Disappointed, but not surprised.
I got a Marie Claire in the mail yesterday and didn't flip through it until today. Usually it will have some great photos, fun accessories, and runway makeup. But this one was pretty much the worst issue I've ever seen. While I'm not an avid magazine reader, it was disappointing, but I reminded myself that its a mainstream magazine and it's going to have mainstream fashion. There were multiple photos and articles on jeans, either baggy or ripped (Don't get me wrong, I have my ripped denim, but it was years before they became that way), a spread on wrinkled clothing, and another spread with really dull, shapeless and I quote "cost effective" colors.
I was not aware that boring colors are less expensive than interesting ones. I suppose that makes my closet a goldmine.
I could see a 1920s influence with the designs: simple, unstructured, there was even a model wearing harem pants, which I guess is more late 1910s, but still, there were basic similarities.
But the unflattering shape of the 1920s was countered greatly by the immense attention to lavish detail. Beads, silks, feathers, flowers, embroidery, lace, and things that sparkle! 1920s fashions always fascinate me, even if a dress is very simple, somehow it manages to be spectacular.
And that is the very thing the outfits on these pages lack, some personality. They are just hanging there, lifelessly, begging for a bath in RIT dye, and possibly some french lace trim. But sadly these designs are doomed to be dull, and even sadder are the women who feel the need to wear them. With so many amazing modern collections out there, why do these get credit for the latest in style?I understand simplicity, I understand versatility, but I do not understand head to toe...blah.
But as I've said before, I suppose the luxury of vintage is that fashions have been weeded through to present us the shining gems.