"CLASHING" is for the NONcommittal.

In my brief 5 15 minutes of fame last fall, 

I insisted upon asserting, [with a relative degree of false confidence], 

that "clashing [was] in". 

Now, as a chronic strange dresser, 

I was likely always a proponent of what appeared to be "clashing" to the untrained (read normal) eye. 
So to insist upon the notion that it was, indeed, en vogue, was a bit bandwagony of me, if I absolutely do say so myself. 

Obviously, I'd heard it elsewhere, liked it, embraced it, and eventually preached it to the (uncaring) masses. 

And by masses I mean the 2 people from my high school who happened to catch me at 8am saturday morning on their parent's old TV. 

AND TO THE POINT:

Today I want to argue that if "clashing" is "in", 

it's not, in reality, "clashing", per say,- but instead a matching of a novel sort. 

If the combination of two colors appeals to you, 

and you commit to it,

who's to say that they don't have some inherit property that makes them just as compatible as say, white and black?

omgzzzzzzzimamodel

I mean, white and black are as different as . . . 

.....white and black, 

but they still "match", 

right?

So why not olive (puke) green and true blue?

shirt: A. Wang (thrifted)(similar & here), pants: Gap, shoes: Nine West, blazer H&M (similar)

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for this INGENIOUS pairing, because, like a 1st grader dying to wear all of her new clothes on the first day of school, I too could not wait. 

The shirt and shoes were acquired at the same moment - thus inducing the labor and subsequent birth of this ensemble.

Which has now been worn 5 times within the last week. 

but I washed it (once) 

I promise.

Keep on "clashing" on you kool kangaroos. 

Cheers.

Photos by Brian Kristoph

Blog love me?