SundayStyles

I fell asleep last night to the dulcet sounds of 28 up, since I am compelled to re-watch the series before my own private viewing of 56 up, released last week. Cut to boyfriend passed out and me reading the Style Section aloud. You're welcome. 

Ok Teddy, you're right, I do feel entitled to "judge what's happening" and clearly so do you. 

Dear Ted, 

Are we truly lost without a universally identifiable name?  Just passing amorphously through time, clinging to bespoke slacks and grommet clutches? I don't feel the desperation and I have not hit the point of "Foreclosure" as you have, I hope ironically concluded. Surely forecasting must be quiet difficult in any climate, 'hazy temporal' ones as well. Yet, despite the fog you manage with reckless abandon.

If I were someone else, I could speak endlessly about bedazzled jeans and velour track suits, but quite frankly, it has never occurred to me to buy, make or acquire either. When I think of Gwyneth Paltrow I see Margot Tennenbaum, a Wes Anderson incarnation more than anything else, and I had to Google, for a relatively lengthily period of time, what the coveted show "Popular" was.  (For anyone with underdeveloped taste like myself, you drew this connection).

You explain, almost alarmingly, that "we are in the midst of a two-decade period without universally agreed upon...." ugh, whatever. I am 100% fifty-fifty on this. Yes, the lack of a metaphysical fashion trend frees up a space for us to move and dress and accessorize and adorn ourselves, rhizomatically for lack of a better term. Thanks Deleuze, more on that later. But also, it does back those reasonably interested in personal style into a corner of pushing the immediacy and consistency of more is more as a way to differentiate. Is that a good thing?

According to Coco Channel, No. According to the 17 necklaces I have on while I write this, texture in volume seems to equate to texture in quality a point which is certainly not agreed upon universally but quite commonplace nonetheless. I ask you, what’s the difference?

Given the preoccupation with defining the fashion era before it has come to pass, I guess it is worth commenting, though relatively self-evident. How could one possibly capture the cultural zeitgeist, for the purpose of analysis, before it has landed? It seems a foolish conclusion, but worthy process.

Keep on keeping on.

TTH&S