|
Our fashion statement: |
 |
Seen any fashion ads lately?
More & more bizarre is the rule
By
CHUCK McFADDEN
of TheColumnists.com
I spotted the ad during our weekly morning rendezvous with the Sunday papers. It was in the New York Times, for a female garment. The article of clothing had a flimsy, sheer top and the bottom part was so long it gathered in a bunch around the model's feet. It was a dress of some sort, is my guess.
"How does she get around in that?" I asked my wife. "It's bound to trip her up, and it's probably getting on down to below freezing at night in New York, and so anyone would be very, very cold, to boot. Were she so foolish as to buy this, it costs $5,900."
"She would wear her mink over it," Barbara said. "And as for tripping on her way into a cocktail party, they could carry her in, like a mannequin."
"That's it!" I said. "Bluto's live set-up service! You could get a stretch limo and have them go around from party to party on a Saturday night, lugging in ladies wearing non-mobile garments and carrying them out again when the party was getting boring. You could have pagers to let the crew know when it was pickup time."
Think the above is a little over the top? Have you looked at clothing ads in magazines lately? Unbelievable stuff in the rag trade these days. And the business of pushing it gets more and more bizarre.
No one can wear these tortured twists of fabric. If they were, they would be in danger of strangulation or frostbite.
The ad copy is worse than the clothes. Articles speak of "strategy" in dressing as if we're plotting how to bring up the artillery and win the war on the Western Front. "Freedom," the ad says seductively, showing woman running through the woods in a ball gown. "Make a statement about your life." What kind of a statement do you make? "Look, everyone. I'm an idiot."
And the models. Here's a young woman. She's very good looking. She's presumably in good health, and aren't models supposed to be making $50,000 an hour? So why is she looking as if someone has stolen her last mascara brush?
 |
|
 |
(Elizabeth Hurley seems to be the major exception to the "Pout for the camera" rule. In her ads for Estee Lauder, she seems to be saying "I'm young, I'm rich, I'm gorgeous. Isn't life smashing?") Right on.
But Liz aside, looking tragic while wearing $9,000 worth of something goofy seems to be a requirement. Struggle into an astonishing garment of some sort. Stare into the camera. Imagine a bowl of cold gravy being dumped on your head. Click. Voila! Another fashion statement!
I know, I know. The clothing isn't really supposed to be worn, for goodness sake, at least by the likes of you. It's supposed to create an impression--make a statement about how edgy and au courant the fashion house is. So the next time you're in the store, you buy that brand, because the murky, scowling model has left you with an impression of chic.
It probably works. We Americans are wonderworkers when it comes to being foolish with the money we spend on clothes. It's not confined to women, either. Remember the Nehru jacket? What was it supposed to convey? And remember, we men are the ones who, when it's 110 degrees outside, tie a hunk of cloth around our necks and put on a jacket.
|
|
 |
Why do we wear some of the things we wear? Do we really need to wear a watch made out of titanium? Or one that tells us what time it is in Nairobi? Of course not. But with an eight-pound hunk of stainless steel on your wrist, there's the implication that you are engaged in activities that may demand your presence in Berlin tomorrow and it would be nice to know what time it is.
We have fun with it, I guess, and the economy is such that most of us can afford to buy the things that convey the impression that we are adventurers, or femmes fatale, or big game hunters, even if we are accountants or house painters. But having fun with it is the secret. We shouldn't take it seriously, even if the ad copywriters do.
Let's just hope someone doesn't decide to be advanced, insouciant, and Whee! bring back the bustle. They could, you know. Take a look at Vogue and tell me they couldn't.
© 2000 by Charles M. McFadden. The fashion drawings are from the IMSI Master/Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA 94901-5506, USA.
McFadden,
a former reporter for The Associated Press, wears khakis and
writes about various things from his home in the Oakland hills.
You
can fight back against McFadden's abuse of contemporary fashion
trends with an email to: talkback@thecolumnists.com
| Home | About Us | Archives | Talkback | Shopping Mall |