day in my workplace. Major strategy announcements. Politics. Redundancies? etc. I have decided to face it anti-corporately and have left the suits and co-ordinating separates at home.
Am wearing -
- Skinny indigo bootcut jeans (Gap) - Long pointed stiletto biker boots (under jeans, narrowly rejected the *over* option). - V neck cotton t-shirt with fake fur shoulder detailing and diagonal sequins (miss sixty) - Oversized princess style vintage cream wool coat for outdoors.
Make of this what you will..... It's not poetry, but it's a statement of a kind.
ps. Kovacs, if you want to delve even deeper into the poetry of aspirational product naming, you should try reading beauty and make-up forums. Today, for example my MAC lipglass is called "Spite" and my eye paint "Stilife" [sic]
Now the question is, do I have time to read the HB thread before the axe falls....
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I tell you what, these threads aren't half making me want to go clothes shopping.
Why would the HB thread be axed? It is entirely pleasant and civilised for the most part. I wish I could post there of course but I am waiting confirmation of my new login.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Am wearing -
Today I amlooking blandly corporate. Dark suit, white shirt, sedate tie. It's basically the same outfit I was wearing when the two gays for Fairy Godfather got me up on stage and humiliated me for ten minutes in a room full of pretty girls. Not that I'm bitter about the experience, but I have taken to going out gay bashing of a Friday night. For that, I wear stone washed denim accessorised by a baseball bat with a nail in it.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
As I can't get onto Handbag I'll have to just go to the Fashion forum meet so I can put my argument across in person.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: As I can't get onto Handbag
lol
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Would you like to share the joke with us Helen. My vintage 2001-2 "Kovacs" account on HB has finally been disabled, perhaps thru lack of use. I am not likely to be using "Janson" or "Dave-Saint" on there anymore.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Why would the HB thread be axed? It is entirely pleasant and civilised for the most part. I wish I could post there of course but I am waiting confirmation of my new login.
Not what I meant. The axe falling was a reference to work, not to HB. btw. What's the thread called? Do you have a link?
Posted by Neurotic Cat (Member # 756) on :
Awww Kovacs is Janson no more?
I must have missed that. My trips to handbag have been more than infrequent of late.
Did he go out in style?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
The thread is called something like "How does it feel to be famous" but it seems bad form to create a link loop from here to HB and back.
The "Janson" login could still be active but it just carries a cloud with it. The last "Janson" posts on Handbag claimed that someone had mailed my management at work with links to my Handbag threads, and that I'd been suspended after a meeting that morning where they confronted me with printouts of my time-wasting and inappropriate online activities. An exciting thread at the time.
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
Hi!
Sushiflower from handbag here, I thought I'd clear a few thing up...
Berry print mini hobo: A hobo is kind of a slouchy shoulder bag. Berry print either means it’s a got a berry pattern, or the pattern is predominantly in a berry colour.
Taupey: As you would say ‘greeny something’ you’d say ‘taupey something’. Although I’m not sure if its an actual word?
Ruching: Shirring (kind of gathering of fabric) which is good to accentuate or disguise certain areas. For example, ruching under the bust accentuates it. A good example of shirring in all its glory is the Juicy Couture (a brand) dress. Which can be seen here; http://images.shopbop.com/JUICY1386-M.jpg
Salmon: A corally pink.
Kick flare: A flare which is narrow at the knee, but ‘kicks out’ into a flare.
7FAMK: Seven For All Mankind is a brand of jeans which are incredibly flattering and some in lots of different styles. At one point they were the ’It’ jean, but now they’re more of a classic. For the basics look here; www.sevenforallmankind.com They are expensive in the UK, averaging around the £150 mark, but I personally buy mine from US websites, or ebay for sometimes less than half the price.
Racer back: A sleeveless top whose straps kind of come together at the back. Named so I believe because a lot of swimsuits have racer backs. Here’s an example; http://tinyurl.com/4gllg
Court shoes: Generally a simple heeled style, like this; http://tinyurl.com/5rtvz Usually pointy, but they don't have to be.
Bandeau top: Like a boob tube, but generally just around the bust.
Teal pointelle knit shrug: Teal is a bluey greeny colour. Pointelle is a fabric with teeny holes in, in a pattern (often seen on thermal underwear), like this; http://tinyurl.com/6a5vq Knit means its knitted, and a shrug is like a short cardigan, or shawl, like this; http://tinyurl.com/4lfzk
C&C: Someone has already explained this one. It’s a brand of very good quality basic t-shirts, top and sweatshirts. They can be seen here; www.candccalifornia.com They aren’t cheap but are worth it. Although as with 7FAMK, I buy mine on ebay or from the US, as the UK £55 asking price is a bit too much imo.
Bucket bag: A style of bag, generally a shoulder bag, open at the top and with a studyish base, kind of bucket shaped. Example; http://tinyurl.com/5b8qs
Assymetrical hem and collar: Asymmetric is basically not straight. If you see a skirt longer one side than the other it’s asymmetric.
Chestnut Uggs: Uggs are a style of sheepskin boot originally from Australia. Australians would, years and years ago, tie bits of sheepskin around their feet to keep them warm, and they called these ’ugly boots’. Over the years they evolved into actual boots, and ugly boots was shortened to ‘Uggs’. A US company is trying to stop traditional Australian ugg manufacturers from calling their boots Uggs, as they have registered it as a brand name, causing outrage. Here are some chestnut (in colour) Uggs; http://tinyurl.com/4luk3 They were the ‘It’ boot last year, but like 7FAMK are becoming classic, due to their comfort factor.
Gypsy skirt: A floaty, often tiered skirt, sometimes with embroidery. Like this; http://tinyurl.com/68qrb but usually shorter.
Disc belt: A belt generally made of leather, consisting of lots of large discs attached together. Like this;http://i4.ebayimg.com/02/i/02/d1/8f/12_1.JPG Very popular recently, as worn by Kate Moss and Sienna Miller.
Tan Fryes: Frye is an American brand of work boot, and can be seen at www.fryeboots.com . The Campus style is very trendy at the moment (although it is aclassic style), and when people on handbag refer to Fryes, this is usually the style they‘re talking about. Tan obviously refers to colour. They’re £250 ish in the UK, but M&S do a good copy for about £80.
Brora: A cashmere brand, selling good quality cashmere at not too high prices. www.brora.co.uk
Boogie bag: A style of bag designed by Celine. http://i3.ebayimg.com/02/i/02/f8/6a/29_12_sb.JPG A classic style, retails around £650 for a basic leather. There are some good imitations floating around.
MJ-esque hobo: MJ refers to a designer, Marc Jacobs. MJ-esque means in the style of MJ. The most often referred to MJ designs are the ones with brightly coloured leathers and quite heavy hardware. They are good quality, pretty classic bags which retail in the UK for £450+. A hobo is a kind of slouchy shoulder bag. Here is a pic of my MJ hobo; http://tinypic.com/unacg
Black vintage lace clutch: Vintage is generally from another generation, technically pre 1980, I think. Black is obviously the colour, and you know what lace is. A clutch bag is usually a small bag with either no strap, or sometimes one that may go around your wrist.
Dark green and white print chiffon top with split back and short puff sleeves and dark green camisole underneath: A top made of chiffon ( a light, sometimes sheer fabric, usually with more than one layer) with a print in green & white. I’m assuming a split back, mean there’s a split up the back and it has short sleeves which kind of puff up as opposed to sitting against the skin (think Snow White). A camisole is a slinky vest, formally underwear, but now more popular as outerwear. Like this; http://store.shopbop.com/product_images/GOLD18-M.jpg
'Platinum' long cardi: Platinum is a very light silvery grey, and a long cardi is a long cardigan.
Cap sleeved: Very similar to puff sleeved, but less puffy.
Diamante brooch: A brooch with rhinestones.
Threadbare vest top: Ok, you know what a vest top is. Threadbare is a very thin cottony fabric, hard to describe. It’s usually quite sheer.
Blue fender plectrum earrings: Plectrum earrings are like guitar plectrums as earrings. See them here; www.tattydevine.com
Slouchy handheld bag: Picture a hobo with a very short strap so it can only be held by hand.
Mottled olive green: An olive green, with a patchy, kind of distressed effect.
Gathered cuffs and sides: Similar to ruching.
Long line slash neck jumper: A slash neck goes straight across the neck in a horizontal line, and is usually quite wide. Ling line means its just a be longer than usual.
Weave belt with gold disc buckle: A belt made of a material which is a few strips weaved together, with a buckle that’s gold in the shape of a disc.
Ruched knee highs: Knee highs are generally knee high boots (although it could refer to socks). Ruching on boots gives quite a nice effect.
Bone cufff: A cuff is a thick bracelet, usually solid, or a thick band of material. Thisone is made of real or imitation bone.
Stone blazer: A beigey blazer.
Kitten-heel boots with ribbon-ties: kitten heels are thin low heels, usually about an inch high. Ribbon ties means there are ribbons somewhere on the boots which are tied, not necessarily in bows.
Balenciagas in pink and turquoise: Balenciaga is a designer, most commonly known for their Le Dix (motorcycle) bag. If someoens talking about a Balencaiga, they usually mean this bag; http://tinyurl.com/4sgr3 They are about £650 to buy, but you can get some good imitations for $99 from www.lushfashions.com . They are seen on a lot of celebrities but are a classic.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Thanks for the effort, sushiflower, but this had already been explained in the fourth and fifth post of the thread.
I wonder if there's a poetic way to describe "giant hole in heel of tights" in a manner that would please kovacs? Or whether any of the following could be rendered textually sensuous:
black shoes black tights grey skirt red jumper
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Or whether any of the following could be rendered textually sensuous:
black shoes black tights grey skirt red jumper
"Schoolgirl outfit"
Job done.
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Thanks for the effort, sushiflower, but this had already been explained in the fourth and fifth post of the thread.
And there I was thinking this thread might actually not be taking the piss out of us, and that you might actually be interested in what these things you claim not to know what they mean actually do mean.
[ 07.12.2004, 09:56: Message edited by: sushiflower ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Im being brainwashed! Im starting to think spending £150 on a pair of jeans will make me superhott!
...oh no, its ok, they have a realy poncey website, I dont like them after all. I thought there would be a bit saying stuff like If you have a big arse you need these ones....but if you have stumpy little legs you want these ones... I cant find that bit though. Rubbish.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I don't think it's taking the piss to point out that it's polite to read threads properly before contributing.
I'm guessing that kovacs didn't really want a list of explanations; he could have got that from googling or a dictionary. What he wanted (and mostly got) was a discussion on the terminology and status of fashion. And some bits where girls post what pants they're wearing today.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Still, that post demonstrates an incredible amount of knowledge. I'm impressed.
but maybe I'm impressed because I too haven't read the thread properly.
[ 07.12.2004, 10:04: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
I did read the thread, and I think you'll find that if you reread the posts you are referring to you will find that not all were defined, and some which were were defined incorrectly.
Why bother posting a list of terminology if you aren't interested in knowing what it means?
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Hey, your birthday is on the same day as mine.
[ 07.12.2004, 10:06: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
Mine?
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
yeah.
Right, well, I didn't want to cause a scene. As you were.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
get a room, you two.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Well, maybe kovacs gobbled down the lists like an Atomic Kitten guzzling man-cock, but I found my eyes glazing over. Like revising lists of French vocab for tests.
I hope the point of the thread was discussion, not listing.
By the by, I only heard the word "taupe" a few years ago, out of the mouth of my gay American boss. I always thought he'd made it up, or that people from Tenessee couldn't cope with the word "biege". Now I know it is real!
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
VP = pwn3d11!!1ONEONEONEONE11!
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Well, maybe kovacs gobbled down the lists like an Atomic Kitten guzzling man-cock, but I found my eyes glazing over. Like revising lists of French vocab for tests.
Someone (not me) did post a link to this thread on the HB Fashion board frequented by Sushiflower, which did rather invite her response with more precise definitions than any of us could offer. Or rather definitions from someone who was specifically named in Kovacs' original post. So her fulsome response was perfectly justified I think.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I realise, that I dressed like an Emo kid last weekend. For this, there can be no greater punishment than throwing myself down a flight of stairs. Fashion? I (am) shit (at) it.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Followers of fashion might be excited to know that I named a shoe today! It is called "Jane". It has a bold floral design, flat rubber sole, and a leather upper. Looks good in Saraha/Rosa
[ 07.12.2004, 10:59: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Someone (not me) did post a link to this thread on the HB Fashion board frequented by Sushiflower, which did rather invite her response with more precise definitions than any of us could offer. Or rather definitions from someone who was specifically named in Kovacs' original post. So her fulsome response was perfectly justified I think. [/QB]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
If you can describe the currently fashionable look of balboa/hep-cat/bebop, I'll be fucking impressed.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Thank you, Sushiflower. It would be impossible to argue that your first post above was redundant, as your definitions were fuller than anyone else's and did offer clearer and more concise information (with links!) than anyone else's early contribution.
Personally I appreciate you coming across from HB Fashion in good spirit. When you see "your" forum being discussed elsewhere, the immediate and most understandable response is hostility and defensiveness, so I think it's nice that you posted with something genuinely helpful.
VP is right that the thread developed into a discussion and became more than just "what do these words mean", but I couldn't have known it would have become that interesting when I began it.
[ 07.12.2004, 11:58: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by sushiflower: At one point they were the ’It’ jean, but now they’re more of a classic
Vintage is generally from another generation, technically pre 1980, I think.
This does worry and amuse me. Seriously, what's the most recent "classic" item? What is the final boundary between "contemporary" and "historical", in fashion terms? I know the cycle turns scarily swiftly these days, but for 1979 to be treated as equivalent in fashion terms to, say, 1920 (all "vintage") is pretty striking. At what point did 7FAMK stop being "it" and become "classic"?
WHEN DOES THE PAST BEGIN!!??
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Also, what is Lipsy.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
A retailer of affordable and skimpy apparel for nights out on the town, hypothermia insurance not included.
You've been reading the Girls Aloud thread on HB haven't you? What with your Dr Hauschka habit, I think you should go along to a meet to swap tips. You'd fit right in. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I thought Morgan was quite a "nice" shop though, and the HB Fashion opinion seems to be that Lipsy = Morgan, which = worse than New Look, which = suitable for Girls Aloud to be the "face" of! I find it hard to imagine a mainstream shop cheaper and teenier than New Look. I was sure Morgan was more expensive than New Look, at least.
I am certainly tempted to go to a meet. You can invite me. I would learn a great deal. I think I'd have to buy some new clobber first though.
Posted by Sidney (Member # 399) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Also, what is Lipsy.
Hurrah! One that I can answer! Lipsy make dresses of the kind usually worn by page 3 stunnas! Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by sushiflower: At one point they were the ’It’ jean, but now they’re more of a classic
Vintage is generally from another generation, technically pre 1980, I think.
This does worry and amuse me. Seriously, what's the most recent "classic" item? What is the final boundary between "contemporary" and "historical", in fashion terms? I know the cycle turns scarily swiftly these days, but for 1979 to be treated as equivalent in fashion terms to, say, 1920 (all "vintage") is pretty striking. At what point did 7FAMK stop being "it" and become "classic"?
WHEN DOES THE PAST BEGIN!!??
I may work myself to a full blown rant on the misuse of the term "vintage" - but frankly I don't have the energy.
Your question is an interesting one. At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny (where's Ally?). My personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity (but maybe I think that about everything?).
I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
So what does it say about us that we're revisiting those looks now?
I wouldn't agree with Sushiflower's statement that a certain brand of jeans have moved from "it" to "classic" within the space of the couple of years that they've actually been on the market. But that's just nitpicking in terms of perspective - within the frame of reference of high fashion, her assesment makes sense.
None of which answers the question "when does the past begin?" But if anyone would like to answer the supplemental questions left hanging, please feel free.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
This site actually made me laugh out loud.
Gorgeous Posh Spice Dress in the style of Victoria Beckham as featured in The Sun. Featured in:
This must be where lapdancers get their outfits. I honestly thought Morgan was of better quality than this, though. And I would argue that Girls Aloud are also classier than this.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am certainly tempted to go to a meet. You can invite me. I would learn a great deal. I think I'd have to buy some new clobber first though.
I couldn't as I don't do/have never done meets. Or meats as people inexplicably seem to call them on here (meat-market?)
A HB meet would terrify me too. Just not groomed enough. And obviously I prefer to be an international woman of mystery. Posted by Finisterre (Member # 576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: The thread is called something like "How does it feel to be famous" but it seems bad form to create a link loop from here to HB and back.
The "Janson" login could still be active but it just carries a cloud with it. The last "Janson" posts on Handbag claimed that someone had mailed my management at work with links to my Handbag threads, and that I'd been suspended after a meeting that morning where they confronted me with printouts of my time-wasting and inappropriate online activities. An exciting thread at the time.
We do poetry, you do mass-market fiction. I always liked BluePirate best.
You're right, that double-layered baby doll nightie over jeans thing really isn't flattering, is it.
[ 07.12.2004, 12:58: Message edited by: Finisterre ]
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
I class 7FAMK jeans as classics because they are popular for their fit and how good they make your bum look, so I think they are here to stay, as opposed to being the ‘latest thing’. Saying that, they are always bringing out new designs and pocket styles so are often ‘the latest thing’.
Kovacs they are always, even when they claim to be "just lounging around indoors on a dress-down day" wearing stuff so fancy I would only drag it out for a ball with Kirsten Dunst, were I a girl. I must assume they're never lying and that anyone who posts on that forum really does spend most of their life thinking about, and money purchasing, these exotic items.
Well, it has been mentioned on Handbag itself whether we are all completely honest with our outfits. I personally put down exactly what I am wearing or was wearing. If you read throught the thread completely (don’t bother it’s very long) you’ll see a lot less ‘glamorous’ outfits. Recently, we’re posting on the thread less, so only the better stuff is added. Plus Ojo has a point. If I am wearing a top recently purchased in TopShop, for example, chances are numerous others will know the one. So by posting the brand, it saves explaining as much sometimes. And on the subject of underwear, I sometimes list it without thinking, but it doesn’t generally show on the outside, so it’s not really relevant. And I don’t think underwear has to be matching, but bra & knickers do have to work together. But that’s just me.
Kovacs Obviously these gals really do spend absolutely ages planning in advance, and take great pleasure in it. Which is absolutely fair enough
Only for special occasions on which it is important to look good. Such as parties and occasions on which your ex may be there. Hence my post in September asking if an outfit was suitable for an occasion in November. In case you’re wondering why, I saw something online that I liked and wanted to check it was suitable. Than with the ordering it and on the off chance it may not fit, I wanted to allow plenty of time.
London Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
It’s not like that’s all we think about. And there are plenty of women who are completely disinterested in fashion, beauty etc. We all have outlets away from the burden of our everyday lives, fashion and an interest in our appearance happens to be mine. A lot of Handbag women are intelligent and successful with good educations and salaries. When I personally put my books down I don’t want a heavy debate on politics or religion, I prefer the more lighthearted pastimes of online shopping and random discussion. Which does not make me or my sex inferior. And it does not undermine my capabilities in more ‘serious’ activities. Plus, plenty of men are very into their appearance nowadays.
Our appearance is important in all walks of life, we are judged on first impressions all the time, from when a man looks at us in a bar to being taken seriously in the boardroom. Women are equal to men, however we are judged far more. As a blonde with reasonably sized breasts, I am constantly being stereotyped as stupid, or lazy, when I am far from either of those things. In keeping well groomed and dressing in a suitable manner for whatever occasion, I am taken more seriously and more doors have opened for me.
But not only are we judged by men, or in the workplace, but also by other women. A lot of women are bitches, and look down on those who do not look the way they are ‘supposed’ to look. Ojo’s bringing up the subject of ‘chav’ (I hate that word as anyone who has read my post’s on Handbag will know) is interesting. In some circles, the Burberry check and gold clown on a chain is a status symbol, in others it is mocked. We all have our peers, we all want to impress. I don’t judge others on their outfits, but I myself have been judged on numerous occasions.
I do have hang-ups about my body and myself, but by making myself the best I can be allows me to deal with that, and to possess a confidence I doubt I would have otherwise. I agree that more ‘normal’ women should be portrayed in the media, but it will never be. Products are sold on the fantasy that if you buy them you will become one of the beautiful people, to be fronted by an average person would shatter this illusion. A good marketing ploy, but otherwise irrelevant.
In terms of what I should conform to, I don’t really let the media influence me, and very few people I know do. I read fashion and beauty magazines, but they don’t dictate what I should do or wear. They give me ideas, and show me what is around. I very rarely go out shopping, so magazines are like a catalogue. They enable me to decide what I want and where to get it, which makes my shopping trips more efficient.
You’ve seen my posts in Fashion, what do they tell you about me? If you want to use me as a test subject.
And just to add, I have no idea what squirrelly means…
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
Hello Sushiflower. Are you kovacs also?
Sorry. I just wanted to be the first. Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
Sorry, I don't know the html (is that right?) for quote so I just stuck the persons name above what they said... Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
A helpful tmo posting tip!
When posting you may use the Instant UBB Code buttons positioned conveniently below the Add Reply button to add UBBsafe brackets for quotes, links, and other exciting text effects!
The nearby Instant Graemlins are however mislabeled as they will insert WinkyWankys into your post which may result in undesired outcomes.\
Have fun and enjoy posting on TMO, newbie!
(I feel like a 1950s instructional film.)
Your pal
froopy.
Posted by sushiflower (Member # 760) on :
Oops, it's in such an obvious place! Great way to start proving I'm not an airhead! Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
"Bluepirate" was pretty unremarkable really. It wasn't a new persona, just a way of posting as myself on HB without people immediately demonising me based on the bad reputation of "Janson". I'm sure I bring most of it upon myself anyway.
Anyway, "vintage".
quote:Originally posted by OJ: At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny...my personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity
Most obviously, you could link it to 80s postmodern theory about contemporary society being unable to engage with the present day, and seeking nostalgic security in the past, or superficial markers of the past. The notion of everything becoming past so quickly would connect with this, as a massive bank of nostalgic material builds behind the thin, fragile present day, which in turn raids that store-house of the past for comfort to avoid its own reality. In fashion terms, the common metaphor of a postmodern "grab-bag" or "dressing-up box" is particularly appropriate.
The best and most vivid pop culture example of this tendency is, I think, still Blade Runner, with replicants desperately producing documents of their own past in the attempt to cling to some kind of identity and history, whereas in fact they have extremely short lifespans and their memories are artificial. It is argued that postmodern culture's engagement with the past is entirely shallow and false (eg. "the 1940s" = trenchcoats and wry wisecracking, rather than any more complex sense of that decade's political and cultural context.)
However, what's striking about this theory is that it's now very bloody old itself -- we are talking 1984 or so. It is almost "vintage" and certainly "classic" theory. That it still seems to apply now -- that it seems to apply now even more to 2004 than it did to 2002 -- is perhaps surprising.
quote:I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
I have to counter here by asking how much this actually affected, or even touched on, the lives of women who buy from the high street. Yes, I know the high street takes a filtered-down look from the catwalk, but to what extent did Prada's 2003 collection influence the way most "normal" women dressed or the way they saw themselves? What proportion of women, even young and fairly affluent women, adopted a secretary look and then shifted to a New Look housewife mode, and were in turn somehow contained or shaped by the ideologies implied by those outfits?
I was talking to an eleven year-old and a nine year-old on Saturday -- just my usual nite out! -- and was similarly thrilled, baffled and scarily depressed by their responses as we studied the track list on a "Now...Music" CD from 1997. They claimed to vaguely remember some of the bands from when they were aged 2 and 4, for instance, and mocked stuff like the Spice Girls as hopelessly archaic. For them, 1980 really is as vintage as 1920. Much as it gave me a vertiginous recklessness to be in the company of girls with such a short history but such authority -- and to be honest, I think a lot of TV, music, cinema and gaming is geared to this audience, so in many ways these girls are the queens of culture, the unlikely elite -- it also made me despair a little at how quickly things age, how quickly we discard things when they're only a few years old.
Maybe our dominant cultural mood is that of a seven year-old: if it's over six months ago, it's history. Next!
Posted by ally (Member # 600) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I may work myself to a full blown rant on the misuse of the term "vintage" - but frankly I don't have the energy.
Your question is an interesting one. At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny (where's Ally?). My personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity (but maybe I think that about everything?).
I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
So what does it say about us that we're revisiting those looks now?
I wouldn't agree with Sushiflower's statement that a certain brand of jeans have moved from "it" to "classic" within the space of the couple of years that they've actually been on the market. But that's just nitpicking in terms of perspective - within the frame of reference of high fashion, her assesment makes sense.
None of which answers the question "when does the past begin?" But if anyone would like to answer the supplemental questions left hanging, please feel free.
When does the past begin? answers on a postcard, please......
Sorry, but I'm not going near that one!
The current issue of "vintage" (term/concept) could be seen as one of the triumphs of fashion promotion, and the way in which fashion can be created, marketed and worn to reflect the present. From time to time in fashion the past is referenced, to (re)create a "new" style. Because an interest in fashion is usually the preserve of the young, who don't have firsthand memories of the "vintage" being referenced, they buy into it because it denotes the cliches of the period, rather than the reality. It harks back to a perceived Golden Age. The British are terrible for that sort of thing generally anyway. The Queens Silver Jubilee in 1977 was VE day revisited. Which brings me to "why" vintage? Why reference the past?
We did 70's platforms in 1998, we did 80's Human League look in 2002 (?) we did fifties last summer. It really doesn't matter what particular period is revisited per se. The point is, by explicitly referencing the past, we are, I think, expressing a certain degree of insecurity in the here and now. The choice of past reference is an indication of the nature of the present insecurity.
As far as the post-war New Look goes, in Britain at least, we had a Labour government trying to maintain the communal effort of wartime rather than the private gain or profiteering of the consumer society that America looked ready to export, and actively campaigning for women to leave their jobs open for demobbed soldiers and return to the home. Dior's New Look (1947) was the resistance that women offered to this new domestic role the government was obliging them to take. It represented fun, style, impracticality and the sort of elaborate decoration that hadn't been available for years. The excessive use of fabric was criticised for its decadence and profligacy by some comentators at the time. So, I'd hesitate to say it was a style created by social conservatism. I'd be more inclined to say that that is how it is viewed retrospectively, which may be why the era in which it appeared is being referenced now.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
