Stylish with Substance

A new and official fashion design caucus was recently formed on Capitol Hill. Of its inevitable success, co-chair Carolyn B. Maloney said,

"We are working on a bill now for copyright protection and we are going to pass it this session."

All of the flickr fashion sketches claiming copyright, currently it's partly-erroneous. Click to view owners.

“Counterfeits with pirated designs and fake labels are absolutely prohibited by law, but it doesn’t provide any protection for the same fashion design when the pirates omit the label. ... We’ve got to stop that and we will stop that.”

There has been a movement from very small fashion designers and crafters to stop such a bill, in the thoughts that it would be cost-prohibitive to very small business. Even though I'm attempting to become one of those designers/businesses, I absolutely am for this protection. Despite the cost, depending on exactly how high it could rise, it has potential to stop huge, famous companies from creating and selling indie designs almost completely under the radar to unwitting customers. Since most people don't know this theft exists, these unscrupulous business people are absolutely the ones who get away with this crime more often. Don't you want to protect your fellow crafters and Internet peers from the big bullies with power? We can help take their power away. Sure, putting out a collection will mean saving more money first, and we'll have to be super-secretive about our designs and sketches until we have our protection (there is a debut time limit to even get things copyrighted) - but I see it as a long-term saver. Of course, stores like Forever 21 could either suffer or suddenly need to get creative, namely cheap clothesmakers will have to ... design. Dun dun dunnn. Perhaps we won't be able to wear runway style, but I hope companies will still make fabulous but more unique pieces. Who wants to look like a fashion victim in an unoriginal, anyway? Besides, we can still wear things like Zac Posen for Target. Also, it would be nice to prohibit celebrities like Paris Hilton from making blatant shoe knockoffs. Plus with those companies requiring more-in-number and more-creative design, there should be a larger number of design job openings, and ones for more talented people. That could also benefit the community of smaller designers. Do you agree/disagree? Comment! If you want this to pass, and especially if you have requests for stipulations (like a maximum fee amount), please write to your local legislature! Via The Cut

Britney Spears has done a new ad campaign for Candies, but this is not just one more in their long relationship. Word is she didn't want to appear retouched. You'll see below why that was an absolute no-go on its own, so the shoe company offered to devote a part of their campaign to a split screen ad only vaguely about shoes (about the shoes, there is one cute pair in the gallery after this article).

[caption id="attachment_3020" align="alignnone" width="360" caption="Before half of the frontal "before and after" spread"][/caption]

The new Spears/Candies move is in the wake of the year-old French Elle with no make-up, this month's Marie Claire boasting the same (with Jessica Simpson, picture included in article), paired with numerous "photoshop" scandals that leave real women --- readers and followers of these publications and stars --- insulted and brimming with criticism.

This particular version of an un-retouched star is somewhat reminiscent of the very accidental slip of a brief Internet publishing of a pre-retouched, blotchy Kim Kardashian. While Kim quickly blogged that she loves her real body, she nearly as quickly changed that body, slimming down in the gym. That move obviously hurt the curvy/love-yourself cause and is plainly quite aggravating - so it does paint Britney's original, along with her intentions, in a beautiful light.

The major difference to this boldly publicized "before" is that there is no way the original could have been published anywhere aside from a tabloid or to support this cause. It's not due to flab, Britney's looking slim, but due to mere general flaws.

[caption id="attachment_3021" align="alignnone" width="298" caption="Candies' retouched version. (Ours is below, we hope you like it better.)"][/caption]

Last Tuesday, fashion bloggers were ahhing over the novelty of photos so honestly-unretouched, while it seems other publications & media outlets buzzed over her camel toe (in even the retouched version, by the way - above).

While it is refreshing to see a celebrity with true flaws (Oh I just mean the leg bruising probably from a rigorous dance routine, no insult here -- oh wait, and nasty feet, sorry Brit but it's true). What makes it especially refreshing right now is this "coming out" is in a world where perfect 10s make "unretouched" / "un-made-up" (yeah right) magazine covers and those create oohs and even some refreshed sighs.

Even more important than refreshing is that these images can be used to support the simpler acts of photoshopping/retouching, while also still pointing out the cruel eyes that guide hands to change women into fairy tale beings we don't want parading in front of our daughters.

Using the two Candies' front shots as examples, there's nothing wrong with Spears' shape, the beauty issue lies with the coloring and details of her legs and feet. (OK I might be harsh on feet.)

The Candies' marketer/graphic artist still went to extremes to shrink Britney, in addition to the acceptable-in-some-cases* smoothing of her skin. They gave her a 12-year-old's waist and stick legs where Britney's real-life tone is actually a badge. And how dare they lean down her perfect-for-28 slim yet womanly arms?

Yes, the extent is "normal" and arguably to prove a point, but it's not just to prove that point, these moves would have been made regardless.

Of course certain artistic photos and glamorous, swirling advertisements require more perfectly smooth and glistening skin - these things are about image, idealism, want. They correspond with equally or moreso false backgrounds, so what can we really expect? I bet we do want superhuman images, sometimes.

I still see a problem when it's a celebrity vs. a model, though. A face and body so well-known, especially in the days of tabloids, suddenly or sometimes appearing altered to an ideal is very unsettling to real humans, especially women. Possibly worst of all is it is damaging to young girls' self-esteem and development at a time when mental health is a more serious concern than any other point in life.

I decided to have fun and do some retouching of my own

to serve as a better example of appropriate ways to alter a star. I did go an extra mile and accentuate a smaller waist, but mostly to only show what is acceptable, and I think this is the farthest that should be gone.

Unfortunately I've realized these photoshop artists must be serious nerds who pore over literally every pore, trying to create their fantasy women. Fellas, if this is true and you, that could be why you might have trouble with women. Aside from your flawed desires, it's not you, it's your view of them.

Of course in reality the profession is mixed with money-hungry marketing-savvy people who just cannot stop until they've seen beyond perfection. Trust me, I understand the need to pick, but it must stop. In this case, the perfectionism is not an art - it's just evil business.

[caption id="attachment_2083" align="alignright" width="220" caption="Magazines are not Bibles."][/caption]

When it's comes to voicing my opinion against old-fashioned or status quo thinking, I kind of am never done and can hardly reign myself in. I have something else to add in response to things people (here: a magazine professional) have been saying relating to the immature/amateur/style-star fight turned entire war of the fashion classes (Bloggers vs. Editors).

This quote by Anne Slowey, Fashion News Director for Elle, from a December article on The Cut was resurfaced on Stylist yesterday,

"People in fashion are constantly looking for the next unique boundary-pushing extreme thing to get excited about, but, you know, it's like outsider art. What am I getting out of a 13-year-old's opinion about fashion? How does that help me distill the collections? What am I supposed to be buying? That's what an editor's job at a magazine is."

Uhh.. no.

I don't even want to put magazine staff out of their other-tasks-of-that-job but... to them, fashion fans and all consumers,  I will answer her above posed questions.

1. Entertainment?
2. It's not supposed to? Who even cares? Just do it, you're supposed to be a pro, and as for the rest of us, we can do it on our own too! It's art, it's personal!
3. What you like as long as it looks good on you!
4. No. it. is. not.

And as it pertains to retail buyers, perhaps the magazines do help but what would help more would be turning to actual or potential customers' opinion - and aren't those often fashion bloggers? Isn't that one great thing that should come from the blogging phenomenon?

Magazine staffers, you give a great service, but it's also in entertainment. I'm never going to use your pages as shopping lists for my Spring wardrobe.

Although I do read a lot more blogs and they can inspire me. Something to think about.

*Grammar update*
I'm updating this post because I've learned something that relates, and I'm sure this little part of the grammar world can be found in my article. (I'm too busy to read it all again.)
Apparently, what every English teacher I know informs of prepositions is incorrect. (If you don't want to read that page, I'll write the gist here: some prepositions can be used at the ends of sentences.)

I will now write with less difficulty and, even more happily, less awkwardness. 'Twas such an awkward rule, wasn't it?

[caption id="attachment_2072" align="alignnone" width="411" caption="The View from the Middle: We're All on Equal Ground Now"][/caption]

It isn't a popular position for a blogger herself to whine about (a) successful blogger(s), but at least that is only a small part of the upcoming several-fold rant. Well I'm not going to whine about success anyway, and I will only half bitch about the editors too. Everyone in the world is sometimes wrong and we've been reading so much of this cat fighting that I am itching to say just a few things.

First of all, everyone's mean! Sure it's safe to say that corporate-hired folks "started it". Example: AOL's Style List Katie Hintz-Zambrano pretty much accused famous 13 year old blogger, Tavi, of being no lady---whatever that means it does sound loaded. Yet then FashionIndie publisher antagonized all professionals for having expensive student loans yet small success. (Rant 2:) While attempting to argue against pros in this piece the blogger didn't exactly prove one doesn't need college with an article littered with terrible writing. See a large quote below as an example.

"Katie realize that fashion is a fickle little beast that is addicted to flavors of the week. The current flavor are over the top style bloggers like Tavi, Bryan Boy and Sea of Shoes, individuals with small readerships that manage to get attention cause they look odd* (or fabulous in the case of SeaGirl) and stand out in the streams of black, gray, and weathered that is the traditional garb of old school media types; you know, those overweight, fumpa bellied** folks who work at low readership publications like Paper Magazine and Village Voice who for years have taken over the front rows."

Yeah I've been holding in my opinions - for the most part - about successful so-called writers who are as literate as the average person but actually attempt to publish and, while successfully in their own rights by their own hands, do so with a lot of opinion but zero talent.

Why is paying college tuition as "out" as three-decade-old faded bell-bottoms? While I don't agree with the degree system, some education itself is priceless when it comes to things like grammar knowledge. Microsoft doesn't sell that in package with PCs and paying high-speed Internet bills doesn't grant us magic literary pills. Proper English is not something to disregard and learning it can not come easy. True that the average reader doesn't know better but professional writers and editors do and I am not surprised they're pissed that Jr. High-essay-level penners are so popular.

To me it's not Tavi and her front row that I think is the only upsetting thing to insiders - and I'm refreshed that at least with her I can't expect better writing than her age (although I think she far from writes worse than most adults). I, as someone who grasps the English language and is tormented by popular readership sites with authors who - to me - can't write to save their lives --- can't imagine that this is also not upsetting to those who earned their big desk jobs.

[caption id="attachment_2059" align="alignright" width="193" caption="~*If you like it then you shoulda put a belt on it*~"][/caption]

*Third part of rant: Yeah, professionals, even fashion ones sometimes, are supposed to dress "professionally"; not "crazy", most of the time---unlike girls - or boys - playing dress-up in their bedrooms and taking that to the street. Fashion is diverse, often about couture, but to me it's a lot about flattery and not at all about a drapery, cheap or expensive label, that "fits" like a shapeless sheet. Where is the beauty in this outfit (right) - complete with hideous tights that appear to be mismatched knee socks? Oh yeah, I want to take fashion tips from that. (Not that I need any from anyone after years of Stacy and Clinton - all I need, babies.)

To add to the ugliness, I cannot hold it in, silver hair (or blue as some call it) on her makes her look 90 years old. It's not cute.

However that FashionIndie representative thinks it's "unthinkable" to diss Tavi's (still-rookie?) style (and shows the position with unintelligible wording).

"[Stylelist's Katie Hintz-Zambrano] also does the unthinkable by calling her style “warrant serious eye rolls”. Oh snap!!!"

I do like that, for some time, a fashionista blogger showing her own style can lead to a following - what better way is there? Sadly, I've been horribly camera shy for several years with the reason lending itself to a future article on self esteem, weight, accepting oneself, etc. (I plan to follow that by me attempting to keep up with occasional or frequent ensemble shots, even though I still cannot be cloned---I being the only photographer my perfectionist self trusts.)

**The epidemic of not only obesity but of less-endangered-weighted women feeling frightened to be seen by the world or even themselves is my rant #4. It took me a long time to realize I am not actually fat - in fact I look beautiful, sexy, curvy, have a waist etc... I'm just no thinner than average even if sometimes larger. With only that amount of extra size on me, I've been terrified to show myself - and even though I've recently gotten over that for the most part, my fear of the camera adding 20 lbs (yep 20) is always difficult to overcome.

So to those so called indie fashionistas who are still to this day so insulting of weight as to say "fumpa bellied" (whatever that is) - yes, I am outraged at you and cannot stop at just pointing out this wrong you have made.

Yet who am I to argue? Where do I come from? (How much is jealousy, as one could excuse?) I'd let my posts speak for themselves as that is clearly all I currently have to show (and many are now missing photos, html and categories after years of changes and moves). I don't think I even necessarily deserve grandeur at this point - I've made many individual business mistakes that leave me no wonder as to why I'm not more successful, so I'm not factoring my small position or using any bitterness in this reply. I'm human open to animal weakness but that is the truth. I've just seen such horrible lashing out that I'm compelled to put my 2 cents in, as my opinionista self just needs to do. I admire the simple beauty of bloggers making it by showing their style, and I'm hopeful that I can soon make this work for myself a bit - even though I usually go out looking mostly normal (except to male opinion) and if that holds a girl back, so what(?).

I don't even mind if there's bad writing by some fabulous or even crazy fashionista making it bigger through beautiful or quirky photos of their style and others'. One, the other, or both - it must be at least visual or literary, I say - and with both makes best. A fashion news or opinion site with apparent lack of even spell check, let alone proofreading, that lends to questioning what the writer's first language even is ---- also not cute, just like a sad sack.

Stop bashing the pros and editors you appear to not even aspire to struggle to equal in talent.

I'll leave you with this quote, from Tavi's own final word on the fight she partially inspires.

"The Bloggers vs. Editors! thing is tired. If there was a real competition, editors wouldn't be willing to give bloggers press. Blogs and magazines are good for different things; it's like comparing apples with oranges. Collaboration, not competition. Always!"

(And only one grammatical error.) I kind of like her brain, just not always the eye that creates some of her ensembles. ;-) You should read that article ... and/or more of my blog. ;-)

I can know this because I have been skinny.

[caption id="attachment_1695" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Courtesy of Monfresh @ Flickr"][/caption]

Some foods do taste wonderful, but their calories or other disadvantages make them easier to avoid while dieting. Some foods are just worth it, still.

Everyone has their own preferences, like some foodies need only gourmet and those with sweet teeth can drool over any dessert/snack foods.

Starbucks' Hot Chocolate with a shot of peppermint may taste awesome, but I'm lactose intolerant (erm, less tolerant) so that's off my menu for now while I'm also cutting calories.

One food we can all agree on; Filet Mignon.

Come on, Kate. Nothing? Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels? Really? Really!?!

You lie, miss chienne, you just must lie.

Sincerely, Ella.

P.S. Why, I think I just might have one of those Keebler sandwich cookies as a post-breakfast snack. Don't mind if I do - don't mind it at all. ;-)

We just posted that Karl Lagerfeld is nutty with a serious case of verbal diarreah. But Lagerfeld is so off his rocker-bound-butt that he leaves behind his roots.

His own heavy roots;

"No one wants to see curvy women. You've got fat mothers with their bags of chips sitting in front of the television and saying that thin models are ugly."

To that fab bloggers from Refinery 29 retorted,

We're just going to chalk that up to boob envy and move on.

We (the royal moi) roll our eyes at him. Karl, stuff it with a can of Pringles, you miserable old koot!

Ladies, don't listen to that oddball. And ask any straight man how much he loves curves.

Issue = fin.

(Also Refinery29 and FatStylist.com = FAB.)