Words of wisdom from Guardian fashion editor Jess Cartner-Morley on classic dressing:
Simple clothes will make frizzy hair and shiny skin all the more noticeable; the time you save dithering in front of your wardrobe will be needed for an extra bit of spit and polish in the form of hairspray and powder - and, quite possibly, an extra hit of mascara or lipstick. And then, is the look a bit bland? If it's all too vanilla, observers might not realise you are illustrating this season's vogue for simple dressing, and mistake you for a non-fashionista.
Quelle horreur! Season to taste with an ankle boot, or a patent belt, or an It bag, and you'll be dish of the day once again.
4 comments:
This pretty well sums up my wardrobe strategy: mostly classic pieces updated with more on-trend accessories.
Reading this in isolation it sounds so much like satire. I suppose irony really is dead.
Actually those last two paragraphs especially read to me as very tongue-in-cheek.
To a certain extent, I agree w/ this tongue-in-cheeky take on the matter. In the post about Wallis Simpson, I pointed out that classic dressing and doing it well isn't easy for most unless they had the facial beauty of none other than Grace Kelly. Why...because a stark background brings everything else much more into focus. It's the details that count.
By this I mean, that if you're going to go for a super minimal/classic mostly black type look and you're less than Grace Kelly beautiful, you have to do it right.
JMHO, but too many women use uniform classic dress in neutrals (usually black) to kind of hide behind. That approach makes them seem less than confident to my eyes....afraid of risk or change.
Tho this excerpt was written somewhat but not completely in jest, I find it has a true point. It's great to be classic, but it's even greater to be soignee.
Post a Comment