Comments | greatwideleap: unabashedly superficial

greatwideleap

unabashedly superficial

Jul 08, 2006 21:47

Oh no.

Even the stalwart J.Crew is now selling footless tights and leggings. Now there's no hope!

I suppose I should be happy because they're a move towards modesty (sometimes miniskirts are a little too mini), but still.

Comments 14

selenityk July 9 2006, 03:56:16 UTC

But what of the "ladylike" trend that's been going on for the past few seasons? :)

I picked up my copy of Vogue today; when I saw that they were pushing leggings as The Next Big Thing, I immediately thought of 15th and 16th century men wearing hosiery. :-D But on a more contemporary level, not too many people can pull that look off--I certainly don't want to see everyone and their great-grandma in leggings. I have to admit that I like the drainpipe/rockstar/striped pants and the historical flourishes that designers like Galliano have been lately bringing to fashion. I'm tired of the boho look. :)

Oh, and Alexander McQueen has temporarily brought back the bustle. It's in July's issue of Vogue if you're interested. :) The model was wearing a tiny bustle, not the huge ones from the 1870s/1880s.

greatwideleap July 10 2006, 00:01:17 UTC

What an intriguing icon you have there! Regency-era gown (although the puffy sleeves are a bit anachronistic) with what looks to be a Roman gladiator's helmet?

The bustle is back? Hmm! A nod to Sir Mix-a-Lot, perhaps?

selenityk July 10 2006, 00:44:29 UTC

The picture came from a photoshoot (Vogue perhaps?) done in the 90s. The models were wearing clothing reminiscent of 17th/18th/19th c. clothing.

The bustle is probably back on the runway and in haute coutoure. Who knows if it'll ever drift down to everyday wear? I personally can't see it doing so, unfortunately. If only I had the money to buy haute coutoure.

If panniers were revived, you can bet your last dollar I'd buy a pair of those. :)

greatwideleap July 10 2006, 02:04:02 UTC

What are those?

Thread 5

One more thing... selenityk July 9 2006, 04:05:19 UTC

Given the rate at which fashion changes, I wonder how future fashion/cultural historians will classify the first decade of the 21st century? Given that decades seem to have their own trends (e.g. 50s with pencil skirts and Dior-esque fashions, 60s with the mini-skirt and hippie fashions, 70s bell-bottoms, etc), this decade seems to be utilizing fashions from any decade and period the designers can think of. :)

Sorry, just more fashion rambling for you. :)

Re: One more thing... flurije July 9 2006, 17:00:18 UTC

Hmm...I've been wondering the same thing, we've got such a hodgepodge of different designs, but we seem to be recycling some designs from 2 decades ago (in the 90s we used the 1970s and now in 00 we're using the 80s). In the next decade, what will we recycle for fashion? A reinterpretation of an interpretation? Whoo...sorry, I guess my Postmodernism slipped in there ("The similacra is absent an original referent and so..." :-P)

Re: One more thing... greatwideleap July 10 2006, 00:09:36 UTC

*runs screaming at the advent of Postmodernist jargon*

Re: One more thing... selenityk July 10 2006, 00:47:14 UTC

In the next decade, it'll probably be the 90s. Fashion can't seem to come up with anything too original anymore. I love, love,love John Galliano and the others who are looking to period costumes for runway inspiration, but everday fashion needs an overhaul.

Thread 9