At last week's blogger panel - someone mentioned something to which I admittedly hadn't given much thought:
We haven't had a major revolution in fashion in....
I mean, think about it. What's new today isn't really new, just a modification of an old standby suddenly deemed "in" again by one or another anointed in-deemer. It's actually sort of mind-boggling to think about what a truly "new" ("Never used or worn before now") style would be? Potted plants on our heads? A wood-only material aesthetic? Lightening-shaped eyebrows?
And frankly, even those fall short of the true definition.
I mean, Never?
As in ever?
And even when some concept is supposedly "revolutionary" [i.e. white between Labor & Memorial Day] ...
|Source: LeFashion, We WoreWhat?, The Man Repeller|
Well...I rest my case. But of course I'll copy it tomorrow - just because it looks so cool on them.
Anyhow. I thought it would be interesting to compare a couple of my favorite recent Madison street looks with some of their corresponding historical inspirations.
|Ashlyn. Wearing: shirt: Urban Outfitters, pants: thrifted, shoes: Boston Store, wrist accessories: thrifted, earrings: Urban outfitters. [compared to 80s corset tops & loosely-tapered trousers]|
Interesting tid-bit: the high-waisted pant apparently became popular during WWII when woman couldn't afford new styles, so they took their husbands' pants instead.
|Erika. Wearing: shoes: Ma Jolie, dress: Urban Outfitters, bag: Urban Outfitters, glasses: Urban. [compared to 1950s cocktail dresses)|
|Kelly. Wearing: sweater: Gap, skirt: American Apparel, shoes: unknown, necklace: Juicy, purse: Louis Vuitton, sunglasses: D&G. [compared to 90s grunge and 70s maxi skirts]|
Did you know men started the ballet flat trend back in the 16th Century? They were called "pompes".
Can't wait till trends start working in reverse. Do man purses count?