purposefully not mentioning the three month hiatus...

...and instead merely moving swiftly forward.

i recently went on an amazon spending spree, and am the proud owner of several new tomes, the subject matter of which is limited to fashion, and food. I have thus revealed myself to the proprietors of that fine website as being someone who is obsessed with eating, and who loves clothes (with one frequently being the reason for self not fitting into the other, especially post-heathrow-injection. But I digress...)

The book I'm currently flicking through is The Complete History of Costume and Fashion: From Ancient Egypt to the Present Day by Bronwyn Cosgrave (this is feeling increasingly reminiscent of a primary school book review: "I read this book and it was nice. I liked the pictures. Sometimes I draw pictures, but not as good as the ones in this book. It was a good book. By Gussy." - an excerpt not entirely dissimilar to some of the work I produced subsequently in university, actually). Anyway, in the introduction, Cosgrove states that

fashion, as a means of self-expression, has been with us since humans began to clothe themselves. The arrangement of cloth on the body... relied on thought and consideration, just as assembling a wardrobe does today. The way a person chooses to wear garments marks them as an individual or as part of a sartorial tribe.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with this (although dix points to Ms Cosgrove for correctly using the word sartorial). I'm not convinced that cave men and women were swathing themselves in animal skins, and pondering how Westwood would drape the former leopard so as to best show off the figure. How can they ponder that when they communicate in grunts?

And even today, I'm sorry, but not everyone thinks of fashion as a means of self-expression. For a lot of people, it is merely a means to avoid being arrested for indecent exposure, nothing more. These are the people who mill around 75% off bins during sale time, and who will buy a top because it's a bargain at only 50p, even though it has no neck-hole and 3 sleeves. This is not self-expression; no right-thinking human being wants to put themselves across to society as a tight-arse who would wear pieces of bread stapled to a bin-liner if the price was right.

The moral of the story is that some people see fashion as function, and that's it. Even for me personally, I don't get dressed every morning thinking to myself "How am I going to express my psyche today?". The other day I went to vote dressed in gumboots and pyjama bottoms, simply because I was already wearing the pyjamas, the gumboots were the closest shoes to hand, and I was too hungover to deal with looking for an alternative outfit. I wasn't trying to demonstrate through the use of fashion something about my personality (that I am a twat, obviously); I was just trying to play my part in the democratic process - while simultaneously not vomitting).

So, there we are. I'm not saying the author is wrong - ok well, obviously I am. Really, I just think she's placing way too much emphasis on the "getting-dressed" process: it's fine to read into things, but don't go nuts. That's what I learnt at uni.


One final thought: Am I the only person in the world who reads the introduction to books? Think I might not bother in the future...

comme ci, comme ca

rei kawakubo, what would paris be without you? always a standout collection, a/w 09-10 was no different.

the collection seemed to veer between staid masculinity and soft femininity: asymmetrical greatcoats - complete with printed shirt fronts or tribal emblems - shared the runway with casual pieces covered with swathes of tulle in the lightest of pinks, and oversized a-line coats looked as if they were fashioned from a favourite grandmother's carpet.

Layering was, as it has been for many seasons now, key. Kawakubo bucked the usual trend by playing with structure, silhouette and volume: tight cropped double-breasted jackets reigned in drapes and folds of long lengths of large-scale flannel.

There were echoes of military here too, mostly in the palette, which also comprised of camel, beige, and the jettest of black - with jaunty magenta headpieces adding a touch of the eccentric.

I think what makes comme such an interesting label is that it always manages to translate itself to the commercial, regardless of how avant-garde it may appear on the runway. New York designers - you may like to take note.

loving lacroix -

and his understated yet kooky 80s chic in paris yesterday. also interesting that he seems to be taking some cues for silhouettes from nicholas ghesquiere at balenciaga.

putting on my cranky boots...

akris, you are not balenciaga. v v incredibly average and uninspiring a/w 09.

for anyone that cares: http://www.style.com/fashionshows/review/F2009RTW-AKRIS

next!

let's hear it for the boy

i don't really pay a great deal of attention to men's fashion. don't misunderstand me, guys are fabulous, and there's nothing better than a good-looking boy in a fantastic outfit (well, apart from a well-made campari and soda, but how often do you come across them, really?). it's undeniably true. but what i can't deny is that usually i just can't be bothered when it comes to keeping up with their runway stuff. even as it is i sometimes feel completely overwhelmed by style.com, i couldn't even begin to start delving into the men's wear.

HOWEVER this changes everything:

ann demeulemeester, i adore you: it's like you've taken mr darcy in some funeral garb, thrown on jack-on-crack pirate boots, dipped him in sex and made him join an indie band. electric feel, indeed.

and we go back and forth, and back and forth

now i know what unkle were talking about. you may remember from a post from the other day i mentioned i was moving back to london. well, about two weeks ago, i got an amazing interview that i was dying to get, and which put my move in doubt a bit. anyway, didn't get it. hey ho, nothing to be done except start deciding which shoes to take and which to leave behind. and then, just when i got over the disappointment and was once more SO ready to leave sydney for gotham city, something else came up, which meant that i had to postpone my trip for real, and instead of leaving in two weeks, it would be considerably longer.

now, none of this bothers me hugely, but it puts me out a bit. i think the problem is that times are uncertain enough at the moment, without the added turmoil of no knowing what city you're going to be in in two weeks' time. and i think the worst part of it is that i seem absolutey unable to get a job in sydney, so how can i get one in london?

it doesn't bear thinking about. so instead i think i'm going to think about s/s 09 and a/w 09-10 (although maybe not new york. ah, ny: why do you never fail to disappoint?)

not in the mood for fashion.

i'm not really one to deal with heavy stuff - either here or in real life. it's just not really my thing. but sometimes it gets to the point where it's hard to talk about shoes, and silhouettes, and prada's s/s '09 line (fabulous, just for the record).

what's going on in victoria at the moment seems to have been one of those things that crept up on me; you imagine things are under control, you miss out on a couple of days of news because you've been otherwise engaged having a gorgeous weekend in the sun (sounds superficial now, i know), then all of a sudden it gets to sunday night, you turn on the news, and everything has gone to shit.

i think most people know at least the basic facts of the story, so i won't go into it. i'm not a huge fan of repeating horrific stories for drama's sake: while it is important that people are wholly aware of what is going on, i think oftentimes victims' stories should be left to those who knew them, those who would take whatever solace they could from hearing about their loved one's last hours. or if not comfort (for in this instance how can it be so?), at least be able to know what happened. i am deliberately not using the word closure here. that approach is usually best left to current affairs shows trying to wring from interviewees every last tear that has not yet been shed. and they do it so well, don't they?

anyway, it has emerged over the last few days that at least some of the fires are suspected to be the result of arson. this is undoubtedly going to sound simplistic, but seriously, what is the matter with people sometimes? say you're an arsonist, what makes you light that fire? my friend greggy told me that arsonists often have erotic reactions to uncontrollable blazes, and so light them purely for the pleasure of sitting in a nearby bush, quietly getting off on blanket destruction.

look, i'm not one to impose my views on how people could and should have a good time. but when a tangential outcome of what you're doing affects innocent individuals to the tune of 130 and rising, i really do have to take issue. and to be honest, it really just gives me the shits. what right do they have to spark something that yields so many victims, to destroy land that is not theirs to annihilate? the seflishness and insensitivity of it is staggering. i suppose we can take comfort from the fact that once they are found (and i don't see how they can't be, seeing that the entire nation is already galvanised to action, baying for, if not blood, then justice)they'll get what they deserve. and yet it doesn't really seem enough - it never really seems enough, actually. just think about port arthur, or bali. retroactive justice cools the blood of the injured and left behind, but can it really, adequately, soothe a family's, or a nation's, grief? It doesn't seem to prevent these occurences engendering feelings of helplessness, or injustice.

i dunno. nothing that i've said here is original, the questions i ask have all been asked before. so i apologise if this post is boring, or preachy, or self-indulgent. it won't happen again. if only the same could be said about what is happening now.

oh my god...

I am guilty of extreme blog neglect. And the funny thing is that I don't even feel that guilty about it. Maybe my friend Eliza has a point when she says I should never have children. My absence is due predominantly to the fact that I've been irresponsibly chasing the summer sun up the east coast of Australia; not thinking about work, writing, styling, going on the dole - nothing. The most taxing thing my mind dealt with for three whole weeks was how often I should reapply my sunscreen (speaking of which, I have a killer tan at the moment. I am skin cells in trauma, but it is worth it.)

Anyway, all the fun and games are over, and I'm back to panicking about what to do for a job, especially in light of the fact that I've decided to move back to London in six weeks, I have no money, no job prospects, and nowhere to live (although I apparently do have an Oxford comma, which must be a start).

As part of my new career kick, I've spent the last few days slaving over a hot mac, putting together a new website. This is mostly because I think my shoot pics clutter up my blog a bit, but also because I see it as a way to separate my fashion styling and writing, and this randomly wandering prose.

So basically this is a pr puff piece. There isn't really any super new material on there, but check out my site and see what you think!

http://gusinboots.googlepages.com/trashglam

chrysalis