The image above is from the GLORIOUS film Funny Face, where Audrey Hepburn plays a bookish boho (her awesome finger-snapping dancing scene later coopted by the Gap for their Audrey pants commercial) who unwittingly becomes a fashion model for a Diana Vreeland-like editor of a magazine called Quality (modeled on Bazaar), for a fashion shoot about beautiful young women who also think:"The woman who thinks must come to grips with fashionable attire. A woman can be beautiful, as well as intellectual. See facing page." Ha!) And then of course the Audrey character falls in love with the Richard Avedon-like photographer, played by an (old but still charming and heart-melting) Fred Astaire. And models some amazing clothes.
This is what I originally thought of when I heard the hullabaloo regarding Oprah magazine's recent fashion spread, "Spring Fashion Modeled by Rising Young Poets," where various comely young female poets modeled fairly boring fashion as would be expected from the middlebrow mag (and ripping off the felt-letter motif of Kate Durbin's costumes that are made by Mandate of Heaven, after originally contacting Kate to see whether she'd test for the shoot - although obviously Kate's costumes are far more delicious and revolutionary). Here's the link to the Oprah spread. Sunday morning I can't seem to figure out how to copy and paste an image here. But my point I mean is that writers and artists and fashion mags actually have more of a history than one might think (V. Woolf regularly profiled by British Vogue, Frida Kahlo's rings on the cover of American Vogue, think of the Surrealist Elsa Schiaparelli, her sweaters with their trompe l'oeil images, Gertrude Stein wore the "new French style," Balmain, and once wrote: "Fashion is the real thing in abstraction).
one of Kate's reading costumes, which to me is like a Warhollian subversion of Claude Cahun's
boxer self-portrait: Don't Kiss Me I'm In Training.
more Kate - I hope she was reading her Red Riding Hood poems
even Gertrude and Alice loved their couture
even Gertrude and Alice loved their couture
This morning, I am reading David Orr's essay on the spread (the back page of the Book section - finally! something I want to read in the NYT Book Review! I am all aflutter and aghast) and felt compelled to stick my finger in here. Like most of the poets who were commenting on my Facebook feed, David Orr is formally "against" any sort of intervention between poetry and fashion, or at least between poetry and a woman's magazine. A lot of the comments on FB regarding it actually made me feel a little shameful for half a day regarding my love of both: fashion magazines and (higher-brow) fashion (sometimes we LOVE to look even if we cannot buy!), this idea circulating that poets must be above the allure of a gorgeous cashmere cardigan or a menswear blazer that is well-constructed or a lovely dress (although Cixous writes lovingly of shopping in Paris boutiques! of fingering these cashmere cardigans!) I mean, I wasn't into the O magazine spread because a)they ripped off Kate, and should have been smart enough to use her (well, hopefully real fashion magazines will get the hint someday) and b)the clothes weren't interesting. Although I liked the bow-tie one and the one with the silvery dress with the white bouffant wig with the lettering (which is also uncannily like one of Kate and Aramanth's Excess Exhibit photos). Just think of what awesomeness Grace Coddington could have done! (I'm thinking of when she used all of these lions of visual arts like Kara Walker and John Currin for her spread on Dorothy and Oz with Keira Knightly). Pretty young women wearing clothes that could have come from J.Crew or Anthropologie is boring (although hey, I find pleasure in a well-designed catalogue), and there was no interplay between their poetry and the clothes, or about fashion and poetry.
David Orr in this piece at first admonishes himself for his initial aversion to this sort of lay-out (although coming back around against, a neat rhetorial trick). He writes: "it's all too easy for Important Literary Folk to sneer at anything involving fashion. It's so girly you know, and real writers are never girl - ah. So the lingering gender biases of the literary world are often at play when readers cringe at the pairing of poetry with the stuff of women's magazines." No, no, wait, Mr. Orr, say what you originally meant. Say what you thought. Fashion is too girly to write about for poetry, girly is too frivolous for poetry...I am reading so much about the modernists now, as you know, and again and again the male lions castigate the women writers for being too feminine ( too excessive, too emotional) while vampirizing these same qualities within their texts. The greatest compliment bestowed upon a woman writer of that period was that she was somehow androgynous (i.e. not feminine) or that she had a masculine mind (which Tom wrote of his Vivie). Fashion is too frivolous for literature, although writers like DH Lawrence and Gustave Flaubert (a pre-modernist, I know just go with me) luxuriate in writing clothes and sensualism within their novels, a way both to luxuriate at beauty, and perhaps, sneer at silly women (I haven't worked this all out yet, I cannot decide whether they are in drag, a la Marcel DuChamp as Rrose Sselvay, or whether there is a sort of desire for the feminine).
David Orr goes on to write about the "chasm" between poetry (of the higher culture) and fashion (of the "golden palace of mass culture"). One cannot bridge this gap. Really? This morning I laid in bed and read some of Andrea Quinlan's poems she sent me, that are both rapturous about fashion and super smart about fashion and film history (one of the poems draws not only from the wonderful and fashiony film Daisies by Vera Chytilova but also from images from a 60s issue of the British magazine Queen as well as names of butterflies from the Otago museum collection). Andrea, who lives in New Zealand, had been so generous and wonderful to research the fashion of Katherine Mansfield for me, as she had a couple of books that show KM's gorgeous costumes, and she sent me her descriptions of her clothes in one of her notebooks, like this one (as Andrea noted, it reads like a poem): Is this a packing list? A shopping list? It's delicious.
belgian dress a dark blue
purple coat and skirt a flowered one or check
black silk dress russian blouse
Chinese blue jacket
belts (?) for occasional red jacket
travelling and skirt (2) bulgarian jacket
Andrea also noted to me that she like other modernists were obsessed with the Ballets Russes (which Andrea is researching now for her own work), and one of her costumes close to the maiden costumes from the Rites of Spring: "Quite impersonally I admired my silver stockings bound beneath the knee, with spiked ribbons, my yellow suede shoes fringed with white fur. How vicious I looked! We made love to each other like two wild beasts."
one of KM's cloaks that Andrea scanned for me - love the gold brocade, gifted by her companion Ida
These Literary Modern Women thought of fashion as both a costume of their identity and a beautiful object. Think of how fashionable the poet Mina Loy was! Or Djuna Barnes! Gorgeous in their suits and heels and hats. Women poets at least since the modern era if not before were not exempt from being enthralled by fashion, both couture and at the department stores, and I don't think it divided or separated them from the art form of poetry. Perhaps, as in other things beautiful, it enhanced it (aren't many writers also aesthetes and enthralled to other art forms, like film or fashion or painting? I love fashion - it's ART you can WEAR. I know one can immediately take a view of it critiquing capitalism. But I feel still this is a gendered argument, similar to how the First Wave feminists dismissed the flappers as victims of consumerism and silly girls for spending their paychecks on dangling earrings and silk pantyhose and jeweled cigarette cases, that that sartorial liberation somehow set back the movement. I would add that the critique of capitalism in regards to clothes-buying isn't absolute. Everyone wears clothes. I prefer buying mine from young avant-garde designers usually bought at small local boutiques where the material is often sustainably sourced and the clothes are not produced using exploitive labor. These designers are often not written about just like the small press scene is ignored by the mainstream press. )
Mina Loy - the chunky chandelier earrings. The slim dress with three-quartered sleeves and matching . The Arizona Muse brows! Mina Loy wrote about fashion and about the "temples of intoxication" (Benjamin) that was the department store in her poetry.And the cloche hat! Ahh! I die! I have two cloche hats. And one red wool beret. Made by a German designer called Girl and the Gorilla. They are my most cherished objects. One is called strangely my "marriage hat." Because when John and I eloped to go live in London I didn't want a ring but I saw this first of the cloche hats and we bought it for me instead. If I'm in danger of losing one if I think I left it somewhere I will go into a terrible panic.
the Baroness, who recently inspired a Bazaar shoot with Brittany Murphy. Both Mina Loy and the Baroness appropriated ready-made objects as jewelery, part of their costume.
And how about our contemporary poets who write about fashion and are inspired by fashion? Besides Andrea, there's Kate Durbin, whose upcoming Fashion Issue borrows from the language of fashion magazines, there's Joyelle McSweeney and Johannes Goransson writing about the fashion of Rodarte in their essays on poetics, the poems in the Gurlesque anthology, there's the poetry of Robyn Schiff, which is enthralled to the history of the couture houses. (I have only met Robyn casually, but I remember upon first meeting her at a party she immediately went up to me because I was wearing a Vivienne Westwood dress that I had bought on super sale, and we talked about the dress and dresses. I tend to actually be able to commune more with women writers who I don't have to feel guilty about my love of make-up or fashion, which for so long felt like a dirty little secret, an impure thought for a writer to have.)
V. Woolf (who was ambivalent about fashion, she was sometimes horrified and ambivalent about shopping but was profiled in British Vogue and went shopping with the editor, and said she was interested in investigating a "frock consciousness") wrote in A Room of One's Own that the ways women writers are still stereotyped and denigrated is because "feminine" values in art aren't seen as valuable (like fashion), versus "masculine" values (like war, or I don't know, what is highbrow poetry about anyway?). Of course, luckily I am not a poet (as I am reminded of everyday). Perhaps poetry is supposed to be more pure than prose. I don't know. My novel coming out deals a lot about the agonies of being at a gorgeous department store like Liberty and ravishing in the visual delight, like in a museum, or the painstaking pleasure of making up one's face. Both the rapture and critique of consumer culture.
Yesterday it was rainy and so I went to the mall and sat at the Chanel counter and sat there while a woman (who turned out to be the wife of one of John's colleagues) made up my face and we talked about Pat McGrath's theories on eyebrows and the dramatic black brows of Arizona Muse and then I bought the compact for brows so and way too extravagant I'm still feeling a bit guilty about it this morning but the compact which is my first ever purchase from the Chanel makeup counter I had an old roommate who looked like Barbara Loden and was obsessed with Chanel makeup anyway it came with a black velvet pouch and lilliputian tweezers and comb and brush which I then took home and PLAYED WITH like I was a girl with dolls. That is me. I think I can spout theory and read the Great Novels or maybe even Great Poems (although my list might be different from the New York Times) and also be pulled in other directions, towards sensualness, towards visual delights, towards material pleasures. I have given up trying to separate the two, trying to bury one and speak of literature through the other.
garments created by the Omega Workshop, supervised by Virginia Woolf's sister, the painter Vanessa Bell - Bloomsbury considered fashion part of the aesthetics of modernism, these garments were often painted and hand-dyed,with printed textiles in silks, linens and batiks, the prints inspired by Cubism










Kate, I tried to answer you here four times this morning but blugger refuses my html or my perhaps long winded-ness and won't let me post giving me a red stripe with the warning: Must be at most 4, 096 characters. Beats me. So I answered you on my blog.
ReplyDeletexo
Rebecca - because this is SO GOOD I'm going to try to copy and paste here as well (might have to do it in several sections). Hope it's okay. Since not everyone can access the exceptional Radish King.
ReplyDeleteKate,
I love this. I am thinking three or maybe four things at once on only one cup of tea and it’s early yet for a Sunday so bear with me.
I was always a girly-girl one of those girls who would have run around in a pink tutu with a tiara on my head had I been allowed (I was not) and I came of age during the second wave feminism and weirdly those women who influenced me politically seemed to feel a need to dress like lumberjacks and grow mustaches. Well not all of them but it felt very unsexed to me it felt like we were being told to give up something spectacular something that was ours that belonged to feminism that of course the fact of being feminine.
Wait I lost track.
That whole era coming along side by side with the sexual revolution felt to me that it was trying to make sex sexuality sexiness a bad thing a thing that men used to keep women down. And so I stayed out of that entire scene because I ENJOY BEING A GIRL and had cat-like tendencies that I wasn’t about to give up ( and still do.) I liked wearing high heels and pencil skirts with zippers on the side when everyone else was lumberjacking their way to concerts and parties and poetry readings and be-ins and sleepovers. But I understood the deep need for change and that women who wanted to be taken seriously had to look serious. In particular intellectual women. I think too all those women of the left bank hanging out at Gertrude's house had a great freedom in that there were not a lot of men there directing traffic. Not to mention the fact of the war looming and leaning against them (as it is now.) They found a playground where they were safe. We are so exposed these days to media to the internet to everything that those playgrounds are hard to seek out and inhabit and those who are brave enough to break out from the herd are sometimes recognized as Goddesses (Lady Gaga) or reviled as idiots (Lady Gaga.) I guess what I mean is that this century seems to be tumbling backward into the stilted 1950s or even Victorian era standards and it is natural that women especially women with voices (poets) want to stand up to that dangerous slide. Hurrah for them and their courage and I count you as one Kate for your beauty and your stunning intellect and your Chanel makeup and its velvet pouch that sounds like so much fun.
There’s a whole weird scene in Seattle (Northwest) fashion-wise among poets. It’s very dress-down beige poncho no color lots o’ hemp big baggy pants hide the body three billion scarves ugly shoes and faux Native American Indian jewelry. It’s awful and I don’t understand it but I always have trouble with the CLUB mentality which is something else altogether. I get a kick out of the change that is wending its way hopefully to my corner of the universe. Women once again enjoying beauty tactile beauty no matter what choices they make and not being judged by it or not having their poetry judged by it because that’s what it really gets down to. Not how you look but how good your work is. And the sad and soggy fact that we take ourselves oh so seriously here in the rain and trees. Bah. I have no desire to look like everyone else and never have. And I think my work (my poetry) speaks for itself. I’m glad that beautiful poets are letting themselves be beautiful to fully embrace who they are. If I owned the body I owned when I was 35 I’d probably choose to read naked in a gorgeous pair of red shoes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as letting our work speak for itself I am doing a reading soon and the person who organized the reading asked for a bio and I sent her one and she sent back a much longer meatier bio that she had pieced together from things she had found on the internet. She said the new bio was more “impressive” than my original bio. I told her no thank you that I’d bio what I wanted. The point being that if my poetry doesn’t move people doesn’t impress them doesn’t stick to them then what use is a bloated bio? The same with fashion in a way. Dressing to the nines isn't going to make you a better poet or get more people to listen to you it just isn't. But it sure as hell makes you more fun to watch and why not involve all the senses with our art? We are not stuffy Emily's stuck in the attic with our sad little scratchings. We are feminist and feminine. That has to be a little bit uncomfortable to some people.
I am getting long winded here sorry. The last thing I wanted to touch on is Oprah’s™ recognition of poets on her show. In all the years I’ve watched (and I’ve only watched accidentally as I’m not an Oprah worshipper) the only poets she’s had on her show or talked about on her show were Maya Angelou and Mattie Stepanek the kid with muscular dystrophy who couldn’t write for beans but hey he was a kid in a wheel chair and Oprah knows how to cash in on sentimentality for sentimentality’s sake—that’s her peculiar genius. No surprise then that her "poetry" issue would squeeze all the juice out of the excitement the possibility of the organically new.
xo
Rebecca
I love this Rebecca. Love what you say about Lady Gaga. Love what you say about the Left Bank: "They found a playground where they were safe." For it can be play, can't it as well. For a while I closeted my femme-side from my feminist me (and what I also love about the female literary MODERN WOMEN - they weren't always femme-y. Sometimes they wanted to be butch-lumberjacks (well, not lumberjacks but). Sometimes they wanted to wear a fucking full-piece suit and be all Marlene Dietrich about it. Then they wanted to smack some Chanel red lipstick on it and pearl earrings and a man's fedora. They were totally GENDER-FUCKING in an awesome and elegant way).
ReplyDeleteand I think this idea of the love of the tactile - so right on. Yesterday I went to the Gardens at Duke University and longingly fingered the most voluptuous red camellias. They were the color of the most velvety red lipstick. Or Audrey's gown above. There is no distinction for me.
ReplyDeleteThank you,Kate. I'm wearing a black Biltmore porkpie hat with a see-through white blouse to my reading in April. With red lipstick. Yo!
ReplyDeletexox
Very Djuna!
ReplyDeleteSo much to say dear Kate! I love this! Thank you! [Also, Andrea's work--so great!]
ReplyDeleteFASHION AMBIVALENCE could be the title of THE FASHION ISSUE, as that's so much of what I am playing with in the book, this ambivalence towards fashion from the intellectual elite, but also from the general population. Hence, the word ISSUE.
And here we have the O ISSUE, or O FACE, as you say--omg. I could not think of a better header.
I CANNOT WAIT to read it! Seriously Fashion Issue and Green Girl need to go on tour - one is ambivalence in poetry, the other in fiction. I think there is this idea that as girls or girl-women or feminine women or whatever we do not actually CRITIQUE a culture we can sometimes also be OBSESSED with - that those who consume don't somehow also critique, that we are passive victims (this is what Susan Faludi is getting at in that matricidal nonsense article she wrote in Harper's, linking the sort of cultural divide that what's going on now to the Victorian mamas of the First Wave and the flappers). I thoroughly disagree with this. I mean, hello, we can be obsessed with models or reality TV stars or pop stars and still critique this. It goes back to the same old patriarchy -girls are silly, girls are dumb, girls are frivolous. Fuck that.
ReplyDeleteThe intellectual elite was not always ambivalent towards fashion (I'm reading about it today! A really interesting book but way too theory-ridden) - they were ambivalent towards the bourgeois - a lot of the modernists and even the pre-Raphaelites before wore very avant-garde clothes to distinguish themselves from the masses, they liked looking like shocking aliens in public (who doesn't?)
The intellectual elite as well as the feminist elite is extremely ambivalent about fashion and make-up now - I blame the Second Wave. I think the ideologies of the Second Wave made women confused and guilty, and feel that they needed to shun any femininity or desire for consumer goods - can't we be aware that we're being ceaselessly marketed to and also sometimes consume (I feel the BEuaty Myth was really valuable but it shouldn't serve to further punish or oppress or silence women). That doesn't mean that everything is feminist because feminism is just choice. I think that's dumb to. But for god's sake why do we need to go into existential crises about lipsticks and cardigans? We want them! Sometimes we buy them! Sometimes that makes us feel weird! Sometimes we celebrate that! Let's write about all of it!
Or: let's write about the crisis! Let's not dismiss it and say it's not worthwhile to write about!
ReplyDeleteI am famished starving so I am being promiscuous with exclamation points. I might need to step away from my anorexic computer.
Yes yes yes yes to everything you say--I think speaking out about it is the best thing, the pivotal thing. And I agree about Beauty Myth, Second Wave, etc. Have you read Lipstick Feminism?
ReplyDeleteAnyway all of this was very real and present when I was a teenager--like a serious issue for me when I became a feminist. As it was for so many.
I need to tell you about my performance art piece on May 1st--I wish you could actually be in it, if you were here I'd have you in it. It's about all of these ideas. I can't say more until it's out (or I could in an email to you of course) ... but it's shocking how little conversation there is about this topic, just that weird fashion shame. Fuck fashion shame. As if everything isn't fraught. I still think the feminist fashion shunning is completely patriarchal.
WEIRDO - I just downloaded a chapter from Lipstick Feminism Today! Although will probably only read that chapter as I'm going WAY BEYOND the reading I should do to actually sit down and think through my brain which is now full of future dinners and whispers and flowers and try to write the damn book.
ReplyDeleteIt was a huge tension for me teaching women's studies. I stopped wearing make-up (which is a totally fine decision) because I felt like such a giant hypcrite. But I wonder - who is making me feel like a hypocrite? Which aspect of society? It's like the Second Wave, which was of course hugely valuable, has been coopted by Society to further discipline women. Women shouldn't feel oppressed - but maybe denigrating women who have an interest in fashion is also corsetting! (ha!) I feel I've only recently "came out" on this blog as someone who has a secret love of fashion (which for me is menswear as well as pretty dresses, sometimes more menswear than pretty dresses). I feel also this is directed towards women who are heterosexual - so this much be part of patriarchal culture. I feel queer women are almost given more permission to be femme or butch - but women who are in relationships with men are made to feel bad for being butch, or being femme, or certainly being too much of either or both at the same time! I wonder why this is.
Can't wait to hear about your performance art project! I would do it with you in a hot second! Or: In New Orleans! (I'm just looking for an excuse for us to go to New Orleans. With John. John really wants to go too. John loves fashion too by the way. He's quite a dandy with his Oscar Wilde hair. I'm the little boy in the family.)
I love everything you write here, kate, so thanks again. I was also thinking about gertrude stein and fashion _ there are a lot of clothes in tender buttons. The rapture of fashion, the rapture of language.
ReplyDeleteOh right Tender Buttons! All the tactile pleasures of that! Yeah who would think STein was super into couture but she was. Thanks for sending me so much inspiration via your poems and the delicious Katherine research! I feel like I need to visualize each of these women and I'm close, so close.
ReplyDeleteSure, high fashion is problematic--but I believe that it should not be easily dismissed as bad; I think the key is to realizer that being 5 foot 10 and weighing 95 pounds and walking in 5 inch spike lizard stilletos is by no means the only way of being gorgeous. Really unless one is a successful model i'm not at-all sure being 95 pounds makes enough sense.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you (all) think of the concept of chic?
Is it just me or is it a very, very specific quality--which almost no-one fits: I've seen it once in Louisville KY, and once in Vegas (on Freemont Street downtown: a 44 to fifty something woman, yay!). It is a much narrower range than hot is for sure.
I hope all's well with all of ya'll and
Oh the Duke gardens---soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wonderful!
adam strauss
Adam - The Duke Gardens are like the most magical place on Earth. As long as I'm there at the duck/swan pond and walking in the Japanese gardens I feel I can exist in North Carolina.
ReplyDeleteI'm less interested in high fashion, except looking at it through fashion magazines (of course because I can't afford it but even if I could I think the only dream label I would purchase would be Commes ds Garcsons). I'm more interested in avant-garde ready-to-wear. But yes the fashion industry is problematic - but I still adore models - like Crystal Renn this month covering Vogue Mexico! Or Lara Stone! I think my love for these models is similar to my love for the screen sirens of the 40s, 50s, etc - and a similar machine flattens them out and makes them.
I love chic. I like chic better than hot. In Paris women are very chic. It is funny in French how many classifications of a beauty there are - the gamine, the jolie laide, the femme fatale, etc. I was reading a Jean Rhys story about this just the other day.
You and John are both dandies, and I love staring at pictures of you. Maybe not staring, that sounds creepy. You know what I mean! And yes, I agree about New Orleans...we MUST make it happen somehow! I think a New Orleans inspired performance is in order. I may just have to take up residence there. Maybe we could all live there? And be vampires at night?
ReplyDeleteI am excited to see how fashion manifests itself in HEROINES.
And yes to TENDER BUTTONS and its tactile language! Yummy! This is what EXCESS EXHIBIT is all about--poetry you can wear and eat and play dress up with your girlfriends with!
great post! i've been thinking about so many of these issues so much lately...i'm a fashion blog addict, and feel like i have to hide this addiction from my "literary" friends. i love clothes and i care a lot about clothes and how i look, but i feel somewhat shameful for this, at least the "intellectual" side of me does. but i think i'm deciding NOT to feel that way anymore. i can wear red lipstick and be a vehement feminist and a good poet and a smart woman and not have to apologize for any of it. because being an apologist is bullshit. the fashion writing panel at AWP this year was really interesting, and touched on (although not as much as i had hoped) this perceived incompatibility.
ReplyDeletei have my public reading for my mfa thesis coming up this week and have been agonizing for weeks over what to wear. people roll their eyes when i tell them this, or think it's really amusing, kind of cute, kind of silly.
the spread was a bit bland, as you say, but i was largely puzzled with the brouhaha over it. if oprah had asked me to wear a pretty dress and be in a fashion spread in the name of poetry i would say FUCK YEAH. it's awful about kate getting ripped off, and it seems that appropriation is the real thing to be upset about, to me.
i'm working on a new poem project and am starting to read some kind of fashion theory stuff, for research. hoping it turns into a book in the next few years. am excited to read both your green girl and the fashion issue, work that is needed.
Kate: I haven't told you yet but one of my million writing projects is writing a book about VAMPIRES. Everyone tells me it's the hot new thing. I'm not kidding. It will be about teenagers who think they are vampires and entralled to the theories of Bataille about sacrifice. I'm hoping Harper Collins or Picador will publish it and I will be carried at Barnes and Noble and I will win a Guggenheim. It's kind of like L. Ron Hubbard inventing a religion - I will try to come up with a book that will be a BESTSELLER or it will be an exercise can I write a book like that? Although perhaps the Bataille and theories of human sacrifice revolving around the L'Acephale society is too lofty or weirdo for B&N...it will be a book I write entirely on my iphone.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to do a tour for Green Girl/Fashion Issue. I think you should call up Peggy Guggenheim and ask for a traveling grant. I'm serious. The two books - Prose and Poetry - the Performance of it - WOULD BE AWESOME!
New Orleans must happen. The last time I was there my ex-boyfriend dumped me while we were there and I gained 20 lbs in a week from all the jambalaya and hurricanes. But it was somehow glorious and very much an awakening.
Cannot wait to read Excess Exhibit.
Carrie - Hi! I too would have done the spread in a hot minute. Absolutement. I have secret fantasies of a fashion or style magazine calling me up and wanting to take my picture like Dazed and Confused with Ariana Reines or Blake Butler, but alas, I have to work on not being nobody, if you know what I mean. I have actually had repeated fantasies about this, which I don't know if I'm supposed to say.
ReplyDeleteI love fashion blogs as well. I don't read them as often but probably because I try to curb my general online addiction (like for fan forums on TB). But so much smart and witty and quippy and culturall-savvy writing!
I too have felt closeted at times from all of this. I think as writers often we're supposed to be so pure. Which I find boring. I agonize over what to wear to my readings if I give myself enough time to. For O Fallen Angel I wore almost without fail the same uniform - a blazer of some sort, a man's t-shirt, men's jeans or pants I have that are sort of harem-y but not really, and boots. Eileen Myles and Patti Smith as muses. For Green Girl I plan to be extremely femme-y and costumey.
Your new poem project sounds exciting!
Kate
But couture--by definition--is high fashion! (or were you simply pointing to other writers being engaged with it?!). I'd love to look up-close at a Dior retrospective. Elsa Schiaperelli is couture, right? Is she the one with the amazing lobster dress?
ReplyDeleteGood/interesting point about french having numerous names for style. I can't help but feeling the American size system is better tho.
Do you like Phillip Tracy's hats?
yay to Tender Buttons!
ReplyDeleteadam s
fan-forums on TV! not fan-forums on TB! ha! how consumptive this all is though.
ReplyDeletewell there's the designer labels who sometimes produce couture (although very few designer houses produce couture anymore, made by couteuriers and seamstresses). I very much LOVE the couture aesthetic - and a lot of the clothes I love are made with that kind of exquisitive care, handmade, etc. I love say the shock and awe of Alexander McQueen, or the loveliness of Rodarte, which is made with a couture aesthetic. Or watching the couture dresses at the Oscars. And the couture layouts in Vogue (especially French Vogue). But I guess what I mean is I'm not as enthralled to the brand-nameness of some designer labels that often Vogue and other fashion magazines fetishize, say the Prada bag or something. I'm not into the big names so much.
ReplyDeleteYes the lobster dress! She made that with Dali and it was worn by Wallis Simpson, who Madonna is making a movie about. I love her and Coco Chanel's menswear...I really think of Rei Kawakubo of Commes Des Garcons as the next generation of that.
I think the American size system is a lot more schizophrenic than the European one actually - much less uniformity of size.
But isnt a european 8 like an american 2? Do they have negative sizes?
ReplyDeleteI don't like Prada (no sumptuousness!).
For Galliano's last show for Dior the atelier staff came out at the end.
I didnt know coco made menswear; cool!
Safety Training Film #16
ReplyDeleteHe enters her life, an unlocked
air hose, the kind they make
safety films about in the factory,
red rubber tube snaking around,
brass nozzle hissing. In these films,
a woman or a man loses an eye
or worse. Paramedics are called,
valuable hours wasted, inventory
stacks up, the economy fails.
This is what it’s like. He makes
her come like Jesus but flinches
at her face, that stern mouth,
piggy eyes staring.
Once she broke a rib on the job.
Her breasts were taped and
it hurt to run for two years after.
She lies in bed Schiaperelli
red nightgown tangled around her
throat just the way he likes it,
holds her rib, waits
for him to call.
i had tears in my eyes when I saw that photo from the Dior show.
ReplyDeletele Coco basically originated menswear for women. She was tres tres chic.
English sizes are one size up from American, European sizes are not on that scale. What I mean with European size is that an 8 or the equivalent is really an 8, etc.
Oh yesyes menswear for women--sure; thought you meant menswear for men.
ReplyDeleteHubert Givenchy is dead , yah? I love the lastname Givenchy, and am also a fan of the lastname Lanvin!
I love that M Obama wears Azedeine Alaiia!
LOVE IT Rebecca! So beautiful
ReplyDeletexox
ReplyDeletefrom one of my partner's London notebooks (I love his collages, he regularly steals from my fashion magazines):
ReplyDeletehttp://ienoch.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/o-face/
Kate, you're most welcome!
ReplyDeleteand Kate D - cannot wait for excess exhibit as well.
Kate, that's wonderful. I do love the idea of fashion being a dialog with the body and why not?
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin seemed to equate the first urban signs of modernity with the arcades and the department stores, sites of fashion. The Crystal Palace was designed to display commodities. Marx begins Capital with a discussion of the commodity. I think any attempt to separate modernity. and its expression as modernism, from commodity culture is doomed from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that any attempt to separate the proliferation of fashion and luxury from commodity culture is equally doomed.
And should be.
Isn'tt there a famous expression (Sainte-Beuve) style is the man? I guess some men found and find that "style is the woman" is just too threatening.
I don't think it has anything to do with art, really. When the UConn women's basketball team set the record for most consecutive victories, beating the UCLA men's team's records, there was a lot of shrieking, it's not the same, it's not the same, all by men.
Sadly.
Yes I've read many theories of fashion too including Arcades Project. Again it's a mistake to assume those who love fashion (or other forms considered mass culture) aren't also critics of it. Couture or slower fashion isn't mass- and one can enjoy it at a museum or in an image. It's been pretty established as an art form, yes one close to consumption (books film all things we assume).
ReplyDeleteAlthough Benjamin brings up extensively Baudelaire Poe extensively in AP modernity is not synonymous with modernism as an aesthetic social and political movement.
Sorry I go kind of deaf at sports metaphors.
consume not assume
ReplyDeleteart is a commodity object
"Fashion, like architecture, inheres in the darkness of the lived moment, belongs to the dream consciosness of the collective. The latter awakes, for example, in advertising." Benjamin on Baudelaire (which I'm incidentally reading this morning for Baudelaire on Bovary, the androgyne)
ReplyDeletePlath was guest editor for Mademoiselle magazine and featured in a fashion spread.
ReplyDelete"Sorry I go kind of deaf at sports metaphors."
ReplyDeleteHey, I guess I could write a post about that! I could call it "O Face: Poetry and Sports and ESPN".
I love sports metaphors. For some ungodly reason. If we are ever to meet I promise to watch out for 'em.
But my metaphor wasn't really about sports, it was about what men allow to count for women.
Thanks.
I'm just chiming in to point out a (relevant) project Katrina Rodabaugh did a few years ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.katrinarodabaugh.com/archives/278
charity
hi kate—i’ve been reading yr blog for a year or so now and am generally a little uncomfortable commenting or subscribing. i def. dig fashion, but i also sometimes feel very weird reading these fashion posts. i just commented on the most recent “notes on fashion” on delirious hem, but i don’t know whether it was posted or not since i can’t see it. that comment discusses (very messily) fashion’s ties to NAFTA and imperialism (i.e. africian diamond trade) and about the need to define more specifically what one means by “fashion” in the personal or abstract sense (i.e. viewed apart from its actual workings as a system) as opposed the fashion machine of magazines, models, designers, multinational conglomerates, branding, slave labor, etc. so, in short, i have some concerns, raised by this post and others, that i hope you’ll be able to help me work through.
ReplyDelete“I know one can immediately take a view of it critiquing capitalism. But I feel still this is a gendered argument...” can the “capitalist critique” really be dismissed that easily? i mean, there is the aesthetic rise of the “detail” in art and literature, beginning with balzac and flaubert. one scholar, naomi schor, connects the idea of the “detail”—often associated with the particular, eccentric, irrational, decadent, prosaic or domestic—to the “clitoral school of feminism” mainly, but also fashion, specifically how fashion is often seen merely as “adornment” as opposed to something functional that is also sometimes beautiful. according to schor, the detail is decidedly feminine, and as she argues in reading in detail: aesthetics and the feminine, it stands in firm opposition to classicism, which praised, and created a ‘persistent legacy’ for, the universal, general, or essential. only after the deconstruction of idealist notions of the cosmic, the “whole,” did the detail gain prominence as an aesthetic category.
schor cites adolf loos as being one of the first theorist to really associate the detail with decadence. to prove his point, loos often used the example of “ladies fashion.” basically he says that women are forced to fetishize themselves because of the inherent perversion of male desire. female mystery is a construct, according to him, and when women first covered herself with adornments, she embodied that mystery so as better to attract a man, i.e. her only source of power in the patriarchy. so foreign to women are her adornments, argues loos, that he dreamed of a day when the “liberated woman” would shed her man-catching “velvets and furs.” see, loos pretty much insisted on the economic dimension of the ornament. “style” and “ornaments” were seen by him as the primary way for mass produced goods to become “unique” (therefore profitable) and to make the buyer feel as if by owning a certain product they, themselves, are somehow distinguished by the uniqueness of the product, which of course, isn’t unique at all. schor ends all this by adding that loos’s (and baudrillard’s) abhorrence to the formal detail is based on an elitist ideology and that what they really hold against the industrial detail is that it disfigures the ideal object by, or while, putting it within the reach of the masses.
oops my comment was too long. sorry! here's the tail end of my comment:
ReplyDeletefashion is still often seen in this light—that is, inessential to the whole, a mere decadence in comparison to otherwise serious stuff of culture or the military industrial complex or whatever. this is a gendered critique. war (often cited as “male domain” tho that's bullshit, look at dorothy west’s writing) is no more or less petty, or relevant to society, than fashion, especially when you consider the fact that the same factions that own most major fashion labels (high or low) are more or less the same people who support imperialistic wars (or unfair treaties like NAFTA) which have historically kept production costs cheap. but saying that the capitalist critique is gendered, as opposed to saying a part of it is gendered, doesn’t deny the real life suffering of the often underage women who produce most of what the average person consumes and thinks of as “fashion.” nor does it draw attention, even in passing, to the fact that needing “permission to wear hot pink lipstick” (as kate durbin writes on delirious hem in her “fuck fashion guilt” post) or wearing avant-garde designers who control their fabric sources is a privilege afforded to very few global citizens, definitely not the third world workers sewing stella mccartney dresses for target’s summer 2011 collection. do we need to mention these depressing facts in every discussion on fashion? probably not.
capitalism isn’t that old in the scheme of civilization. however, exploitation for the sake of fashion, style, and glamor is as old as the pyramids. the greeks kept their women totally secluded from society, unless they were prostitutes. prostitutes were forced to wear special clothes, clearly marking them as such. this was not to promote more visibility for the business (as prostitutes were the only women allowed in public anyway, and besides, were forced to congregate in specific areas) but rather to set them apart as a class. that was the explicit purpose. fashion has been used to demark class for a long time. this may or may not be something to worry about.
this post, and kate d’s introductory post on DH, cite many a modern poet, a modern woman, forgetting that this time period was one of the most notoriously oligarchic in history, with one of the largest gaps between the rich and poor, similar to our own times. that’s in part why some first wave feminists criticized consumerist culture. large swaths of women worked long hours in factories too, and the majority of them could not afford chandelier earrings. unfair business practices—wild abuse of workers, not paying taxes, monopolies, etc—is precisely why there was such unprecedented wealth flowing around for flappers (often daughters of rich industrialists or wealthy southerners reaping the economic benefits of segregation and jim crow) to spend on their fabulous clothes. i’m speaking in generalities here, but for the most part, the elite of society (whether that be economic or intellectual elites) have often been fashion forward and glamorous. silent films are my absolute favorite period in part because of the clothes, the general decadence of the sets, especially when its done by someone like stroheim who dug mcteague and was beyond attuned to the detail and lied about his own personal history (even adding the pretentious “von” to his name) so that he could be a part of said “elite” society. the real question, here, becomes is it necessary to discuss how these glamorous lifestyles were created and maintained, or can we simply look back at them with nostalgia?