Because you can't have depths without surfaces.
Linda Grant, thinking about clothes, books and other matters.

Thursday, 20 March 2008

In classical times . . .


Sarah Mower and I might have had our differences in the past regarding the mutton question (see passim) but here she is in the Telegraph today laying out the bible for women of common sense this Spring and Summer:

This season, though, I've come back charged with a sense of clarity. What I want is actually very simple. It's not a flowery see-through chiffon dress, no matter how pretty they looked on the spring runway six months ago. It isn't a jumpsuit, in spite of the number of spring fashion shoots that are pushing them. And it absolutely, definitely is not a pair of drop-crotch trousers, dhotis, harem pants or any hybrid thereof.

Rarely has the word "classic" looked so tempting. For one thing, this is hardly the time to be wasting money on insubstantial fads that will be over in a second (the multi-floral thing, for example, which - according to the latest collections - will be dead by next winter).

And for another, having just emerged from spending a month embedded in the advance guard of some of the world's most dedicated dressers, it became startlingly clear to me how few editors, stylists and buyers have taken spring's notions literally. The really great dressers - the women you stare at across runways - have whittled their purchases down to a few brilliant things, which they then vary with maddeningly clever choices of tops, shoes, scarves and jewellery.

After years of bingeing on fast-fashion that falls apart in weeks, that knack - the ability to play with classic, long-lasting clothes in a creative way - is something we need to relearn.


You should definitely go and read the whole thing, because she has several entirely wearable key pieces, and how to wear them, to look our best this summer





5 comments:

phyllis said...

Are we finally over the Duro and it many tiresome variations? I sure hope so! I am SO ready to wear tailored clothing again. And I totally agree with Sarah.

Toby Wollin said...

Yep - give me a well-fitting blazer with some decent shoulder pads in it and I am all set. My only battle with the photos is with the choice of pants. No pants with pleats, please. The shapes were great; the fabrics lovely...but, ditch the pleats in the front.

Deja Pseu said...

I agree wholeheartedly about the blazer (currently have my eye on one from Empioro Armani) but I'll skip the ruffly shirts.

Anonymous said...

Pleats on trousers for women just make us look fat. Why do they do it? Flat fronted trousers with side zips are the only way to wear trousers if you're a woman with hips and a tummy. (99% of the population!)

I am longing for a French navy blazer, which covers my bum. I can't afford labels so if anybody has some High Street suggestions it would be great if you'd pass them on. (I can't wear black and some navies are so dark they might as well be black.)

lagatta à Montréal said...

I like her writing. Starting with a list of negatives, then honing in on specifics of what she does prescribe, is a very old, but effective, literary device.

But blazers are not for all, to say nothing of fluffy, frilly shirts....