Dresses of Unusual Ugliness:

I’ve been pondering ugly event dresses. 

Ugly – as in over the top blinged-out, cheap fabric (either shiny or see through, or both), hyperbolic dimensions. Ugly – as in maladjusted to the glamour or lack thereof of the event, the economic condition of the subjects, or any of the above. The kind of dresses that we associate with that untranslatable Hebrew concept of פרחיות (as in פרחה).

Happened to share this pressing issue with LP. And she – thank you lord! – had the best suggestion. Well, not suggestion so much as a bit of information to share. Turns out I am not the only one who watches really, really bad reality television. Her particular indulgence seems to be something called “My Big Far American Gypsy Wedding”. 

Who knew it (any part of it) even existed? But it does, and it is glorious.

Here take a look at some of the blushing, chaste, and modest brides:

These, ladies, came up in the first three rows of Google search. Imagine what would turn up if I did more research!

Apparently the designer to these stars is Boston-based. Boston Pride, people!

Yeees! These put all the dress stores in Tel-Aviv’s shuk ha-Carmel ­ (market) to shame, and definitely readjust my views on what constitutes over the top chav.

Its all about perspective, ladies. 

And Now for Some Culture, or: Museums in Numbers

The husband, who loves when subjects in the humanities are analyzed in numbers, read to me the following piece from his favorite econ blog, “The Marginal Revolution” (the blog is quoting NYTimes’ piece by Robert H. Frank):

Fortunately, costs are easier to estimate, and those for displaying a painting derive largely from its market value. Consider “The Wedding Dance,” a 16th-century work by the Flemish painter Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Detroit museum visitors have enjoyed this painting since 1930. How much would it cost to preserve that privilege for future generations?

A tidy sum, as it turns out. According to Christie’s, this canvas alone could fetch up to $200 million. Once interest rates return to normal levels — say, 6 percent — the forgone interest on that amount would be approximately $12 million a year.

If we assume that the museum would be open 2,000 hours a year, and ignore the cost of gallery space and other indirect expenses, the cost of keeping the painting on display would be more than $6,000 an hour. Assuming that an average of five people would view it per hour, all year long, it would still cost more than $1,200 an hour to provide the experience for each visitor.

What do I think about it, you may ask?

Weeel. Unlike the husband, I dislike it when we think about culture in numbers. Almost every time culture turns out to be economically NOT viable. And yet, somehow, invaluable.

In this case, a couple of issues are implicitly implied in this little citation, but not explored:

1) Detroit, once a successful paragon of an American metropolis and an American industry, is a dying city where packs of wild dogs rule the streets, houses sell for single digits, and whole street blocks are empty of people. Description that frankly reads like the zombie apocalypse.

2) The numbers for the upkeep of an artwork is calculated based on an ‘average’ – but the average of visitors in museums differs radically from museum to museum, and city to city. The world’s major museums average many more visitors than a smaller museum in a non destination city, let alone a city like Detroit which no one wants to visit.

This two issues (or, maybe one, since they are related) make me ask the following:

Are museums in provincial cities ever profitable?

What if the Bruegel was moved to a bigger city, to a major museum, say my favorite museum, the MET? Surely many more people would see it. Hell, I’d take a trip right away. But is that a justified move? It smacks of the good ole imperialist strategy of looting your provinces (say, Egypt) of its culture and moving it, lock, stock, and temples. Then again, the removal of artifacts and architecture from Egypt saved great parts of it from ruin. If only the antiquities on the bottom of the Aswan Dam were light enough to be moved before they were flooded into eternity… no?

I don’t have a good answer.  

The Wealthy Housewife Look:

I will put it out there, ladies.

I hate almost everything ‘bout this look by she of the pointy chin, Reese Witherspoon:

Lets break it down:

The jacket: a take on a classic Chanel

The bag: a kinda, sorta, classic Chanel

Why would I hate them? Well, updating the classic Chanel jacket was done by the house itself under Karl Lagerfeld, done every year, in fact, and done well. We do not need Tory Burch for it. Same goes for the bag, although I personally have zero fondness for the classic Chanel bag. I find it tacky and boring.

Let us continue our break down:

The shoes: booooooring. I can’t say I expected Sarah Jessica Parker to design well just because her character in Sex and the City sometimes (repeat – sometimes) wore good clothes (by and large the clothes were actually abysmal). But I thought she’d hire someone who would. Instead her recently revealed shoe collection was a yawn. This show, with nothing to show for it that hasn’t been seen in exactly the same fashion before, is a perfect case in point.

The jeans: ah. Too tight, too faded. They are like a bad cross breeding of the craze for acid-washed, whiskered faded denim and the craze for much-too-skinny jeans. Just taaaacky. I think a post on jeans will be in order sometime soon.. 

The overall effect is one of a bored, wealthy LA housewife, with too blond too straight hair and accessories that are too expensive for a mere school run. Which is not that far from reality, I suppose. And seems to be the preferred client of Tory Burch’s brand, with its oversized gold insignia and utterly uninteresting, uninventive designs. 

Amendment: there is one item in this look i love and would steal - the sunglasses. I think, judging by the arrow on the side, they are by one of my favorites, Karen Walker. 

What happened to Posh Spice and how come I love her designs?

Posh Spice. Remember her?

She was the Spice Girl who could not really sign OR dance:

Who married David Beckham in this:

And who was so thoroughly ‘chav’ that she used to look like this:

Well, one day she took out her breast implants, took off her French manicure, and decided to become a fashion designer. Yes, she attempted that twice, but the first foray, a denim collaboration with Rock&Republic was blingy at best:

The second attempt, under her own name, Victoria Beckham, was a whole different story.  You see. the funny thing is that she is not bad. In fact, she is more than that, she is terrific. She’s been at it for a few seasons now, and the stuff is fantastic – sharp cuts, cool color combinations. The rumor is that she does not design for herself, and the line does look suspiciously similar to Roland Mouret in the cut and overall design. 

But still. Check out this look, worn just now by Cameron Diaz (click on image to enlarge):

Perfect, no? Kicky little skirt, awesome color combo. 

I would kill for this. And the legs to wear it.  

Over-thought fashion

I like complicated – in everything, fashion included. And I like structural, architectural clothing, design that doesn’t necessarily obey the laws of anatomy blindly. I like, in short, cerebral and avant-garde fashion, that is often darker, not merely pretty.

Case in point: when doing the promotional tour for that “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” movie, Roonie Mara had herself the most terrific stylist. Pretty much everything she wore was on point, not only for the clothes in themselves, but also how these sartorial choices were in direct dialog with the movie, and the role that the actress portrayed. Almost nothing you would wear, but almost everything looked great. Bloggers I love, TomandLorenzo, called her style AudreyBot, a kind of futurist Audrey Hepburn, and I think their definition was spot on.

See for yourselves:

A Prabal Gurung dress:

A Givenchy dress, from a most divine collection:

Another Givenchy (she wore a few): 

 A Vuitton:

Miu Miu:

Nina Ricci, when designed by Thyskens:

After the promo tour was over Mara wisely continued with these styling choices and did well. One of the bigger misstepts, however, was this, by Balenciaga:

Sometimes, it seems, too many design elements in one garment can be too much. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good cape. But this is not a good cape. And if there is anything I absolutely HATE, it is half see-through skirts. GRRRR. And half see-through skirts done in white are even worse.

Similarly, Emma Stone, she of the hilarious scene in “Crazy, Stupid, Love” (watch if you haven’t seen, if only for Ryan Gosling’s perfectly manscaped chest):

So anyway, Emma Stone, another actress with a really great stylist (and a much better off-stage personality than that the famously aloof Mara), wore  this just recently, again by Balenciaga:

Oyi. The awkward shape of the capelet jacket makes her look like humpty dumpty’s long lost sister, with oddly re-attached arms. And this despite the fact that gray - black - white is my favorite color scheme. And my love for the complicated. 

I guess there is such a thing as overwrought. 

update

Ladies, I’m back. Sorry for the no posting for a few days, but as some of you know I was in Israel for my brother’s wedding. Posting shall now resume. I’m hugely grateful that you read. 

Sad Plastic Surgery

A long time ago, when both she and I were young, I caught a Nicole Kidman made-for-TV film on Jordanian TV channel (there was only 1 state channel in Israel and those of us close enough to Jordan benefitted from their English language station – probably a pet of Queen Noor).  It was some ditty about two girlfriends who go on a European vacation and meet a dashing boy. Or something. All I remembered from that movie was her – a big mop of red curly hair, the perfect upturned nose, blue eyes – everything that a Jewish kid wanted but did not have.

Here:

When I look at Kidman now I feel terrible sadness:

The outfit, the face – they are all try hard, and not working.