Archive for the ‘American Vogue’ Category

Aspirational or unachievable ?

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 by mfn

If you’ve been reading my blog regularly, I think by now you would know that I love anything elegant. It just makes me happy! Elegance doesn’t need to be expensive. A lovely vase, magazine, coffee table book, desk, handbag, dress …. Sure it can be, and while it’s lovely to dream, it’s also about finding elegance in the little things too.

As my love of all things elegant has I imagine, been with me since birth (?) I had always assumed that naturally, everyone else loved kicking back with a delightful coffee table book, or magazine, or watching an old film for the delectable sets and clothing as much as I did. However, one Saturday morning, coming home post brunch with a pile of new magazines to indulge in, my flatmate at the time advised that she couldn’t stand all of the high end magazines I bought and refused to even look at them, as all they did was remind of what she couldn’t have and couldn’t afford. I was stunned and needless to say, almost fainted.

“How could you not look to the for inspiration, to seek out new places to travel, go, see, new books to read …… To help you explore?” I questioned.

“No. No. No. Too expensive, too out of my league, best left alone.” or words to that effect were advised.

Hmm. It left me a little bit shaken I must admit. How does one dream, grow or aspire without having such materials to hand? While I appreciate inspiration comes in different forms for everyone, wouldn’t life be a little bit dull or depressing without the ability to day dream yourself to a new place, new career, new life? And without such dreams, how does one work on turning these into a reality?

With the release of this month’s Vogue, and Kate Upon the on the cover and inside spread, who I find rather delightful and dare I say it aspirational, I wonder - does everyone else feel the same? Or do these images reflect a lifestyle that is just too out of reach to be enjoyable?

img-kateuptoncover

kate-upton-cover-02

kate-upton-cover-03

kate-upton-cover-04

kate-upton-cover-05

kate-upton-cover-06

kate-upton-cover-07

kate-upton-cover-08

kate-upton-cover-09_101910451168

Photography by Testino with styling by Tonne Goodman.

What is punk?

Friday, May 10th, 2013 by mfn

With the recent Met Gala theme and the sneaky suspicion that punk is back in fashion, I have been a little confused as to the definition of punk, in a clothing sense.

Previously, whenever I had thought of punk, Vivienne Westwood, Malcom McLaren and their shop ‘Sex‘ had come to mind. After reviewing the Vivienne Westwood book that I purchased after seeing her retrospective at the V&A almost 10 years ago, I realised that while I was on the money, I didn’t have a true understanding of how their influence changing clothing and fashion itself.

I didn’t realise for example, that rubber hadn’t been used in clothing before. Neither had obscure straps and zips. It was Westwood who bought this to life. Ahh, the penny it would appear, was starting to drop.

To ensure that I hadn’t missed anything else, I thought I had best double check the definition of punk and I must admit I was surprised by some of the references.

punk n. 1. A youth movement of the late ’70s characterized by anti-establishment slogans and outrageous clothes and hairsytles. 2. An inferior, rotten or worthless person or thing. 3. Worthless articles collectively. 4. Short for punk rock. 5. Rotten or worthless.

Ahh, so that explains why the lead singer of the Sex Pistols changed his name from Johnny Lyon to be Johnny Rotten. But the rotten references do seem a bit harsh.

However, I digress. The initial cause of my confusion was due to a punk photo gallery retrospective by Vogue.

That said, as my first draft of this blog was completed last week, I have had the luxury of being able to view the clothes worn to the Met Gala, prior to finishing my post. As such, I have realised that while there were many people that were as confused as I was about the actual definition of punk, in all honesty, punk it is something which isn’t really definable.  It’s as much about attitude as about clothing.  As such, while all of these shots don’t necessarily fit my ‘classic’ interpretation of ‘punk‘, they are indeed ‘punk‘ in some way or form.

Do you agree?

punk-in-vogue03

punk-in-vogue07jpg

punk-in-vogue08

punk-in-vogue10

punk-in-vogue12

punk-in-vogue14
punk-in-vogue09