Thoughts for Tuesday, v.6: Is Fashion Art? Or Just Plain Useless?

I recently visited the Roberto Capucci "Art Into Fashion" exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. For those unfamiliar with his work, he came to fame in the 1950's as a brilliant young Italian designer. Over the years, his work became more sculptural. Garments from his recent collections (not shown on a regular basis, just when he has a solid round-up) are hardly even wearable. They're art.

What we see in mass-retail stores is obviously not on par with Capucci or other couturiers' work. Regardless, some consider fashion superficial, or completely consumerist based. Only a self-obsessed, insecure woman would spend $1000 on a pair of structural Balenciaga heels (A/W 2010), right? However, for just as many that blindly follow fashion, there are those women and men that value design and craftsmanship. Yet such aspects of fashion go unnoticed by many, and the fashion world remains impenetrable.

Some cannot justify spending a couple thousand dollars on any single item, nor may they have the funds to do so. (Myself included.) But in this context, fashion is comparable to any functional art. However, as I've mentioned, it's looked down upon. As stated by Oscar Wilde, "fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Then again, it's constantly evolving, not merely changing. Fashion exists for aesthetic value as well as basic necessity, but it also mirrors the state of society. It can push boundaries or stay within the social norms.

Obviously, contemporary lines are more commercial than ready-to-wear, and ready-to-wear is more commercial than haute couture. In most of these, we see design instead of simple knockoffs. While contemporary and ready-to-wear fashion are marketed to a specific consumer, it is evident that there is thought behind the fabric (especially in the latter). Haute couture, though not for everyday use, is undeniably art in the sense of thought and technique.

With that being said, someone can dress herself or himself creatively, no matter where the clothing comes from. Wearing expensive clothes doesn't even guarantee that person will be dressed creatively. As we know, it's completely possible to put together an artistic ensemble using any sort of garments. But I digress.

Let's return to the claims that fashion is materialistic and essentially useless. If that's true, isn't all art materialist? Especially that which serves no purpose to the audience other than aesthetic value? And useless? If you live in the US, chances are, there's a few laws applicable regarding clothing oneself.

There's nothing wrong with not having a favorite designer or simply not giving a damn about the industry itself, as it's not everyone's cup of tea. Following fashion obsessively isn't necessary to appreciate or respect what it is.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.5: "Boyfriend Stealing" and Name Calling

I apologize that this is being posted rather late! I've been incredibly busy trying to find an internship for school, doing other schoolwork, and enjoying the glorious weather we had.

I've been thrilled to have been part of the ongoing conversation about feminism and miscellaneous issues within a few blogs. Annebeth from The Styling Dutchman brought up something I'm still thinking about: it's very common for women to be mean toward one another. From making a general statement such as "girls are bitches," or being down right vicious and spreading rumors about a so-called friend, I've witnessed it. I've been a victim. Haven't we all?

Today, while flipping through Cosmopolitan , I read an article entitled "I Exposed a Boyfriend Stealer". Perhaps this sounds good, ridding evil amongst female peers, but the photo was captioned "sigh... another skank bites the dust". Apparently, the woman was wrong for being a slut and compulsively stealing boyfriends.

Yeah, I know many of us gals detest or simply shun the opinions of the misogynist magazine, but this happens outside the men-centric pages as well. I'm very reluctant to take the phrase "boyfriend stealing" seriously. As much as women are objectified and sometimes treated poorly in relationships, stealing implies ownership. And women don't own men, just as men don't own women.

I'm firm to believe the males are at wrong in these scenarios - seduction only goes so far. There's a crucial part of this equation that many seem to miss: his consent. I highly doubt that in these situations, the men are being forced against their will. He enabled it. He actively participated, making him just as guilty, if not more.

So why blame the other woman? Yes, a friend should respect the boundaries of a relationship her friend is in. Yes, she might have started it. However, that doesn't make her a slut. I know this happens between guys too. I've witnessed several physical fights over a lady. But you don't hear one calling the other - the alleged culprit - a slut, whore, skank, bitch, etc.

We do that. It's unfortunate. Sometimes women take pride in being a so-called bitch. There's a bit of irony in that, but it's acknowledging and arguably not dispelling this self-hating thing us women have going on. Of course, we're less likely to pride ourselves in being "sluts". But calling a friend a slut or whore as a term of endearment - something I've been guilty of - has the same effect. We're just pushing that it's okay to call each other sluts and whores.

Words are just words, but these are loaded with highly negative connotations. Seems we (collectively) have a way to go in terms of dealing with fellow women on a civil basis. How sad.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.4: Those Jeffrey Campbell shoes, that Topshop dress...

"Fashion fades, style is eternal." - Yves Saint Laurent

I have to admit, I was pretty stumped for a topic for today's edition of Thoughts for Tuesday. Most of my thoughts have been continuations of previous posts, without much variation, however. This is the first time I've sat down and read blogs since Sunday, and with nearly 200 posts, I thought it would take forever. Not so.

The amount seemed daunting, but paging through takes no time when there's several posts featuring those shoes and a wispy Topshop dress. Okay, perhaps I'm a little bitter - I only buy used leather/new synthetic materials, and no one gives up their JC shoes, so they're out of the question for me. Topshop has a nice selection but prices I cannot justify, thus they too are not very realistic for me to consider.

I get it - both brands produce more thoughtfully designed, contemporary goods than many super-commercial shops. Astronomically high shoes with a chunky wooden heel in a mall department store? Are you nuts? Peter pan collars constructed of real silk... in the woman's section?! Gasp.

Contrary to what the blogosphere may have you believe, not everyone is clad in a pretty Topshop dress nor do they stomp around in sky-high platforms. I do think that most of us bloggers - and blog readers - do this to go against the norm, to form a community with each other, etc. While one may stand out among a sea of Express-wearing-twenty-somethings, when thrown together, it can be difficult to distinguish an individual.

Within fashion, it's difficult to do something truly original. However, wearing a subtle mix of trendy wares barely constitutes anything groundbreaking, let alone style. Perhaps I'm guilty of this too - no, I know I am - but lusting over the same items and proceeding to purchase them produces monotony.

I can't say much about how personal style blogging used to be, or when exactly these brands stole the hearts of girls wishing to dress differently than their peers. I suppose some similarity is inevitable, but I'd hope to believe that bloggers would want to take pride in putting together unique outfits. But it seems that a fancy camera, a thrifted floral-print item, those shoes, and that bag form a stylish blogger.

I don't have a problem with any of the brands I mentioned in this post - as I said, I do admire quite a few of the designs they create. But there's only so much variation, so much remixing that one person - or a bundle of ladies with the same item - can handle with these brands alone.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.2: My Issue With Seventeen Magazine

During my last week that I can call myself seventeen, not much has come up in terms of change. Why would anything? Essentially, I'll be exactly the same. But I guess this means criticizing the magazine aimed at me, by title, is only relevant until Saturday. Truthfully, it's geared toward younger teens trying to appear older, so I outgrew it years back. Since then, I've been under the umbrella of a few fashion magazines, their younger counterparts, publications that provide "useful" news, and anything else.

There's not much on the newsstands for teens that care more about music than impressing boys. Maybe my age group just doesn't like reading, but as a seventeen year old girl with entire bookcases full of past issues from various periodicals, I beg to differ.

I alluded to a distaste of a certain magazine last week, and I see Seventeen as its predecessor. Instead of ubiquitous sex tips, there's headlines promoting ridiculous kissing techniques guaranteed to make anyone cringe - including something such as letting an ice cube loose in one's mouth. There's a "body peace" column on the opposing side of the diet and exercise centerfold. You know, just to ensure that readers don't go overboard with the suggestions to get a great ass by spring break.

In the past few years, new body types have been introduced aside from tall and thin, which is indeed helpful for some. But the covers of the past two issues? Barely distinctive. It's graced by an actress with flowing brown hair, glossy lips parting a white smile and mascara-coated eyelashes. "They're average!", Seventeen tells us - they have boy problems, they get pimples, and they like eating food too. Yet they're put on a pedestal (as are many characters within the public eye, but that's a different discussion) - and we're expected to accept it.

I'm told it's unfortunate that I grew up post-Sassy, but I experienced the demise of several other teen magazines - Elle Girl, YM, and CosmoGirl to name a few. And now options for my peers are limited. There's Teen Vogue (which I am not ashamed to say I read!), a few mini-tabloids following the lives of Justin Bieber and whichever girlfriend of his, and our main subject, Seventeen. For years, I've been flipping through the glossy pages of heavier magazines. Elle replaced Elle Girl. Simple. Glamour - ironically, not Cosmopolitan - replaced Cosmogirl.

I believe Elle, Glamour, and similar publications realize I'm being hit in their aim to capture readership, but they're not targeting me. I'm not sure that any major magazines do understand me and my type - teenage girls that like their appearances as-is, would prefer listening to music on the street to most conventional pop, and that don't give a damn whether boys swoon over them or not.

Of course, I've found other magazines to satisfy my addiction - Bust, Lula, Factory, Glamour and the occasional issue of Lucky - but I feel as a whole, there's a huge void in teen magazines. We shouldn't be directed as consumers-in-training or future trophy wives. Speak to us.

xox Catherine

PS For more criticism of Seventeen from actual teenagers, visit The Seventeen Magazine Project or check out Tavi's well-written open letter to the publication.

PPS What are your thoughts on this magazine?

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.1: Femininity in Fashion

"A lot of people in fashion don't love women. They impose their own ego upon women, whether they're men or self-hating women." - Zac Posen

While perusing through Cosmopolitan, I came across an article about nightgowns. I'm willing to believe most young people wear t-shirts and sweatpants to sleep nowadays, but I read on. Strangely enough, the article wasn't instructing me to purchase anything to make my man go crazy (I don't even have a man, for that matter), but rather what I should burn to please him. Apparently, men don't like women who wear frumpy nightgowns.

I'm a feminist, which has earned me personal criticism, as well as impersonal criticism from nonbelievers who just associate feminism with hairy legs and such. Cosmo is akin to the woman/girl who I almost feel bad for because she seems to hate herself so much, but what right does anyone have to tell another that it's unacceptable to wear whatever she or he pleases?

A nightgown is immensely different from a dress designated for public wear, but the message struck a chord. Why is it assumed readers will listen to this advice? A possible theory: in some cases, fashion is misogynistic. Yes, yes, this may sound extreme, and indeed it feels a little ludicrous to make such a claim. But let's explore this argument.

High heels and tight dresses may be restricting and flashy, so in order to demand respect, a woman might opt for a pants suit and more sensible shoes. This esteemed look is derived from typical menswear, suggesting that feminine shapes are incapable of earning respect. Of course, many women enjoy menswear-inspired styles - to each her own. But to make oneself seem competent, capable? It's unnecessary.

Of course, things are changing, and this may no longer be the case. I'll admit that I'm not really in the market for career-wear, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. However, any spectator can agree with my next point: most runway models have boyish shapes. I wholeheartedly support embracing whatever size or shape one is, but someone is making a decision to employ these models as opposed to women who resemble the designer's clientele.

I don't know that designers are always attempting to capture femininity. What does that mean, anyway? Women can be masculine, and men can be feminine. (Neither of these should have a negative connotation, in any context.) But during a fashion show - in an industry which has received fire for implying that thin is the only beautiful - displaying pure masculinity directed at women seems insulting.

It's important to take any message sent to us with a grain of salt. If a woman wants to wear a smart blazer with tailored pants, that's just as well as a woman wearing a cardigan a silk dress in a New Look silhouette. Or anything else. We can accept or reject advice at our own discretion, but associating one particular style with power is just bullshit.

xox Catherine