+/-


name one thing you would add or subtract here (you can't do both).

(from yeohlee fall '07, nymag.com)

18 comments:

Carlene said...

It's pretty close to perfection, but maybe something shiny at the wrist. Or bright lips.

editor said...

now see, i would say either a large round brooch, maybe turquoise stones... or jet, pinned just to the side of the neckline, but high up, OR a petite black felt cloche with a few discreet green or grey feathers... OR...a headband made of peacock feathers, or a giant doorknob of a ring, fiery opal... or...messy messy hair...

Iheartfashion said...

I would add a giant necklace, maybe one of those bib-style ones from Marni. She looks a bit too perfectly minimal for me.

editor said...

iheartfashion - you're reminding me of this funky black crocheted bib-style necklace that i regret not buying. :(

now i'm thinking a dark dark dark plum clutch for this picture!

Anonymous said...

I would add a splash of colour - either through an accesory, a lip colour, or by changing one of the pieces to a more colourful version of itself.

xo

Sabina

editor said...

i LOVE that idea, sabina. red shoes, green shoes, grey shoes. love it.

A.M. said...

crazy crimped, curled, and teased hair...and thick black eye-liner if i can add two things

editor said...

lol a.m., you can list multiple ideas, but you must choose/imagine them based on applying only one addition or subtraction to the pictured look.

Candid Cool said...

+ black leather opera length gloves

landis said...

oooh. see, now i want to marry candid cool. cause i want to see her (him?) in just black leather opera length gloves.

i would add a malcolm betts hammered gold and yellow diamond bangle.

just one.

GenX Theorist said...

Ok Editor,

Now, ever since you turned me onto those gorgeous Dior rings I've been thinking about how one would wear one of them in daily life (because I wear everything I have in daily life). Can they best be worn with an otherwise subtle outfit? If so, can we add one here?

editor said...

genx theorist - you know, it's funny, i always idealize this very type of stream-stream-stream-lined simplicity and simple perfection, yet my impulse when i think of a big dior ring here (THANK YOU for reminding me, and you should have added "duh"), is to then add, add and add some more, shoes, whatever. can't follow my own rules. i would take this perfectly sublime dress and mess up the hair, add the ring, the red shoes, a great bag... must restrain... now why am i not comfortable with simple perfection??

GenX Theorist said...

Arrgh, yes, I know! There is nothing I love quite so much as a sleek Jil Sander sillouette; and yet spend equal time considering how to incorporate the most outrageous jewelry in an organic manner.

That is a great question - is it simply the candylike nature of fabulousness that keeps up crazy for over the top expression? Or is it more, is crazy creativity essential to combat dreariness? Does simplicity, while beautiful, lack energy?

editor said...

ooooo, genx, now see that can go either way: "Does simplicity, while beautiful, lack energy?"
i am afraid i lack the style energy required to hold still, to restrain, to keep it simple and appreciate that, or feel comfortable within simplicity - there is a lot exposed. dries is interesting for using simple (to me, he's simple; sander took it to a minimalist extreme, so for me, dries is still simple, especially favoring boxier cuts, so i can claim there is simplicity in the mere reduction of extra seams...maybe) allowing fabric and color/texture to heighten the "energy" of an item.
sander is so sleek and reduced i think i would feel extremely uncomfortable/unfamiliar in one of her (original) pieces.

landis said...

i think you are both missing the point of jil.

it is about reduction of the extraneous to bring out the person, it's about sleek and clean. there's nothing wrong with that in the mix.

and editor, darling, there is NOTHING simple about dries. the man has never seen a coat,skirt,scarf, or shoelace he hasn't embroidered, beaded, dyed AND distressed.

and i own enough of each to know of which i speak.

there's also nothing wrong with indulging both sides.

that IS the point of fashion, right? indulgence, plain or fancy.

editor said...

but if me in sleek, clean clothing is very very un-me, then how on earth would wearing jil be able to bring out me, the person?

and if you subtract all the beading, embroidery, dye and distress, the shapes of dries clothes are not fussy corset-y things. that's what i meant. in some ways, dries is more simple for me than jil. jil is so severe, so stark, it's a different type of extreme, but still extreme i think.

landis said...

no, you're right, i adore dries. as i mentioned, his stuff keeps leaping off the racks right into those black bags i keep draggin out of that freakin barney's.

but i think jil's starkness in some ways is a release.

haven't you had the days where you just want it to be about YOU. not the stuff ON you?

editor said...

for me, sander's starkness would be more extreme, further removed from the me in me. wearing that would feel very much like a costume, not like an exposure - quite the opposite.
if the clothing i'm wearing is very "me' then i feel like people are seeing me, or that i'm being me.
your suggestion of clothing and its role is fascinating and i'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. if i just wore a t-shirt and jeans, i wouldn't feel at all right, at all me. i might be giving people less to look at, but i'd also be giving them less me, would be deceiving even. it would be like hiding...