Announcements If you're new to this blog, then read our guides to the basics: Skin (Part I), Skin (Part II), The Supernatural, Color Theory I, Color Theory II, Eyes, and Brushes. Also, check out the blogsale. Contents Favored Art Tattler the glamourai The Non-Blonde Perfume Shrine Lisa Eldridge Garance Doré Smitten Kitchen Into The Gloss Grain de Musc Lacquerized Res Pulchrae Drivel About Frivol The Selfish Seamstress Killer Colours Bois de Jasmin Glossed In Translation Jak and Jil Toto Kaelo Worship at the House of Blues I Smell Therefore I Am Food Wishes The Natural Haven Messy Wands 1000 Fragrances Moving Image Source Wondegondigo The Emperor's Old Clothes M. Guerlain Colin's Beauty Pages Barney's jewelry department Parfümrien loodie loodie loodie The Straight Dope Sea of Shoes London Makeup Girl Sakecat's Scent Project Asian Models Ratzilla Cosme Smart Skincare Illustrated Obscurity A.V. Club Tom & Lorenzo: Mad Style Eiderdown Press Beauty and the Bullshit La Garçonne Flame Warriors Everyday Beauty Fashion Gone Rogue Now Smell This Dempeaux Fashionista The Cut A Fevered Dictation Nathan Branch 101 Cookbooks ![]() |
O Brother Where Art Thou? was on tv last night. I watched a few minutes of it, inevitably thinking about the parallels between the Depression and now, and found it fitting to share a few simple, affordable pleasures I've been enjoying lately. ![]() ![]() ![]() Now is not the time to be buying $14 Clinique lipsticks. Instead, I paid $10 apiece for a couple of Colour Surge Bare Brilliance Waterviolet lipsticks at a Cosmetics Company Outlet. Just as well - Clinique's discontinued this color in the Bare Brilliance series. Labels: cabaret, clinique, mac, notes, o brother where art thou?, pendleton 3/31/2009 [3] ![]() It's not necessary to be model, fashion editor, or Olsen twin to dress well. What it does take is practice, review, and editing. To dress well requires the wearer to have spent time practicing and reviewing what works for her body, trying on a variety of cuts and proportions to determine which shapes best suit her. The wearer must also set aside the constraints of ego, popular culture, and notions of beauty in order to edit her outfit. Editing requires the wearer to wear what is essential to her outfit and eliminate the rest, as in the above picture. Kate Moss is well-dressed because she has chosen one statement accessory, the oversized scarf. Everything else recedes into the background. Were she to have worn brighter colors or baggier clothing, the scarf wouldn't have so much impact, and the outfit would have dragged her down. ![]() It's my opinion that the greatest style icons have endured because they dressed for their bodies first and fashion second. Neither Kate Moss nor Jackie Onassis have dressed spectacularly here. Their clothing is neither dressy nor period specific. Instead, they are well cut and fitted to their specific proportions. Having lean legs, Kate pulls of skinny jeans well, and her jacket is not so long or loose as to overwhelm her. Jackie's outfit is fitted close to accentuate her lean frame, and ankle-length pants can be elongating to women between 5'6" and 5'8". By dressing for their bodies first, their nods to fashion - the sunglasses, Kate's scarf - have a greater impact. Dressing for their bodies first also ensures an easier time of editing. By dressing with with the goal of enhancing one's shape, the desire to cave to the vagaries of fashion eventually lessons in proportion to the desire to dress well for oneself. While it takes time to understand which shapes and proportions work best for your features, it's a process that's worth the effort, as it will eventually save you the time and money of investing in clothes that will never truly work for you. The way I've found which cuts and proportions work for me is by going to department stores with the express intention of trying on a variety of clothes to see what works. I've found that going to a store with this goal in mind has kept me more attentive to what's in the mirror as opposed to whether or not I've found something to buy. I've been careful to note everything I like about a garment's fit, whether or not the garment fits overall. Taking account of how individual elements flatter - a fitted sleeve, the cut of a shoulder - makes the exercise more productive than simply looking for a perfect shirt. I've done this exercise several times, and while no single time has given me all the answers, each session has been instructive, and the cumulative information has significantly reduced both how much I buy and money spent on unsuccessful purchases. As far as editing goes, much of it occurs simply by dressing for your shape, as this alone weeds out a lot of possible cuts and silhouettes. After working so hard to find the cuts and proportions that flatter me, I'm not so eager to cover all that up with a ton of layers or with clothes that will disrupt the proportions. I'm more interested in finding what will work in concert with them. Admittedly, this initally felt a little boring to me. Having abandoned thoughtful editing for a couple of years, I felt constrained and impositioned with this return to thoughtfulness. The discipline has worked in my favor, though. No longer adopting an "anything goes" attitude to my wardrobe, I've significantly reduced the amount of clothing I have that I wish looked good on me and now possess a greater percentage of clothing that actually looks good on me. This has required some sacrifice. I'm a great fan of boyish dressing and had developed a sizeable collection of t-shirts, sweatshirts, and jeans, all baggy to some degree. Even in narrower cuts, this overall aesthetic will never truly suit my body or my personality. As such, I'm learning how to better dress to accomodate both my body and aesthetics. Being a child of the 90s, I'm not yet able to give up that boyish grunge/alternative aesthetic. As a compromise, I leave the sweatshirts at home and wear narrower t-shirts and jeans with either straight or bootcut legs. I've replaced the sweatshirts with a cropped bomber jacket or, alternately, narrowly cut grandpa cardigans, staying true to the lean, elongated shape I prefer. Bagginess is no longer allowed. When I start to feel constrained by the editing I've imposed on myself, I cheer myself with the new silhouettes I've adopted. While I've given up a lot of clothing that didn't work for me, this has given me the mental space to take in and appreciate what does work. These new revelations include finally finding the right cut and proportion of jeans, a body-conscious dress cut similar to a sheath while retaining the attitude of body-con, and a plethora of narrowly cut sweaters that both double as t-shirts and add polish and cool to my outfits. As much as these revelations have boosted my wardrobe, the real benefit has been in how I feel. Dressing boyishly was a way of hiding, and wearing baggy clothes didn't make me look or feel good. I've taken more pride in my body now that I've started to dress for it, and I'm no longer willing to settle for what doesn't work. I spend considerably less on clothes and like more of what I have. Overall, it's been worth setting aside my ideas of what should work and just appreciating what does work. Labels: fashion notes, kate moss 3/24/2009 [3] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Leather gilets may not be basics for everyone, but as someone doesn't wear jewelry, these would provide interest and detail to my outfits without the weight of metal. I'm torn between them. I think I like the brown version better, with its slightly easier shape and contrasting collar. The fit of the black version might end up looking tortured. I would be happy to wear them both, though. ![]() Labels: designer index, rick owens 3/17/2009 [4] I'm fascinated by fashion and beauty; I'm also fascinated by the way we write and talk about fashion and beauty. Despite the enormous size of the fashion and beauty industries, there is something very intimate about our personal experiences with them, so much so that I myself sometimes feel exposed writing about what I like (one reason I blog under a pseudonym). ![]() There are, of course, a number of reality shows devoted to fashion, from the addictive trainwreck America's Next Top Model and the creepy Ten Years Younger to the slightly (I said slightly!) less silly Project Runway. But What Not To Wear, the American version, is one of the few exclusively about the buying and wearing of clothes, and is also hugely successful. What Not To Wear's gimmick is re-dressing people who, almost invariably, are terrible dressers; it gets repetitive, since said terrible dressers usually fall into one of three categories: skanky, frumpy, or aggressively weird. In each episode, Stacy and Clinton, the hosts, "surprise" the terrible dresser in a location where his or her family and friends just happen to be hanging out, force him or her to watch videos of his or her sartorial sins ("we've been secretly filming you for the past two weeks"), and make snarky comments that are just this side of hurtful. (In the British series I'm pretty sure they go to the other side of hurtful.) The terrible dresser is given $5,000 for a new wardrobe, a list of "rules" to follow when selecting that wardrobe, a new haircut, a makeup consultation, and two days to shop, usually in Manhattan. ![]() And I'll say, the terrible dressers usually do end up looking better at the end of the week; they have clothes that fit (I assume TLC pays for tailoring) and generally look well put together in a J. Crew model sort of a way. There's definitely a What Not To Wear style: preppy, heavy on neutrals and jewel tones, made up in shimmery neutrals, with multiple brightly coloured accessories to add "a pop of colour" (an overused phrase on WNTW). Above, an example of a successful WNTW makeover. The new haircut is much better, the clothing is flattering; none of this is terribly innovative or exciting, but she looks nice, tidy, put together. The makeup is appropriate, enhancing without drawing attention to itself (a touch more powder might help, but that's a quibble). I'm not giving up my undereye concealer. In a way, I'm reluctant to criticize this style. It's useful, it's digestible, it's far better than dressing oneself in cheap acrylic-knit crap or wearing pyjamas in public. Its sameness is almost its point; for many activities, the wisest thing to do is to look tidily upper-middle-class, not high-maintenance, not eccentric, not difficult. One could even say that knowing how to dress appropriately is really a form of etiquette and not strictly fashion. (For example, when I look askance at people who wear bright colours to funerals, my objection is in no way aesthetic.) Stacy and Clinton like to emphasize that people get better jobs, attract more dates, etc., when made over; I think there's probably some truth to this. Hell, if I look at my own closet I see that I tend to follow What Not To Wear "rules"; I own lots of fitted sweaters, dark jeans, pencil skirts, jewel-toned tops. I may dream of spending my life in silk dresses, three-piece suits and vintage heels, but I don't actually do it. At the same time, What Not To Wear style is very one-size-fits-all, and by its nature, it's rushed, approximate. WNTW guests can't take the time to find the one perfect bag or pair of shoes that they'll use day in, day out, for years to come. Many of them can't be persuaded that neutrals aren't inherently boring, hence WNTW's "pop of colour" aesthetic. (Personally, I think wearing magenta shoes with a neutral pantsuit to "add interest" is more than a little precious.) $5,000 seems like a lot of money to spend on clothes, but it's not enough to spend willy-nilly without regard to quality, especially if you need winterwear and supportive undergarments and there won't be another $5,000 available next year. When Stacy and Clinton send their guests back home with a bag of $40 shoes, one wonders how long they'll hold up. That may be my own major issue with What Not To Wear: its occasional, perplexing impracticality. I recall a couple of guests from Toronto who were strongly discouraged from buying flat winter boots. Toronto has mild weather by Canadian standards, but even so, winter boots are not optional in Toronto; it snows, it hails, it gets icy, and even if you can afford to take taxis wherever you go, you can't always get one. I haven't been to New England in the winter, but I expect it's similar, if not worse. I regard my own flat, practical winter boots with the enthusiasm of a child contemplating Brussels sprouts, but I still wear them everywhere in the winter because it beats salt-staining my high heels or cracking my ankles. A show that exists to explain Clothing 101 to ordinary folks shouldn't gloss over the fact that ordinary folks frequently need to do unglamorous things. Also, the idea of wearing white pumps with a black pinstriped suit makes me a bit ill. Well, it does. Labels: culture notes, what not to wear 3/15/2009 [6] We all dress to allure, whatever your particular style. My own style is body-conscious dressing, lacking the curves for flimsy slip dresses ofr the personality for ruffles. While body-conscious dressing is associated with the extreme fit and cut of bandage dresses, I define it much more literally as consciously framing the body, allowing the wearer's dress to act as accessory and her body as the statement. For all its boldness, this is a very minimal loook that leaves jewelry, big hair, and excessive layering to other, weaker statements. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Labels: fashion notes 3/11/2009 [5] At present my wardrobe is rather too big than too small, even keeping in mind the skinny jeans I had to retire (for fashion, yes, but I also gained five pounds). I am trying to purchase more selectively, bearing in mind that sometimes it is the impulse buys, the things one has to have on sight, that see the most use. My student life is (I hope!) coming to an end, which means most of my purchases for the future should be work-appropriate, but at present, when I look forward to spring, I'm dreaming of the weekends. ![]() I don't normally care for prints, nor am I normally flattered by Empire-line tops that cover up my waist, but I would love something like this Liberty print top from Cacharel. This muddy, muted floral print remind me of fairytale books of a certain age, specifically a version of Red Riding Hood that was read to me when I was a small child, published at that time in the '70s when homespun "naturalness" was the thing and clear, bright colours were out of fashion. Red Riding Hood -- there depicted without a hood, as a pale-faced little girl with thick black hair -- followed a trail of pink, white, and orange flowers into the murky darkness of the woods. I can't do simple, sunny prettiness -- this iteration of the top would look awful on me -- but in spring, one wants something with flowers. ![]() I've become a fan of Level 99: their trousers are cut well for my slim-but-hippy frame, their fabrics have the right blend of heft and give, and they generally avoid the rhinestone-on-the-butt affectations of other brands. I rather favour the Ariana trousers above: casual and stretchy, yes, but that purple shade is such fun -- almost, but not quite, neutral. ![]() My love affair with Re-Mix Vintage continues, although shipping their shoes up to Canada is a pain. (Trove, in Toronto, has apparently taken on some stock, but that doesn't help me much out East.) These 1920s-style vented T-straps have shot to the top of my summer list: so light and fanciful, yet prim, and I have enough black shoes. ![]() With spring comes the search for a truly easy summer dress, one I can throw on with a cardigan and go -- to work (at least casual Friday), to shop, wherever. I like the lines of this Vanessa Bruno Athé dress, twisted jersey is a great weakness of mine and the fabric actually looks substantial enough not to cling in awkward places, but honestly, I will probably end up sewing my own. Current fashions are turning my shopping list into a list of nos: no bagginess, no mini, no maxi, no strapless bra required, please. Fantasy item: ![]() This RM by Roland Mouret dress is absurdly beyond my budget. It would refuse to speak to anything else in my closet. I would have to put on a full face of makeup before even going near that startling, uncompromising blue, somewhere between the Pan Am logo and the deepest of swimming pools. But oh, that pencil skirt, those perfect little cap sleeves, that sharp, precise pleating -- an origami Galaxy. I love it. Labels: cacharel, level 99, re-mix vintage, roland mouret, shoes, vanessa bruno 3/07/2009 [3] NEED My spring shopping list focuses exclusively on basics. Having lost a bit of weight recently, I'm less in need of sartorial reinvention than I am of having clothes that fit. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Being small, I best suit dresses that skim the body. Despite the prevailing belief that bandage and body-conscious dresses are overly tight, properly fitted ones hug and flatter the body. Their design is no accident; the placement of each stripe of cloth is such that these dresses make the most of their wearer's bodies, giving them their best possible shape. Plus, they have the wearable ease of shift dresses. WANT ![]() Labels: fashion notes, gap, urban outfitters 3/07/2009 [1] Having very thick, course, dry, wavy hair (as well as a lot of it), it has taken me twenty-seven years to figure out how to manage and take care of it. As a teenager, I cut my hair into the very short cut you see in my sketchbook, in large part so I wouldn't have to deal with so much hair. As it turns out, short hair is a lot of work. I ended up using a straightening lotion and blow-dryer for ten minutes every morning to style my hair. After a few years of that, I cut my hair a little bit shorter and used Bumble & Bumble Sumo Tech every day to give my hair shape and hold. About a year ago, I got tired of having extremely short hair. I'd had variations of the same cut for ten years, and while it was flattering, I needed a change of pace. I decided to grow my hair somewhere between a bob and shoulder-length. Although this plan never saw fruition, during the few months I tried to grow my hair out, I had the opportunity to stop hiding it behind hair cuts and products and truly learn how to take care of and enhance the hair texture I have. In the process of learning how to care for my hair, I've found it's far more important to actually care for my hair than it is to style it. I suppose that's true of all hair types, but I feel it's especially true for dry, wavy, and curly hair. Without proper moisturization, these hair types quickly start to look and feel dry, compromising even the best hair style. Hair has to look healthy in order to look good, and it's easier and cheaper to actually care for your hair than it is to load it up with chemicals to reverse the damage of previous chemicals/heat tools. It's also easier and cheaper to work with your hair texture than to try to turn it into something it isn't. As my hair has a lot of volume and wave, the only product I need is to use something to help hold its shape. This is a huge relief, having previously believed I needed to use force to coax my hair into manageability. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Labels: beauty notes, bumble and bumble, hair 3/02/2009 [2] |
Subscribe to The Mnemonic Sense Most Wanted The Beauty Primer Lookbook Bestsellers Consumer Diaries Closet Confidential On The Label Beauty Notebook The Hit List Color Me In The Makeup Artist Wedding Bells Globe Trotter Desert Island perfume notes beauty notes fashion notes culture notes minimalism chypre arc floral arc fresh arc masculines arc gourmands & orientals arc Archives August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 August 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 March 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 June 2013 July 2013 Images Photobucket |