quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Thanks for the effort, sushiflower, but this had already been explained in the fourth and fifth post of the thread.
And there I was thinking this thread might actually not be taking the piss out of us, and that you might actually be interested in what these things you claim not to know what they mean actually do mean.
posted
Im being brainwashed! Im starting to think spending £150 on a pair of jeans will make me superhott!
...oh no, its ok, they have a realy poncey website, I dont like them after all. I thought there would be a bit saying stuff like If you have a big arse you need these ones....but if you have stumpy little legs you want these ones... I cant find that bit though. Rubbish.
Posts: 2793
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think it's taking the piss to point out that it's polite to read threads properly before contributing.
I'm guessing that kovacs didn't really want a list of explanations; he could have got that from googling or a dictionary. What he wanted (and mostly got) was a discussion on the terminology and status of fashion. And some bits where girls post what pants they're wearing today.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
I did read the thread, and I think you'll find that if you reread the posts you are referring to you will find that not all were defined, and some which were were defined incorrectly.
Why bother posting a list of terminology if you aren't interested in knowing what it means?
Posts: 8
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, maybe kovacs gobbled down the lists like an Atomic Kitten guzzling man-cock, but I found my eyes glazing over. Like revising lists of French vocab for tests.
I hope the point of the thread was discussion, not listing.
By the by, I only heard the word "taupe" a few years ago, out of the mouth of my gay American boss. I always thought he'd made it up, or that people from Tenessee couldn't cope with the word "biege". Now I know it is real!
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Well, maybe kovacs gobbled down the lists like an Atomic Kitten guzzling man-cock, but I found my eyes glazing over. Like revising lists of French vocab for tests.
Someone (not me) did post a link to this thread on the HB Fashion board frequented by Sushiflower, which did rather invite her response with more precise definitions than any of us could offer. Or rather definitions from someone who was specifically named in Kovacs' original post. So her fulsome response was perfectly justified I think.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
I realise, that I dressed like an Emo kid last weekend. For this, there can be no greater punishment than throwing myself down a flight of stairs. Fashion? I (am) shit (at) it.
posted
Followers of fashion might be excited to know that I named a shoe today! It is called "Jane". It has a bold floral design, flat rubber sole, and a leather upper. Looks good in Saraha/Rosa
[ 07.12.2004, 10:59: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
quote:Originally posted by OJ: Someone (not me) did post a link to this thread on the HB Fashion board frequented by Sushiflower, which did rather invite her response with more precise definitions than any of us could offer. Or rather definitions from someone who was specifically named in Kovacs' original post. So her fulsome response was perfectly justified I think. [/QB]
posted
Thank you, Sushiflower. It would be impossible to argue that your first post above was redundant, as your definitions were fuller than anyone else's and did offer clearer and more concise information (with links!) than anyone else's early contribution.
Personally I appreciate you coming across from HB Fashion in good spirit. When you see "your" forum being discussed elsewhere, the immediate and most understandable response is hostility and defensiveness, so I think it's nice that you posted with something genuinely helpful.
VP is right that the thread developed into a discussion and became more than just "what do these words mean", but I couldn't have known it would have become that interesting when I began it.
quote:Originally posted by sushiflower: At one point they were the ’It’ jean, but now they’re more of a classic
Vintage is generally from another generation, technically pre 1980, I think.
This does worry and amuse me. Seriously, what's the most recent "classic" item? What is the final boundary between "contemporary" and "historical", in fashion terms? I know the cycle turns scarily swiftly these days, but for 1979 to be treated as equivalent in fashion terms to, say, 1920 (all "vintage") is pretty striking. At what point did 7FAMK stop being "it" and become "classic"?
You've been reading the Girls Aloud thread on HB haven't you? What with your Dr Hauschka habit, I think you should go along to a meet to swap tips. You'd fit right in. Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
I thought Morgan was quite a "nice" shop though, and the HB Fashion opinion seems to be that Lipsy = Morgan, which = worse than New Look, which = suitable for Girls Aloud to be the "face" of! I find it hard to imagine a mainstream shop cheaper and teenier than New Look. I was sure Morgan was more expensive than New Look, at least.
I am certainly tempted to go to a meet. You can invite me. I would learn a great deal. I think I'd have to buy some new clobber first though.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Also, what is Lipsy.
Hurrah! One that I can answer! Lipsy make dresses of the kind usually worn by page 3 stunnas!
-------------------- They give you a pen as fat as a modest cock and you're expected to dab it on the page, as though you were mopping the dregs of an afternoon Tommy. Posts: 1847
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by sushiflower: At one point they were the ’It’ jean, but now they’re more of a classic
Vintage is generally from another generation, technically pre 1980, I think.
This does worry and amuse me. Seriously, what's the most recent "classic" item? What is the final boundary between "contemporary" and "historical", in fashion terms? I know the cycle turns scarily swiftly these days, but for 1979 to be treated as equivalent in fashion terms to, say, 1920 (all "vintage") is pretty striking. At what point did 7FAMK stop being "it" and become "classic"?
WHEN DOES THE PAST BEGIN!!??
I may work myself to a full blown rant on the misuse of the term "vintage" - but frankly I don't have the energy.
Your question is an interesting one. At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny (where's Ally?). My personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity (but maybe I think that about everything?).
I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
So what does it say about us that we're revisiting those looks now?
I wouldn't agree with Sushiflower's statement that a certain brand of jeans have moved from "it" to "classic" within the space of the couple of years that they've actually been on the market. But that's just nitpicking in terms of perspective - within the frame of reference of high fashion, her assesment makes sense.
None of which answers the question "when does the past begin?" But if anyone would like to answer the supplemental questions left hanging, please feel free.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
Gorgeous Posh Spice Dress in the style of Victoria Beckham as featured in The Sun. Featured in:
This must be where lapdancers get their outfits. I honestly thought Morgan was of better quality than this, though. And I would argue that Girls Aloud are also classier than this.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I am certainly tempted to go to a meet. You can invite me. I would learn a great deal. I think I'd have to buy some new clobber first though.
I couldn't as I don't do/have never done meets. Or meats as people inexplicably seem to call them on here (meat-market?)
A HB meet would terrify me too. Just not groomed enough. And obviously I prefer to be an international woman of mystery. Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: The thread is called something like "How does it feel to be famous" but it seems bad form to create a link loop from here to HB and back.
The "Janson" login could still be active but it just carries a cloud with it. The last "Janson" posts on Handbag claimed that someone had mailed my management at work with links to my Handbag threads, and that I'd been suspended after a meeting that morning where they confronted me with printouts of my time-wasting and inappropriate online activities. An exciting thread at the time.
We do poetry, you do mass-market fiction. I always liked BluePirate best.
You're right, that double-layered baby doll nightie over jeans thing really isn't flattering, is it.
posted
I class 7FAMK jeans as classics because they are popular for their fit and how good they make your bum look, so I think they are here to stay, as opposed to being the ‘latest thing’. Saying that, they are always bringing out new designs and pocket styles so are often ‘the latest thing’.
Kovacs they are always, even when they claim to be "just lounging around indoors on a dress-down day" wearing stuff so fancy I would only drag it out for a ball with Kirsten Dunst, were I a girl. I must assume they're never lying and that anyone who posts on that forum really does spend most of their life thinking about, and money purchasing, these exotic items.
Well, it has been mentioned on Handbag itself whether we are all completely honest with our outfits. I personally put down exactly what I am wearing or was wearing. If you read throught the thread completely (don’t bother it’s very long) you’ll see a lot less ‘glamorous’ outfits. Recently, we’re posting on the thread less, so only the better stuff is added. Plus Ojo has a point. If I am wearing a top recently purchased in TopShop, for example, chances are numerous others will know the one. So by posting the brand, it saves explaining as much sometimes. And on the subject of underwear, I sometimes list it without thinking, but it doesn’t generally show on the outside, so it’s not really relevant. And I don’t think underwear has to be matching, but bra & knickers do have to work together. But that’s just me.
Kovacs Obviously these gals really do spend absolutely ages planning in advance, and take great pleasure in it. Which is absolutely fair enough
Only for special occasions on which it is important to look good. Such as parties and occasions on which your ex may be there. Hence my post in September asking if an outfit was suitable for an occasion in November. In case you’re wondering why, I saw something online that I liked and wanted to check it was suitable. Than with the ordering it and on the off chance it may not fit, I wanted to allow plenty of time.
London Well, what aspect of what I'm saying don't you agree with? Are you arguing that women have made scientific or artistic acheivements on as considerable a scale as men? Are you arguing that focusing on such transient fripperies as what to wear on Christmas day is as valid an achievement as, I don't know, the discovery of penicillin? Or simply that an interest in fashion needn't preclude one from an equal interest in politics, and to assume that it does is part of the traditional downgrading of anything traditionally associated with 'the feminine'? What's got your goat, lady?
It’s not like that’s all we think about. And there are plenty of women who are completely disinterested in fashion, beauty etc. We all have outlets away from the burden of our everyday lives, fashion and an interest in our appearance happens to be mine. A lot of Handbag women are intelligent and successful with good educations and salaries. When I personally put my books down I don’t want a heavy debate on politics or religion, I prefer the more lighthearted pastimes of online shopping and random discussion. Which does not make me or my sex inferior. And it does not undermine my capabilities in more ‘serious’ activities. Plus, plenty of men are very into their appearance nowadays.
Our appearance is important in all walks of life, we are judged on first impressions all the time, from when a man looks at us in a bar to being taken seriously in the boardroom. Women are equal to men, however we are judged far more. As a blonde with reasonably sized breasts, I am constantly being stereotyped as stupid, or lazy, when I am far from either of those things. In keeping well groomed and dressing in a suitable manner for whatever occasion, I am taken more seriously and more doors have opened for me.
But not only are we judged by men, or in the workplace, but also by other women. A lot of women are bitches, and look down on those who do not look the way they are ‘supposed’ to look. Ojo’s bringing up the subject of ‘chav’ (I hate that word as anyone who has read my post’s on Handbag will know) is interesting. In some circles, the Burberry check and gold clown on a chain is a status symbol, in others it is mocked. We all have our peers, we all want to impress. I don’t judge others on their outfits, but I myself have been judged on numerous occasions.
I do have hang-ups about my body and myself, but by making myself the best I can be allows me to deal with that, and to possess a confidence I doubt I would have otherwise. I agree that more ‘normal’ women should be portrayed in the media, but it will never be. Products are sold on the fantasy that if you buy them you will become one of the beautiful people, to be fronted by an average person would shatter this illusion. A good marketing ploy, but otherwise irrelevant.
In terms of what I should conform to, I don’t really let the media influence me, and very few people I know do. I read fashion and beauty magazines, but they don’t dictate what I should do or wear. They give me ideas, and show me what is around. I very rarely go out shopping, so magazines are like a catalogue. They enable me to decide what I want and where to get it, which makes my shopping trips more efficient.
You’ve seen my posts in Fashion, what do they tell you about me? If you want to use me as a test subject.
And just to add, I have no idea what squirrelly means…
Posts: 8
| IP: Logged
When posting you may use the Instant UBB Code buttons positioned conveniently below the Add Reply button to add UBBsafe brackets for quotes, links, and other exciting text effects!
The nearby Instant Graemlins are however mislabeled as they will insert WinkyWankys into your post which may result in undesired outcomes.\
Have fun and enjoy posting on TMO, newbie!
(I feel like a 1950s instructional film.)
Your pal
froopy.
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3202
| IP: Logged
posted
"Bluepirate" was pretty unremarkable really. It wasn't a new persona, just a way of posting as myself on HB without people immediately demonising me based on the bad reputation of "Janson". I'm sure I bring most of it upon myself anyway.
Anyway, "vintage".
quote:Originally posted by OJ: At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny...my personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity
Most obviously, you could link it to 80s postmodern theory about contemporary society being unable to engage with the present day, and seeking nostalgic security in the past, or superficial markers of the past. The notion of everything becoming past so quickly would connect with this, as a massive bank of nostalgic material builds behind the thin, fragile present day, which in turn raids that store-house of the past for comfort to avoid its own reality. In fashion terms, the common metaphor of a postmodern "grab-bag" or "dressing-up box" is particularly appropriate.
The best and most vivid pop culture example of this tendency is, I think, still Blade Runner, with replicants desperately producing documents of their own past in the attempt to cling to some kind of identity and history, whereas in fact they have extremely short lifespans and their memories are artificial. It is argued that postmodern culture's engagement with the past is entirely shallow and false (eg. "the 1940s" = trenchcoats and wry wisecracking, rather than any more complex sense of that decade's political and cultural context.)
However, what's striking about this theory is that it's now very bloody old itself -- we are talking 1984 or so. It is almost "vintage" and certainly "classic" theory. That it still seems to apply now -- that it seems to apply now even more to 2004 than it did to 2002 -- is perhaps surprising.
quote:I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
I have to counter here by asking how much this actually affected, or even touched on, the lives of women who buy from the high street. Yes, I know the high street takes a filtered-down look from the catwalk, but to what extent did Prada's 2003 collection influence the way most "normal" women dressed or the way they saw themselves? What proportion of women, even young and fairly affluent women, adopted a secretary look and then shifted to a New Look housewife mode, and were in turn somehow contained or shaped by the ideologies implied by those outfits?
I was talking to an eleven year-old and a nine year-old on Saturday -- just my usual nite out! -- and was similarly thrilled, baffled and scarily depressed by their responses as we studied the track list on a "Now...Music" CD from 1997. They claimed to vaguely remember some of the bands from when they were aged 2 and 4, for instance, and mocked stuff like the Spice Girls as hopelessly archaic. For them, 1980 really is as vintage as 1920. Much as it gave me a vertiginous recklessness to be in the company of girls with such a short history but such authority -- and to be honest, I think a lot of TV, music, cinema and gaming is geared to this audience, so in many ways these girls are the queens of culture, the unlikely elite -- it also made me despair a little at how quickly things age, how quickly we discard things when they're only a few years old.
Maybe our dominant cultural mood is that of a seven year-old: if it's over six months ago, it's history. Next!
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I may work myself to a full blown rant on the misuse of the term "vintage" - but frankly I don't have the energy.
Your question is an interesting one. At present it's being used as an adjective, to connote something like "the style of a bygone period". The fact that this reference to heritage as a form of authenticity in clothing, is currently in fashion could probably bear a lot more scrutiny (where's Ally?). My personal opinion is that it's got some relationship to the current political state of insecurity (but maybe I think that about everything?).
I think of tweed and capelets and generally dressing like a Mitford sister - an acknowledged influence of, I think Prada's collection last year - and I wonder... Well, I just wonder what we're trying to say. In terms of women's clothing, I did rant at length about the secretary look (yes on HB) some while ago, because I was quite alarmed by the inherent social conservatism of it. Ditto last summer's very-50s housewife look. With the benefit of a little historical distance it's not too difficult to see that the genuine postwar "New Look" was about an end to austerity and a return to stability and social order (and women scuttling back to hearth and home).
So what does it say about us that we're revisiting those looks now?
I wouldn't agree with Sushiflower's statement that a certain brand of jeans have moved from "it" to "classic" within the space of the couple of years that they've actually been on the market. But that's just nitpicking in terms of perspective - within the frame of reference of high fashion, her assesment makes sense.
None of which answers the question "when does the past begin?" But if anyone would like to answer the supplemental questions left hanging, please feel free.
When does the past begin? answers on a postcard, please......
Sorry, but I'm not going near that one!
The current issue of "vintage" (term/concept) could be seen as one of the triumphs of fashion promotion, and the way in which fashion can be created, marketed and worn to reflect the present. From time to time in fashion the past is referenced, to (re)create a "new" style. Because an interest in fashion is usually the preserve of the young, who don't have firsthand memories of the "vintage" being referenced, they buy into it because it denotes the cliches of the period, rather than the reality. It harks back to a perceived Golden Age. The British are terrible for that sort of thing generally anyway. The Queens Silver Jubilee in 1977 was VE day revisited. Which brings me to "why" vintage? Why reference the past?
We did 70's platforms in 1998, we did 80's Human League look in 2002 (?) we did fifties last summer. It really doesn't matter what particular period is revisited per se. The point is, by explicitly referencing the past, we are, I think, expressing a certain degree of insecurity in the here and now. The choice of past reference is an indication of the nature of the present insecurity.
As far as the post-war New Look goes, in Britain at least, we had a Labour government trying to maintain the communal effort of wartime rather than the private gain or profiteering of the consumer society that America looked ready to export, and actively campaigning for women to leave their jobs open for demobbed soldiers and return to the home. Dior's New Look (1947) was the resistance that women offered to this new domestic role the government was obliging them to take. It represented fun, style, impracticality and the sort of elaborate decoration that hadn't been available for years. The excessive use of fabric was criticised for its decadence and profligacy by some comentators at the time. So, I'd hesitate to say it was a style created by social conservatism. I'd be more inclined to say that that is how it is viewed retrospectively, which may be why the era in which it appeared is being referenced now.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic