|
|
British magazine New Woman (or NW according to recent rebranding), conducted a survey of 5,000 readers about body size and image. The results are horrible and disturbing: 97% of those surveyed consider a UK Size 12 fat [US Size 8].1 in 8 took illegal drugs or medications to aid slimming.59% thought Size Zero was attractive.58% believe that men find Size Zero a turn-on.97% of those surveyed prefer to go out with friends who are 'fatter than them'.3% said that they were 'happy to have thinner girlfriends'.76% were 'jealous' of their thinner friends.94% said they have 'felt fat before a night out'.50% say 'they go without food all day'1 in 10 said that they 'make themselves sick so they can fit in a dress'1/3 have tried to survive on less than 500 calories a day.6 in 10 said their friends have criticised their body shape.4 in 10 say their mothers urges them to lose weight.73% said they 'can't eat normally and stay a size 12 or less'.48% 'pretend they've eaten when they haven't'.1/5 claim their colleagues make jibes about their size.84% said they would be happier if they could lose weight.2/3 said they think about their size every 12 minutes.37% have resorted to slimming pills.1/5 said they had taken laxatives to shed unwanted pounds. The 'most wanted' body shape was Liz Hurley's - a woman who once said "I maintain my figure by eating very little breakfast, not too much lunch. Then only tiny little snacks in the day. I'm on a good old-fashioned low calorie diet - I'm going to bed hungry." The second was Victoria Beckham.
 
L-R: Liz Hurley, Victoria Beckham.You can see the full 100 list here. NW's editor Helen Johnston said: "Elizabeth Hurley is the British body icon - pencil slim but still curvy, the perfect shape most women desperately want.
"However, ordinary women can comfort themselves with the fact it's a 24 hours a day job, requires iron determination and probably very little food.
"For most of us, a body like Elizabeth Hurley's would require a lifetime of sacrifice.
"Victoria Beckham is frequently criticised for her body size, but it seems British women are obsessed with her shape and wouldn't hesitate to swap their body for hers. Women think she looks good." So far so reasonable. She goes on to say: "We all understand the anxiety of going out with a drop-dead gorgeous skinny mate who gets all the attention and leaves us feeling like her fat invisible friend.
"And there's nothing worse than knowing whatever you wear your slimmer friend is always going to look better than you do." Emphasis mine. I sort of understand what Ms Johnston is trying to say here, but her choice of phrasing merely reinforces the myth that slim looks 'better' and that beauty is not subjective. A slimmer friend is always going to look different to you, and in some eyes that difference is better, but Johnston's phrasing is a little off. I think the 'Size 12 is fat' stat. is the most important of all these results. The rest of the statistics are about unhappiness with weight, trying to change your weight, going to extremes to do so...presumably to avoid the dreaded Size 12. It seems to me if you can change the Size 12/Fat attitude, you can change the other problems. (It's no 'save the cheerleader, save the world', but still.) For the record, I can demonstrate what a UK Size 12 looks like, because I am one. I didn't want to illustrate this with a celebrity picture because someone's specific dress size is, frankly, anyone's guess. So here we go. I am 5'3", I weigh between 130 and 140 pounds at any given time, currently I'm 135. I wear a Size 12 in the majority of stores. I am smaller than the UK national average of Size 16. And according to this survey, I am fat:  Dress Christopher Kane for Topshop, £110 from Topshop. Neon footless tights, £5 from Topshop. Neon earrings, £2.99 from Topshop. Bangle, vintage.Apologies for the blurry picture quality, but I think, I hope, you can see that (questionable nu rave fashion choices aside) a Size 12 is not so terrible. Size 12 it is not something one should be abusing laxatives and drugs to avoid. Nor do I think there is any upper size limit that you can point to and say, 'this is where fat begins', and it's terrifying that the women surveyed not only think that, but (a) set the fat-bar pretty low, and (b) go to extreme lengths to stay beneath it. (On a separate note, how awesome is Christopher Kane? Love love love his stuff.) I don't really read NW - I've picked it up occasionally, but not recently since they have this irritating environmental thing going on where they call women who care about the environment "eco sluts" - as a positive thing. So shopping pages might feature one organic item and it would have a little star on it saying "eco slut buy!" and I'm not a big fan of calling women sluts, and don't really see why they need to 'sex up' green politics, so...don't ever buy it. Not really sure what their demographic is, nor how they conducted the reader survey. I wonder whether we would get the same or similar results from a Vogue or Elle - dedicated fashion magazines - or other magazines with different demographics? Or a nationwide survey? Do the majority of women think this way? Or is it - as our friend Coral from Denver might have it - a certain type of woman who considers me fat? ( Source)
Celebrity clothing lines are a dime a dozen and everyone from J.Lo to the Olsens has jumped on the bandwagon with varying degrees of success. Some lines are as inventive and original as their high fashion counterparts. I for one think that L.A.M.B. (minus the logo print sweatshirts) is a creative representation of Gwen Stefani's personal style. The clothes actually look like something she would wear and some of it I'd wear too, particularly their cute rasta inspired draping tops. Other lines span the range from horrific to regrettable. Sorry Kimora, I know you're fabulous but I've yet to see a Baby Phat item that doesn't instantly remind me of the dollar bin at the sketchy outlet mall. Ease up on the bedazzler honey!  The latest celebrity to launch a fashion collection is Queen Latifah, a star whose signature style has always been distinctive, from her days as a pioneering female MC to her current position as an actress/singer. The Queen has long been one of the most visible plus sized women in Hollywood so its wonderful to see her stepping into the world of fashion. Her Curvation line is comprised mainly of basic, casual, mix and match pieces suitable for work or weekends. There are some very stand out pieces within the line as well as a few "what were they thinking" pieces but so far so good. I'll be very interested to see where they go with this and its always nice to have another collection designed with plus sized women in mind. Personally I just love the purple silk blouse, I could see myself wearing that everywhere. View the entire Curvation collection at Curvation.com
Everyone is probably aware by now that Donatella Versace's daughter Allegra, 20, is seriously ill with anorexia. The British press have gone wild with this and are busy making up statements and digging up past Versace scandals in the hope of painting the family as some sort of Italian version of the Kennedys.
 
Donatella & Allegra VersaceTFFF wanted to give you the news, but at the same time we feel this is a delicate subject and shouldn't be used for an editorial. Allegra is just 20 years old, and whilst she is in the public eye this is not through choice; even were she someone who had courted the press, we feel commentary on the Versace family's difficult situation is inappropriate and tasteless. Versace are expected to release an official statement later today requesting privacy, although they have not released any kind of press statement yet as far as TFFF are aware, so any quotes you may have read are more than likely to have been fabricated. This is a really sad story and I don't want to use it to write another fash-bashing editorial, because really, I think this is just awful news. TFFF sympathies are with Allegra and her family.
A super-short post, just to say that I was reading the March issue of W, and came upon this letter: I don't think there's any need to enlist more robust models in your fashion magazine. After all, I don't think the type of women who purchase the clothing you show are size 10s. I've passed up a lot of cookies to fit into my skinny jeans, and I want to see how garments are going to drape on a size-2 body like my own.
CORAL STEVENSON, DENVER, COLO. That's right ladies: if you're a size 10, you probably (a) are a certain type of woman - because women are two types, fat or thin; (b) don't buy fashionable clothes, because fat lasses love the muumuus; and (c) it's all your own fault anyway, you greedy, cookie munching giantess. Where's your willpower?! Thanks, Coral from Denver! And by 'thanks' I mean 'fuck you'.
After months of media attention US Vogue has finally weighed in on the Skinny model debate. I've been waiting for this article for some time now. It seems every other publication from People to Paper has had something to say on the subject but Vogue has remained silent. Its no surprise that the magazine that launched the careers of some of the most lanky and lithe models on the scene would wish to chose its words carefully amidst growing public concern about the dangerous of anorexia and other eating disorders within the fashion world but silence is by its nature damning. Especially considering the very human cost of questionable practices within the fashion world. The article itself Walking A Thin Line by Rebecca Johnson attempts to address eating disorder issue within the modeling world while praising the veritable cult of thinness. This is simply put a mistake. Statements like "clothes look better on a thin person" don't illustrate anything aside from the authors own feelings about models. When last I checked different clothes looked better on different people, it isn't about fat vs. thin its about what suits you and what works for you. Saying that clothing looks better on any one body type is counterproductive and ultimately damaging. Underlying biases aside some valid points were touched such as the veritable banishment of heavier models to commercial work. After the fall of the supermodel any girl over a size 0 is either out of a job or regulated to swimsuit and lingerie work (an issue we'll touch more on later) they become the dreaded c word. Commercial. Its an unspoken yet widely accepted rule within fashion that once a girl gains weight she loses her edge (I suppose they mean the razor sharp edge of her sunken cheekbones) and subsequently her blue chip clients. Its always been a bit disconcerting to me that the look of health and happiness in a girl is somehow considered unfashionable. Weight is not merely a physical issue for models its a monetary one as well. The vast majority of girls on the catwalks today are underage, away from their families and attempting to be breadwinners. Even a small change in size can leave a girl out of work. Take the case of Dutch model Doutzen Kroes, a stunning girl by any standards and yet she was sent home from a Gucci casting for being too "fat". This is Doutzen by the way.
  Her words on the subject: "I like the Versace show best so far. The collection is really beautiful and at Versace femininity is important. Feminine shapes are allowed. In contrary to Gucci where I got rejected because I was too fat! Gucci likes slim girls only." - Doutzen Kroes
I know. It boggles the mind that her shape is considered unacceptable. Its this incredibly skewed perspective that Ms. Johnson never truly touches on. For all the soundbytes from designers and snippets about the CFDA forum no one ever outright says that the ideal laid in place has become unattainable. Impossible even. When 6ft tall 100lb teenagers are being asked lose weight something is incredibly wrong. Robin Givhan of The Washington Post alludes to the problem:
"I think what happened was our eyes changed slowly over time...After a while, a size 0 starts to seem normal, not cadaverous. Fashion is about fantasy and aspiration. Women look to it for inspiration. But somewhere along the way the industry went from long and lean to something you wouldn't want to aspire to. It became unattractive."
What she doesn't say is that it also became dangerous. Luisel Ramos and Ana Carolina-Reston died because they tried to force their bodies to submit to an ideal of perfection that doesn't exist and for every girl that loses her life tragically there are so many more who suffer in silence. I can't help but think that part of the problem lies in the devaluation of the girls themselves. Gone are the days when models were viewed as individuals whose unique beauty highlights the clothing, today with the exception of a handful of well known girls they are just nameless faceless human hangers. There is a good quote on this within the piece: "When the models themselves were famous designers would gladly alter a dress to fit the girl. But when the models are generically interchangable, its easier to find a girl who fits the dress." In other words we can cut as small as we want and if you don't lose weight to keep up were not going to hire you. And what of the solution? How can this problem be solved or at the very least dealt with? Based on the interviews it would seem that the main course of action seems to be finger pointing. Designers blame bookers, bookers blame models and Gisele blames parents. No one wants to take responsibility and everyone is too busy searching for a scapegoat to truly address the issues at hand. I was especially offended by the very end of the article wherein genetic science was brought up. Genetic components of any disease notwithstanding I felt as though that was a giant cop out. Yes diseases are inherently tied to our genes but I don't feel as though what's going on with the fashion industry can be explained away by placing the blame on DNA. It would seem that people are really reaching for any and every excuse to deflect blame away from the inherent problems within the industry. In short the Vogue article left me with little more than a bad taste in my mouth. Its been months since the deaths of Luisel and Ana and nothing has changed. Isn't about time we placed more importance on the lives of young girls than on scraps of fabric? And not just the lives of models but the lives of all the young girls and women who look to fashion for inspiration because this is not JUST a fashion issue. If the BMI system does not work there ought to be a a search for a system that does work. Putting down a few fruit platters backstage is not enough, its time for a shift in the way beauty is presented and viewed. If the samples are too small make them bigger. If the girls look ill send them to talk to doctors/nutritionists and get counseling and if the clients only want frail emaciated young women tell them to get real and understand that beauty isn't about squeezing into a negative size sheath.
Shoes. Shoes. Shoes. OMG Shoes. Nothing is better than a great pair of shoes and when the weather gets warm I live in ballet flats. They've become part of my uniform and a good pair of flats is more useful than a swiss army knife, you can dress them up, you can dress them down and you can walk a mile in them without any trouble. Such things are priceless, especially come springtime when one wants nothing more than to shake off those snow boots and show off their pedicure in the cutest shoes they can find. This season ballet flats are going to be everywhere in an array of eyecatching colors and prints that just beg to be worn. In our new feature Hunting High & Low we tackle the trend for all budgets with shoes ranging from under $50 to over $200 there is something for everyone in search of that perfect spring pair.
Budget Conscious? $10 - 50:
Urban Outfitters - Pretty Little Ballet flats $20
Gap - Patent flats $30
Cars - Polka dot flats $14
In Search of a Little Splurge? $100 - 200:
London Sole - Green suede flats $100
Corso Como - Yellow cut out flats $135
All Black - Biege & gold flat $130
Sky's The Limit? $200 & Up:
Miu Miu - Silver jeweled flats $485
Sigersson Morrison - Red flats $348
Pierre Hardy - Leopard flats $625
Personally I'm jonesing for that yellow pair and those Gap patents. Wouldn't mind those Miu Miu's either... The Hardy's are cute but too rich for my blood! Anyone else in love with any of springs flats?
I fear I am rapidly becoming the misanthropic yin to Miss J's delightful yang, as here I go again with another negative story. In contrast with her sunny tale of the beautiful Crystal Renn appearing left right and centre looking radiant, I bring you this week's award winner in the Most Idiotic Journalism Prize. With apologies for the poor image quality - I don't have a scanner so this is merely a digital photo of the newspaper:
  The photo is of supermodel Kate Moss - I think it's a clear enough picture to see that she looks no different from usual, and actually better, since she's lacking that useless appendage known as Pete Doherty - on the front cover of the London daily newspaper, The London Paper. This is a free broadsheet distributed from around 3 pm every weekday near tube stations, train stations and office buildings, sort of the evening equivalent to the long-standing morning Metro. Launched in the autumn, its rival is the London Lite; both papers are laying claim to the Evening Standard's territory, a newspaper retailing at 50p per copy (95 cents), and readership - the thousands of London commuters who need a read and some city-centric news to get them through the long train journey out of London, or the equally long tube/bus journeys within the city. The two London papers, Paper and Lite, have fast become a familiar site on the city's transport system, with dozens of copies littering the trains and platforms. Each copy is read, on average (based on entirely unscientific observation of my fellow passengers...) by five different people. Anyway, that long-winded explanation out of the way (as if none of you can possibly grasp the concept of a free newspaper - apologies for my patronising waffle), let's address the subject of this post. The headline, in that wee purple box there, reads A TRICK OF THE LIGHT? The text goes like this: Millions of women can allow themselves a satisfied smile today at the sight of Kate Moss on a Caribbean photoshoot looking decidedly chunky-thighed. The 33-year-old was in St Barts for a shoot with New York jewellery company David Yurman. Let's address this point by appalling point. Before we even reach the "chunky-thighed" comment, which would be vicious, unnecessary and hateful enough even if applied to someone with actual chunky thighs, we have that bastion of lazy writing, the concept of women hating women. This kind of writing comes from the same Big Book O' Cliches as "girls just want to have fun!" and "tired of sneaking your expensive purchases into the house? Try shopping during a footie match. Your man won't even notice that Selfridges bag during the big game!" - it's 'tee-hee, aren't women shallow and silly' writing disguised as news. Do you watch, wait and pounce for other women to slip up and be seen chunkier of thigh, bigger of hip, rounder of belly? Do you smirk in satisfaction when women are photographed looking rounder than usual? Do you chortle at the pages of Heat and People - see how they've helpfully placed a red ring around the stars' cellulite, to save you the bother of reaching for your red marker pen! Does waiting for the day Reese Witherspoon look anything less than perfect keep you up all night? Don't you long for the day her bottom sags? I’ll bet you do - and when it does, you'll invite the girls round (1) for a bottle of wine (2) and some choccies (3) to have a good laugh (4) at the gruesome pics (5). Wow, I just crammed five female-unfriendly clichés into one sentence. That must be some kind of record...I hope the prize is a staff writing job at Loaded magazine! Women only have female friends and refer to other women as "girls"; we bond by drinking and having (horrible term) 'girly nights' (2); where we eat chocolate because (a) girls love chocolate! and (b) we're happy and healthy and can indulge with 'treats' every now and then for fun! (3); we spend lots of time laughing at these get-togethers, because women rarely socialise for work or serious talks or discuss art or literature - it's all about fun with the girls! (4); and fun with the girls means laughing at other people's looks (5). Which isn't to say I'm a miserable teetotal bore who never reads Go Fug Yourself, but is more to point out my utter boredom with women's journalism which seems to categorise our entire gender as living their lives as a chick flick montage cliché. My point, if you remove the dripping layers of sarcasm, is that women aren't actually 'satisfied' by other women failing (I'm temporarily ignoring Moss's incredible figure) to adhere to rigorous beauty standards. I might be a fashion and beauty writer but shockingly I'm not quite so shallow as all that. I don't have a tick list of hatred: Kate Moss gains weight, check! Liv Tyler's hair goes frizzy, check! Kate Winslet photographed without make-up, check! Heat publishes close-up of reality TV starlet's spots, check! You just won Misogynist Bingo - collect your prize of Trim-Spa at the door! What would satisfy women, or a large majority of us at least, is: equal pay; access to free and impartial contraceptive advice and healthcare; the right to work and the right to bear children - at the same time; safety in our personal and professional lives; redress for wrongs against us; freedom from discrimination on account of our gender...y'know, wacky stuff like that. I suspect we'd also raise a smile at these other things, to name a few at random: an end to patronising journalist clichés that set us up against each other and paint an entire gender as at war with itself; an end to judgement of the body beautiful and the dangerously narrow aesthetic pervading our culture; plus-size clothing available everywhere as the norm and not as special collections; freedom to exist in our bodies and do as we please with our them; and an end to the forced myth that our only happinesses are derived from each others' misery. That's point one. The next time I catch sight of anything so offensive as "millions of women can allow themselves a satisfied smile today" in the city's daily newspapers I'm organising a London-wide boycott of the London free press. Also....allow? ALLOW? ALLOW??!! I don't need permission to be satisfied or to smile; I certainly don't wait for some badly produced free newspaper to print pictures of a beautiful woman whom they deem unacceptably large before I allow myself to be happy. The word choice here is appalling: allow. As if we must be rigorously self-disciplined, on 24-hour watch to make sure we don't gain weight or our hair grow roots or our moustaches go unbleached; we must be constantly on guard, exercising here, eating bean sprouts there, shopping for illegal diet pills on the internet, cutting out pictures of our ideal bodies, always working, working, working, and sweating and worrying and punishing, never letting up for fear that we might fail and be soft or round or slack or less than perfect, until - oh thank god for the day when we can relax, for others among us have fat thighs too. Let us rejoice, let us smile, let us celebrate with a low-fat sugar-free non-dairy dessert, for today is a glorious day, today is the day when a thirty-something supermodel is pictured in a swimsuit looking mildly different from her nineteen-year-old self, oh happy day! All our rights are won and we may rest easy tonight, satisfied and smiling...correction, allowed to be satisfied and smiling, because someone else has failed in the 24/7 war against their bodies. Point two. Without disregarding anything said previously, or suggesting in any way that the photograph caption would be acceptable if it were accompanying a plus-sized woman or a woman who had gained a significant amount of weight: take a look again at the photograph the newspaper is using to illustrate this pointless - front page! - story. I defy you all to spot the chunky thighs they are talking about. In actual fact, I think this cover would be less dangerous if it was referring to a plus-sized girl. It would be as offensive, sure, but in using Kate Moss, an incredibly small woman, to illustrate 'chunky-thighed', the piece suggests her figure in this photo is the very upper limit to which we are allowed to let ourselves go. Anything less - or, more pertinently, anything more - than this is unacceptable. This is how low and unattainable the barrier is in the media. That is as fat as your thighs must get before we will attack you. Do not allow, do not give yourself permission, deny yourself the right, to live inside the body you have. Perhaps I am overreacting to what is, after all, a tiny puff-piece on a slow news day, on the cover of a free city newspaper, with a circulation of less than half-a-million. Perhaps we can let these little battles go, because we have bigger wars to fight. Perhaps I am over-dramatising a photo caption that few will see and fewer bother to consider. Or perhaps it is this endless, pervasive, corrosive drip drip drip of mean, petty, divisive, cruel commentary, that we see daily, in our city newspapers, our national newspapers, our magazines and blogs and films and commentary, that is the heart of the problem. Perhaps we cannot win the bigger fight until we first address the culture that this war on our bodies arises from - a culture that takes a tiny piece from us day by day by day with comments like this, that surrounds us and mires us in negativity about our natural state, until we are convinced we are nothing, until we have no strength left, until we cannot allow ourselves to fight.
Sara at Dressr Blog draws TFFF's attention to the latest high street hypocrisy. UK uber-chain Topshop approached The Gossip to do a series of in-store gigs, presumably to capitalise on singer Beth Ditto's current status as It chick: ever since music mag NME voted Ditto the coolest person in rock, she's been the go-to gal for a dose of insta-cool. The idea, as with most Topshop non-fashion collaborations, would presumably have seen posters and images of Beth Ditto scattered around the London flagship store, lending a little punk cool cachet to the increasingly mainstream store.  The move has backfired, with Ditto pointing out the hypocrisy of Topshop wanting to capitalise on The Gossip's cool factor...without expanding their brand to provide clothes that the singer could ever wear. Since the chain is not averse to design collaborations with non-designers - hello, Kate Moss! - there's no reason the store could not have asked for a Gossip gig or two together with a design collaboration or consultation on a plus-size line. Ditto's response: Give me the job. I want to design, I want you to make clothes for big girls, big boys, I want you to make big sizes. I don't want just your money or the cred of hanging out with Kate Moss, which is fine, but it's not want I want in life. I want more. I want what she gets.
I don't think it's fair to put my face somewhere where they would never let me in there to wear their clothes. If they want our music they've got to actually do something to earn it. I can get money anywhere, I don't need your money unless you're going to do it my way.
They don't want to dress people that look like me, that have a normal body, a bigger body, whatever. I mean I don't really know why they want The Gossip to do things for them, I don't understand because if they saw me in the street they'd never give me the time of day. One of the major reasons Beth Ditto has been so hailed as "cool" (whatever THAT means) has been her non-conformity: much of her press cites her weight and size, focussing on her success and sexiness as a fat girl. That Topshop wanted to purchase some positive PR without taking the whole package -- 'hey, we'll have the music, the fans with purchasing power, the face and name...but, wait? Provide clothes bigger than a size 16? Ew.' -- is both hilarious and tragic. Hilarious that Philip Green thought he could get away with it and Ditto would sign up, tragic that he thought he could get away with it...and you know he's not going to be introducing a plus-size line any time soon. * * * In response to comments about my Giles Deacon for New Look piece, I'm happy to issue a correction: New Look do have a plus-size line, Inspire, in UK sizes 16-26. I still stand by my main point, that special collaborations like the Gold by Giles line, should be available in plus sizes too, in keeping with the concept of increasing accessibility to designer pieces. * * * In other random news: food products are soon set to carry their carbon footprint on packaging. A packet of crisps will show a 75g carbon stamp, indicating the total carbon footprint from every level of production. Great news in the food industry: onw what about fashion? I can't wait for the day this is extended to the clothing and accessories industry. Cotton is one of the biggest producers of carbon, and with clothes often manufactured in several different countries - a label here, a button there, a pattern cut here and flown elsewhere to be finished, before flown to yet another country to be sold - fashion is one of the most important industries in environmental terms. Whilst we're campaigning for more ethical values viz. sizing in the industry, let's extend those ethics to all areas. Being able to buy a size 22 in Topshop would be great - even greater if it carried its carbon footprint (and even better if that footprint was as low as possible).
Our girl Crystal Renn is featured in another campaign, this time for plus sized fashion label Anna Scholz's Spring/Summer 07 collection.I think she's looking great as per usual albeit a shade thinner. Can anyone ID the other model? She reminds me of a curvier Uma Thurman.
  While browsing through the Anna Scholz line I found a few pieces I really liked. Its rare to see clothing designed specifically with plus sizes in mind that doesn't fall into one the two dreaded categories; dowdy or passé. For some reason designers seem to think that anyone larger than Kate Bosworth wants to wear sweatpants or worse yet velour. This line seems understand that plus size women want clothing thats just as modern and chic as what is offered to their peers. Possibly because the designer Anna Scholz is a plus sized woman herself. As innovative and influential men are in fashion nothing compares to the thoughtfulness and practicality of a female designer, across the board I think female designers create some of the most wearable clothing around simply due to the fact that they actually have to wear women's clothing. John Galliano notwithstanding most men will never really understand the unique annoyance of a dress thats hits in the wrong places or a top that squeezes the midsection. Women just have that added life experience that goes into their designs. And while not everything is my personal style its still refreshing to see that there are a few more stylish options available stateside while we wait for Elena Miro to cross the pond. I'm particularly partial to these draped tops from the S/S collection. They look like just the sort of thing I'd pair with a blazer for work or throw on with some jeans. Very versatile and cute.
  Check out the full S/S offerings at Anna Scholz.com
Fashion is by its very nature obsessed with the future. Everything is about the newest, the freshest, the latest so its no surprise that designers have begun to express this obsession literally. In the last few seasons we've seen an explosion of futuristic looks: from android chic at Balenciaga, Blade Runners at Calvin Klein and even the awe inspiring mechanical dresses at Hussein Chalayan. Chain stores like H&M are getting into the look with an ever increasing selection of metallic and mirrored pieces but how does one take this sci-fi inspired look and bring into reality? Moreover how can anyone wear that much shiny/glossy/patent and still flatter their figure?
   
It Came From Outer Space! Looks from : Calvin Klein, Balenciaga, Hussein Chalayan, Balenciaga
Futurism Keys - Nuetral colors: Think black, white, gold and silver this is an almost mod color scheme. - Shine: Either in the form of patent leather, glossy plastics or sparkling metals. This look is all about the robo-gleam. - Hard vs. Soft: A soft contrast like a knit sweater or a satin blouse keeps things from looking too harsh. - Bold accessories: Experiment with unique shapes and wild innovations. This is your chance to go crazy with some of the seasons sleek Metropolis inspired add ons. Futurism Hints - Just say no to head to toe. Wearing this look from tip to top can be far too costumey. Better to pick out elements of this trend than to look like you're headed for a masked ball. - Silver is your friend. There is no more useful color for this than silver. You can take an ordinary ensemble add on a glam silver element and its automatically just a little bit more modern and forget all your rules about mixing silver with gold. They look absolutely modern together. - Experiment with shape. The boundaries have almost all been broken were seeing loads of cocoon and cape like shapes, why not try them out! Keep the rules of proportion in mind, if you're doing large on top, try small on the bottom and vice versa. Keep things in balance as you experiment. - Get graphic. If you want to incorporate prints into this look its best to use classic bold black and white abstract prints. Anything too busy will overwhelm. - Embrace your body: Its easy to look at pictures of the girls on the runway and say "this will never work for me" but where there is a will there is a way. Instead of doing head to toe long and lean replace the structured jackets with a softer more curve flattering piece. Ditch the runway approved PVC leggings for a pair of great slacks or dark denim. Its all about adapting the trend to you. TFFF Look
Trench Jacket - Old Navy, Silk Blouse - Fendi, Sandals - Pierre Hardy, Bracelet - Lanvin, Metallic python bag - Gucci, Sunglasses Oliver Peoples
This is a modern look with hints of futurism that I think everyone can wear. You're probably not going to be accused of imitating an android if you wear this but you'll look stylish and ultimately thats more important. First off we have a great short trench jacket, I love these as they move perfectly from winter into spring with little or no effort and go with just about anything. Up next we have an elegant white blouse, pair this with classic accessories and it can be classic, pair it with trendy accessories and it can be trendy. This is your do everything blouse fail safe blouse. Now the fun part. I've accessorized this look with the funkiest pieces I could find: a great pair of white shades, a chunky graphic bracelet, an insane python bag and a sandals straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Together they form a look that is versitile and very of the minute. You can wear this with anything from jeans to those C3PO Balenciaga leggings.
The high street has become famous for its collaboration ranges - Karl Lagerfeld, Stella McCartney and Viktor & Rolf for H&M; Celia Birtwell, Marios Schwab, Christopher Kane and dozens of others for Topshop (not forgetting Kate Moss for Topshop debuting on 1 May 2007, available online at Topshop Online, which ships to the US and Australia); Roland Mouret for the Gap (yup, I still use the appellation 'the' when referring to the Gap - I'm old school). On Monday another name joins these exalted ranks: Gold by Giles is British favourite Giles Deacon's collection for New Look. New Look used to be the do-not-go-there of the high street. Mondo tacky, you could get an electric shock just walking by there - think polyester baby, all the way. It has since revamped itself a little, but it's still not in Topshop's league. All the better, really, since its continued allegiance to the occasional polyester monstrosity keeps the average price down, where Topshop's prices have gone through the roof. Anyway, the Gold by Giles collection: 34 pieces ranging from accessories to coats, with a £4.00 (US$8.00) starting price point, up to £60.00 (US$115.00). Drew Barrymore is the model for the collection. According to Deacon, "she's an A-list star but there's something believable about her. She's glamorous but she's not a product, she's a person. She's got a history, she's got curves." The Guardian has a great article by fashion editor Jess Cartner-Morley about the Giles collection. It sounds delightful, not least because Deacon is one of Britain's biggest stars, walking the tightrope between commercial and creative perfectly over the last few years. What a shame then that New Look only stocks UK sizes 8-18 (US 4-14). Similarly Topshop's biggest size is a UK 16 (US 12). Topshop has a Tall and a Petites range, but not a plus-size range. In fact, most of the high street stores are willing to cater for petites (5'3" and shorter), talls (5'8" and taller), and Tinys (with sizes running as low as a UK 6 (US 2) at Topshop, but not Plus-sizes. H&M styles a lot of its pieces as XS, S, M, L and XL rather than using anything so vulgar as, y'know, standardised sizes, and dropped its Big is Beautiful range circa the Lagerfeld collaboration. I really don't understand what the marketing reason is behind the limited sizing. Are plus-sized women understood to be too poor for Topshop and New Look (snerk. New Look is - or was, before Primark - the cheapest British chain around)? Or perhaps plus-size women don't like pretty clothing? Really, what is it? Why can't you be bigger than a UK 18 or a US 14 and wear fashionable clothes? Everyone deserves a slice of the awesome fashion pie that will be Giles Deacon for New Look and Kate Moss for Topshop. Effectively censoring your market by making these ranges inaccessible to curvier women is a mistake. I know the clothes will fly off the shelves anyway, and neither store is risking any financial loss by limiting its sizes, since Moss and Deacon are what's going to sell the pieces, but really - at some point your customers are going to be PISSED OFF if we aren't already. I guess the chains are hoping we'll console ourselves with the accessories, since all celebrity collections by law include bags, shoes, purses and jewellery, probably so lazy journalists can use that "you never have a fat day when you're bag shopping!" line that they love so much. What does everyone think about this? Since the whole concept behind these collaborations is to make high-end designer clothing and innovative style accessible to all via affordable pricing, it seems hypocritical to then exclude most of those 'all' by not providing wearable sizes. And for Deacon to choose a face for the collection because "she's got curves" but then produce a collection that isn't sized for those with curves, well...that ain't good. But I can't see anyone boycotting New Look come Monday in protest, either.
British broadsheet nespaper The Guardian had an interesting piece yesterday in its G2 section (think the fun, comic-sized features accompaniment to the hard-news of the main section). It reprinted an article first seen in the newspaper in 1924 when The Guardian was still The Manchester Guardian. Read the text in full here. Ignoring the hilarious tone of the writing, which talks of "the required slimness" and "the everlasting high heels" and note that it concludes with the idea that the fashion for slenderness is...healthy. A case of plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose, or are the times a-changin', since now it is more or less acknowledged that ultra-thin is ultra-scary? (Albeit in the same publications that then use the ultra-thin models and samples in their shoots...)
There are different ways of seeing. John Berger said that "Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognises before it can speak." But after you have words, you see differently. I wrote on this site recently about the need to unlearn our skewed aesthetic. How, when confronted over and over with bodies of a certain type, and size, we begin to see them differently. And how further, when these are the only bodies we see, other sorts of bodies begin to look different, wrong somehow, almost grotesque. It seems so obvious to say. But whilst it's easy to acknowledge, intellectually, that our ways of seeing bodies have been skewed by the bodies we've seen, it is harder to emotionally realise it. Case in point: Heroes has just begun in the UK. I think we're up to episode three, where the cop's wife shows up. The cop is played by Greg Grunberg, who in the scheme of things is a bit of a chubster (cute, though). His wife is played by Elizabeth "Lisa" Lackey, formerly of Home and Away. She's an ex-model, perfectly lovely, but not a teeny tiny toned tiny thing - she has boobs and a faint, cute belly. She's woman-shaped. And my brain said, "ah, like husband like wife - it's the fatty family". It's ridiculous. I know body fascism and the cult of thin is wrong and fucked up, and the obsession with petite actresses, where anything over 5'1" and 100lbs is 'big', is appalling. But my brain has learned something else and it's so bizarre to me, that however much feminist theory I read and subscribe to and however much I intellectually stand for something, there's bits of my brain that I have no control over, because my ways of seeing have been warped. This is Lisa Lackey:  Just because she’s not Ellen Pompeo-d herself out of existence, I called her fat. (Crazy, when if this was someone I knew, a friend or a relative, I'd be envying her figure all over the place. But when it's someone on TV or in a magazine, I have, against my will, expectations that they will be a certain size, a certain look.) Speaking of Pompeo, she shares the screen with Katherine Heigl, who again, is normal...wait, not normal. She is, in the words of the show, "eight feet tall. Your boobs are perfect. Your hair is down to there. If I was you I would just walk around naked all the time. I wouldn't have a job, I wouldn't have any skills, I wouldn't even know how to read. I would just be... naked." Katherine Heigl is, basically, a goddess. But next to her co-star it's easy to read her as 'enormous' because comparatively she is twice Pompeo's size. It's easy to see her slight underchin that the camera adds on and decide that she is 'fat'. I know which of the two figures is more natural, more healthy, and more easily achieved by the average woman...but for some reason it's so difficult to emotionally understand it, to really KNOW that Size 0, 2, 4, etc aren't the norm, aren't the only way of being beautiful. I've learned to see petite as normal and anything bigger than that as 'unfeminine', as if femininity was natural and not a societal construct. Show leads are often very petite - not merely slim or thin but tiny overall. Think Sarah Jessica Parker in Sex and the City, Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Kristen Bell in Veronica Mars, Rachel Bilson in The O.C., and dozens of others. They are tiny. Not just thin women, but tiny overall. Teeny tiny child-like women. And naturally, any normal-sized actor on the screen looks hulking in comparison. Mimi Spencer, writing in The Observer, concurs: "When I worked at Vogue a decade ago, one of the editors produced a beach-shoot featuring a size-14 model [nb. this would be a US size-10]. When they arrived in the office, the photos looked great; the model was statuesque, not overweight. But later, on the published page, tucked in between other shoots and ads featuring the starving Barbaras that are the usual glossy fodder, this lovely woman looked huge, as if she'd been inflated with a bicycle pump. No wonder the experiment wasn't repeated. No wonder Sophie Dahl shrank the moment she made it as a model. Given the choice, we'll take thin, thanks." Why can we know something and not see it? Is it the prevalence of thin and small women on-screen and in magazines, with so few representatives of other body types? Or is it something more, that in addition to what we're being shown, we're being told something. Claire Coulson, Daily Telegraph Fashion Editor"In pictures and on the catwalk, clothes hang much better on very slender girls." ( Source) Mary McGowne, Head of PR at The Vine "Clothing looks more tantalising on tall, slim women." (Daily Express, February 14 2007) Katharine Hamnett, Designer "This is so frivolous. Obviously it's tragic for families of anorexics. My bone of contention is that the industry should be ethical and environmental. Clothes look good on thin people and they always have. We weren't having this size zero debate when Twiggy was around. "Clothes look better on thin people and rubbish clothes look good on thin people. Thin people look good in anything. Don't you think that it is an indictment of an obese society? That's what it is, because we are all fat and think somebody thin is special. It's what's wrong with our society. It isn't just the fashion industry." ( Source) Alexandra Shulman, Editor of UK Vogue"Clothes look better to all of our eyes on people who are thinner." ( Source) Alannah Hill, Australian designer "Models have to be skinny - that's the point. The job is to be a clothes horse and everyone knows the clothes look better on the catwalk on a thin model. No one wants larger girls to show off their clothes; it looks a bit silly." ( Source) Gisele Bundchen, supermodel "Everybody knows that the norm in fashion is thin. But excuse me, there are people born with the right genes for this profession." ( Source) Kelly Cutrone, People's Revolution"If we get a girl who is bigger than a 4, she is not going to fit the clothes. Clothes look better on thin people. The fabric hangs better." ( Source) People genuinely believe what they're saying; people believe clothes look better on the thin, the slim, the tall. I sometimes believe it, even though I 'know' differently. How have we learned to see this way, and how do we learn to see differently? One cover girl or one plus-size model isn't enough, because they will automatically look 'wrong' set amongst other bodies of a thinner type. I'm trying to unlearn what I've seen and what I've heard. I was a life model for a very long time and that helped in giving me an incredibly strong body confidence: I don't look at my own body and see a flabby disaster area, or compare myself to catwalk models or film stars; I see myself as 5 feet two inches and 130 pounds of fabulosity. Yet I look at other women and judge them for bodies 'better' than my own, just because those bodies are different from the 'best'. I'm content with my own little pot belly and big booty, but I judge other women for not controlling theirs, for not having the discipline to be thin. And it does take discipline: I can be, and have been, twenty pounds lighter and two sizes smaller. But all I thought about was food, all I thought about was exercise. It takes up hours of each day that I'd rather spend writing, working, reading, socialising, shopping...to be thin if you are not naturally so is hard work and dominates your life. Yet a part of me judges women if they don't put in that hard work. Two things that I'm trying to keep in mind, to unlearn what I've learned, to help me see differently, to help me stop listening to what I'm told about thin and fashion: Maggie Alderson, former UK Elle editor and fashion writer"The Princess [Diana] was a great comfort to us ageing babes, too. The closer she got to forty, the better she looked. On one of her last publica appearances, in that tomato-red shift dress, she looked her best ever, glowing in her maturity. I miss that. When fashion magazines are full of malnourished fourteen-year-old girls, sometimes you need reminding just how beautiful grown women with real baby mama tummies are." and of course, Pulp Fiction: Fabienne: I was looking at myself in the mirror. Butch: Uh-huh? Fabienne: I wish I had a pot. Butch: You were lookin' in the mirror and you wish you had some pot? Fabienne: A pot. A pot belly. Pot bellies are sexy. Butch: Well you should be happy, 'cause you do. Fabienne: Shut up, Fatso! I don't have a pot! I have a bit of a tummy, like Madonna when she did "Lucky Star," it's not the same thing. Butch: I didn't realize there was a difference between a tummy and a pot belly. Fabienne: The difference is huge. Butch: You want me to have a pot? Fabienne: No. Pot bellies make a man look either oafish, or like a gorilla. But on a woman, a pot belly is very sexy. The rest of you is normal. Normal face, normal legs, normal hips, normal ass, but with a big, perfectly round pot belly. If I had one, I'd wear a tee-shirt two sizes too small to accentuate it. Butch: You think guys would find that attractive? Fabienne: I don't give a damn what men find attractive. It's unfortunate what we find pleasing to the touch and pleasing to the eye is seldom the same. There are other ways of seeing. I'm not going to stop looking at fashion magazines and beautiful models; but I hope I'm going to look, and see, other things properly too. It's unfortunate what we find pleasing to the touch and pleasing to the eye is seldom the same. Maybe we can relearn what we see and how we see it, and maybe what we find pleasing to the touch can become pleasing to the eye.
|
|
2 ... 2 ...
