· Blog Home
· Profile
Older Articles
· Cuttin' teeth...
· Random jewelry thoughts
· Fall Couture 2005
· So what do SAHM's wear?
· Blog search function
· More style ramblings...
· Hmm...
· Voyages...
· Dain's picks (Spring 2005)
· Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Comments
Archives
TheBroadroom.Net's Fashion Blog (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
The Lipstick Page Forums Fashion Blog
Discounts, luxury goods, conspicuous consumption, and all the shades of the fashion spectrum...
Discounts, luxury goods, conspicuous consumption, and all the shades of the fashion spectrum...
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:12 PM (Eastern)
I've been thinking a lot about the topic of high versus low-end fashion and cosmetics, partly through the influence of Joan DeJean's The Essence of Style (with its subtitle: How The French Invented High Fashion, Fine Food, Chic Cafés, Style, Sophistication, And Glamour), and partly because, for the first time in my life, I have several thousand dollars of my own at my disposal.
There are three things I spend money on: books, cosmetics, and food. None of which I intend to change my patterns on. I buy books with abandon, and occasionally my parents wonder why I don't borrow from the library instead. I shrug, and tell them I like to own books. They don't seem to grudge me it. After all, I do read books for a living (and the written word is responsible for where I am today). Cosmetics? I'm pretty conscientious about my purchases, even if I go on the occasional eyeshadow spree. As for food, it's more a matter of personal priority. I simply love good food. I would rather dine out exquisitely for a week than ever buy the most glorious handbag in the world. Yes, that's right. I'd rather have the opportunity to eat well than own a $30,000 Hermès croc Birkin.
That's pretty much how my consumer universe is ordered—books, food, cosmetics... and fashion is the last of the four. Which is funny, when you think about it. I'd rather starve than be without books... I'd rather be naked than never taste confit du canard again.
But this should give you a pretty good idea of my relationship with fashion. Which is to say, ambivalent. I love beautiful, crafted things, and I love "style", in that it displays a woman's inventiveness, character, taste, and above all, how well she knows herself. Sometimes I think that is really why we bother with "fashion" at all—it advertises to men and women both, instantly and without the trouble of saying so, "I know who I am, and I am comfortable in my own and purchased skins." This can lead to problems, however. In the interest of showing that we are grown-up and cool, we sometimes forget the other three, invention, character, and taste. It is the first most frequent fashion mistake: to buy clothes and accessories for the image they project, rather than balancing the need to impress with taste (which is nine parts discretion and one part audacity), invention (a cleverness that has little to do with book smarts), and character (personality). This formula makes fine dressing sound calculated, which it is, but a lot of it is instinctual. Most women who dress well employ all of these by instinct—at best, they know the clothing is beautiful in general, that flatters them in particular, and works together to produce a happy, harmonious whole.
The second most frequent fashion mistake is to be a slave to trends. This goes beyond knowing what you can and cannot wear. This is fashion in the sense of à la mode, deriving from a sense of wanting to stay "current", which really means, "like other people". I disapprove of trends in general. My sister and I were looking at an issue of Lucky: "Look at all the espadrilles! Are you going to get any?" "No," I replied, "Don't buy any of them. It's just a cheap trend." This has nothing to do with the platonic idea of espadrilles—though, most of them are pretty ugly... but if there's a too fabulous pair, by all means, buy them—it's the idea that the fashion industry has decided that I should buy them if I want to appear cool. That's the whole idea behind a trend.
Of course, there are some trends that are unavoidable. Low-rise jeans, for example. And the low rise is actually a good idea, given that they fit better on most women. But low-rise jeans are more than a seasonal trend, but a lasting trend over several years. It is the idea that "black is in" this fall, and "cowboy boots are out" kind of dogma that I object to. Who decides that, pray? The people we pay, goddammit. Does that make sense to you? You give these people $1000 and they get to rule your mind and body both.
Now, I'm too short to wear cowboy boots (though I like them), but am I going to give up my round-toe pumps? Hell no! They look great on my small feet and slender ankles regardless of the vagaries of fashion. My feet and ankles won't change, even if fashion does. And you know what? No one minds. No one tells me that I'm out of step with the industry. Indeed, just the opposite. They gush. Which leads me to think, if a thing works perfectly, then it does so for some other reason than its trendiness or lack thereof. Does it transcend...? Well, no. That happens only very rarely; for the most part the majority of what can be found do fit in with the bigger, general trends (try finding a pair of high-waisted bellbottom jeans nowadays), so there is an inclination for a item of clothing to look dated no matter what. And people change, throughout their lives, so what was proper at twenty is no longer proper at forty. But "things you love and look great in" can transcend trends for a short time (and if you're lucky, forever).
This brings to my next topic, quality and conspicuous consumption. They are not the same thing. Quality is either determined by sheer artistry or craftmanship. Sometimes, this yields delicate constructions that should be worn rarely, if at all, but more often, we think of quality as defined by durability. The material is the highest quality, the stitching is exquisite, the shape and cut perfection. These things are, consequently, extremely expensive. Most people reserve suits, bags, shoes, and jewelry for the "big" purchases, therefore. I'd like to add: pants (both trousers and jeans) and lingerie. I've found that two pairs of great jeans is both more economical and stylish than fifteen pairs of lesser quality. And pokey underwire is just annoying.
And then, on the heels of "quality", comes the phenomenon known only as "conspicuous consumption". Invented by the royalest of royals, Louis Quatorze, and his faithful commoner right-hand man, Jean-Baptiste Colbert (at least according to Essence of Style). Frankly, conspicuous consumption makes me a little green around the gills. It's worse than being a slave to trends, it's sheer metaphysical irresponsibility. 500 pairs of designer shoes is psychotic, but 3000 pairs (Imelda Marcos)? That should be criminal. It's not a waste of money, but a waste of life. Really, 50-100 ought to be the healthy limit on such fanaticism. Another example is "status" clothing, though this is generally translated into "status" accessories, particularly bags. The infamous Hermès, the Kelly and the Birkin, yes, they're exquisite, but yes, they are $5000 (at the least) with a ten-year waiting list. And then there are the Louis Vuitton bags, the Marc Jacobs bags, the Balenciaga bags, the Dior bags, the Tods bags, the Burberry bags, the Prada bags, the... you get the picture. It's weird. I understand it, but I don't. Most of these bags are profoundly ugly, though expensively made. That doesn't seem enough, to me. I have a particular horror of the LV Monogram, though for some queer reason I like the luggage (someday, I'd like to own a Keepall). All I know is, there is a subset of girls at my school that my roommate and I term "Ugg Thugs": Seven jeans, Burberry scarf, Ugg boots, and a LV or Longchamp tote. It horrifies me, as a compilation of all the things I hold profane in fashion: trendiness, wanting to "fit in", unflattering and/or ugly things, and wasteful prodigality.
So what will I buy, after all this? I've been thinking about it, and:
- Christian Lacroix pumps, $149.95: see below, Cuttin' teeth
- Apple iPod 20 GB, $280: This is more an investment than a splurge. It's trendy, to be sure, but well deservedly. It's supremely functional, and I come from a generation of pirated music, and where else am I going to store my gigs? For ignoring the other human beings with big sunglasses on public transportation.
- a photograph of Edward Gorey, $150: I love this man, I love his work. It's just a little cooler than buying a copy of Amphigorey, and anyway, it seems right to me, to buy a little art with my hard-earned money.
- Banana Republic Bloomsbury Shoulder Satchel, $198: Comes in a lot of fabulous colors, but I like the "mushroom". It's as luxe as Mulberry, as full of tricks as a Marc Jacobs or a Balenciaga... what has happened to humble, modest Banana Republic? For a bag this nice, $198 is a frikkin' steal. The aforementioned Mulberry/Marc Jacobs/Balenciaga bags are nearer to $1000.
Recent blog posts:
Post a comment (NO SPAM)