growing up in l.a., and now as a visitor, my personal aesthetic never quite meshes with the prevailing style. i like the old los angeles, the hollywood haunts and the deco facades. but when it comes to personal style, here in sunny southern california, i have always been a party of 1.
several months ago the first a.p.c. store opened here, and creature of comfort seems to be doing well, both on melrose and on the web, but they are the exception to the general rule. when i lived here before, i was on my own, and my city did not influence my style.
if you were entirely isolated (from stimulation, commerce, etc.), what would you wear?
and happy new year!
i'll be back to normal ;) posting on friday.
zero maria cornejo. a while back i stumbled upon one of her dresses and haven't been able to shake it. worse than that, it led me to investigate the line. then the designer. now i frequently check on what she's doing.
when you find something you like, do you buy it (or lust after it), and leave well enough alone, or do you turn into a stalker?
heaven is a nibble of a macaron from paulette. supreme heaven is a nibble from half a dozen different flavored macarons from paulette. i'm the same with clothing - if it's good in one version, i'd like it in half a dozen more.
how many of your favorite (clothing) items would you like in a different (additional) color?
i'm getting to wear light tops and a jacket i thought would have to wait until spring. the weather is so mild. yet the gate attendant for the car rental the other night was wearing a hat, scarf, gloves and the "i'm freezing" hunch-over. if it's usually 80+, it seems that a 20 degree drop in temperature is interpretted as winter (i have amnesia i guess, and can't remember the "winters" of my youth). would someone visiting the east coast from, say, alaska, tell me that 40 degrees is balmy?
so i'm very happy to get to wear my fall/spring-weight things. it's a nice reprieve from the down and wool awaiting my return.
i am, however, missing walking.
some people pay a lot, often, knowingly, a large mark-up, for their desired item. some people put their name on wait lists for the opportunity to buy an anticipated item. often a prohibitive cost or a limited production number only enhances the demand for and desirability of an item. i suppose the implication is you're lucky or loaded if you get your hands on the piece.
what if it were even more exclusive?
how would you feel about having to qualify, through some process of evaluation, to make a purchase?
i gave my first product review on a shopping site just now. i do read user reviews occasionally to gauge the likelihood of my satisfaction with a product. if 3 out of 4 reviewers say a beauty product smells funky, was underwhelming, was damaging in any way, it will definitely give me pause. so i thought i would leave a review (it was positive) to assist the next person who might consider that particular product. while just about any crackpot can post a review, i suppose i do consider them with slightly less suspicion than i would an editorial endorsement. i have, in the past, found that my experience does not always match those reflected in reviews, yet they do still occasionally weigh in as factors in my purchase.
would you be interested in reading reviews of clothing?
could they sway you one way or the other?
what sort of observations would you be interested in?
while temperatures drop here, covering up all exposed skin is a daily goal. when the weather goes neutral again in a few months, and stops posing serious health risks (briefly, before going in the other direction), where will concealment fall on your list of priorities? do you eliminate evidence of underwear? tug at revealing necklines (or avoid them altogether)? shun certain hems and such? is "sheer" in your vocabulary, or your closet?
quite often when i flip through a magazine, i have a particular focus/fetish that i am concentrating on, and i look for any and all relevant images/material on that subject (hats, socks, false lashes, hair, etc.), glossing over the rest.
if magazines focussed exclusively, and extensively, on one topic per issue, how many issues would you prescribe they devote to such topics before they repeat again? (how many topics would you want to receive that much coverage on?)
with a recent magazine purchase, i received an h&m magazine. it featured a letter from the staff, contributors who were independent professionals in their fields (not h&m employees), celebrity and pop culture coverage, fashion forecasting, fashion spreads, shopping guide, fashion horoscope, mini travel guide and even advertisements from other companies. aside from finding the featured fashions predictably limited to h&m, it was actually fine. i wouldn't have paid money for it, but it was fine.
if you had to pick one label to produce a magazine that you would want to read - a label that would dictate the coverage contained within, both the aesthetic as well as the content - which would it be?
per merriam-webster online dictionary:
mon·ey \ˈmə-nē\ noun, (Etymology: Middle English moneye, from Anglo-French moneie, from Latin moneta mint, money, Date: 14th century)
1: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment.
we buy clothing with money, so can we assume that clothing is worth money?
assuming your savings account was healthy, how would you feel about receiving the occasional payment for your work in the form of clothing (clothing, i should add, that you would like)?
just a quick follow-up to a previous post.
last night i came across a line of lipsticks (15 colors) called PlantLove™, from the cosmetic company CARGO, with the following package details:
"This lipstick case is made out of corn and is biodegradable. The box is made out of corn and is biodegradable. This box is embedded with wildflower seeds; moisten and plant. $2 from the sale of this lipstick goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital™."
it's just a matter of time before you can have a cardigan garden.
i'm going to be stuck at home for a few days (this is already day 2, in fact), and i'm kicking myself that i didn't stockpile some material (magazines). i have the internet, but it's not as cozy to curl up with a laptop, and, honestly, magazines are easier - no searching, just page turning.
if fashion/style were not accessible to you 24/7 via the internet, how often would you make a point of seeking it out?
ps i may not be able to post this weekend. back to normal on monday!
the beauty standards are too unattainable, the clothes too expensive, the shoes too dangerous. people grumble about fashion being inaccessible. they feel excluded, cannot identify with the ideal customer for the brand.
in reality, all well-financed fashion houses make sure that there is something for everyone with an appetite. accessories, bags, scarves, jewelry, sunglasses and makeup are major business, and major treats for customers, tiny tastes of the big fat frosted cake.
what crumb are you most susceptible to sampling?
style.com & nordstroms
any audience who has been indoctrinated into cinema and its cliches can intuit who to root for from the get-go, once all the choices have presented themselves, in their wardrobe - though it isn't the wardrobe that is the giveaway. a cape can work for good (superheros) or eeeeeevILL (dracula). it is usually the costumes in relation to one another that offer the tipoff. if someone is handsome, they are heroic, unless they are too perfect (in contrast to a more accessible and human choice), and then they are suspect.
within each category, the stereotypes that fill our modern myths and movies allow for a range of extremes: the villain might be edgy and dark or deceptively packaged in saccharin sweetness; the hero, a plain everyman or tailored and competent; and the victim can range from powerfully appealing to helpless and weak.
if you had to pick one ideal, which would it be, (and best portrayed by whom)?
in reality, which is your style role?
i was wondering whether the technically inaccurate but consistently popular rhetoric that ownership is 9/10ths of the law could apply to style. not in terms of what we, as individuals, hold authorship of over others, but rather in terms of the personal time line of your style in the larger cycle of trends - if you did it the first time, or before the trend hit, any interest in revisiting? i don't mean that old (10+ years to qualify) favorites should have to go into a time capsule. quite the contrary - for me they never stopped being part of the selection, yet if i wear them now, it will appear to be on the new wave of popularity (heinous thought).
how do you retain the authenticity of something that has been appropriated?
you only have 2 choices, so pick one (and nope, no wiggle room):
1. either you could wear clothing that made you look in shape, or clothing that made you feel happy.
2. either you could wear clothing that looks expensive, or clothing that is top quality.
3. either you could wear clothing that keeps your body temperature constant (never freezing, never sweating), or clothing that keeps you awake/alert.
4. either you could wear clothing that makes you smarter, or clothing that makes you look great.
5. either you could wear clothing that always garners you compliments, or clothing that makes others be super nice to you.