(Don't) Tell Me What To Wear! Chic by Katharina Blansjaar
If there's one thing I have a love/hate relationship with, it must be guides on how to wear -and more importantly how not to wear- certain items of clothing. They are completely absurd and I'm convinced there's some bigger evil scheme behind them which most of us who take their advices for granted don't foresee. BUT I SEE YOU! I see you 'trend watcher', 'stylist', 'random stylish person with an opinion'. *looks suspiciously around* Because why can't I wear head-to-toe leopard print? Or socks in sandals?
My grandma was convinced/indoctrinated that pink + red was an absolute no go doomed for catastrophe. However, as a pink + red enthusiast, I'm yet to be hit by lightning. *touches wood* Although Katharina Blansjaar doesn't discuss this particular colour scheme, in her book Chic: 50 fashion classics & how to wear them she does provide us fashion devotees with some 'handy' tips and advices. The main bulk of the book is dedicated to explaining the origin of the -seemingly by her selected- fifty fashion classics (among which the trenchcoat, sweatpants and obviously the monokini). As to be expected when discussing classics, the stories she uncovers about each item in four or less pages are hardly surprising for the casual fashion fact veteran (which made me, as one of those before mentioned veterans, feel quite smug about myself). However it's the 'and how to wear them' part in the subtitle that grabbed my attention.
The never-explained-but-everyone-knows-them rules
Although Blansjaars' how (not) to wear advices must be taken with a pinch of salt (how to wear a mini skirt: preferably with underpants/how not to wear hotpants: when they look like your underpants), she still spits out a particular set of rules one must confirm to. And, again, perhaps because the book discusses fashion classics the general unimaginative advices upholds a strict set of never-explained-but-everyone-knows-them rules religiously repeated by respected fashion and lifestyle magazines. This is most notable throughout the book with a seemingly personal vendetta against Lolita's. Although I understand that the Lolita aesthetic isn't necessarily 'chic' or 'classic' in Western terms (though the Japanese Lolita references the Victorian era and Western Lolita -in the Nabokov sense- are icons of youth and we all know how much we love our anti-age potions), the Lolita character is mentioned so many times in a negative setting that one starts to wonder what cute looking people ever have done to her...Because the advices given exists in the never-explained-but-everyone-knows-them realm, Blansjaar and the likes never provide a definitive NO NO or answer to our battle cries of 'but WHY?'. Plenty of fashion faux pas have wandered the streets without ending the world. And I think most people will agree there's nothing sinister about combining pink with red. So it annoys me that our choices are limited to an x number of approved options which are not only imposed on us by the fashion industry but are also socially regulated; we've all been once participants in the choir of tutting when a socks-in-sandals unironically strolls by.
Anything goes... NOT
These kind of clothing-etiquettes have been around since forever (that's a rough estimation) and we actually use those ridiculous rules as an important guide when researching clothing habits of the past and its role in society. How do we know the intrinsic glove-on/glove-off rituals people had to undergo in the 18th century just to be deemed 'not rude'? Well through similar guides like these. With the arrival of fast fashion mid-20th century style guides imploded and the intrinsic workings of before mentioned glove-dance are thought to be replaced by a whirlwind of anything goes. But if the dismissive tone and confusing finger-snap pace on 'hot or not' spreads in magazines are anything to go by, not anything goes.Although these spreads mainly rely on the highly scientific prediction which colour will be the new black (only panicking half-way through the rainbow to, in a spur of brilliance, declare black as the new black), it's interesting to think how these declarations will be interpreted in future years. My mind immediately went to that 100 Years of Fashion video that circled around the internet some time ago. To my greatest surprise the quintessential look of 2015 (the year the video was published) has been approved by my brain as an accurate representation of that year. Although I agree with their choice, I certainly didn't look like that. Nor anyone I know. So why are those items of clothing styled in that particular way 'quintessential' while they don't represent 'us'?
Conspiracy theories & fashion propaganda
EVIL SCHEME! That's right, conspiracy theory confirmed, fashion history is an inside job! A question we should be asking ourselves is: are we qualified to interpret our clothing habits so close to our daily experience? Shouldn't there be at least a hundred years and an alien species in between? The answer is dubious. First hand narration of the ways clothes are worn and the meaning behind them in social context surely helps. But when this is done by professionals within the industry you can argue it only provides legitimisation of their fashionable propaganda.Through trend forecasting professionals look-and-point, tell people what they've seen and enhance this image to turn it into a (possible) trend. This idea gets put into practice through fashion designers adapting their advices, made attainable by high street retailers and desirable through magazines, (sponsored) blogposts and other similar outings. Thanks to the latter part the rules on 'how to wear' are further established and then by claiming it's not hot any more and abandon their own creation, they make room for it in fashion heaven. Sometimes to be resurrected in books like those written by Blansjaar (the monokini? A fashion classic? Seriously?) or only brought up to mock and digging its grave a little bit deeper. The industry thus regulates what's thought, made, bought, worn and what parts of that cycle are adopted and used as an icon in our (wardrobe) history. Evil. I smell evil.
Although anything but inventive, Chic by Katharina Blansjaar is a fast and fun read for anyone who likes to indulge in the dubious character of fashion guides and history. The book is beautifully illustrated by Daniel Müller, which seriously helps in my ratings, and although my neck hurts from nodding in regocnition, perhaps there are some surprises left for the uninformed (I told you reading this book made me smug).
What do you think: fashion rules, an inside job or a public endorsed phenomena?
18 comments
Personally, I think fashion rules are absolute RUBBISH. I don't follow fashion, I just wear what I want but every time I see a magazine article or Buzzfeed article about clothing over 40's shouldn't wear or clothing you shouldn't wear if you're X, Y or Z I just roll my eyes and wonder what person thinks they're a fashion God, able to write such things. Honestly, who cares? Wear what you want <3
ReplyDeleteJenny
http://www.jennyinneverland.com
Haha! You're absolutely right! The most important thing is that you wear something you feel comfortable and confident in, instead of following certain 'rules' made-up by a small group of people with an opinion. ;)
DeleteLove this! I'm all for fashion and the way it makes ME feel not just adhering to rules other people made up that made them feel good about themselves. Fashion is suppose to be self expressive and a showcase of creative and every piece of cloth has it's owner. I genuinely believe that if you like a style, whether it's a classic fashion faux pas, wear it! Sometimes fashion needs to be challenged, that's how new statements are made. Great read lovely! :) :)
ReplyDeletexx Lena | https://lenadeexo.com
Thank you! In some way you could say that being selfish when it comes to fashion is the best thing you can do. Although I'm also one of those people who believe that it can also be very dangerous if you make it all about ME; it for instance allows you to ignore the bigger picture such as environmental or human rights issues attached to the clothing industry, as the focus -also within branding- is how it makes YOU feel and how YOU look in it (making you either forget or step over the troubles that can come with a pair of jeans). But having said that, I absolutely agree and see the power of clothing that 'fits' you and that challenges the status quo. It's the most interesting thing anyone could ever wear!
DeleteOne look at runway fashion and anyone would tell you that the only rule of fashion is that there are no rules so I totally agree with you. I admire anyone who thinks outside the box when it comes to fashion, who wants to wear exactly the same thing as everyone else?? (saying that, I do think that socks and sandals should be banned, but thats just personal preference) - https://sophiehearts.net x
ReplyDeleteHaha! And so the choir starts tutting. ;) For me it really depends on the kind of socks in sandals before I start waving my scepter of 'na-ah'. I think you're right that the runway shows a great variety of what should be deemed as (high) fashion, but I find it a little bit suspicious that many houses often show with a similar colour palette or inspiration/ideolgy source behind them... The chicken or the egg? Variety or same but different but same? #verysuperstitious
DeleteI have always thought fashion rules where just stupid. Pink and red go well together. I mean, look at runways! the fashion is not wearable and they do go against the rules! xx corinne
ReplyDeleteHaha! You're right, the fashion industry LOVES to go against their own rules (and therewith demonstrating how stupid they actually are...). And thank you for signing up for the pink + red appreciation club #PinkAndRedForeverAndEver! ;)
DeleteI detest fashion rules. Find one rule that I can apply to me that doesn't make me look like a frump or stifle my personality!
ReplyDeleteWell... there are plenty of rules to choose from. ;) But I get your point that these rules are generally applied to one body type and doesn't take into account how an exact copy will look on others.
DeleteOkay I'm a little conflicted here. I like to think of rules as guidelines if you have something you like but don't have a clue what to do with it, not as an actual unbreakable rule. But high fashion is all for playing around and mixing it up so I don't see why the average person on the street shouldn't either x
ReplyDeleteSophie
www.glowsteady.co.uk
You're right that taking these rules as UNBREAKABLE you perhaps miss the point of fashion (as an entity that actually LIKES to break their own rules... it's often indeed more of a guideline). HOWEVER that doesn't take away that 'they' still control the whole process of fashion which conforms to their own wishes and status. Naturally there IS change coming, but still it's hard to fight an almighty monster that has all the right keys in hand...
DeleteWell I do follow some general rules that I was given when brought up but other than that I just do what I think works best. I love how you can play around with fashion! I do think we can all mix it up as much as we like! As longs as you feel comfortable and happy in it, just do it!
ReplyDeleteLea, xx
There is some difference between rules you grow up with -set for instance by your parents- and rules that are (re)inforced by the fashion industry (although one influences the other, so.... yeah....). I'm absolutely a spokesperson for feeling comfortable, so I do agree with you on that aspect. But I just remembered an article I read some time ago about how our idea of comfort fits into a specific narrative that's constructed within society that still affirms a specific code-system (a code-system that thus is ruled by the fashion industry) so still when you think you dress on your own terms, you subconsiously reinforce this specific fashion discourse... #WhenWillWeBeFree??? ;)
DeleteI used to refer to fashion rules a lot however nowadays I don't really follow them. I just wear whatever I think looks best. I don't think we should fashion rules dictate what we wear. This was a really interesting post! I really enjoyed reading it!
ReplyDeleteThank you! The whole 'dictation' part is what bothers me most. I get that we must conform and live within a certain code-system based on our culture (and, most importantly, weather), but by handing ALL strings of this process to the fashion industry it creates this all powerfull monster. It perhaps explains why certain 'poisoness acts' can continue even though they are called out for it being bad for society (to be read in 'bad for human self-esteem' as well as 'bad for human rights' and 'bad for the environment').
DeleteEver since I started working at a German fashion company to translate product descriptions for their site and blog posts I've been thinking about this too. Every other week I see a blog post or Facebook post about fashion claiming that things are in fashion or how they should be combined with other items. When I ask what the logic behind that is, there is no answer apart from: we'll sell more this way.
ReplyDeleteSo basically it's some sort of a conspiracy. I don't know about the high end designers, but at our company we claim things are a big trend and we dictate how they should be worn (preferably with other items from our collection) so people will think it's true and buy the items. Even if an item isn't fashionable, we say it is. We make it fashionable that way. And it works.
I personally dislike this entire approach. I feel like I'm lying. I'm also repeating some fashion rules like the ones you listed in this post, just because they're been said so often that everyone believes them. It's... it's making me uncomfortable. I could go on, but if I do that I won't find the courage to translate another one of these fashion dictates tomorrow.
x Envy
Lost in Translation
You've. Made. My. Day. This is very insightful and -I must agree from a marketing point of view- a good strategy to get your clients buying more of your products...
DeleteI only have experience with the fashion industry from a historical point of view. And even then only mainly concerning the way we're going to explain, present and contextualise objects within, say, a museological context. The way 'we' present these objects are generally entirely based on documents and common sense (most blatantly put: trousers go with legs, jumpers go with upper body). But the more intrinsic ways of HOW some things are worn (from a stylistic pov, I guess) is thus solidly based on what's left behind to be interpreted from paintings, articles and photographs. But this naturally gives us a very narrow narrative and discourse of what fashion once was and nowadays is. And so, although the casual museum visitor don't really see or realise this, the way things are displayed are ONE-HUNDRED-PERCENT based on contemporary thought and interpretation and naturally leading itself with what's 'hot' or interesting for today's audiences: what can they relate to? This was actually a conversation we recently had at Modemuze [https://www.modemuze.nl/] and how we want to think more about current trends in historical perspective. This both to show WHERE something comes from and how some fashion trends don't just appear out of thin air, although they are chosen on that what sells but how thus something was worn and seen back in the ol' days, AND, naturally to generate more interest equalling more clicks on the website equalling more exposure and, in some way, lifting on the success of a fashion trend (and that without selling any clothes!). ;)
So this made me initially think about how the idea of fashion was regulated by those who are in power of it EVEN at the 'end stage' when it enters a museum and it arguably stops being a fashion item and turns into a perceived 'neutral' historical object. Although there's no such thing as a neutral object (especially not within museums).
So yeah, I don't think you need to feel bad that you help a fashion company sell clothes (that's what they are there for, right?), but it's interesting and I think important to be aware of the way these things are handled and presented and how it constructs and influences the way we approach something as 'frivolous' as the particular way we wear and think about clothes (saying it's 'frivolous' being a major pitfal for most people who 'just don't care about what they wear', and therefore blind themselves for these 'subtle' ways a whole industry regulates even that what is seen as 'unfashionable' worn by those who 'don't care' perhaps subconsciously for these reasons exactly... It's a game of the mind...). ;)
But anyway, I've basically written another blogpost to you as a respond... Oops... Thank you again for enlightening me that indeed my suspicions are correct! Go me! (and you obviously). ;)