Superficial, moi?

I had a conversation recently that made me think. It was on people adopting a particular style wholesale but not liking the music or subculture associated with it. I thoroughly support people's right to wear what they want, even if it is a rather revolting garment like a burka. Not my body. But it was food for thought.

It has never really occurred  to me that someone would dress like a mod and not like mopeds, Italian movies and the Small Faces.  Similarly what on earth is going on if someone adopts that most musically inspired of appearances 'rockabilly' but doesn't really love rock n roll or r & b? I think we are mainly magpies but what of those who do seem to adopt the whole shebang?  Potentially someone might really want to look like a metal head whilst preferring to listen to Cheryl Cole and surely there is nothing wrong with this?

On the other hand as groups of music/era/subculture fans use their appearance to recognise each other and form a cohesive community it must be downright irritating to get someone saying they just like the clothes but expropriating your social markers wholesale. As Londoners we get away with a lot, but some people have had to endure a lot to defiantly express their musical and cultural preferences. 

However the risk is that you find yourself being 'holier than thou' and a bit elitist.  I have to say  however from experience of a long time as a Goth (once a Goth always a Goth....) that those amongst us who didn't get the music, movies, novels and style behind it didn't stay around for long.

My conclusion is that if you just like the way something looks, sailor jerry tattoos or whatever that's great, but if you don't like the music and subculture you cannot be expected to be taken seriously by those who do.  You can't really call yourself a mod girl or a rockabilly girl if you just want a dusty do or to wear your hair in a bandana. Well you can, but who is going to believe it? 

Thats my personal opinion, what do you think?

Redlegs xx

Fashion trends from a vintage view point...

In case any of you have been so far into the 1940's (or in A&E like me.. a long tiresome story) so as not to have noticed it has been London Fashion Week. By definition the 'looks' the fashion media have been tossing to us mere low level consumers are already yesterday's tinned tomatas. For a more cutting edge and indeed informed view of what is happening I direct you to the indefatigueable Katie Chutzpah's and Lee Clatworthy's posts on her excellent blog.  I thought however I would turn my jaded vintage peepers upon a few of the fashion 'stories' being sold to us and consider from the vintage point of view, whether they are fairytales or nightmares? So lets start:

1970's glamour, Charlie's Angels, Camel. I am aware that some eejyots will describe this as a vintage look. It isn't. I'm not the right person to comment on this as I remember with a shudder the clothes of the 70's. Fair enough the designers are not really channelling nylon knitted tabards, flares and clogs Croydon circa 75. Nor were designers in 1975, but it can easily come to that. This is a look that is really limited to the tall, the thin, the blonde and the American. Because it all seems to be pale and tasteful and browny/beigy. The other problem with it is that it needs luxe fabrics and will look cheap and nasty with a High Street sheen.  On the positive side a good 70's camel coat was a quotation of 40's and 50's coats as worn by Grace Kelly et al. If you are blonde and slim one of these could look splendid with your pin curls.  The other possible good result of this trend is the era's interest in borrowing 30's nautical looks; there may be some decent wide cut trousers, stripes and cotton out there. I quite like 70's jewellery, but that is just me in non-vintage mode.

The chunky wooly aviator style jackets and gillets are also in fashion again. These make you look like an inuit and if you have breasts it looks like you have been stuffed into a bit of roof insulation. Grazia has said that made cheaply they will look terrible and coined the phrase 'Chaviator Jackets'. But the whole point of high fashion is it's money making spiral into low fashion and if it can't look ok on a pretty 14 year old who has bought it from a stall on East Lane as a mass look it is a curse.

VintageVerdict: Not too good, might be some cruise wear type stuff and wide trousers. Odd decent coat. Otherwise pretty useless (the Studio 54 vibe would be better by far).

The 'new' minimalism/simplicity. No and before you ask I have no idea what the old minimalism was, when you think philosophically about it, minimalism can only be, well, minimal.  Funnily enough I have a soft spot for this kind of stuff. It is not really minimal, just stripping away the frills and furbelows so we can appreciate the fabric and shape. I'm not a fashionista so I am not interested in the 'construction', they mean the pattern cutting and sewing? Why not just say sewing? I digress. Simplicity gives you choice, a full vintage red lipped maquillage and set hair is set off well by simple classy silhouettes.

Simple shapes can work well for vintage tastes, they may seem very modern but the 30's and 50's were as much about shape and block colour as embellishment. For me a 40's or early 50's suit is more about shape than anything else. When these minimalist items hit the high street (if they do) the coats and jackets will work brilliantly with pencil skirts and a Lea Stein Brooch and reasonable mid range manufacturers should be able to make a decent fist of it.  

Vintage Verdict: Depends on the wearer, I like boxy and assymetrical styles in charcoal grey. As a top to toe look it might be severe, but then again what's wrong with severity, it's not all little darling buttons, lace and frou frou after all.

The New Lady-like, back to the Fifties or more simply put: Mad Men Rip Off. This would appear to be a no - brainer, pretty Horrockses style dresses with waists and unusual colours and fabrics. The only problem is that fashion predictably went for the least stylish and most fashion friendly of the Madmen ladies: Betty Draper, glacial, improbably thin, blonde and stupid.  So the dresses are all sleeveless, or they will be when they hit the High Street. 

I'm thinking that if we look at the staider quality High Street brands such as Planet or Alexon there may be some very good fifties style dresses and suits cropping up. I fear that what will happen, and has already happened as for once the designers were late with this trend, is that the waists will be too high and wide (can't see girls getting into support garments) and the volume entirely reliant on waist gathers rather than fabric yardage and pleating. Still can only be a good thing, I have already noticed some nice fabric patterns on the racks other than the hideous digital prints that have been plaguing us for the last year or two.

Vintage Verdict: Good for vintage lovers although we are unlikely to be spoiled for choice.

I'm going to follow this up with an Autumn/Winter 'vintage' fashion season round up, any makers or designers or companies out there who have ideas of what their vintage Autumn/Winter look will be please contact me or send me an image.

Comments are as ever welcome, 'specially as I am temporarily an invalid : (

Things that Ming...

Aaaaarrrrghh!

Things that go ‘Ming’.

I think all of us have things we see that make us go ‘uck!’ The variation in what this may be is entertaining. As an early 80’s Goth, zillions of piercings, brandings, implants, acres of tattoos have never piqued more than a polite interest in me. Tattoos fascinate as art work if they are good, but I’m just as interested in embroidery. Embroidered skin .. I bet someone has done it. I’m also aware, being a historian by education that many of these seemingly radical modifications have been around for a long time. Although I emerged from the 80’s with nothing more than pierced ears I see a tatt or heavy piercing and feel an affinity with its bearer. I am more likely to get on with a body-modified person than not.

There have been some very major shifts in what is perceived as acceptable clothing even during my lifetime. Visible bra straps, bare flesh regardless of figure, hair root-regrowth and indoor- wear as outdoor- wear spring to mind. My gran would have been horrified by all of these. Some changes are laudable, a case of women responding to their own comfort and squaring their appearance with busy lives. Some trends are denounced as ‘chavvy’: orange fake-tans, square ended nail-extensions and big hair. But it is hard to take this attitude seriously when the so-called upper class merely adopt a more polished version of the same look. Fundamentally one should support women’s right to wear what they choose whatever it is, although I draw the line at the Burkha as I not sure choice always applies. But there are things that just set my teeth on edge. I’m going to list them because I am curious to see whether anyone shares my distaste, or am I just truly a mad old reactionary hag?!

Toe cleavage. Looks nasty. Until very recently it was the sign that your shoes did not fit or that you had mutant toes. They look like a little row of, forgive the vulgarity, bottom cracks on your feet. But I think the design is to blame as I note the shoes are often also too big. Massive gaps between the heel and the edge of the shoe, the pedi black hole is another sin I don’t understand.

Beautiful, straight, shiny-white US style teeth. Because they dominate the face when someone smiles and it reminds me of the skull beneath the skin. It makes faces look bony and drawn. The whitest thing in a face should be the whites of the eyes, not the bones in our mouths. White teeth are not natural, teeth are a million shades of cream to yellow. Geometrical straightness is Stepford Wife territory. Glistening teeth are only sexy in vampires, and they are far from regular in shape and blood-stained.

Waist confusion. Not under the bust unless you are pregnant, not halfway down your hip. Same place it has always been. In the middle.

Gladiator Sandals. Recently revealed to be one of men’s most hated items of female attire and for once the beggars are right. There is nothing good about them. They may be fierce, when flat and worn by a big hairy gladiator that is. They make every woman’s legs look dumpy. They are uncomfortable, there is that toe issue again. I suspect they are pushed because they use cheap leather off-cuts and cost nothing to make so they are in addition a rip off.

Padded bras in big sizes. Whats this about? There is no need for the equivalent of cricket pads if you are a D cup upwards. What is it for? I understand trying to get a smooth silhouette under a t-shirt but otherwise I just think it is demented. Sick of luxury lingerie filled with kapok. I don’t need a duvet wrapped around my boobies. Some decent structure without nasty wires would be better, I rate What Katie Did.

Big hair on the thin. Some one has taken a troll doll, put the body through a mangle but left the hair. Looks good on athletic eighties supermodels and Italian Movie stars. Makes Cheryl Cole look like a fly-switch.

Adults dressing like toddlers. All those grown up men in those stooped rubber sandally things wearing baggy bright shorts with twiddle pockets. Their brightly coloured t-shirts with surfer dudey action designs. Walking beside their 2 year olds wearing the same kit. Often accompanied by a middle age spread and thinning hair. Doing themselves no favours.


Beige, caramel, tan, safari all those colours. Supposed to be classic and classy but they are all shades that look like the fabric has been infused with bodily secretions. But I mainly hate them because I look rubbish in them and they are making my attempts to purchase a trench coat more like a search for the Holy Grail.

Many things that drive others nuts pass me by, I have no problems with the Vicky Pollard look, ghetto bling, orange skin tones, mutton dressed as lamb. These are at least people dressing up in what they think of as style. I am more annoyed by Mimsy unimaginative middle England dressing, life is short why be dull? But we all have things that push our buttons, clothes I favour do I know irritate or simply bewilder others. I don’t mind if people are amused by a woman with full 40’s up do and a sailor dress but I object when some dullard entirely dressed by Banana Republic stares.

Do young women dress badly?

There is, despite the efforts of the fashion industry and media, a chasm between who they feel encapsulates style, elegance and individuality and those that the public, i.e. us, admire. The chasm is being mined by a series of robust excavators. There is the older woman, the alternative woman, the cynic, the individualist, the eccentric and the downright doesn’t give a crap woman. All out there, at the cliff face. But it has ever been so. We get the abridged version of glamour. For every Marilyn, Ava and Rita there were a horde of heavily promoted starlets, well known in their day but now forgotten. No doubt they irritated the hell out of our grans. I know my mother’s retort to what my louche great uncle would have described as ‘dolly birds’ mentioned in a recent television 60’s nostalgia fest was “well we never thought much of her”. It goes beyond fashion, whilst I lament the execrable taste of todays teens, fortysomethings certainly hated my Gothtastic teenage appearance in days gone past.

You might describe me as biased, being an, ahem, older lady but at the moment it is the women, rather than the girls dressing with pzazz. This despite the fact younger girls have the lissom looks and slim limbs. I suspect it is because their role models, as pushed by the media are so lacking in flair. Perhaps also a lack of distinctiveness about the noughties has led to a great deal of nostalgia but the nostalgia is being poorly translated. Will Lady Gaga and Cheryl Cole be theSiouxsie Siouxs and Blondies of the era when today's teenagers are 40? the jury is most definitely out.

Just to be contentious I am going to list a few women who impress me. Not necessarily beautiful but just a bit memorable. Completely personal. But I would be interested to hear other impressions, if only for further confirmation of the fact that the media are getting it wrong or alternatively that I am just an opinionated old bat! Certainly I am no style maven myself but then again I am not plastered all over magazines. I am also going to select a few media favourites who not only leave me cold but mildly infuriated. But I will start with the 'I likes!'

Eva Green. Not very famous and doesn’t appear a lot on the red carpet but when she does...well just look at the picture above. Particularly notable is Ms Green's approach to posing for the paparazzi. I always seem to remember her photographs. She has this velvety, vampiric slippery thing going on. Along with Kristin Scott Thomas she looks comfortable wearing haute couture. If Ms Green was less attractive she would still, I suspect carry her clothes comfortably and I get the impression that a stylist is not imposing their will upon her. Grown-up Goth glamour.
Lily Allen. A contentious choice but whether she is choosing them or not I like most of the stuff she rolls up wearing. Full marks for resisting tat, being prepared to wear daft wigs and happily accepting bags of stuff from Chanel. In fact her French school girl look is very chic. And I also like that heavy fringed daft spaniel look.I also applaud is her rejection of fashionable skankiness

Marion Cotillard. OK, she’s French and now has the entire raft of French designers at her delicate fingertips. But again, it is that quirkiness, I have seen a couple of pre-fame photographs and she had that tendency then. Her clothes don’t always look fantastic but they are often interesting. Note in the picture above she is prepared not to have big blown out hair.

Camila Batmanghelidh. For colour, verve and those head dresses. This is a woman who has her style and despite being very busy with Kid’s Company keeps it up simply because she likes it. This knocks spots off of the faux trendy ethnic accessories donned by Trustafarians. Clothes that make you want to know the wearer.

Cate Blanchett. If you look closely she is not a 'pretty' beauty but a striking woman. And yes whilst her clothes veer on the blandly tasteful side they suit her and are often accompanied by surprising accessories. Seems when things go wrong the stylist has had a hand in it. But often this lady does look really elegant in the old school tense. Tilda Swinton has an element of the same kind of strong minded simplicity in her clothing.

Lulu Guinness.

Daphne, Jasmine and Lulu Guinness. Must be something in that family brew. Tranny heels and skunk hair, little forties dresses and a casual formality and handbags, red lips and pretty little suits. Spending their Guinness fortunes in a way quite unlike the Hiltons..

Jasmine Guinness

Now for the others…


The Olsen Twins. Cadaverous junky looks juxtaposed with expensive purposely – bad hair. Forgivable if you are Courtney Love but not if you are..well I am not sure what they are. Probably nice girls…but the clothes, and the posture! Someone should nail a couple of Dictionaries to their heads. As a Gothy type I appreciate the about to die approach to looks, but it requires a little romance and poeticism...

Alexa Chung. Yes I know I pick on her, but her clothes are ugly, and dull, and ill fitting and yet she is the fashion icon. All the boys had her hair cut in the 70’s, a scruffy non-hairstyle redolent of David Cassidy exiting a wind tunnel.. Her boyfriend is cute, but he doesn’t get anywhere near the attention she gets. He’s smarter too. Not difficult. Her recent rant was that US television doesn’t know how to handle gutsy independent women. Of course not, not the nation that spawned Julia Child, Martha Stewart and Oprah.

Gwyneth Paltrow. That chilly blonde farm girl beauty needs sharp masochistic tailoring but this actress for some reason makes even the most directional clothing look bland. And those horrid clumpy shoes. Sadly she has taken to wearing Stella McCartney’s dreary shapeless designs. Could probably rock a modern take on Grace Kelly but won’t because everyone would notice (so what?). Specialises in ugly shoes.

Female R&B divas. Oh and Cheryl Cole who is an R & B wannabee diva. Is it down to Lady Gaga? This explosion of trashy angular Ming the Merciless outfits, look at Rihanna. If not this approach it is porno spangles. It goes with the mad gospel style sub Whitney warbling. Those old skool hip hop girls looked a lot more fun. Mind you in those days they were not just the whipping girls for rap singers sordid imaginings. Pfah!

Labour cabinet ministers. Yes I know it is not their job to look stylish. But what with pudding bowl haircuts and badly cut suits they are not representing their core working-class voters. Why not sharp suits, heels, red lippy and a ‘shut up Tory boy’ stare? Anyway I thought it was unfair, int the interests of equality, to entirely concentrate on slagging off the youngers!

Well that’s my list in a nutshell! I’d love to hear if anyone agrees or disagrees or would like to add others. I personally know lots of intimidatingly stylish women of all ages. It’s a purely personal, and admittedly a shade bitchy opinion from someone who is not a great exemplar of fashion itself. But I am sick of being told how to look like people who look like crap. Especially as with ageism in mind they now sometimes tag on ‘at any age!’

My waist is above my bum, not right under my bust...

Ever since returning to Blighty back in '05 it seems the high street has been awash with a cut that veers somewhere between 1960's baby doll ingenue and Jane Austen Empire line. Fashion is fickle but to be quite frank I am surprised this particular cut has maintained its popularity within younger brands and cheaper stores.

Why? Well frankly, having a high waistline is profoundly unflattering to the vast majority of body shapes in this country. For some reason fashion pundits are always referring to the 'slimming' effects of empire line tops and frocks. This may be the case if it is subtle. Otherwise the result is simply that you look pregnant, fat, ungainly and your bust starts to resemble something like the prow of a tug, or something you could organise objet d'art upon. They makes us look like pregnant heiffers. This is a fact that has been observed again and again in the press. Three years ago, in March 2007, the Telegraph's Sarah Mower pointed out that:

".... the British are in the grips of their own special fashion delusion: the smock. Sometimes it takes people from other cultures - such as men and foreign visitors - to point out that there's something absurd going on.

The first warning came from my husband, who jovially exclaimed in the pub: "Oh look, have you seen? That girl from EMI's pregnant."

"No," I hissed. "It's a smock. Fashion."

The second came from a Los Angeles Times journalist whom I sent to Topshop during London Fashion Week. The next time I sat next to her she said: "When did they turn it over to maternity wear?"

I hate the smock. Only babies should wear them; grown women, never. Last time they were in fashion - about 1970, I seem to remember - only teenagers (and pregnant women) wore them, and then with long skirts or flares. Teenagers in those days were flat-chested. Women now are not, and the ubiquitous wearing of under-wired double D-cup bras renders the 2007 smock look, well, pregnant, or at least sleazy in a What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? sort of way.'?"

Maternity evening wear?

I concurr. The ultra gathered smockiness has been superceded by the complete dominance of the high waistline. This cannot be blamed on haute couture or designers. Their collections have contained a plethora of shapes and cuts. Who, also can forget the influence of designers such as Westwood or Mouret who champion waists and hips? Notably the high end high street retailers who cater for an older clientele have dresses with waists, sadly their prices exceed my current spending power.

Distinct edge of child prostitute about this one, or maybe she's pregnant too...

The blame for this continuing slavishness to the shape can probably be laid at the feet of the current crop of teenage style leaders, the least stylish since those who inhabited the mid 70's. When, come to think of it, this shape denying cut was last dominant. Perhaps the super skinny feel that being by wearing clothing that is unforgiving to all but the borderline anorexic they are showing off their slimness? The problem is they can still be skinny and pregnant. Men now resist asking apparently pregnant women if they would like a seat on the tube, as the bearded one has complained it is impossible to tell if someone is up the duff. The genuinely bun in ovened who often have to adopt tents are being deprived of comfort by their sisters' poor fashion choices!

Ooooh, fattening and greige!

Fashion magazines of the cheaper kind also don't help as their stock response to the size 14 -18 lady in their make-overs are routinely dumped into some form of tailored smock over skinny trousers. This is partially due to the percieved unfashionableness of the wrap dress. The wrap dress is of course genuinely skimming and flattering; why has this become de trop and the fabric equivalent of a balloon suit remained popular? Is it something to do with the times? surely recession tends to breed interesting fashion, think of the stylish recessions of the past. Maybe this white collar recession has not bred rebellion and edge but a big national whinge of 'why me?' Perhaps this urge to look like fat, childish creatures is a call for help. Who knows, all I know is that it is boring the hell out of me. I suspect it is one of the factors, along the popularity of a hundred shades of griege, that has driven me towards retro and vintage influenced styling.

The baby doll look had some element of novelty in the 60's on a Bardot, but now it simply looks a bit skanky. Somehow our so called 'it' girls don't look like fresh ingenues like Julie Christie but just inelegant. It is about time someone called time on the whole thing and that the high street realised it's important, mid-level, 30s-50's customers are not being served. It is about time we told them all to 'SMOCK OFF'.

And that includes you Alexa......