Fashion and Conformity

NYC Street Style...

“Why are people always staring at me?” After drawing many stares during a ten-block walk to and from the grocery store, I began to ponder this and texted the question to my best friend and my mother. My best friend, Nikita, explained it simply, telling me it is because I am “an eccentric ginger girl,” while my mother responded by asking what I was wearing. I almost didn't tell her because trying to describe my outfit over a text message made me realize how eccentric I truly looked – and I had even taken my fascinator off!

...According to Google

            I used to think fashion conformity was a plague of suburbia, but things aren't that different in Manhattan (perhaps with the exception of a few trendy neighborhoods). Over the summer, I visited Paris and multiple Italian cities, including Milan, the country’s fashion capital, and the situation was no different overseas. “Street style” is truthfully nonexistent except in a very limited number of urban neighborhoods and only represents what a select few fashion innovators wear.

Grunge - 1990's

            If fashion is a form of self-expression, are people using fashion as a means of conformity or neglecting its power to send a desired message? I believe the former to be true in most cases. As a society, even if we deem fashion to be superficial, we recognize that our appearance has the power to influence others’ thoughts about us. Anti-fashion movements, such as the 1990’s Grunge movement, are based in a rebellion of this idea. However, even grunge became a fashion moment because fashion is an unavoidable form of self-expression.

Fashion Cycle

            Throughout history, people have used fashion to express their relationship with conformity – and society as a whole. Essentially, the whole idea of fashion uniformity will always exist. The nature of mass market fashion business is to provide average consumers with the goods they desire. Because of the large scale of today’s dominant businesses, most people are buying the same brands in the same stores. At some point in the fashion cycle, the masses are all wearing variations on the same product.

Flappers - 1920's

            Every fashion movement begins with nonconformists. However, when the fashion moment is at its peak, it is at the very height of conformity – though always far more “toned down” (translation – made into something uninteresting) to appeal to the masses. During the Roaring Twenties, flappers hiked their hemlines above their knees – and were the first women to ever do so. These flappers were revolutionary, scandalous nonconformists. (Keep in mind that the erogenous zone of the time was legs.) Because of their influence, the average women did begin to wear shorter styles, although still often kept to below the knee. Some flapper, trends such as short hairstyles like the Eaton bob and the use of cosmetics, were more readily accepted by the public – and eventually became the uniform for the era.

Trousers - 1920's

            Even so, many fashion daredevils don’t see their pioneering looks accepted by the conformists until decades later – which may disappoint or delight them, depending on their outlook. During the Roaring Twenties, short skirts and women’s pants were introduced by fashion pioneers. However, neither was accepted by the public until approximately a half-century later. If we are viewing fashion as a reflection of culture (in case you haven’t been paying attention, we are), we must account for human nature. It is well-known that people are more comfortable and confident about fashion trends if they not new to them. The women that grew up in the Jazz Age were familiar with the short skirts and trousers their parents were scandalized by, so they were ready to adopt them in the coming eras.

Schiaparelli - 1930's

            Fashion is also engaged in an eternally-perpetuating conversation with itself. If, in the 1920’s, Chanel did not make fashion more practical (and consequentially, boring), Schiaparelli would've never come along in the 1930’s with her fun, frivolous surrealism. Of course, this did not happen in a vacuum, removed from society. During the Great Depression, people were drowning in the plight of forced practicality. Life was hard and they wanted to see images that were removed from their own lives. Hollywood, with its glamour, money, and beauty, boomed. Fashion was truly a form of escapism in the 1930’s. It is crucial to note that the allure of the rich and famous was dependent on the start contrast with the lives of the average individuals. If the appearance of screen stars resembled that of the average person, they wouldn't have held any remarkable significance. Being average has no impact.

Claire McCardell - 1940's

            This tug-of-war between the practical and the frivolous was fought throughout history and continues into the current day. During World War II, some fashions were rigidly practical and uniform-inspired. Rations had a strong influence on this due to restrictions on fabric and decorative elements. New roles for women in the workplace and in support of the war effort also increased the need for practical attire. Similarly to the 1930’s, because fashion was somewhat inaccessible to the masses, creativity became seen as more desirable and even morale-boosting. Women learned how to have fun with clothing within their practical limits, seemingly bridging the gap between the two parallels. They used clips to change their necklines and wore more printed fabrics in the absence of fancy trims. While clothing tended towards the practical, accessories were not rationed and hats became quite popular and whimsical. In the post-war half of the 1940’s, the most important designers were Claire McCardell and Christian Dior. The former produced more utilitarian apparel, such as a Pop-Over Dress, which was a cross between a dress and an apron. Dior threw practicality to the wind in the absence of wartime rationing. He was considered revolutionary for using copious amounts of fabric that women were used to seeing as forbidden. Exhausted from the effects of rationing on their wardrobes, women loved the new ideas Dior presented. It wasn’t long before Dior’s new ideas became the typical look of the time. This is something very interesting about revolutions. The trigger is something remarkably different than what people are used to – and then it simply becomes the norm, only to be overthrown again.

Swimsuits - 1940's

            We mustn’t forget about shock value. In the 1940’s, the bikini was introduced. It was deemed to be so shocking that it deserved the name of an atom bomb. Today, showing excessive skin no longer has shock value. Of course, that doesn’t stop celebrities and entertainers from thinking it does. If my skirt is too short, nobody is staring at me in shock; the only result is that I feel slightly uncomfortable. I find it much easier to shock people, not by showing skin, but by choosing unconventional fashions. As you may have gathered, I have a passion for (err, obsession with) fascinators. Please believe me when I tell you I draw more looks in these than a revealing yet generic ensemble. (And the looks I do get are probably less creepy.)

Beatnik - 1950's

            Fashion changes when rules are broken. The 1950’s arguably had the most rules about fashion ever in the 20^th century. There was a sense of formality and fashion magazines described the perfect outfit for every occasion. Women (at least those who weren’t suburban housewives) were expected to wear gloves, girdles and hats. But the rebels of the 1950’s understood that rules are meant to be broken. The birth of rock ‘n’ roll and beatnik style spurred a teenage-centric fashion influence that continues on today. Jeans, once reserved for working men, were a popular rebellious response to this staged formality. Fashion will always swing back and forth between these extremes as different groups in a society use it as a means of communication – and often challenge – amongst themselves.

Hippies - 1960's

            This rebellious youthquake really took off in the 1960’s with two very different movements: Mods and Hippies. The Hippies were responding to social unrest and their obsession with ethnic cultures and nostalgia for the past informed their fashion choices. While this was not a fashion movement, what the Hippies wore certainly had an impact. Ethnic fashion would boom throughout the next decade. Meanwhile, the Mods in London were very interested in fashion and art. The Mod movement coincided with Andy Warhol’s Pop Art scene and many fashions were influenced by pop and op art. Of course, what truly made the Mods rebellious were their miniskirts. Although the designer Mary Quant is credited with popularizing them, the movement really started with girls hiking up their hemlines, like the flappers had done before them. This time, the culture was ready for miniskirts – and hasn’t truly given them up since.

Courreges - 1960's

            Innovation is truly the key to nonconformity. Everything would look the same if nothing ever changed. People would all eventually adopt one style – and then nobody would move on, so there would be no fashion diversification. It’s a good thing we don’t live in a world that boring and devoid of progress! During the 1960’s, there was a great amount of experimentation with new materials. A fascination with science and space fueled the Space Age trend pioneered by designers like Courrèges. We have continued to increase our technological knowledge and capabilities over the last half-century and it has impacted fashion enormously. Since the advent of ready-to-wear, we have technology to thank for our clothing. But today, with digital printing techniques and clothes that can interact with the wearer’s body, fashion will change in many unpredictable but fundamental ways.

Punk - 1970's

            I don’t think I can address fashion nonconformity without talking about the punk movement, particularly relevant at the moment because of the current exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute. Unlike the Grunge movement I mentioned before, the Punk movement was very purposeful in its interaction with fashion and, therefore, I don’t believe it can be considered anti-fashion. The core of the punk movement was anti-establishment, but Punks certainly knew how to use fashion as a form of self-expression and had fun doing so. The deconstruction (and reconstruction with safety pins and spikes) of clothing was a fundamental aspect of the Punk movement that has been accepted by the mainstream. The Punks made a sport out of outrageous, shocking fashion statements. By refusing to conform to society, they actually conformed to the norms of their own group. At once, the Punks were undeniably unique but very much united out of that.

Princess Kate - Fascinator

            So what does this all mean for the current state and impending future of the fashion industry? I think society will continue its cyclical tug-of-war between nonconformity and uniformity. My advice is to dress in a way that allows you to express yourself, regardless of where that falls on the conformity spectrum. If your goal is to fit in, you’ll probably want to dress in the popular styles. But if you want to stand out, get noticed, and change the world, you may want to dress a little different. While interning today at Marie Claire, somebody I met in an elevator in the Hearst Building (quite possibly a fashion magazine editor) told me they were excited that fascinators were coming back. This caught me by surprise because I don’t see anyone else wearing them – except Sarah Jessica Parker and British royalty. Don’t be afraid to be different: at the very least, you’ll get noticed and interesting fashion choices can often serve as great conversation-starters.

The Great Fashion Debate: Chanel vs. Dior

Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel and Christian Dior were arguably the two most influential fashion designers of the early 20th century. Of course, they couldn't have been more different, both in their aesthetics and philosophies about women and fashion. In the 1950s, when Dior's popularity had peaked and Chanel returned to Paris to reclaim her throne, fashionable women were divided between Dior's New Look, at once refreshing and nostalgic, and Chanel's practical simplicity.


As a feminist, I must begin by saying that I have a great respect for Chanel's contributions to fashion. She introduced styles that enabled working women to be chic without throwing practicality to the wind. Chanel had a true sense of what women needed and took inspiration from menswear and the lower classes to supply it in the form of suits, simple dresses and costume jewelry.

However, as a fashionista, I actually have a strong dislike for Coco Chanel's aesthetic. I credit Chanel with making fashion boring. I must admit that I'm drawn to the impractical beauty of fashion that Chanel strongly opposed. Chanel didn't believe in extravagant, artistic creations. Instead, she replaced her fine jewels with costume gems and borrowed ideas from the aforementioned groups, whose wardrobes were far less interesting than the upper-class women of the time.

Of course, fashion hasn't remained completely yawn-worthy for the last decade. After World War II, while the Nazi Chanel was hiding out in Switzerland, Dior debated the only style that the fashion industry recognizes as revolutionary, rather than evolutionary. It was dubbed "The New Look" by Harper's Bazaar editor-in-chief Carmel Snow. Women, who had been thrust into more masculine roles in wartime while the men fought overseas, readily accepted his new femininity. I must agree that I believe it to be one of the most beautiful fashion looks of the twentieth century. I certainly would've adopted it quickly and gladly don similar ensembles today.

However revolutionary Snow and her contemporaries may have considered Dior's silhouette to be, I question their logic. The "New Look" was actually a step backwards for women. The desired hourglass silhouette, not dissimilar to that of the WWII pin-up icons the GIs had fallen in love with, threw women back into the corsets that Paul Poiret had liberated them from at the beginning of the decade. Post-war nostalgia certainly fueled this longing to return to the standards of the previous century and the feminist movement in the 1960s proved that this old-fashioned femininity didn't have a lasting influence. Despite my decidedly feminist mentality, I like to simply view Dior's New Look as a beautiful fashion moment.

Maybe I don't have to choose. Chanel was a curse for the fashion industry, yet played a key role in the women's movement. Dior was a fashion fantasy creator, but was an accessory in the societal movement to take women out of the workforce. So let's just take their contributions at face value: both deserve our respect and our skepticism.

Spring Fashion Fever

There's something about the start of spring that evokes a feeling of rebirth and freshness. I was taking a stroll around midtown Manhattan on one of those first spring days, enjoying the first fresh cantaloupe of the season. While I was already optimistically dressed in a summer-appropriate ensemble, I became inspired to truly reinvent my look this season. Each spring, we go cleaning and shopping, each experiencing a sort of personal renaissance. 

Inspired to make a change, I naturally turned to shopping. After checking out the new spring trends at influential department stores Saks Fifth Avenue and Barneys New York, I was enthusiastic to adopt some of my favorites. I was also becoming frustrated by my purple Pucci prescription  sunglasses, which were missing a piece and had an outdated prescription. I popped into a local optical store and tried out quite a few pairs that I'm enthusiastic about. However, if I'm going to spend $300-600 on designer frames, I can't have any doubts, so I'm going with my mother over the weekend for a second opinion on my selections.

Although this major purchase is fairly necessary, I happen to be a broke college student, so I can't exactly buy myself a whole new wardrobe. Throughout the last year, I've been much more cautious in my shopping decisions. It's an understatement to say I have a large quantity of clothes and accessories and, considering space is a commodity in New York City, I've begun to favor quality over quantity in terms of my fashion choices. If I don't truly love it, I won't buy it. For example, during the beauty sample sale at Marie Claire magazine (where I intern), I didn't make a single purchase because everything I liked was too similar  to something I already have. Although I am more focused on quality products, I have also become savvier at finding deals. New York City is a great place to find sample sales and deals at discount retailers, but the internet is also an invaluable resource. I frequent flash sale sites, where my most recent purchase was a pair of classic yet sexy black Vince Camuto boots for under $100. It's hard to resist a rare find at any price, such as the British fascinators I uncovered at the Brooklyn flea market next weekend.  So get creative: refresh your wardrobe with unique, high-quality products that will perfectly supplement your wardrobe and fit comfortably within your budget.

Let Them Eat Cake

For years, the media and fashion industry has been the target of blame for eating disorders and low self-esteem among young women. I've recently begun to wonder how the obesity epidemic can be coinciding with the phenomenon. The only consistent thread is unhealthy body image.

The ideal silhouette has fluctuated throughout history. I don't think anyone is complaining that the days of corsets and stomachers are over. However, for at least the last half century, the feminine ideal has been thinness. Things haven't changed much in the fashion industry since the 1960s when Twiggy ushered in the Mod look and only became more intense in the 1990s with Kate Moss's heroin chic.

Typically, I play the role of fashion industry defendant when others have brought up the negative influence of fashion and media on young women's health. It is especially hard to listen to these appeals when they are spoken by an obese young women, as was the case in my Women's Studies class last year. However, I've began to wonder if the idealization of a body type that is unattainable for most girls and women is actually attributing to the obesity epidemic as well? Are overweight individuals giving up because they have unrealistic expectations and goals for themselves?

Many young women idolize celebrities. When they look at successful and beautiful women only a few years older than themselves, they often become insecure. Instead of being inspired by these powerful females, they are comparing themselves to their idols and, as expected, are falling short. One friend refused to watch the Victoria's Secret fashion show with me because the beautiful models gave her negative feelings. Another came over my house for dinner and whined about needing to lose weight while picking at her healthy meal and side salad, preferring to munch on Oreo cookies later that evening.

Although the media's obsession with celebrities' weight may trigger disordered eating habits that could lead to unhealthy weight in either direction, I don't expect the fashion industry to change fundamentally. While Milan's fashion week now refuses to use models with an unhealthy BMI, much of the reason for using thin models is tied to practicality. A skinny model functions like a hanger for clothes and can wear anything. If there was too much size variation in the modeling world, there would be a problem with sample sizing.

So if we can't rely on the media and fashion world to set a healthy example, how can young women find a healthy body image? We should be focused on looking and feeling our personal best through healthy food, an active lifestyle, and realistic self-expectations. If we stop worshiping these unhealthy ideals, media and fashion trends will follow.

Brand Loyalty: Yay or Nay?

Loyalty is typically a trait associated with positive acts and feelings. You would use it to describe your best friend, whether person or dog. So "brand loyalty" seems like it would also be something positive - a mutually beneficial relationship between brand and customer. But where is the line between "brand loyal" customer and "slave to the brand"?

Brand loyalty should mean a genuine appreciation for a brand, whether it be the craftsmanship, design talent, overall value, philanthropic endeavors, or other qualities that generate a positive feeling among loyal customers. In theory, we should all want to be loyal to our favorite designers or those who subscribe to parallel ideals.

But brands, particularly luxury brands, have meaning that reach far beyond our personal tastes and preferences. A Louis Vuitton logo bag and black Christian Louboutin pumps are symbols of status rather than manifestations of loyalty. Rather than convey our priorities or values, many brands express our economic stature.

Personally, I would love to splurge on a pair of Christian Louboutin pumps. But not the nauseatingly basic status heels that are only differentiated by their red soles: I would get a work of art. True brand loyalty is to appreciate the work the designer is capable of, not to show off how much money you spent by perpetually conterfeited products.

 

So during the summer in Italy, I opted for the once-in-a-lifetime Dolce & Gabbana booties over the constantly-reinvented Prada and Miu Miu options. Because although I have an immense appreciation for the design aesthetic of the latter, they weren't worth it. I didn't just want to have expensive shoes: I wanted shoes that were worth the big bucks I paid, ones that I wouldn't find anything comparable to at a lower price point or in a future season.

If you allow any brand to enslave you, luxury or otherwise, you lose a very important part of your style: your individuality. Brands like to provide an identity for the consumers to slip into and a "fashion victim" will easily fit this mold. But just because Miuccia Prada and Karl Lagerfeld are genius designers doesn't mean that we have to love everything they send down the runway (although we might). So although I'd encourage brand loyalty (I own a shirt with Karl Lagerfeld's face on it from his Impulse collections at Macy's and I'm not ashamed), I think it's important to really consider why you're being loyal.

Why I Love New York... By A New Yorker

          

       

    Today was one of those amazing days: I remembered why I live here in New York City. It’s easy to forget, in the hustle and bustle of city life, about everything that makes New York inspiring. But I’d recommend that, if and when you have a (planned or unexpected) window in your schedule and the weather’s tolerable, you get out of your apartment – or dorm room, in my case – and simply be a New Yorker.      

   Sometimes New York City life can simply feel like a hassle. Due to construction on the only subway line within 10 blocks, I have to walk an inconvenient distance in order to get downtown. (Just to note: nearly everywhere worth going is downtown from my residence on 97^th street.) But I have to admit that, walking to work on Saturday morning, I realized that weekend mornings are perhaps the best time to be in New York. The commuters aren’t here, the tourists are still asleep, and the tri-state day-trippers have yet to arrive. Those few of us who work in weekend-inclusive fields such as retail get to enjoy the quiet atmosphere, which is so pleasantly unexpected in the city that allegedly never sleeps.

     It’s extremely hard to work in retail and bring any money home to put towards food, rent, or other practical expenses. You spend all day picking out things you want. If you like the merchandise sold in the store you work in, you probably drop most of your paycheck right back into the company’s funds. Luckily for my wallet, I am currently working as a sales associate at a sample sale retailer. Sample sales are the hidden gems of the New York retail scene: on the last day, prices can drop to 10% of retail. I scored $1,300 worth of DKNY apparel for just $130! 

            Since I was out of work two hours earlier than expected and it was starting to feel like spring outside, I decided to forgo my usual routine and head to Union Square for my groceries. I figured I’d pay a visit to the Farmers’ Market before heading to Whole Foods – and it was certainly worth the trip. I passed right by Grace Coddington, the fashion director of American Vogue! She is most definitely my idol – in no small part, surely, due to my in-group bias towards gingers. Although I mostly respect Coddington for her work and her looks are not exactly to be envied, there’s just something about the way that nobody who’s ever seen her could possibly miss her presence. There’s simply nobody else that you could mistake for her.

 Some things can simply only happen in New York. You can find luxury goods at impossible-to-resist prices (including shoes I saw at the unrivaled DSW there, but I had more willpower than money!) and shop for groceries with your personal idols. No, I don’t like carrying groceries on the subway, but most of my food is too perishable for delivery to be a viable option. I’m extremely stubborn when it comes to paying for cabs, but extremely generous when it comes to handing over that gold card at Starbucks. New York can be extremely annoying, but tries to make itself as convenient as possible for its ubiquitously impatient inhabitants. And sometimes, when you’re not in a rush, you can learn to appreciate that. 

            I don’t know if I’ll live in New York forever. But I’d rather love New York forever. I may have to live somewhere else – another town, another country – in order to come back and truly appreciate it. I don’t want to live here until it drives me crazy or makes me “hard”. But I could also imagine myself never leaving – after all, I’ve wanted to live here since I can remember my first few independent thoughts (not that I ever had any other type of thoughts). Either way, I’ll always be a New Yorker at heart. After all, I may have been made and raised in Connecticut, but I was made and raised by New Yorkers. And the city, at the end of the day, feels like home.

CHANGE: Obama's New Fashion Scene

 

She's no Jackie O., but Michelle Obama is doing her part to usher in the new wave of American fashion. The first lady made a long-distance appearance on Sunday during the Oscars to award Argo as best picture.

The satellite presentation itself spoke significiantly of the world today and the impact of technology on it. Although not exactly a rare stunt at such an event, this shows that the new America finds distance to be no obstacle. She also didn't use staying home as an excuse to dress down. Fitting in with the glitzy evening, Obama turned to American-based designer Naeem Khan for Art Deco glamour.

She is an avid supporter of the American fashion industry, helping new designers get their products seen and names known. Mrs. Obama has proven to be an American fashion role model since appearing in Jason Wu at her husband's 2008 inauguration. He was one of many in the new generation of American fashion designers to be elevated to a household name by the First Lady. Last weekend, Khan joined that troupe.

 Michelle O. is the most positive fashion role model America has had in over a decade. She represents a new breed of fashionista, one that prefers high class to showing one's ass. At the Oscars, Obama was living, shining proof that being classy is not the same as being stuffy. American fashion is becoming more intellectual and sophisticated. It's no surprise that she is the perfect role model for this movement.

An Age of Conformity

Very few things are unique in society today. One would think the influence of globalization would bring new ideas to foreign places, but instead, we've all become the same. We all listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, have the same hairstyles, frequent the same websites, play the same games, and watch the same shows. Well, I'm bored. Where's the excitement in an environment where everything sounds, looks and feels the same?

It is human nature to want to belong. But why does "belonging" have to mean "assimilating"? Our differences make us who we are. And while most of us claim to value uniqueness and individuality, we really don't. Because while we might praise these traits in others, it scares us to venture outside the communal comfort zone. We don't want to bare all and show the world who we are without at least a small group of similar characters to fall back on.

To be perfectly honest with you, I have a difficult time recognizing my peers because I often can't tell them apart in any significant way. I know this makes me sound cold and uncaring, but I believe it to be very telling about the typical young woman today: she's a wallflower. No, this doesn't mean she's a nerd or antisocial. In fact, the typical wallflower is neither of these things, but she fades into the background simply because she does not dare to be different. This leaves me wondering: If memorability is a networking advantage, why are most of my peers quite forgettable?

In fact, I've known some peers who actually go to extra lengths to make themselves forgettable, such as dying their attention-grabbing red hair to a generic brown tone. I love that I (according to some of my LIM professors) am "branding" myself with my striking gingerness and quirky headwear. It excites me when important fashion contacts remember me from past experiences. I don't know why anyone would give up that reaction to simply fit in.

I wish we didn't live in an age of conformity. But, then I ask myself: Without conformity, would there be individuality? I conjure up an image of Lincoln Center during NYFW. It's filled with fashion bloggers, each in an outfit more eccentric than the next. Yet, I was left feeling that their eccentricity was fraudulent. Because no one is unique when everyone else is. On the other hand, simply sitting on a New York City subway post-rush hour will give you an idea what complete individuality looks like - and remind you why you love this place so much.