company british icons shoot video

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?)