· Blog Home
· Profile
Articles This Month
· Another definition of style...
· Blue Cult jeans
· Spring 2005 Couture: Chanel
· The definition of style...
· Chloé Paddington
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
Comments
The Lipstick Page Forums Fashion Blog: April 2005
Another definition of style...
Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:49 PM (Eastern)
Well...I have long thought that clothing is the human equivalent of the fur, feathers, and colored skins of animals.
Since we don't have natural camouflage, or bright peacock feathers to attract mates, our clothing functions as our (social) camouflage and mate-attraction equipment.
An obvious example of the former is color. People living in California wear overall brighter colors...fuchsia, turquoise, intense yellow, jewel tones...to match our native flowers and bright blue sky. The colors get brighter and more intense in Southern California, more muted up North.
People in Hawaii do the same only with more intensity, since their flowers are more colorful than ours.
People on the East Coast tend to favor the muted tones of the trees and soft sky there. In fall, they are resplendent in the colors of fall leaves...red, burgundy, browns of all shades from golden to chocolate. In winter, a touch of bright red (to match the cardinals and holly berries) with somber neutrals and winter white. In spring, soft pastels suit the spring flowers (no gaudy bougainvillea here, but daffodil yellow, hyacinth blue, the pinks of azaleas). Summer sees some bright shades as the sun gets hot, pinned in humid air, and the natives eat loudly-colored popsicles. :)
These are a few U.S. examples of clothing as camouflage. That does not even entail the social status aspect of clothing. We don't have leaders with enormous horns or manes; we have leaders with Rolex watches whose second hands sweep, not "tick."
As far as mate-attracting...don't you check out the guy's shoes when you go on a date? Don't you look at his watch? How do his pants look? If you don't like these things, the mate-attraction part isn't going to work.
So...what do you wear? What do you want to convey with your clothing? How do you find your own style?
Personally...I think the first aspect is money. How much you have and are willing to spend. How much time and money you want to, or can, spend on maintaining your clothes (throw in washer vs. drycleaners).
The second aspect is how comfortable you are attracting attention...an unusual wardrobe makes people look at you, whether in a positive or negative light. A conventional wardrobe won't attract added attention.
So...you have your budget at hand...this can be "starving student" through "money is burning a hole in my pocket," but clothing is seldom worth going into debt over.
Start with your jacket. Look for an expensive jacket, if it means eating peanut butter and bread.
Why? An expensive jacket shows. It's the first thing people see of your outfit, and it can conceal/enhance a (much) cheaper outfit beneath. An expensive jacket should last you years and years and not go out of style. i.e. your jacket should not be fashionable or trendy (unless you're more toward "money burning hole in pocket"): it should be classic.
So, here you may buy the leather jacket or coat of your dreams...or a nice wool one...the color, the quality, the sheer pleasure of the dang thing, should make your toes warm and your face beam.
You may search for a well-made blazer jacket of wool. Don't go cheap here. Try shopping around...Nordstrom Rack has some good stuff...but if you can't find it for $65, you may invest up to $200. i.e. if you're more toward "starving student," you will have to search more before deciding how much to plunk down. But get something good.
Okay! You've got jackets. Now what?
Why, shoes of course. Imo, you do not need tons of shoes. You can do with a few pairs of shoes. But they must be comfortable. They must look good and last well. It's worth the money. Cheap shoes wear out after a year; two is a stretch. Good shoes last years and years.
Again there is the "warming toes," "beaming face" factor. You have to love your shoes.
I am not entirely against cheap shoes mind you, but not as a staple. I wore $5 flea market pumps back in the day. Didn't bother me. But for everyday, do invest.
Now you have jackets and shoes. That's 99% of the work right there.
Now you can wear whatever you want and still look great.
I am in favor of individuality, if only because our society invariably veers away from hand-crafted, and toward mass-produced. (Take software for example.) We are in danger of becoming robots. We need to somehow distinguish ourselves as human beings, not numbers.
So, the small, sentimental, unique item...the necklace, the scarf, the ring, the pin...can transform an outfit. It makes old outfits new and cheap outfits beautiful. Find a nice locket and put a picture of someone special in it. When you travel, buy a small piece of jewelry to remind you of your trip whenever you wear it. Jewelry is always nicer when someone buys it for you...so do buy something for your daughter here and there.
Basics...you can go cheaper on basics. Depends on your budget and lifestyle. I throw everything in the washing machine. I'm long past my hand-wash days. So I love basic cotton tops from the Gap family...Old Navy, The Gap, Banana Republic (the last one is expensive but dang do their clothes last).
J.Crew is a good brand...to my experience, Banana Republic wears somewhat better but J.Crew has some good stuff, as does Lands End.
There is always Target. Target has stuff like sleeveless mocknecks, tank tops, etc. that you can buy in bulk and throw in the washing machine for a few years. Look carefully; if you find something here, you can freshen up your wardrobe for a good price.
Marshalls can be good. You can go there to find a completely individual item, such as a pink sweater with a print of what looks like French ladies sitting at small tables and drinking tea on it. :)
We have Ross Dress for Less but it's not as good as Marshalls.
Jeans! Eh. Here I think you have to pay more, unless Gap/Old Navy jeans fit your butt (they don't mine). Levi's are not what they used to be. Imo it's worth it to spend $50 and get something you won't have to replace after a couple of years.
Men's clothes...men's shirts and sweaters can be nice. The quality tends to be better and the price lower...so don't neglect looking in men's stores or departments.
Flea markets...you are so lucky if you have access to good ones. "Vintage" in California is morbidly overpriced (as are "antiques") but East Coasties should check these out.
Finally...remember...comfort, comfort, comfort. You have to feel comfortable in your "camouflage." If it's sexy, you have to feel comfortable being sexy. If it's young, make sure it is as young as you feel. If it's cheap, by all means act as if it's expensive. If it's expensive, then make sure you wear the clothes and not the other way around.
And...have fun!
0 comment(s)
Post a comment (NO SPAM)
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Permalink
. del.icio.us
. Stumble
Blue Cult jeans
Posted by Dain, Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:56 PM (Eastern)
I've not really dabbled in ALL the "cult" jeans, but Blue Cult fits me best. The line came soon on the heels of Earl Jeans, and was soon overtaken in prestige by Sevens (Sevens fit the average body type far better). The line is designed by French designer David Mechaly (who worked on those hip-hugging Charlie's Angels jeans in the 70s) and his wife, Caroline Athias. They tend to be slim fit, so girls with curves should opt for a size up (if the brand's biggest fans are the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and Cameron Diaz, you might as well figure they're for skinny girls). I size up, anyway, though I'm petite (short legs and a small waist-to-hip ratio). I'm a size 4 and wear 28. They need to be hemmed, but every pair of pants I ever own need to be hemmed, so I don't really mind.
The fit is superb. There's no gapping at the waist, it fits smoothly around the waist, and of course, there's the famous "butt-lifter" effect. Since my legs are so short, I'm not a fan of the shaped, but it also comes in straight styles. The fit is just perfect. I find Citizens and Sevens too loose, Joe's Jeans far too loose, I haven't the legs to pull off Paper Denim & Cloth, etc, etc. The denim is high-quality. It doesn't lose color easily, and it doesn't lose shape, either. A bit of stretch makes it forgiving, but it bounces back to its original cut. There's a variety of novelty finishes as well as more classic finishes (I prefer the latter). They're expensive, but I can usually find them resale for quite a lot cheaper. They're just great... One wears jeans all the time, it's wonderful not having to worry whether they look good. Ever.
Blue Cult denim can be found at:
http://www.revolveclothing.com
http://www.shopbop.com
http://www.activeendeavors.com
http://www.blaec.com
Spring 2005 Couture: Chanel
Posted by Dain, Friday, April 22, 2005 3:35 PM (Eastern)
RIGHT Ahh... lovely. Who but Chanel could make tweed ethereal? Don't get me wrong, this looks strange, but it's part of the haute-couture package. Could you imagine wearing that jacket to work, with a tough oxford shirt, a black pencil skirt, and colorful but basic pumps (treat the jacket like a "basic", and showcase shoes)? Switch the skirt for jeans, and you've got something special but casual.
LEFT This is along a similar vein, but where there was lace and delicate tailoring, this is a more classic cut, with straight lines. I love the pailettes—very tongue-in-cheek kitsch. It works because it's Chanel.
RIGHT That's one sexy suit. Military-style jacket, with a pencil skirt. But a bit of surprising sweetness, with the delicate ruffs at the neck and at the sleeves. And those cutoff black leather gloves? Hot. And the sense of the ornate: the brooches, the cuff bracelet, the belt, the shoes. A complete fantasy outfit, if you ask me; I don't know anyone who could successfully pull this off.
LEFT I just like this. It's simple, classic, and timeless, with impeccable details: the frills bursting out of the flared sleeve, the soft shape of the pleated skirt, the slinky collar (plenty of room to showcare a nice blouse and necklace, as they've done here, or a camisole). Much of couture is fantastical, but this is more a piece you'd love for years to come.
RIGHT Another ethereal suit, this time with lace galore in ivory. Just look at that tailoring... unbelievable. A jacket you could wear with jeans for a casual but superfabulous outfit (or, again, with demure pencil skirts). Or, for an eccentric twist, with bright red trousers (or orange, or blue, or army green cargos).
LEFT This is a whimsical piece. I've no idea when you'd ever need a dress like this, but the artistry of construction is amazing (those pockets must be hand-beaded). It might be a wedding gown... it looks like one, done in a flapper-style with the Victorian twist of full gown skirt.
RIGHT This is a fantasy piece, and kind of a hideous one if you ask me! But the artistry, the technique, it makes for a very interesting, exquisite piece of work.
LEFT If someone made a dress out of dusky night, this is what it would look like. Gorgeous no matter how you look at it. What a dress!
All pictures courtesy of www.style.com.
The definition of style...
Posted by Dain, Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:10 PM (Eastern)
Once upon a time, I read a remarkable article in Elle a few years ago. I hope I may copy it verbatim as I don't think I could put it as eloquently as this writer has:
- The truly stylish rarely change their clothes. Sure, they occasionally dip them in filtered water tinged with Italian baby shampoo before leaving them to dry in cedar airing cupboards, but there's none of that wear-it-only-once-a-week nonsense that many of us have clung to since high school.
Since that time, my objective each season has been to purchase a capsule wardobe—a set of five basic pieces that are sufficiently directional to put place me near the cutting-edge, but neutral enough to have a closet life of more than six months.
Frankly, it's not easy task, given my magpie tendencies. Yet, when I recall my sartorial exploits in the years before the conversion to capsuledom, I realize that I invariably wore a precious few items to death every season. My hunch is, that's the way most of us dress... the trick is to define your basic pieces proactively, not retroactively—and this requires a hardnosed reckoning of your body, your career, your life.
Personal style is first and foremost personal. It requires taste, self-knowledge, and a budget. This may seem like a high qualification, but when a woman has thoughtfully chosen her clothes, when she really cherishes them, it shows. She's the one who's always put together, without seeming effort, and without, necessarily, expense. I like to think of a maxim of mine, "My clothes don't necessarily match each other, but they match me." And indeed, when that happens, the outfit just works.
To me, this is simply the greatest idea ever. It combines minimalism with aesthetic fastidiousness. Only the very wealthy can afford to buy out a designer, but six or so pieces are a whole 'nother story. And when you have a limited number to answer to, you make sure what you buy is something you love, and something you'll wear... it's a good way to avoid thoughtless purchases (which is not the same as impulse purchases). It improves your cost-per-wear. And it spreads out your purchases over time, so that seasonality doesn't become too limiting. And it's always with your preexisting wardrobe in mind.
As for me, my style is something like boho chic. I like colors and patterns, but often in classic cuts and styles. It's very feminine, the way I dress. I don't mind a little bit of kitsch, and I certainly don't mind the ornate, but it has to be done with sophistication, I think, or it can't be done at all. In any case, I don't really dress like a hippie, and I don't really dress like a lady-who-lunches. It's a mixture of both.
I am not an impulsive buyer, but an obsessive one. As a minimalist in the realm of cosmetics, it only follows that I am also a minimalist when it comes to clothes. And likewise, I have no qualms about expense. I figure, if I'm only buying five to seven pieces, or whatever, I can afford to get the best. I am, after all, of the mindset that everything I buy should be for a lifetime. Still, I can't afford it as such, so this is all wishlist material and castles-in-the-air, at best. But I enjoy my fantasies, even if they are, at that, mere fantasies.
In any case, it's really so much less about what you wear as how you wear it. Confidence is clutch. This is true for a lot of reasons. It's more interesting to see clothes that people wear because it reflects their personality, rather than what 'looks good' or what 'other people will like'. It takes a certain insouciance and bravado to do that. I don't mean that anyone should be combative with clothes—it's a form of expression, not a weapon—but it's always good to see individuals, rather than hordes of trend-followers. It doesn't matter *what* it is, as long it matches who you are. Plus, it also requires a certain level of intelligence, say, or self-knowledge. You've got to know who you are to dress who you are, right?
Nobody's body is perfect, but people will believe you are beautiful if you keep a little mystery. Confidence, again. If your dress, carriage, and manners convey confidence, then people will believe it (whatever it is that you're conveying). Dress your assets as proudly but as unselfconsciously as you can, and nevermind your flaws! Of course, I don't mean an open display of anything—that's not mysterious! But you should never act like you are ashamed of anything. It's your body, it's part of who you are, why should you apologize to society for not fitting into one stereotype or another? Now, that's sexy.
Chloé Paddington
Posted by Dain, Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:08 PM (Eastern)
Oh ladies, I've found it. THE bag, the one I'd wear all the time, use all the time, because it's gorgeous and versatile and matches everything else. Enter, the Chloé Paddington.
It's aged leather, with plenty of details (ID tag, padlock, buckles, key), just the right size, and the perfect slouchy shape that vacillates between all the extremes of my style with ease—adds a bit of the casual to a prim, ladylike outfit, and of course fits in perfectly with bohemian clothes. Usually I don't like fussy details when it comes to bags (I tend to prefer classic), but the Paddington has a certain fitness to it; it has balance. It comes in a variety of pretty colors, but I like the tan. It looks good against a black winter coat, and won't clash with my brown leather jacket the way the darker brown Paddington would. It's just the right size, too.
The bag is $1380, an investment, for sure, but it'd serve one well. It's also something of a cult bag, which tends to bother me, but I fell in love with it before I was ever aware of its "It" bag status, so there's no help for it. I was contemplating a tan Hermès Birkin prior to the advent of the Paddington, but this is much better. It's special, but versatile enough to become a basic for years to come.
Picture courtesy of www.chloe.com.
Labels: bags, chloe, fashion, handbags, personal, purses, style
Recent blog posts:
