Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Shut Up

Actors tend to think that their celebrity status allows, or even behooves, their speaking out of turn on issues they are ignorant about. Imagine having a multi million platform, a monster loudspeaker, given to someone utterly unqualified. Thus Jenny McCarthy felt the need to announce the grave danger of immunizations, her opinion based on terrible research and even worse understanding. Or Gwyneth Paltrow who thinks that water can be made 'bad' by being disparaged.

No, I'm not kidding. Here, read for yourselves:

No, Gwyneth Paltrow, That’s Not How Physical Reality Works

By 

Gwyneth Paltrow has an online newsletter, and in its latest edition she lays out some of her thoughts about the power of human consciousness. They are ... interesting.
To wit:
I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter. I have long had Dr. Emoto's coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it.
If like me, you are not Gwyneth Paltrow, you may be wondering who this Dr. Emoto guy is. His full name is Masaru Emoto, and he's garnered a fair amount of notoriety for books I won't be linking to with titles like The True Power of Water: Healing and Discovering Ourselves. In them, he recounts experiments "proving" that positive and negative emotions can affect nonliving physical substances.
As Carrie Poppy wrote a couple of months ago in Skeptical Inquirer:
During his studies, Emoto separated water into one hundred petri dishes and assigned each dish a fate: good or bad. The good water was blessed or praised for being so wonderful (“Oh look at you wonderful little water droplets! One day you shall be a water slide!” I imagine him saying). The bad water was scolded (“May you become that gross grey sludge that builds up under a Zamboni,” he maybe said).
Then he froze the water, and, lo and behold, the "good" water froze in a beautiful way, while the "bad" water adopted jagged, asymmetric features when viewed via microscope. He's conducted similar experiments yelling at rice (he really likes yelling at inanimate objects) and found that "bad" rice ended up becoming stankier.
Poppy tried to re-create a version of the rice experiment, and if you want the full debunking of this stuff, check out her article. The shorter version is: nope. None of this is real. But that hasn't stopped a horde of credulous admirers from hoisting Emoto's work aloft as proof of the power of positive thinking and human consciousness and [fill in the blank].
It's easy to see why people want Emoto's results to be real. Most folks, myself included, don't really know much about the physical details of how ice freezes or rice ferments. These are just mysterious things that happen when we're not looking. Our emotions, on the other hand, are all too familiar — we're swamped with them just about every moment of every day, and one of the earliest experiences we have is the frustration of wanting something and not getting it. So a belief system in which we can affect physical reality through mere emotionally charged thought has a natural appeal to it. Throw in science-y sounding words — note how Paltrow's short blurb is packed with "structure" this and "molecules" that — and it's no wonder that people who don't really get how these physical processes work in real life will all too easily embrace claptrap.
In many cases, this is harmless, and actually touches on some real-life science suggesting that our levels of optimism can have significant effects on our well-being. The trouble comes when hucksters like The Secret author Rhonda Byrne pop up and start telling people that they can basically have whatever they want simply by thinking positively or visualizing it. There's a lot of this pseudoscience-infused self-help nonsense, especially in the U.S.; people end up wasting huge amounts of money on it (and, in extreme cases, doing things like rejecting clinically effective medical treatment in favor of thinking away their serious illness). So Paltrow, by encouraging belief in stuff that has no scientific basis, is making it easier for the next Byrne to take people for a ride. 

Council of Fashion Designers Award Ceremony - Or: What does the fashion crowd wear?


This is supposedly an event by fashion designers for fashion designers - unlike all other award events where celebs parade designer wear unrelated to a fashion-y cause. It would stand to reason, therefore, that this kind of event would be the perfect stage for the ultimately innovative and cutting edge fashion, the most interesting of the stuff out there.

You know what's weird? It was not.

Starved for some dress porn after the spate of recent disappointments on sartorial eye-candy I came to the coverage eager and hopeful. NO SUCH LUCK. I am grumpy and grouchy, and it is decidedly not my fault.

Look for yourselves, ladies - here's the rundown!

Lets begin with the image every news outlet blasted: Rhianna in a custom 'dress' by someone I never heard of:

 It is not a dress. No skill was involved in making it. I'm not even talking about the nudity factor, which is beside the point.

Marion Cotillard, again in her contractual Dior, continued her recent reign of horror, in a terrible dress and slightly less terrible but not good mullet shoes:


Michael Kors with Blake Lively in his dress - the most BOOOORING, mall dress ever, and horrible shoes:


This woman is the winner of the accessories award, which might explain why her skirt is the wrong length for her and her outfit generally derivative..:
Rosie Assoulin with Keri Russel wearing her dress, a hot mess of a thing with aspiration of Seargent like grandeur:

What in the name of Gd is this swamp monster of a J Mendel dress?:


Or this one, even worse than its predecessor?:


Prabal Gurung with a model in his dress that offered nothing new other than a view of some less traveled parts of her anatomy:

The mostly gown-y bride-y designer Monique Lhullier and a model in her utterly predictable  design:


Chics in Rag&Bone, somehow found two dresses I DO NOT want by them:

Tory Burch providing an illustration as to why I hate her eponymous label:


Lu[ita Nyongo in a socially aware but no less terrible outfit:


Imagine being invited to this shindig, having the possibility and ability to wear awesome clothes, and showing up like this (don't care who):


Or this escapee from the 90s:
Or this model type:

Good among the bad:
Olivier Theyskens from Theory with Leigh Lezark in his dress, that predictably enough I covet:


Zac Posen continues to do well in a good cut and better color:


Linda Fargo, the style director for Bergdorf Goodman:


Iman, who often wears whatever she feels like, looking stunning:


Danielle Steel's daughter in a nice, if not particularly interesting dress by Aluzarra:


A Vogue-tte, Jessica Joffe, in a cool maxi:


And finally, for pure gossip value:
Vera Wang is scaring me - the shape of anorexia is not attractive:

These two boys are the sons of 90s supermodel Stephanie Seymour (yes, of Axl Rose fame) - proving that sometimes genes travel well:


And another kid-of, Anna Wintour's daughter, proving she is always a very uninteresting dresser:


Monday, June 2, 2014

Flattering Head Shots

I don't know how pervasive this problem is - but when I am photographed my face turns into mush. I do know, however, that I am not alone. JV, who in person looks very much like Juliette Binoche, claims her face transmogrifies into a crocodile when captured on film. This explains, partially, my partiality to having my sunglasses on at all times when a camera is near - sunglasses somehow hide the lack of photographic definition that is my face, making it palatable (at least somewhat).

So what gives?

The following instruction manual (and the clip in it even more so) has been a revelation. All the things that happen in my face are analyzed by a professional photographer and - which is crucial - are given workable solutions. I haven't had a chance to try them yet - but as soon as I find myself confronted with a lens I am planning on thrusting my forehead forward and smizing. If I look constipated, you will know why.

Here goes:






Sunday, June 1, 2014

The Ultimate - The White Dress

The White Dress - the most platonically perfect sartorial embodiment of summer.
Summer in a garment, if you will.
Nothing signals the arrival of warm nights as much as a white dress - a day dress, not a cocktail one.

Granted, I've been advocating sticking to the white for winter as well, but then we would be talking weightier fabrics, more structured cuts, and generally a whole different animal.

I like mine not too strappy, a little severe to offset the purity of the white. A little swingy. Crisp.

While in London JV and I spotted the Zara iteration in a window, and it is fantastic for the price point, but almost any store has a great version of a summer dress. So much so that I am not even sure I am necessarily lusting after the higher end...



DREAM:

Maison Rabih:

Rick Owens:

Maiyet:


WISH:

JCrew:
Trademark:
Club Monaco:


WANT:

Mango:

Zara:

ASOS:


Surfing the Cruise Collections: Louis Vuitton


The collection was presented in Monaco concurrently with the Cannes Film Festival. The inspiration, however, was not so much movie stars as star fish. Nicolas Ghesquière, in his second collection for the label since Marc Jacobs' departure, focused on marine life as the main source for his imagery.
Like so:





What do I think about it, ye ask?

Well, by now some of you may know that I prefer abstraction to figuration where patterns are concerned (my views on painting are diametrically opposed most of the time). In fact, I would amend that statement to say the following: patterns are most successful when either hyper-naturalistic (recent spate of silk-screened photographs, such as Mary Katrantzou's, come to mind) or far, far removed from their natural starting point. Everything in the middle ends up looking a bit clumsy and try-hardy in my view. Like this Vuitton. The cuts of the clothes are not interesting, structure is trite, color combinations garish. While I understand the desire to make a splash at the runway presentation much of Vuitton's line struck me as plain awkward or deliberately ugly.

Like so:


Even when perfectly acceptable, like this scuba dress below, the effect lacked in any newness, since scuba dresses have been up and down runways for the past two years. Hell, even high-street stores have had scuba stuff by now.

Or, when trying to mix and mis-match patterns a similar clumsiness struck:


Mind you, I seem to be in a minority - critic reviews were on the raving side. Where the critics saw exuberant fun, however, I see an inability to edit.

If you want to see the show live, here is a link: http://www.style.com/stylefile/2014/05/louis-vuittons-cruise-15-show-live-monaco/

A Tiny Post Script to Layering

A street style shot to compliment my post from a couple of weeks ago about layering contrasting patterns:


Damn, that's a great look.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Eyeliner

You know me, ladies, I never leave the house without eyeliner. I might not have showered, but my eyeliner is firmly on. It has been firmly on since 1990 and although it has gone through some changes it hasn't left my face since in one way or another.

For the past few years I've been using the same drugstore eyeliner - this one, by Almay:


It is perfectly serviceable. It does its job. It stays on (although not too long). And it is fairly easy to apply although creating identical lines in both eyes is somewhat of a challenge.

I've tried to replace it with pricier products - hoping for a sharpie-like precision. Every time I come accross a ranking of 'best eyeliners' I dutifully read and buy the top item on the list. So far none worked. Most non-wand, or pen eyeliners produce a line that is too faint and too scanty for my taste.  But I'm a sucker for innovation. And so as soon as I saw the following story I knew I have to post - and then try. Will report when I finally get it!

We Tried It: Using a 'Revolutionary' Eyeliner in a Moving Car and Without a Mirror


What is it: Benefit’s brand-new “They’re Real Push-Up” eyeliner, which is a gel formula in a click-through tube. The idea is that it lasts as long as a gel but doesn’t dry out as fast as the ones in pots, and it goes on more precisely than a pencil
Who tried it: Alex Apatoff, Style News Editor
Why I did it: I got a sneak preview of this product at an event a few months ago and was intrigued as to whether it could possibly live up to the hype. One model put it on herself without using a mirror, while the adshows a sexy prowler putting hers on in the back of a cop car — and thus, my “We Tried It” was inspired.
Level of Difficulty: A 2 with the mirror, a 4 in the back of the cab and a 6 without a mirror
Warning: Truly terrifying selfies ahead. I need a Kardashian tutorial in selfie-taking, but for now, this is what you get.
Above, see the results with a mirror (left column), without a mirror (middle column) and in a moving cab (right column)
I give San Francisco a bad rap for being a little too Teva-friendly, but in reality, tons of fashion and beauty companies are out here — Sephora, The Balm and Benefit are all S.F.-based. In fact, I got my first makeup at Benefit’s Sausalito, Calif. boutique (purple mascara, because obviously). And Benefit’s been solving beauty dilemmas for years (you should definitely check out their Benetint origin story if you haven’t yet).
So when they threw a huge party and claimed to have finally solved the eyeliner dilemma once and for all, I wanted to believe. The click-up gel pen is meant to be more precise than a pencil, more goof-proof than a liquid liner, less easily dried-out than a gel in a pot and longer lasting than all of the above. But more than anything, they were selling the ease of use of this product, saying that literally anyone could master it right out of the packaging. Could it really deliver as promised? I had to find out.
With a mirror (first column above): This was a cinch. I had to crank the gel through the tip and wipe it off to get through the initial dried parts that were causing it to skip along the lash line (caution: Do not use your hands for this. This stuff does not come off once it’s on), but once I got the right amount of formula, it went on very precisely and was easily buildable. Perfect for a crisp, winged cat eye.
Without a mirror (middle column above): Hm, okay, there’s a reason people don’t put their eyeliner on without a reflective surface in front of them. With a softer, smudgier pencil I probably could have fudged a line, but the accuracy and thick formula of the gel pen really worked against me here. Once I had put some on, it was there for good, and I didn’t want to press it too far into my lashline. I ended up with kind of a wonky look, but I evened it out later — hence the major cat-eye I’m rocking here. Of note: This is the same eyeliner I wore to the gym for a pretty hard workout and it absolutely did not budge, smudge, or fade. (Looking like a Pussycat Doll on the treadmill was a small price to pay to know that the eyeliner would last through anything.)
In a moving cab (third column above): Though I would ordinarily never do this for hygiene/being human purposes, I am willing to overstep my boundaries in the name of science. We jerked along a bumpy road packed with stoplights, and I felt totally confident in the pen. Tiny, precise strokes close to the lashline made for a more ladylike look and I can say honestly that this formula is not going anywhere — not under my eyes, into my crow’s feet or even just fading before the end of the day.
The Verdict: It isn’t completely foolproof right out of the packaging; it requires a little practice to get used to the tip and formula. But for a quick, exact cat-eye with no fear of eyeliner migration, this is the best product I’ve tried. It’s also is definitely the longest-wearing eyeliner I own, so it’ll be coming with me for any special occasions where I need my makeup to stay put (like one of the many all-day weddings I’ve got coming up). A word to the wise: Water is not taking this off, so bring your best makeup remover if you travel with it. And if you see any clumps or want to smudge, get a Q-tip! Otherwise you’ll be walking around with Maleficent hands all day.
This liner isn’t in stores until June 27, but you can sign up for early access here if you’ve got to get it sooner! And be sure to share pics with us on Twitter if you test it out.