Friday, November 30, 2007
You know, Delia's now has full pages of models in their underwear. And it's just like, I don't think the fourteen year olds who buy from Delia's and Urban need to see these images. They're nothing wrong with laying the lingerie on the ground and taking a picture of it like that. They don't need to see these jutting hipbones and protruding clavicles, okay? You've already made them feel bad enough about themselves with your bony, lank-ass models fully clothed.
And now back to these shorts, which, of course are polyester. These are so wide-legged (thighed?) that probably both the model's legs could fit into one of them. I'm really not against shorts in general, but these are so bulky and pleated they look like they should be paired with a raspberry, shoulder-padded blazer and wave bangs, Also, this is bordering on a formal short, a trend I thought was dead, but Urban seems to be clinging onto, with their cold, lifeless hands that are probably wearing ironic rings and whatnot.
This UO Artist Series Zip Up was originally a very overpriced $78. I guess what you are paying for is this gorgeous original artwork by LA-based artist Wil Lin, which looks a lot like the artwork I criticized recently, but more clothed. This is an example of when an artist and a designer "collaborate" which means the artist's designs are pasted on a sweatshirt. And seriously, why did they hire this dude when they could have just copied this exact drawing from the doodles on a twelve year old girl's math homework? (This is kind of a good idea for a clothing line, actually.)
These are called the Cheap Monday Jogging Pant, but we all know we are not actually supposed to jog in them, as evidenced by the fact that the model is wearing some sort of weird slippers. Okay, does anyone remember the name of those pants that everyone had in the early 90's that were really brightly colored and patterned and had an elastic waist and a little label in front? Something like ZAMZ or JAMZ? (then again, what wasn't called that in the early 90's?) I had a pair that were bright yellow, bright turquoise, black, and maybe some other colors. They were a real psychedelic freakout. These are more like a panic attack, but they're along the same lines.
Monday, November 26, 2007
First of all, his music is bad. I'm all for catchy/shallow pop music, but "Sexyback?" Was there a hook in that song? I know everyone loved it (maddening!) but to me it just sounded like him moaning. "Sexybaaaaaack." That's how the song went. Besides that, could his music be any more overproduced? His actual voice is totally unrecognizable in all his "Future Sex" songs. Also, he doesn't write it, he "cowrites" it. With a team of producers. Like Ashlee Simpson.
"Future Sex/Love Sounds." What kind of douchey title is that? It sounds like the name of a terrible modern art show. Of course, this is coming from someone who named his first album "Justified," so what can we expect? It's like, really? Future Sex/Love Sounds? Do you think you are Miles Davis or something?
When beginning this post, I was like, I'm going to googleimage search him and I know I'll find an appropriate picture of him right away. I wasn't aware that he played guitar, myself, but it's more the look on his face that fills me with rage. This one, this one or this one would have been good too. Another thing that bothers me about Justin is that he is considered to have "soul." In fact, he opened a soul food restaurant in New York! Just think, you can go to Moby's vegan "tea bar" or whatever the hell that is and then head on over to experience the taste of authenticity (ohmygod this website is so funny!)
Another much-admired quality of Justin's is how stylish he is. Yeah, he dresses pretty well now that less ugly styles are popular, but let's take a short trip down memory lane and remember when he dressed like this. I remember, at the time, being horrified by this outfit. It's not like you were forced to dress this way in the year 2000. It's not like anyone forced you to wear cornrows. (I guess the soul was trying to escape there.) Clearly he is dressed by some trendy-ass stylist, as evidenced by this so four years ago look.
Which brings me to my final point, that he was in Nsync. If you went to high school during the period when boy bands were actually popular, and not even just boy bands like Fallout Boy but boy bands who were always posing like closeted gay Christian high school drama club members in matching outfits and everyone was all taking it seriously, and one of the "hot one" dated and wore matching outfits with Britney Spears, and that band wasn't even as good as the Backstreet Boys because we all know the "Backstreet's Back" video where they were dressed as monsters was pretty awesome, then I guess you feel some sort of adolescent bitterness towards a member of the band who got really successful. I mean, I'm fine with a Ricky Martin level of fame for Justin, and feel that's deserved (especially the current level, but even during the madness that was the "La Vida Loca" craze.) But nothing more!
PS: Looking up pictures of NSync is actually really funny and worth your time.
By the way, I think you have to cut and paste like half of those links into the address bar but it is 100% worth it.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Oh man! First of all, I hate how every single "surreal" artist thinks the most "surreal" thing ever is a fugly barren landscape; it was ugly when Salvador Dali did it but now we have someone who is copying Salvador Dali but adding the crucial element of a skinny little female in a trendy dress with her skirt blowing up. I mean, Dali's nudes were offensive and all too, but at least they weren't this retarded. By Fuco Ueda.
This is the kind of art that looks like the doodles I did in high school, but mine didn't have girls with leaves stuck to their tits. We have already seen this style, which is a rip-off of 70's stuff, in Calvin Klien ads and on the cover of this Donnas album and it is just fucking everywhere!
A topless girl in the bushes, looking frightened and drugged. This one evokes a lot of questions, like, "Why is she topless in the bushes?" Not to be sexist, but I can't believe this is the work of a female artist. It looks like the work of a balding forty-five year old who tries to pick up fourteen year olds on the bus to pose for his "erotic art." By Jessica Mccourt(!)
God, this is so tacky and ugly! Are these people just copying pages out of Vogue or something? By Lori Earley.
Just lovely. Really evocative of "artist"/douchebag Jeff Koons, airbrushed porn stars, maybe a little Paris Hilton, lingerie catalogues...
Yeah. Seriously. This is seriously a painting that someone painted. If I went to a gallery and the work of "Sas Christian" was on display, I would definitely feel the urge to destroy it a la that guy who took a chainsaw to Michaelangelo's Piata in the 70's. But what I really want to know is, what is under that red t-shirt? I bet it's boobs!
God, this is so offensive! She's eating out of a dog bowl! And the exploitation of cephalopods in these is perhaps even more offensive than the anime porn. By Junko Mizuno.
This is derivative of Tank Girl, except that Tank Girl was a positive force for young ladies, and everyone was really into it in 1995 when cyber clothing was popular. This piece by Camilla D'errico takes all the cyber hideousness of 1995 with a much added dash of confused and busty twelve year old.
I'm so glad that all this art is totally free of body hair. I, for one, appreciate the shading on the naked crotch of the red-haired one. I love how the women in this one are ostensibly supposed to be some kind of selkies/mermaids/sea creatures, but they also found the time to apply makeup, get boob jobs, and squeeze in a Brazilian! Who says today's modern water sprite can't do everything? By Esao Andrews.
And, finally, this piece of crap by Aya Takano, of two retarded adolescent blow up dolls about to make out.
I'd like to end this with a quote from the post: "I don't like Audrey Kawasaki. I think sometimes she gets too close to kiddie porn. But I know what you mean about painting of women. Intoxicating."
Haven't these people ever heard of the male gaze, for christsakes? Don't they know that these images of women as passive"muses" and sexual objects is pretty much the oldest and most typical subject there is? What do we get from these images that cannot be gotten from a crappy fashion ad? All in all, it's sad this art is bad and popular and all, but it's even more sad that it's popular among young women.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Am I crazy, or are these awesome? They look like a combination of those orthopedic shoes old ladies used to wear but don't seem to much any more, and something really mod, like they were just made to be worn with a double knit, blocky 60's dress, like this only less ugly. I can't imagine these being too hot of a seller, especially since they are patent.
PS: I really called the whole "bootie" craze of aught-seven with this post, didn't I? Everyone knows all those booties are just copies of styles made in the 30's and 40's, right? Right?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Another thing about the 70's is that feminism started to come into the mainstream, and, for a brief period, was actually kind of cool. Looking at 70's ads, you see all these images of grinning women doing karate kicks and or being park rangers or what have you because suddenly it was hip to not be a docile housewife or generally passive looking (for brief time.)
Whatever is going on with Joan Jett's boots (it looks scenic) in this photo, it's amazing.
I just stole this photo of this kid's 1970's era bar mitzfah off the internet. I love the lady on the left's boots and skirt combo, and the way photos from this decade often have this kind of glowy yellow light.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
PS: This title comes from, when, in high school, Naira and I would give the "seal of approval" to people we didn't hate. Not very many people received the seal, so it was a rare honor. Probably like ten people got it or something. And they all should have got tattoos and formed a secret society of people we kind of liked, but not enough to be our real friends.
PPS: Also, Gaby saw Amy Winehouse in an Aldo last summer- class! That's all.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
These dresses, also selected from f21, also will work well. The first one works for the same reasons a wrap dress does- it has a nicely defined waist, room/definition for the boobs, and a flattering v-neck. The second one is kind of blousy, but the elastic waistline gives it shape, and the sheer fabric showing the v-neckline will show off a little cleavage without being in your face. The last dress also hints at cleavage but the bow makes it demure, and again it has a shape and a waist and blah blah blah.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The point is, I also thought Christina Ricci was totally cool as well. Obviously she had played Wednesday Addams, a character my friends and I thought was totally badass even though my friend Lucy never let me play her in games and I always had to be one of those terrible blond girls. Then she was in Now and Then, which is a great movie for young girls, and she played this surly tomboy character and it was awesome.
Then she got older and she started wearing lots of black eyeliner and looking angry and showing up in outfits magazines said were "unflattering" and she was all rebellious and stuff and she seemed like she really didn't care about buying into that evil Hollywood game and all. It was just so cool that she seemed kind of smart and slightly chubby and awkward and normal looking. It seemed so appropriate she would, at fourteen or whatever, react to fame in this way instead of having a weave and smiling a lot and being the sort of creepy idealized teen starlet.
I'm sure the pressure of being even semi-normal looking in Hollywood is very hard to bear, and it really just seems to be getting worse and worse in terms of letting people look different. Every time I see a photo of Christina now, looking all hungry and bony in some fugly designer dress, it makes me shed a (metaphorical) tear for the girl who once wore lots of black and flame capris and looked pissed off and seemed like she had the potential to be interesting.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Anyway, it's all very fascinating,- I really love that long gray tank dress old MK is showing us in the last picture. It looks very flattering, unique, and well-designed. Apparently "The Row" has sold really well, probably to the same public that buys Britney's perfume and The Jaime collection by Jaime Pressley. I'm really sure that all these "designers" are constantly hard at work on their "designs."
Also, I just spent like twenty minutes trying to find this one photo of Fergie's line for Kipling (remember those hideous nylon bags with the monkey hanging off them that were really expensive and I dreamed of owning in seventh grade?) that I saw in an old People magazine and stared at for like five minutes in order to make a reference to Paris Is Burning in relation to them, but of course I couldn't find the right one, so the pic at the end of this post will have to do, even though it doesn't look nearly as Paris Is Burning as the other one.
But, I admit, I don't really hate the Olsens. I hate aspects of the Olsens, many aspects I guess, but I guess what I appreciate about them (mostly Mary Kate) is that they sometimes look completely psychotic in the name of fashion, and, in their own troll-like way, seem very devoted to it in a way that other self-proclaimed fashion-loving starlets (Lindsay Lohan, for instance) don't. They don't just wear the latest trends their stylist put them in, and sometimes they look crazy, and not just because of their blank and hungry eyes.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
These guys opened up a Viktor & Rolf fashion show last year. The mist, the tailcoats, the aforementioned side-parted hair, it's all so silent film. I love that they are dancing together too.
This is from the same fashion spread as the top pic. The plaid shirts and sweaters and vests look very 40's altogether.