Showing posts with label anti-vintage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-vintage. Show all posts

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Bad times may be just around the corner - but we could just cheer up!

Various controversies rage and then go away and rear their heads once more. Body image, sexism, ageism are things that are like an itch, we scratch ‘em but they keep on coming back. The problem is that in seeking to find a plaster for every sore we often miss the point and in my case there are always a lot of ‘sore’ points. In the general scheme of things our gripes as  western woman are indeed minor compared to our sisters in more difficult regions of the world, on the other hand those women are not what we should be comparing ourselves to. We should compare ourselves to the situation of blokes, here, in our own country.  But we don’t, we compare ourselves neither to less privileged women nor to everyone else but to each other and then find ourselves lacking.

Time perhaps to stop hitting ourselves over the head, to stop being miserable and to stop sharing our miseries automatically and electronically with the whole world. It should be share the love and laughs, not share the angst and ennui. I’m not referring to when things go really pear shaped and a bit of a rant, a few tears or bit of sympathy from your mates is required. I’m also not talking about clinical depression or bi-polar conditions. These are ironically more common than our parents or our grandparents would have admitted yet actually far less common than we think. A very few of my friends suffer from these and they know who they are. I am becoming a bit frustrated at a fashion for misery in those who are really just, well, living life. Because, like most fashions it rubs off and really, as so far this year has been a bit rubbish I could do without it. We all have to deal with real causes of unhappiness, illness, bereavement and broken hearts. Why freak out over life in general, our looks and our perceived ‘lessness’? Could we not be magpie like and select some vintage attitudes to match our best frocks? I am of course cherry picking here but why not? We cherry pick the positive things stylistically from the past all the time.  So here goes, inspirations to ‘woman – up’ from the past, I would be interested in anything anyone would add:

The 1910’s.  The Suffragettes saw being feminine and feminist as flip sides of the same shilling. I think they would be horrified to see young women starving themselves on purpose for their looks when they were on hunger strikes or being force fed for equal rights. We need to register the fact that the current government are very particularly attacking women and get angry about that, not the fact we have bingo wings, are not slim enough or have the odd wrinkle. Being a woman is a bloody good thing to be, adjustments not required.



The 1920’s.  Mass unemployment, depression and the realisation that industrialisation and capitalism could make you poor as well as rich. But it was also an age of speed, of deco, of style and the Charleston.  Sod constantly worrying about mortgages, salary freezes, lack of promotion and austerity, pour a drink, put on some jazz and dance. We have the whole world to listen to and dance with.


The 1930’s.  Most women still lived proscribed, limited lives as household drudges. But the movies and their stars offered glamour and escapism and it began to rub off on female expectations. Heroines in films were sassy and even ambiguous.  Finding your man was still important but being a journalist, a writer or an artist was also desirable. Using your brains and your talents still is, more important than glossy locks or a toned botty. Women in the 30's dreamed of escaping, we have every opportunity to do so.



The 1940’s. War, deprivation, death, rationing and possibly the most miserable period possibly to be alive in and what did our nans do? Rolled up their sleeves, put on their red lippy, danced to Glen Miller and fought a war. All we have to do is stop whinging and stop allowing ourselves to be down trodden by elements who, to be quite frank, are a lot less intimidating than the Nazis.




The 1950’s.  Society tried to put us back in our domestic box. But even the WI rebelled over rationing and government strictures. New fridges and ovens turned out to be helpful but really not enough to fulfill women who’d built bombs and put out fires. Jazz clubs, rock n roll, teenagers and beatniks appeared.  Proved that if you have the chutzpah you can wear a big fluffy dress, a bullet dress and still kick ass. So why are we now apologising for our femininity and allowing ourselves to be either coerced into fabric coffins or dressing our daughters up in a million shades of pink?


The 1960’s. We may have been over sexualised but at least it was our sexuality. The pill gave us the chance not to become mating machines and the legalisation of terminations gave us some choice over our futures. Don’t fall for the biological clock myth and become a mother if you want to, or not.  All this deranged depilation, obsessive tweaking, branding and face carving is a sign that certain interests want us self-hating. Why sneer at wags and ex-glamour models when there is so much else that deserves a bit of hate? Female mutilators and people traffickers for example?





The 1970’s. An age of Watneys beer, sexism, violence on the terraces and power strikes. Yet the period also say women running governments, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher.  The chance to slug beer from the bottle, wear big boots, pierce your nose and stick your fingers up at anyone who didn’t like it was grasped quickly by some. But although it seems like some kind of Gene Hunt peopled nightmare decade it also saw a steady increase in female presence in almost all spheres accompanied by a Spare Rib tendency to shout at inequalities and a stoic strength. We spend so much time looking inwards we are taking our eyes off of the ball here. Glass ceilings, lower salaries, sexual harassment and lack of representation in business and politics are not what women in this decade anticipated 30 years on.

The 1980’s. Two major recessions, the Miners’ and Dockers’ strikes. Things were grim in the 80’s. At the same time they were wildly imaginative, you could go to a party as a pirate, a nun in a see-through habit or just yourself.  Alternatively you could wear a pie crust blouse and pearls or arrogantly swig champagne in your power suit. This was not a homogenous decade, we were not all scrabbling about trying to be super yummy mummy and professionally satisfied employee. Talk about making a cross and then crucifying ourselves on it.

I’m not sweetness and light and fairy cakes myself but perhaps it does come with old bag status; the acceptance that whilst life can be rubbish it is also rather wonderful. I think that perhaps in the early 20th century the sense of entitlement that seems to be a problem now wasn’t there as much. This entitlement has been creeping up on us slowly since the 1960’s but seems to be virtually epidemic now. We don’t have a right to happiness or anything else. But I have always agreed with Buddhists in suggesting that we owe it to ourselves and others to make as much happiness as we could. Our predecessors did not accept their lot, but whilst enduring it seemed to make the most of what they could. So rather than enhancing my sense of self- worth or content via vintage style and looks in this post I am proposing a bit of vintage/retro 'get – happy'. I apologise if I sound a bit like a preachy Jehovah’s witness! Also this has been a bit gender-centric but to be honest that is because the chaps, to their credit, don't tend to subscribe to a lot of this self loathing.




Friday, 12 August 2011

Less frou frou vintage please!!

 
Vintage is now a word that most accurately seems to mean distressed faux farmhouse furniture in white or pale blue. It means mimsy floral chintz, especially in waxed form, or miss matched china tea cups and saucers as long as they have designs including more blooms or polkadots. It is overblown cupcakes in any form, little bits and bobs of buttons and cheap mass produced knick knacks sewn on to everything. It is needlepoint cushions featuring union jacks and pugs, it is old jugs filled with expensive pink roses and green hydrangeas, it is reproduction biscuit tins and little wire things to hold eggs. It is sugary, it is cluttered, it is utterly girly and in great amounts it makes me want to throw up (over a cane chair reupholstered in Cath Kidston fabric with gingham ribbons tied on the the corners).

I can't imagine tucking into my kebab take away here...
Don’t get me wrong, I like porcelain teacups, polka dots and rickety old junk shop furniture, I like most of the stuff above in moderation: I just cannot bear the twee overwhelmingly fussed with sheer  tweeness of the whole idea.  It isn’t that I dislike excess, in the Victorian menagerie, baroque lunacy or Gothic Count gone made style I love it. Not a purist and I dislike minimalism yet there is something about all this vintage frillery frippery that grates, possibly it is boredom.  And make no mistake, to the media and mass culture as a whole that is what we are talking about when we use the word 'vintage'. 

Bloody little wooden signs everywhere, I know where I live thanks....
At Vintage at Southbank last weekend I picked up a free copy of BBC Homes and Antiques Vintage issue and it was full of this notting hilly yummy mummy stuff. I learned‘Vintage’ is ideally accessorised by two sweet little children,  Milly and Oscar, tricked out in dove egg blue corduroy and peter pan collars. Oh and a dog, probably a Shitzhu type thing with an old fashioned working class name like Bert or Sid. I can see the magazine does have its fantasy appeal and the ladies on their stall were very nice., nothing against the magazine per se, it is catering for an audience. They were wise enough to have the lovely and very knowledgeable Naomi of Vintage Secret advising and had an article on wonderful Stein jewellery.

Their introduction to what vintage was however a big fib, actually car enthusiasts and antiques buyers are right, if you call something less than 50 years old vintage you are big fat pants on fire liar.  Just because today's PR's and clueless fashion magazines and a load of 20 somethings have suddenly decided that they think 70's or 80's is vintage doesn't make it so, imagine if I tried that with anything else. I'd end up in court for misrepresentation.

Vintage 'style', if you say so, retro certainly but it ain't vintage under 50 years unless it is wine. Unless that is 'vintage' has become something else, in which case what term do we use? 40's clothes are not antiques a nd I'm unilaterally (well no one else listens to me!) reclaiming the word vintage for what it actually means genuinely old. Not something that anyone over the age of twelve has already worn before.
Here the union jack and flowers have been cleverly combined....
I suppose I am frustrated that an interest in past eras has congealed into this. I shouldn’t be surprised as I am getting serious de ja vu. It is the mid-seventies all over again. Then the country obsessed over Victoriana, Laura Ashley made a killing, the Timotei and flake girls ruled adland and the whole country went nuts for Diary of an Edwardian Lady. Everyone either had a lace petticoat sticking out from under their skirt, a folk art inspired dirndl or a Little House on the Prairie style triangle fabric tied around their head.s It was a look inflicted on me as a child. The 80’s were always better than the 70’s, they at least paraphrased the forties and pirates.  It is not that I dislike flowery things or girlishness I am, as I said, just bored of it.

Cupcakes are not the only cake.
I suppose what is irritating me is the sheer sticky vanillaish conservatism lying behind it all. Is it down to the recession? It is certainly recessive. It gives the feminist in me the heebeegeebees. I’m finding the overwhelming nostalgia irksome, I just like the look of things from the past and one reason is that the clothes often reflect, for me at least, fast changing, challenging worlds but it is not an aspirational thing. I like being in a fast moving, liberal, all sexual orientations all lifestyles modern kind of world. There is a sharp cold wind of conservatism out there and conservatism tends to be selfish and oppressive. The past got a lot of things right but I wouldn't want to live there!

Maybe I read too much into it but cozying up the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s and presenting them as a soft focus version of the past seems retrograde in the wrong way. I'm all for escapism but is there much difference between wrapping women up ‘vintage’ style and sticking us in short lycra mini skirts and painting us wag orange. It’s also yet again ageist, this style of vintage only suits the very young or the fecund, if you were middle aged you would be described as mutton dressed as lamb double quick.

I do like pastel colours, I do like flowers, blimey I even like little gloves and macaroons but with added sharp conversation, some gin, some sharp deco glass and a soupcon of sassiness. I admire Greta Garbo, Lauren Bacall, Chanel, Ida Lupino, Amelia Earheart and Lee Miller. I never remember seeing a picture of them in a pinny. 
I cannot think of a flowery dotty flowery cupcakey style icon as a comparison. If someone truly loves dressing like this I am not criticising them, I am worried by the motivations of the media in promoting just one entirely domestic, ultra-feminine housebound version of a passion with the past.  I think this is one of the reasons many assume that an interest in historic style equals right-wing conservatism, a rejection of modernism, reactionary beliefs and the evasion of real life through nostalgia.

What do you think? Do you agree or am I just a crankly old cow! xxx

Thursday, 9 June 2011

Vintage Schmintage.... opting for old fashioned style, or trying to...

Recently I have found that what I consider vintage, elegant, unique or useful doesn't entirely accord with the so called vintage community. I am possibly too old, been wearing old stuff for too long and too much of a Londoner in tooth and claw. I'm finding it immature, too cliquey, too bitchy, too full of crap late 60's and 70's schmutter and too, well basically lacking in bloody style.  I had to leave a few comments off of my vintage survey because they were so petty and dim.

Having said that between the Chap Magazine cabal, those with Sohoitus (not 'vintage' but iredeemably drunken and bohemian around the edges) and some of the lovely vintage maff ladies who spend their time considering matters of sewing, getting dresses and getting plastered  there are lots of lovely people swishing around the place. 

But I don't bloody like East London, seventies crap clothes, dangly hair and sodding clubs full of bankers, hipsters and people in feather headbands and donning false moustaches .. I suspect Bourne and Hollingsworth must have a secret mailing list for twats. Then there is the amount of  bloggers and journalists and organisations who know sod all about design history or old clothes and set themselves up as experts which would be fine but they lie! they lie!  Really knowing arsingly nothing, I have read several lots of complete tosh in the last week and really at my age I have to start watching my temper.

So retro vintage is off the description, but soho, booze and old style glamour remain, the booze particularly remains.Any one got any tequila?!

Minn x

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

A can of worms...vintage survey part 4.

I suddenly realised that asking people for their antithesis of vintage style was risky as soon as I started getting responses but at the same time the answers were revealing, many thanks to those who contributed.
The responses fell into distinct camps:

The first featured quite predictably the trashier end of feminine celebrity, these were largely British (perhaps we just do ‘slapper’ better?) and included in great numbers Katie Price/Jordan, Kerry Katona and Cheryl Cole. Not that there were not American suggestions but these seemed, to my London centric eyes, to be more up-market: Paris Hilton, Lady GaGa any Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan.  I did wonder however how much of this stems as much from their behaviour as their looks? The American contingent, to my European eyes are not particulary anti-vintage. Taking drugs, having multi sexual affairs, ignoring social norms and making a fuss are all highly twenties and thirties. There is no particular morality to the multiplicity of vintage scenes. I have seen Paris and Lady GaGa look elegant although it is a rarity. Our British girls do however seem to get it wrong entirely and I must admit that Cheryl Cole would be high on my own personal list.  On the other hand often the tanned, plucked and extensioned ladies are at least paying attention to their grooming (does vajazzling count?). I'm a tad reticent to be completely damning, perhaps in 80 years theirs will be vintage style and elegance?

I doubt she chooses her own clothes though...

‘I have no idea, probably some footballer's wife that I don't read about in the "popular" media, or that terrible "Jordan" creature.’

‘Wearing only what is "in season" and jeans (so many people seem to wear jeans) no problem with them as such I just wouldn't want to wear a "uniform" out of choice.’

 ‘Not Wags or even gypsies, for they put as much effort in as we do! The barely madeup, wash and go with bird's nest hair school of 'fashion', where you spend a fortune on a bland, unimaginative, boring outfit.’

The second selection was of people who are actually held up as style icons and mercilessly foisted at us by the fashion press as examples of style.  Fashion bloggers, Hoxtonites, Alexa Chung, Pixie and Peaches Geldof, the Olsen twins and so forth. I was disappointed that only one person nominated Kate Moss.  Here the issue really is about style, plus corporate interference, mass marketing and a certain lack of character. There's just a big nothing in the way they look. In comparison the Cheryl Cole's and Lindsey Lohans start to look glossy and collected.

Yup, I have to agree the opposite of everything I personally like in clothing....
‘It seems hypocritical, but I think many of the modern hipster girls who obsess over vintage-via-Urban Outfitters clothes for the trendiness and novelty of it are the antithesis of vintage. I know this sounds judgmental, and honestly, many of my friends are very sweet girls who match that description (or at least aspire to); but it irks me to no end to see girls with no poise and no idea about history and the context of the fashions they so wantonly ape. I guess I would cite Zooey Deschanel as the poster child of this type: nauseatingly cutesy, but really just the vapid product of some marketing team.’

‘Any of the high street commercial bigwigs - producing cheap, mass-market items designed to be in fashion for approximately two days and fall apart after five washes. There's no lasting style, design or beauty there. That style ethos is about being a clothes hanger for fashion, not about the man or woman inside the clothes, and flattering their form.’

‘Any of those awful hipster kids that will say something like "it has a vintage essence", even though it looks like something an East German border guard might wear.’

‘Reflex reaction is to type something along the lines of those ghastly Beckham creatures, or Katie Price. A more obtuse part of me thinks Wayne Hemmingway, though. Or the Geldoff girls / whatever other society poppet turns up this week claiming they've gone "vintage" because Vogue / Time Out / whatever told them to.’

‘Anyone who thinks that the fashion from the 1980s is a 'vintage style'

So far I have been dwelling on feminine examples but the chaps who answered came up with a more diverse bunch but there were definite winners: Russell Brand, David Cameron and Simon Cowell step forward. Gary Glitter and Gok Wan take a bow. There were surprises, someone nominated Humphrey Bogart, another Grayson Perry. I liked these latter nominations, Bogart has his admirers as an actor and Perry is a fine artist. Perhaps we ladies have tended to be more inspired by dislike than a dispassionate assessment of style. Which brings me on to my last camps: the vintage backlash and the downright bitchy.

Get a tie!

Are these leggings?

‘Adam, William Blake, me’

‘"creatives", 30/40/50 year olds dressed as teenagers’

‘George Clooney (in a positive way) is thoroughly modern. He is relaxed, classic, minimalist and contemporary.’

‘MTV's ridiculous hip hop fashion.’

‘T4, baggybums, the High Street’

‘The antithesis of vintage style cannot be encapsulated in a singular person - anyone with the means but not the inclination to dress in a tasteful manner, with concessions to cleanliness and propriety.’

The vintage backlash is perhaps reflected by the number of people who suggested Dita von Teese, Betty Page, Bernie Dexter and Paloma Faith as vintage no no’s. Although I am not Dita’s biggest fan she does always look lovely, Betty Page is surely an icon and whilst Paloma is quirky she has been a vintage inspired woman for a very long time and they seem really really peculiar choices. I Are people sick of these ladies being held up as exemplars? Or is it they fact they are louche? I sometimes sense there is a prim, purist, domestic, prissy vs sassy, sexy, eccentric wayward battle going on out there.

Personally I like the way Paloma looks....

Following on from this was the suggestions of people who are making a living or have high profiles through their vintage activities. I don’t mind being nominated by one soul, I make no claims to vintage stylishness, in fact I usually look like I have been dragged through a hedge backwards, I'm just interested. But there seemed to be an envy/resentful/bitchy element out there directed at some rather blameless souls and that’s why at the beginning of this I said maybe I shouldn’t have included the question. On the other hand I suppose we all need to vent but c'mon, no reason for nasty trollish internetitus!

Personally I think anyone who makes an effort or is interesting or pleasant is fine and I enjoy seeing people enjoy their enthusiasm. I have my own bias (loathe East London style and think vintage stops at the sixties) but I'm aware of my little prejudices.

But what defines all of us is our own love of the styles, sounds and designs of the past. It is just a difference in how we display it. It may be that some people are posessive, they don't like to see things in the mainstream. I could be like that myself, I may have had an interest in the 30's and 40's for far longer than most of the people reading this but it provides no superiority. Some of the replies indicate that many of us are also as easy going.

‘My friends!’

‘I don't think that there is such a person.’

‘I don't have anyone. Anyone who embraces the vintage theme has to be positive - right?’

‘No one?!’

‘Tilda Swinton. And I love her.’

Throughout this post I have included quotes from the survey. Anonymous of course, if anyone want theirs withdrawn let me know. Also what do you think? Are we as bad as everyone else, is damning someone for their appearance fair or is it a way of demonstrating an independence from the herd? Or are the people in the vintage community, if it exists, just as bad? Please comment! pip pip, Redlegs. xx

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails