Ladies With An Attitude*

Lena

etre soi-meme
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Messages
23,856
Reaction score
6
Ladylike chic strikes back
Guardian's Jess Cartner-Morley takes a close look at the collections, while raising questions about all things Ladylike.
Even though if i'm not really in tune with her views, i've found this one of the most fun-to-read round ups of this season main mood.

(due to its length i tried to edit.. but its too interesting an article to post extracts from, so here it goes, almost unedited -apart from it's silly intro- quite long but still fun to read.. enjoy :flower: )

...it is with some alarm that I have noticed, in recent years, the concept of being a lady - or at least, looking like one - gaining ground. It started with those bloody nail salons :lol: .
They popped up on every high street, were featured endlessly in magazines, and before we know it we're all expected to spend every Saturday afternoon making tortuous conversation with an 18-year-old while she hacks at our cuticles, and then sit staring out of the window, frustrated as a bluebottle in a Venus flytrap, while our French manicure dries. Ladylike, to me, is like goody-goody, only with better PR.

None the less, fashion has been increasingly obsessed with all things ladylike for two years now. There have been digressions along the way - for winter it was Prada's sci-fi minidresses, this summer it is Gucci's decidedly unladylike bronzed sequin swimwear with ragged-edged bite hole at the navel - but the overall direction has been distinctly proper. Last summer, Marc Jacobs' pastel Jackie O coats sold out in weeks, despite the £2,000 price tag; by autumn, every designer worth their salt was channelling the Jackie look, with prim gloves and Chanel-a-like suits all over the high street. This spring, Prada (and hot on their heels, Marks & Spencer) has revived the 50s full skirt, blouse and belt as a key summer look.

At this week's Paris fashion shows, the lady ruled supreme. Eroticism centred on wasp waists rather than bare breasts; skirts were to the knee, or just below; plush fabrics whispered of wealth and luxury. Anna Wintour, the editor of American Vogue, set the front-row standard, wearing dresses with court shoes and a belted jacket in fur or crocodile. At the fashion shows, Wintour never carries anything - not a handbag, not a notebook, not even a mobile phone (unless it is hidden in the palm of her hand). Fifteen years ago, a woman in her position would have been proud to carry an expensive, bulging Filofax and a Mont Blanc pen. Now, Wintour clearly feels it carries more status to look like a lady of leisure.

It is difficult not to feel that the lady look is a backward step. It is worth noting that in conjuring up the image, designers seem very strongly drawn to the pre-feminist years - the 40s, 50s and early 60s. And an unsavoury, to my taste, footnote to the lady revival is the abundance of fur. There were many women wearing fur coats at this Paris fashion week, both on and off the catwalk. They exude a haughty air of refinement - you coarser creatures have your blubber to keep you warm, they seem to be saying, but us ladies who don't lunch must be cushioned from the rough and tumble of the world with our powder-puff soft minks.

However, the ladylike look does have some plus points. It is dignified - not too much flesh - and features a great deal of tailoring, which is a darn sight more flattering to most figures than stretch chiffon. It is distinctly grown-up, so no mutton-dressed-as-lamb worries. :lol: (On the contrary, the pitfall is not letting the look get too old-fashioned, or it becomes very ageing.) It is a much easier look to put together than boho-chic - your clothes and accessories can match instead of having to look imaginatively mismatched. It is also refreshingly unprescriptive. You don't have to wear a specific colour, or reference a particular decade. As last week's shows prove, you can tweak the ladylike look any which way to suit you - so long as you don't worry too much about the subtext.

Three of the week's major shows were farewells - Julien Macdonald at Givenchy, Michael Kors at Celine and last but far from least, Tom Ford at Yves Saint Laurent - and they each gave a different spin on the look. Julien Macdonald paid homage to Givenchy's most famous fan, Audrey Hepburn. So dresses were simple and black, and worn with ballet pumps; jackets had wide necklines and peplum waists and skirts were fitted to the knee. Eveningwear was stately and sculptural: a gunmetal silk gown, simple from the front, boasted a vast bow at the back. Think blushing bride, or Renee at the Oscars.

During his time at Celine, Michael Kors has honed the rich-b*tch look to perfection: flashy clothes to show off how rich and how thin you are. This season, the b*tch element was airbrushed out and instead we had understated, perfectly matched, nice-as-pie clothes. For instance, a camel dress with a matching jacket worn over the shoulders - a look that says, "I'm so delicate and demure that I always keep my arms by my sides" - or a scarlet poloneck with matching calf-length skirt and a slim crocodile belt. In real life, you'd probably be wise to ditch the belt - very few of us have tiny enough waists that a jumper looks better belted than not - but it still works.

Yves Saint Laurent has long been a byword for sophistication. For this last show, Tom Ford stayed away from the edgier elements of Saint Laurent's back catalogue - the Mondrian dresses, the peasant blouses - and concentrated on the more classic images. So we had satin blouses with sharp shoulders and high necks, worn with fit-and-flare knee-length skirts in contrasting colours as rich and shiny as lacquer: scarlet with magenta, pale pink with aubergine. There were superb cocktail dresses in dragon-print silk, cut Geish girl-tight and with a simple teardrop cut out at the throat. Accessories - sure to be a sellout, as fashion fans rush for a last little piece of Ford - included glossy wedge sandals and tiny metal clutch bags, barely larger than a cigarette case.

Hermès was a debut amid all the swansongs, for Jean Paul Gaultier. Judging by this first show, this is a happy pairing of designer and label: Gaultier is theatrical enough to give swagger to the Hermès heritage, but has enough wit to prevent it becoming stuffy. This was a heavily equestrian-themed collection, and so inevitably looked better suited for country than town, with all the jodhpurs, headscarves and blanket coats. The iconic Hermès Birkin bag (still the ultimate lady's status symbol, despite the apparent unladylike carrying-on of the Birkin-wielding Martha Stewart - was given a makeover, with dinky evening versions, and Birkin-style fastenings on everything from shift dresses to riding boots.

Alber Elbaz (who also once designed for YSL) has revived Lanvin precisely by playing on a nostalgic vision of ladydom. Kate Moss, an unlikely convert to ladylike looks but an influential one (the vintage lemon chiffon dress she wore to a New York fashion week dinner last September has become one of the most copied of recent years, cropping up again in peach chiffon at Chloe), sat in the front row wearing a pale Lanvin coat. This was not the stellar collection of last season, but the overall look was one of being very dressed - not necessarily very dressed up, just very dressed - in slim coats, high heels and face-framing hats.

There were a few more wayward angles on the ladylike look. Chanel, whose iconic suits are a lady staple, chose this season to explore androgyny, with Teddy-boy coats and drainpipe trousers. But there was light relief in the classic quilted bags and the black and white chiffon dresses with delicate prints and pearl trim. Louis Vuitton was very ladylike, but slightly surreal, as if Alice in Wonderland had been dressed by Vivienne Westwood :lol: - a belted bright-red tartan coat had fur collar and cuffs, while pencil skirts and satin shoes had a fetishistic abundance of frills.

Alexander McQueen was one of the few to look forward rather than backward this season, but even here, there was a pared-down ladylike look to the exquisitely tailored boiled tweed skirt suits, and artfully simple shift dresses. Dries van Noten was highly feminine, with soft shapes and the usual array of beautifully muted olives, plums and bronzes, but had a texture and ruggedness that marked it out from the prim-and-proper mainstream.

The designer of Chloe, Phoebe Philo, famously used to assist Stella McCartney. Two years after they parted company, there is still an eerie synchronicity between the two. Not just in their taste in music - this season, McCartney used the Dixie Cups' Iko Iko :lol: ("Your grandma and my grandma, sitting by the fire") to open her show, while Philo closed hers with the same track - but in their modern take on womanliness.

They both like to incorporate masculine elements in their clothes, but to phrase it in a coquettish girl-in-her-boyfriend's-shirt way, rather than a Jil Sander-ish trousersuits-for-girls way. Stella's clothes were inspired, she said, by a glamorous city girl who runs away "to join her rogue boyfriend on an escapade". And so there were gorgeous, grown-up party dresses in black or oyster or tomato, knee-length and long-sleeved but very, very sexy, but also oversized plaid coats and giant Puffa jackets. Chloe, as usual, was Stella with a spoonful of sugar: the cocktail dresses were a little barer and had velvet bows at the waist, the cover-ups included a boyish tuxedo and a little sequined bolero.

Both collections hit a pleasing note: ladylike, but not goody-goody. Not faddish, but not preserved-in-amber either. Clothes in which you wouldn't look a fraud if you chipped your French manicure. Or even ate a Kit Kat.

opinions?
 
Well, I know that I, for one, cannot do the ladylike thing. It's just not in me. I can pull up and act prim for a little while, and I can behave respectably when it is strictly necessary, but on a daily basis? Not so much.

I'm too much a tomboy at heart. Cycling to and from work, getting sweaty. Doing home improvements, tearing up my hands, getting paint in my hair, wearing horrible grubby clothes. I cuss, I walk fast, I bite my nails, I don't diet, I bundle my hair up in a lumpy ponytail with a plain hair elastic. I wear eccentric costume jewelry. Sometimes my shoes need a polish. I can tune a carburetor, snake a drain, and pill a cat.

Ladylike is too high maintainence, and it feels like sham on me anyway, since I am not your typical lady. Woman, yes; lady, hardly. From the descriptions, it sounds like the McCartney and Philo stuff would be more to my tastes.

While I love elegant clothing, I love it best on other people!
 
I think its all a reaction to money, when tehre is less moeny people dount want to experiment, they whant 'classic"
 
I read this whole thing yesterday and it really spoke to me. I have always had a sense that other women were better "put together" than I was- I'm never all done- I always have some part of me (hair- usually) that is a total mess. It remains some kind of odd rebelion.

Yet, I can look far more "ladylike" than most my age - for reasons which escape me... Probably because I don't do trends or the awful version of a 'grown up look' shown in NY for A/W which seemed to be retro, kitsch and everything in between...

About Anna Wintour not carrying a bag- I wish she would sometimes- I'd be curious as to what she would choose! :innocent:

ETA: About manicured nails- after some of the awful nails seen in NY during the 90s I have a huge fear of manicures. I've seen 'done' nails look more trashy than un-laquered ones! :rolleyes:
 
i just don't agree with what she's saying...i don't agree with her assessment about some of the shows...i DEFINITELY don't think dries fits in with the rest...celine-yes, but that's not really new...michael always does that, so i wouldn't call it a trend exactly...and i also don't think ysl fits the ladylike label-dragon lady, maybe...and how can stella possibly be considered ladylike?..hermes-leather bustiers and riding crops?...HA...i'd like to see anna wintour in that!! and she left out rochas which i consider the most prim and proper collection of the season...

it just goes to show, you can't believe everything you read and have got to educate yourself so you can make an informed opinion...i find it dangerous to read these kinds of things before i've had a chance to see the actual clothes because it can influence me...writers have got to find something to write about and half the time they just make stuff up to fit in with the theme they've chosen... B)

i will say that i never can sit still long enough to get my nails done, but i feel tremendous pressure to do these sorts of grooming things...high-maintenance if you ask me...annoying and tedious and vain...but it's part of looking polished and professional, i guess...i know some women relish their time in a salon...but i don't even go to a salon for a haircut... :innocent: my friend does it at his apt... :flower:
 
Originally posted by Spacemiu@Mar 13th, 2004 - 10:00 pm
I think its all a reaction to money, when tehre is less moeny people dount want to experiment, they whant 'classic"
i so agree space :wink:

ok, basically i found the article too sweet and laugh-able to read.
the journalist has got it all wrong, she probably went to Paris, saw a bunch of strong shows and still managed not to get a clue about the 'mood' of the season.

sure ladylike is huge and as she very well notes,
fashion has been increasingly obsessed with all things ladylike for two years now
what she totaly misses is that this is an irony of what ladylike is or stands for, she takes irony :shock: literaly, missing the point of having fun by playing the part of 'ladylike'. There is a completly fresh attitude on basic looks, one needs to get creative and have fun, with humour and lightness. this is not the typical idea of ladylike, on the contrary.. the attitude is a teenager trying to dress as a little lady, ending up in joyfull -and unexpected- 'mistakes'.

.. this part had me literally on the floor
designers seem very strongly drawn to the pre-feminist years - the 40s, 50s and early 60s.
she makes it sound like somekind of anti-feminist conspirancy, i mean pleeaaase :rolleyes:
 
I agree with what Space said earlier. :flower:

On the article, I so do not agree with her. :doh:
 
I do not agree with her at all. I think the shows were about wearing the "ladylike" clothes without having to play by the rules involved in being "proper". :doh:
 
Cripes, I'm so tired of everybody rushing to follow Marc Jacobs. That's what the past three seasons have felt like and damn it, it stinks. Pfft on "ladylike" and nostalgia/retro, let's see some forward movement and innovation.
 
the article is bullshitting the readers! All lame critics and shallow generalizations!
 
In my opinion the best fashion writers and commentators are always aware of certain grounding that they are talking about clothes. As lofty as their flights of fancy adjectives are, they know that people in fashion are--to quote Michael Kors--"in their own ozone."

The author of this piece has her opinions, which--just as if they were posted here on tFS--I respect. She just got it all wrong and even worse wrote about it in a way that underscores her unfamiliarity with the topic.

Phoebe and Stella using the same song illustrates their symbiotic relationship? Heck, half of the free world used Beyonce's "Crazy In Love." Does that mean everyone is one and the same? I think not.

Originally posted by foxinthesnow@Mar 13th, 2004 - 3:08 pm
About Anna Wintour not carrying a bag- I wish she would sometimes- I'd be curious as to what she would choose! :innocent:

Me too but I think she's being smart because she knows she won't be able to out-accessorize André! B)
 
Originally posted by Episternum@Mar 15th, 2004 - 2:42 am
I'm so tired of everybody rushing to follow Marc Jacobs.
erhh excuses but ...more than Mark Jacobs were working in ladylike styles, while Jacobs was still flirting 80's highschool looks and just recently the Mods (both styles not ladylike at all).. i'd say MJ entered the lady wagon quite 'late' and i'm a bit tired with people giving Jacobs the ladylike style vanguard role, because its so not accurate

vintage ladylike looks have been inspiring Dries Van Noten, Marni , Prada etc for ages :ninja:

i completly agree with atelier's post :flower:
 
Originally posted by Lena@Mar 13th, 2004 - 4:38 pm
.. this part had me literally on the floor
designers seem very strongly drawn to the pre-feminist years - the 40s, 50s and early 60s.
she makes it sound like somekind of anti-feminist conspirancy, i mean pleeaaase :rolleyes:
sorry about this rant: that's just what i found lacking in the shows however. for those women of a certain age, they remember those clothes and are glad to keep them in the attics where they belong, however for the generations that have grown up with a feminist vocabulary, i think that these clothes are a step backward simply because a young twenty something buys into this trend without understanding what women of that era were actually like. it's not authentic. i am all about the little girl donning her grandmother's pearls and her mother's chanel bag, but i think this trend is very dangerous in a way. it completely denies and discounts a woman's right to her strength and her sexiness.

i think some shows got it right...they did lady-like in a totally ironical way, but for the most part, it seemed to be a longing for those times (i recall a vogue article telling its readers that completely pale white skin is back in style...i mean that statement is just wrong in so many ways)
 
Originally posted by Atelier+Mar 14th, 2004 - 11:17 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Atelier @ Mar 14th, 2004 - 11:17 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Phoebe and Stella using the same song illustrates their symbiotic relationship? Heck, half of the free world used Beyonce's "Crazy In Love." Does that mean everyone is one and the same? I think not.

<!--QuoteBegin-foxinthesnow
@Mar 13th, 2004 - 3:08 pm
About Anna Wintour not carrying a bag- I wish she would sometimes- I'd be curious as to what she would choose!  :innocent:

Me too but I think she's being smart because she knows she won't be able to out-accessorize André! B) [/b][/quote]
and there you have it folks...atelier puts everything into perspective for us all... :lol: :clap: :rofl: :heart:
 
Originally posted by mikeijames@Mar 15th, 2004 - 8:25 pm
a young twenty something buys into this trend without understanding what women of that era were actually like. it's not authentic. i am all about the little girl donning her grandmother's pearls and her mother's chanel bag, but i think this trend is very dangerous in a way. it completely denies and discounts a woman's right to her strength and her sexiness.

i recall a vogue article telling its readers that completely pale white skin is back in style...i mean that statement is just wrong in so many ways
i dont think wearing a knee length and mismatching it with the wrong kind of knit will bring anyone back to the pre-feminism days, honestly..
we are not becoming what we 'dress up' it certainly does not work like that (slu*ty looks did not turn women to slu*s.. did it?)

as for white skin, there is nothing ladylike about this, its a matter of solar UVs and ozon getting thinner combined with the utter villeness of the yellowish fake-tan from the solariums (dont get me wrong, i adore sun and bake each and every summer until my skin turns to ash)
 
First to say that sometimes it's not completely out of place for a magazine to say that 'completely pale white skin' is back in fashion.
They are more often than not, informing us that we need this bronzed/tanned/awaiting-skin-cancer look, and for some of us that is as impossible as the opposite. I've accepted that I could never naturally look like anything but a sheet or a tomato (really try to give that one a miss), but there are some out there who insist on mimicing what the mags preach, despite what nature gave them, and seeing a comment like the one above could be the detterent tangerine skin doesn't seem to be.

But back to the topic, I love ladylike, and it makes sense if you're a lady... like. At least it does to me, and it speaks to me because Hollywood today does nothing for my senses and this memory lane, even if it is a pre-feminist lane does, then that's the one I'll visit. I :heart: being a girl and where better to show it than in my dress :woot:
 
Part of my personal problem with the ladylike trend is that it seems to be for very svelte twentysomethings and/or fashion editors who have not much else to do but pose for pictures. A very large percentage of the clothes that have come down the runways in the last few seasons have been what I consider to be frustratingly unwearable. They're lovely to look at, but I can't seem to figure out how to wear them without feeling like a poseur or a museum piece. :doh:
 
Originally posted by softgrey+Mar 15th, 2004 - 12:33 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(softgrey @ Mar 15th, 2004 - 12:33 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by Atelier@Mar 14th, 2004 - 11:17 pm


<!--QuoteBegin-foxinthesnow
@Mar 13th, 2004 - 3:08 pm
About Anna Wintour not carrying a bag- I wish she would sometimes- I'd be curious as to what she would choose! :innocent:


Me too but I think she's being smart because she knows she won't be able to out-accessorize André! B)
and there you have it folks...atelier puts everything into perspective for us all... :lol: :clap: :rofl: :heart: [/b][/quote]
Ehr- just because André can carry more fur...

I don't think we're seeing ladylike overall- we're seeing imitation of.... at least that is how it looked to me (mostly in NY). :unsure:
 
:blink: even Versace, Cavalli and Versus adopted the ladylike mood for f.w. 04-05, that was a (pleasant) surprise B)
 
I looooooove the ladylike trend. However making it work is not so easy, as it can degenerate into "boring". Therefore, I opt for "ladylike with a twist": an accent of colour, a belt, a ribbon, anything that can add a little spice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,726
Messages
15,125,368
Members
84,432
Latest member
alcatrazadam
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->