LINK LOVE: Fashion Gone Rogue

Horyn already expressed her approval of the gown, stating that it “recalled some of the opulent state dinners of the Reagan era” and trumpeted the gown’s approapriate level of “pomp”.  She also understands the subsequent fallout that has occurred, led by Oscar “The Grouch” de la Renta, over choosing a foreign designer for such an important occasion:

“His [de la Renta's] business is based in the garment district, and by using local factories for most of his production, he contributes to its prosperity. This is an important issue to him.”

She is less sympathetic, however, to the CFDA, whom she sees as being more than just a bit hypocritical in their condemnation and are simply trying to “goad” Mrs. O into wearing American designers:

“The truth is many of its members, including its president, Diane Von Furstenberg, manufacture a significant portion of their clothes outside the United States, mainly in Asia.”

But given the heated rhetoric over one gown chosen for one event over one week ago, Horyn thinks — and rightfully so —  that attention is being taken away from Mobama’s substantial accomplishments.

“I want her to be known for something other than her fashion. I want her to be a great first lady who truly cares about the lives of Americans at the time when many need help. I want her to be far more than “prime placement” for a dress label — whatever the country of origin. She supports a number of causes, notably healthful eating habits, but these deeds are being overshadowed by what she wears.”

Horyn goes on to cite an article in The Economist that expressed the hope “to hear more about what Mrs Obama thinks and a lot less about what she wears.”

That article, published during the first months of Barack Obama‘s administration, cited Michelle Obama’s impressive background  — she graduated cum laude from Princeton and earned her law degree from Harvard before embarking on a successful career in the public and private sector — and credited her hands-on approach during the 2008 election, traveling around the country giving “intelligent, substantive and well-delivered” speeches in support of her husband.

Ever since that election the White House, according to the article, has tamed down this image, trying “its best to turn the first lady into a celebrity mother-cum-clothes-horse,” in reaction to Hillary Clinton‘s  forthrightness during the first years of the Clinton administration.

“Hillary Clinton’s determination to act as a virtual co-president back in 1993 helped to create a backlash against her husband’s administration. It also raised uncomfortable questions about power and accountability. Given America’s continued neuroses about race, an outspoken black first lady might prove to be even more divisive than an outspoken white one.”

Not only would an “outspoken black first lady be divisive,” it would be downright alienating.  It’s true that Mrs. O has taken a back seat to her husband — his position practically calls for it — but that has not reduced her own merits. It’s really America’s perception of the Obamas and who Americans want them to be and want them to represent that has dictated this fanatic fascination with her sense of style.

At the onset of the Obama administration, there was an excitement that everything would be different, better. A sort of optimism that was frequently compared to John F. Kennedy‘s election some 50 years prior. And  with this new, black Camelot came — as The Economist put it — the “Jackiefication” of Michelle Obama.

Couple that with the fact that the Obamas were younger, more attractive and more accessible than any first family since the Kennedys and the American public couldn’t help but slip Michelle into Jackie Kennedy‘s iconic pillbox hat. It was all part of the optimism, but with this comparison we lost or forgot or chose to forget the Michelle Obama of the campaign trail; the passionate, articulate Ivy-league educated attorney who stood beside her husband rather than behind him.

It’s easy to forget that despite her flirtations with couture and high society, Jackie Kennedy was also a well-educated woman with her own opinions who later in life had a successful career as a book editor.  Hillary Clinton simply reinvented what a First Lady could do and hers is a large pantsuit to fill.

Horyn believes that the only person who can change the perception of Michelle Obama is Michelle Obama. But it’s all part of a great balancing act. After all, Michelle Obama represents so many things to so many people.  As an African American, she is an inspiration for all minorities; as a successful woman, she is an inspiration for other women; as first Lady of the United States, she is the face of America and a champion for civil causes; but at the end of the day she is a woman and like most women her clothes are an extension of her.

It’s impossible to please everyone, particularly when everyone has an opinion about what you say, where you go and what you wear. No doubt it would behoove the press to focus on the causes Mo champions, but let’s be real, that shit doesn’t sell. And if there’s one thing Americans respond to it’s celebrity culture. There are no bigger celebrities in the world than the Obamas and like all celebrities, we as a culture love to build them up and tear them down, only to build them up back again.

This dress controversy will blow over, but how will history remember Michelle Obama? Will she be proactive like Hilary? A style icon like Jackie? A lush like Betty? Sure Mo has a hand in her legacy, but America will remember what it chooses to remember. Thats the way history works. It’s written selectively by the winners, so for all her degrees and her speeches and her social work, will she only be remembered for a few great dresses?

We’ll have to wait to see how the rest of her husband’s presidency goes before we can even begin to answer that.

Link Love: New York Times

Photo: Huffington Post

According to WWD:

“My understanding…is that the visit was to promote American-Chinese trade — American products in China and Chinese products in America. Why do you wear European clothes?…I’m not talking about my clothes, my business. I’m old, and I don’t need it. But there are a lot of young people, very talented people here who do.”

Barring the fact that de la Renta has been outfitting First Ladies since before Betty Ford had her clinic, Mo has a well-documented reputation of wearing and supporting lesser known American designers.

Bitter, much?

Robin Givhan, however, felt — rather intensely — that the nationality of the designer had less to do with her choice than what the gown meant as a statement:

“The red petal print, silk organza gown wasn’t so much an act of diplomacy as a broad statement about the new realities of the fashion industry. In choosing a dress from Alexander McQueen, Mrs. Obama championed the cause of artisan design, the legacy of bespoke tailoring, and the staggering creativity that can be nurtured in the frock trade when it is at its best.”

Or she thought, “Hey, it’s China, they’re communists, right? Give me that McQueen number, hack off the sleeves and sweep my hair up in a regal crown, I’m reading to orphan children right now.”

I’m sure there was more than that to Mo’s decision, but the extent of Givhan’s analysis might be a little over the top. Still she makes an incredibly incisive and enlightening point:

“In wearing the gown to honor China, a country that many view with disdain for its abundance of cheap labor, counterfeit products, and poor labor practices, Mrs. Obama seemed to be recognizing the country’s inevitable place in the fashion cycle and giving it its due. Indeed, Chinese consumers represent a vast new marketplace for designer companies, and the production quality of its factories continues to improve. In short, Mrs. Obama’s choice was an optimistic celebration of all that fashion can be and it seemed to suggest that China was welcome to be a part of that vision.”

I’m going to say it once, if you like it you should throw a goddamn Pulitzer at it. Again.

Link Love: NY Mag

Faye Dunaway out for the kill in 'Mommie Dearest'

Miuccia Prada featured turbans (often sans pants) for her Spring 2007 collection and it was coincidentally the last show of hers that I truly loved.

That collection, and turbans in general, remind me so much of classic Hollywood, when glamor was written in giant lighted bulbs across the screen. Some of the greatest fashion moments have occurred on celluloid, and occurred before most of us were even born. Classic films perfected the art of costuming so that what a character wore was a direct extension of who they were. So a woman in a turban could symbolize power, wealth, glamor, intrigue or just plain old insanity.

Case in point, Gloria Swanson as tragic movie queen, Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard.

She was glamor. She was also crazy. Desmond kills her young gigolo played by William Holden, whom she met after mistaking him for the man who had come to bury her pet monkey. That kind of crazy.

A turban also gave the wearer an air of regal beauty. Lana Turner was absolutely stunning as Cora in The Postman Always Rings Twice, the gold digging femme fatale who plots to kill her husband when she falls for a drifter who recently came to town, played by John Garfield. Okay, there was a lot of crazy flying around back in the day.

Perennial fashion icon, Audrey Hepburn, in the quintessential fashion film, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, dons a turban to sing the plaintive classic “Moon River.” She’s literally wearing a Hanes sweater and a towel as a turban, yet it’s so effortlessly chic and simple. Fun fact, a Hanes sweater cost a whopping  three lizard eggs back in 1961 when this film came out.

The turban doesn’t always have to be for dramatic effect, though it certainly works well as such. It’s a fun accessory that can add a completely different dimension to an outfit, which was what Prada showed all those seasons ago. A shirt can be more than just a shirt. There are infinite possibilities to wear any number of articles of clothing, by adding and subtracting, building and deconstructing. It’s what makes fashion resonate: the ability to transform.

Suzy Menkes rules.

Well, shut my mouth. Her royal highness Suzy Menkes…who I adore…wrote an article in The International Herald Tribune (a.k.a. The New York Times Style) about how Fashion Films Became the Hottest New Accessories. Well, girl, I said that on December 1, 2009, when I reviewed Tom Ford’s, A Single Man. I just wanted to say that as someone who admires Ms. Menkes, it warms the cockles of my heart to be on her same page. As someone that works within digital and social media paradigm, we recognize the challenge is to seize the moment and enhance all forms of advertising and communication without being too blatantly promotional. The fact remains that content is king. It always has been, but we lost our way over the past few years wth the rise of reality television and youtube, where everyone become a director.

The fashion industry can lead the charge and raise the bar on what we will be seeing and responding to because they have the access and resources to make movies pretty. Let’s just hope not only air heady, too. In the case of Lady Dior, frankly, I’d rather see Marion Cotillard recite a monologue fully clad in Christian Dior…yes, holding the new “IT” bag…rather than some cockadoodle story line (see below). When Hubert de Givenchy chose to dress Audrey Hepburn, that was the perfect blend of fashion and film. The task now is to make beautiful visuals without being too pretentious and ethereal or bla bla about it all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gmisZlnyRM

VIEW ORIGINAL POST:Suzy Menkes and I Agree

Thanks Fashion Copious!