There are certain things in life
that I take very seriously.
For example: the fact that I cannot, for the life of me, find 20 oz disposable coffee cups sold outside of the Starbucks monopoly, or the notion that Kroy on RHWOM has devoted his life to the life-sucking bleach wig blonde Kim.
One thing to which I do not, however, devote time nor emotional energy, is
the fit of my clothing.
I know I've talked a lot about this lately, but only because it keeps coming up.
Every time I purchase something, I inevitably suffer a subtle comment,
and you just have take a look at the F/W 2013 collections to find example after example of models drowning in their delegated attire.
|10 Crosby Derek Lam Fall 2013|
|Proenza Schouler Fall 2013|
|Acne Fall 2013|
|Celine Fall 2013|
|Haider Ackermann Fall 2013|
|The Row Fall 2013|
|Christopher Kane Fall 2013|
|Givenchy Fall 2013|
I'm not the only one who's noticed.
Cathy Horyn of the NYT (I need to find a new fashion publication to stalk) acknowledged the phenomenon Monday with the question:
"Could the message in the roomier coats, formless sweaters and the exquisitely refined slob appeal of Miuccia Prada’s undone tweeds be: eat, enjoy! And, while you’re at it, pass the potatoes?"
I don't think so.
In fact, I have a feeling it might be just the opposite.
This week, a customer at one of my jobs commented that "only skinny girls can wear oversized clothing."
I scoffed and rolled my eyes, replying that anyone can do whatever they want.
It's those types of fashion "rules" that drive me absolutely batty.
Yet, despite my flippant response, she got me thinking...
What does roomier clothing actually do for a model,
and in turn, for the designer's line?
I can't help but think that there's an underlying body image issue at work here. Only skinny girls can wear clothing so large, because only skinny girls can find clothing so large. It's as if by wearing something 3 sizes too big, we're obnoxiously asserting that there does in fact exist a mainstream size so very far above our own. In a culture that (oh so practically) associates wealth with emaciation [and angry faces] I'm guessing this works in a designer's favor.
The "effortless" factor pops up here too. Clothing both tailored and expensive is too try-hardy (or, god forbid, put together).
But does cheap and oversized clothing convey the same 'effortless chic'? When do we cross into homeless person territory?
There's an interesting phenomenon in the midwest portion of the U.S. in which "coasties" (girls from NYC, Cali, and, misnomerly enough, Chicago) wear disconcertingly large, and yet very very expensive, tees. It's as if by spending so much money on something so simultaneously ill-fitting, they're somehow asserting just how disposable their
(parent's) income truly is.
(parent's) income truly is.
I don't know the answer.
I just know that I feel best in baggier tees and sweaters - a fact of which I'm now (after completing this post) a bit ashamed.
Have I fallen into a trap? I'm a simply deriving self-confidence from unfortunate social stereotypes?