The Truth Shall Be Revealed (Hopefully)

Michelle Obama has written her memoir. I won't buy it, but I will certainly read/watch the commentary around it. And there is plenty of that!

What I could glean from an interview I watched is that MO had a miscarriage then the two Obama girls were obtained through IVF

Here's what I wrote to a correspondent:

Have you heard about Michelle Obama's memoir that just came out? The fascinating thing is that their (hers and Barack's) two daughters were born via IVF. Remember Larry's theory that Michelle was some kind of transvestite/transgender male with a sex change to be female? And the running story that Obama is gay?

Michelle, in a recent interview I watched (I saw her memoir in the bookstore), talks about her "miscarriage" before having the two daughters. She can say whatever she wants and there are enough (paid and implicated) people who will corroborate with this story. But the IVF part is fascinating. You can't hide that, especially with TWO results.

And here's a funny (and at times tongue in cheek) post on MO at Larry Auster's View from the Right (I've posted the article and the dialogue below).

---

Looking at that photo of Michelle (from the website StyleList), I’m reminded of a line from Bernard Shaw’s one-act play about Shakespeare, The Dark Lady of the Sonnets, in which Shakespeare says, “There are two sorts of women—those with excellent voices, sweet and low, and cackling hens that cannot make me dream.”
Well, Michelle in that photo not only cannot make me dream, she’s like a figure in a nightmare—or a horror movie, Michelle, Part VI.

View From the Right - end of initial entry -

Comments:

Roger G. writes:

What do you have against vicious, hulking, Marxist monsters?

LA replies:

They scare me, man.

Roger replies:

You’re just jealous of her delts.

Daniel H. writes:

I don’t find Michelle Obama unattractive at all. For her age, she looks pretty good. Correct, she is a bit muscular about the shoulders and neck, but she has a pleasant mien and is not grossly overweight. And she dresses well. More importantly, by all appearances she is a dutiful, faithful wife and mother. If she were not a leftist with racial grievances she would make a fine first lady.

LA replies:

A bit muscular around the shoulders and neck? She has the musculature of a male body builder.
And what about that powerful right hip and thigh, lurching forward menacingly in that tight skirt? She looks like Yeats’s rough beast, moving its slow thighs, slouching toward Bethlehem, while all about it reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

She has this large, disconcertingly masculine body, but instead of covering it up with feminine clothes, she wears tight outfits that bring out her oversized musculature. It’s unnatural and freaky. She is to womanhood what her husband’s presidency is to America.

Patrick H. writes:

I agree with Daniel H. that Michelle O. is not unattractive or ugly in any obvious sense. But she is a great big hulking muscular being, really quite imposing in some ways, and in no way feminine. What troubles me about Michelle O. is that she is so graceless and clumsy-looking, with a kind of heavy, intrusive, arm-swinging massiveness about her. Since I am a fascistic global-warming-denying racist sexist homophobic conservative, I can say that black women, while usually far too large for my tastes, can sometimes exhibit a kind of feline lightness in their movements, a graceful sensuous presence in the way they hold themselves. But Michelle O is utterly lacking in lightness, grace or poise and seems to me curiously sexless and physically unappealing. She deserves to be called a “handsome woman,” not a beautiful one.

And surly looking or what? Man … she seems ready to tackle you, or maybe knee you in the groin. One expects the next words out of her mouth to be, “Hey, whachoo lookinat?”

In an earlier communication with you, I called her the First Linebacker, and shared an anticipatory wince with you at the prospect of four years of having her hyped as a new ideal of beauty, Michelle O. to replace our old ideal First Lady Jackie (later O.). I can say that Michelle seems to have been downgraded in the glamour sweepstakes, perhaps because of the emergence of Carla Bruni, whom Michelle seems to detest and fear and envy. In any case, no one seems any more to be hammering at us that we have to think that Michelle is beautiful and desirable and feminine or else be considered hopelessly racist. Perhaps there’s hope for us yet. Perhaps the reign of plasticized fake-breasted porno-chicks on the one hand and over-exercised muscular Amazonian behemoths on the other is finally, blessedly coming to an end.

Maybe we’ll be able to say again, “Cherchez la femme!” without laughing. I have a dream!

LA replies:

For this great comment, you get a standing “O.” (pun intended).

Michael Mc writes:

I must say that I find your denunciation of Michelle Obama’s appearance spectacularly ugly and untraditional.

Would this have appeared in an Edwardian paper? In an American paper from 1950?

LA replies:

I’m doing what I always do, which is try to find words to convey the truth of things as I see them, within the bounds of decency. Do you seriously expect me in the year 2010, responding to the spectacle of weird hostile aliens in the White House and the government, to write about it as would an Edwardian in 1910 or an American newspaper in 1950? I’m not in general an admirer of the journalism of invective, but anything I write along those lines at this site is extremely mild compared to styles of invective that have been common in the West for centuries.

LA continues:

Also, there is a place in traditionalism for the vigorous and the rude, as long as it’s kept in its place. How did comedy begin in ancient Athens, but as pretty raw stuff? And that’s part of our tradition too. (Not that VFR does anything raw—this is not a Game site, after all.) But there is a place for the expression of such emotions as disgust and ridicule, especially when directed at “leaders” who are involved in a hostile takeover of this country. The Psalms have every kind of emotion including hatred and hoping for the ruin of enemies. Those are not the most elevated emotions, but they are part of what we are, and there is a place for them to be expressed, within bounds.

Michael Mc replies:

I did think for a minute, before writing what I did, that the western tradition of political invective is far more developed than the current cries for “bipartisanship” let on—but I stuck with my criticism because of the following suspicion:

As the culture continues to coarsen and decline, as the murky water sinks, let us say, dragging the fronds and foam down with it, one island that will begin appear more prominent will be that of the traditionalists, and one of our most conspicuous qualities will be a comparative lack of sexual coarseness, or rather, of coarseness between the sexes.

While your comments are nothing compared to current standards, neither do they make this difference as conspicuous as I might prefer.

LA replies:

Interesting point, but, just to make sure we’re on the same page, how have I expressed sexual coarseness in the Michelle discussion?

Michael Mc replies:

You wrote:

Also, there is a place in traditionalism for the vigorous and the rude, as long as it’s kept in its place. How did comedy begin in ancient Athens, but as pretty raw stuff? And that’s part of our tradition too.

Point taken—one mustn’t mistake traditionalism for mere fussiness. I still, however, think that commenting on this woman’s appearance in this manner doesn’t make much of a point, at least when considered next to the possible charges it opens us up to.

LA replies:

This is an issue that has come up from time to time. While some people disagree with me on this, I and others think that commenting on the physical appearance of public figures is legitimate. A society expresses itself through the personae, the manners, the dress, of its members, particularly its leading public figures who are the models that others follow. A conservatism that declines to comment on that dimension of human society is not looking at the whole. A major problem with American conservatism is its abstractness, treating society as though it were a collection of principles. But a society is a living, organic thing, and right now the living organic thing that is our society is very sick and distorted, but conservatives are largely blind to this cultural and life-style dimension of liberal society because they themselves are a part of it.

Gary Moe writes:

Michelle Obama as one of the “Three First Ladies of the West?” More like the third Williams sister (as in Venus and Serena), if you ask me.

Michael Mc replies:

You wrote:

“how have I expressed sexual coarseness in the Michelle discussion?”

The idea that Michelle is too masculine or unattractive to be considered a “First Lady” in the sense of Carla or Samantha, and must rather be treated as an abberant form relating to cultural collapse (as the Yeats quote implies) is, to my eyes, an over-the-bounds speculation into the sexual and married life of the current President.

LA replies:

I did not intend any speculation into the private married life of the president and his wife. That wasn’t part of my thought. I was commenting on the public persona and the physicality of Michelle O., and particularly on its impact on me, not on the impact of her private persona and physicality on her husband, which is something I would rather not think about.

Michael Mc replies:

Fair enough. This is certainly one of the more interesting boundaries and discussions that a traditional stance will introduce and engender.

Roger G. writes:

My apology to Michael Mc - I’m sorry that Michelle Obama is a vicious, hulking, Marxist monster.

Roger G. writes:

And if I’m going to keep reading your site, you’ll have to censor all hints of the Obamas’ sexual activity. The flapping ears, the trapezius rhythmically flexing and unflexing - it’s like contemplating Charles Johnson’s modern art.

LA replies:

Roger is referring to this entry: The profound thought process of Charles Johnson; and a discussion of H.R. Giger

Richard O. writes:

I just don’t see what someone’s appearance has to do with anything. To me, Michele looks quite elegant and has nice lines and a nice smile. Chacun a son gout, and all that.
I have my doubts about where her and her husband’s hearts lie and long for the day for them to be gone but I think a simple line to draw is between public conduct and speech one side and appearance and private life on the other.

I check your site five times a day to see what new insights you come up with. I just don’t think I learn anything useful from a discussion about appearance.

LA replies:

For the most part, we’re not talking here simply about a person’s physical features and body type, but the person, how that person is presenting herself to the world. Michelle doesn’t just happen to be disconcertingly large and muscular, she dresses and moves in a way that pushes those qualities forward. And because she is the most visible woman in America and setting trends and so on, that is a legitimate topic.

But even if we were talking only about physical appearance, people’s physical appearance is part of what they are, and is naturally of interest when we’re talking of public people who are being put before us every day.

At the same time, you are right. It’s subjective. Your reaction to Michelle—she’s elegant—will be different from my reaction—she’s threatening-looking—and therefore the meaning I find in that photo will not be the meaning that you find, and no argument can bridge that gap. So I acknowledge that this is a lower-level discussion than a purely intellectual discussion. However, those who have more or less the same subjective reaction to Michelle that I have will find my comments meaningful.

Richard O. replies:

Fair enough. She seems to have an odd walk, I admit. Merely to look at either of those freaks is to be reminded of the morons who voted them there.

How to Acquire Style and Substance

Cary Grant, 1957

Below is a correspondence I posted on my style blog in 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A young man recently wrote to me and asked:

Your posts are great and so pertinent to the madhouse we currently live in. I was wondering if you think the slovenly dress habits will be discarded within the next 10 years or so as people get fed up with the general ugliness. Or are they too far gone?

I generally gird myself mentally before I enter the public square these days. I expect to see slobs, hear rude language, be tailgated, walk away from cell phone conversations etc. I'm praying that network news goes the way of dvds.

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".

Is this anti-culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

George Orwell (a weird kind of socialist) wrote an essay called "Some thoughts on the common toad" and concluded it saying that in spite of the lies spewing out into the world Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it. A little comfort I guess.

I answered him with what I thought would be a practical guideline on how to maneuver the non-aesthetic mentality of our age:

I don’t know. Beauty, beautiful things, like a culture and a country, take years, centuries, generations to build and solidify. Ugliness and destruction occur in very little time. Even consider dressing: It is easier to slap on anything as opposed to wearing clothes that have an aesthetic sense.

I think our era hasn’t constructed, or built, its aesthetic sense. Other eras built theirs, out of what came from their past. Ours hasn’t bothered with that. I think it stopped soon after the late sixties and early seventies. I cannot think of a definitive eighties, nineties or “new millennium” style, but I can immediately recognize sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, styles, and further into the past.

I’m still trying to figure out why that is, but I think it happened when beauty was “downsized” as I call it, and when people thought it was too elitist. It probably has to do with equality, as I write here. But the problem with “equality” is that it courts the lowest denominator, so everyone becomes equally ugly.

But, the interesting thing about aesthetics is that it doesn’t require “equality” to function in any and all levels of life. The young shop girl can look beautiful (or at least aesthetically pleasing) and can borrow her ideas form the wealthy socialite to form her own pleasant look. Also, when beauty is around, even in limited quantities, everyone benefits. A beautiful statue in park is for everyone to appreciate. A beautiful lady glimpsed at in her car (in a store, a restaurant, etc.) makes people happy, including the lowly shop girl. Beauty does make the world a better place, I’m convinced.

Anyway, back to your question:

I think it is possible to discard slovenly dress habits, and even sooner than within the next 10 years.

1. You can start right away. For example:

A. Rather than wearing sneakers, always wear good shoes.

B. Dress well when going out, even to the corner store.

C. Of course, over-dressing to the corner store can look odd, so try to fit your dress to the occasion. There are great casual clothes around, and you don’t have to slip on a silly t-shirt or a worn out sweat shirt to go out and buy your milk.

D. Have a good hair cut, perhaps copying a style from another period, or using a men’s magazine for ideas (some have surprisingly well-groomed men models).

E. Try to get things to match, in style, color, design etc.

F. Find good accessories like ties, hats, belts, handkerchiefs, jackets. The whole look matters.

G. Avoid jeans at all costs. They look sloppy, and they are boring and unattractive.

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items:

- Sweat shirts or t-shirts
- Sneakers
- Jeans
- Shorts
- Thematic prints like a shirt you bought at your last rock concert, or the tie with Disney motifs.
- Dramatic prints. Stripes and small circles or diamonds on shirts is as far as you should go.
- Baseball hats
- Odd jewelry, or pierced ear/nose
- Tattoos
- Hoodies

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

This is still generally more formal. Even if you work in a casual office environment, dress as if you might meet your next new boss, or your big client.

B. “Street” wear

Street wear is less formal. But you are out showing yourself to the whole world. Do you want to be seen in sloppy t-shirt and jeans, or look nice, presentable and attractive? You can add the thematic printed shirt here, perhaps a Hawaiian shirt for summer, and penny loafers are a good substitute for sneakers. As a hat, a panama hat might be a nice touch rather than that ubiquitous, ugly baseball cap.

C. Week-end and home wear

You’d be surprised at how people dress at home, when they think that “no one” is looking. Of course, their own families are looking, observing and often mimicking. If you have young children, they will be influenced at how you present yourself even at home. Get out of the pajamas and dressing gown mode, and actually wear some real clothes that are not for sleeping in. “Pajama mode” dressing includes baggy sweat shirts and sweat pants, and t-shirts, sloppy slippers/flip flops, etc. Leave the t-shirts and sweat shirts for the garden or yard work. You can be comfortable in a loose shirt and pants. Try a Hawaiian shirt, a short-sleeved golf shirt, sweaters, penny loafers, Dockers once in a while.

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

Dress up when visiting friends, and when friends come to visit. Don’t overdue it, of course, if the event is casual, but look good. Rather than a sweat shirt, put on a dress shirt, or a short-sleeved golf shirt. Try different, subdued colors for a change, like pastel lilac or light blue. Don’t pull out the Hawaii shirt for this one. No jeans, of course, and no sweat pants. But tan Dockers are a good, neutral choice. Penny loafers, and more formal shoes like Oxfords, can substitute for sneakers.

E. Visitors and week-end and home wear are somewhat similar

In a way, you should be ready for some event, even if at home. Some-one may decide to pop in for a visit. Mix your “visitors wear” with your casual home wear when you’re at home.

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

Look up GQ magazine and other men’s magazines. Many have surprisingly good selections of men’s clothes. But pay more attention to the ads. The articles are often featuring the next “avant-gard” designer, whereas the ads are more conservative.

B. Tailors

Go to a tailor. Try to find a small, modest, old-fashioned one, who has had some formal or “old world” training. Such tailors are often a wealth of information. Ask for their advice. Have a suit custom made.

C. Formal Occasions

Look around during formal occasions. See what people are wearing for weddings, engagement parties, christenings, office formal parties, etc. Formal wear has been downgraded so much that wedding suits might actually fit your every-day life style.

D. Public Figures

Watch what public figures – news anchors, presidential candidates, Donald Trump, etc. - are wearing. Study how they accessorize with their ties, handkerchiefs, shoes, hats, and even their hair styles. We are still a some-what conservative culture when it comes to how our leaders are dressed.

E. Fashion History

Look up the history of fashion. How did people dress ten years ago, fifteen years ago? In the fifties, or forties? In the 19th century? During Medieval times? You’d be surprised to find that men took what they wore very seriously. A knight is identified partly by what he wears. So is a king. As is an early twentieth century gentleman.

F. Fashion Statements and Items

Find distinguishing items of different eras, periods and styles. It could be the walking stick/umbrella of the English Gentleman. Or the colors of a sixteenth century costume which you can incorporate into the colors of your tie and lapel handkerchief. Or the hats worn in the 1950s.

G. Different Cultures

Look at different cultures around the world and study how they differentiate between formal wear and casual wear (e.g is “casual wear” universal?). Did they have specific, attractive wear for men? Were men and women equally well-dressed?

H. Different Classes

How do the rich and the poor dress? You might think that only the wealthy are concerned with looking good. But, all walks of people dress cleanly, respectably, and with some flair. Poor people in Africa, for example, the poorest of the poor in the world, managed to develop a bright and cheerful style, with imaginative tie-dye, block print and batik fabrics, which million-dollar designers copy as their latest runway creations. Even cheap Walmart clothes are often colorful and attractive.

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

If you watch T.V., try to find shows that can give you good style examples. Subscribe to a “Hollywood movies” channel and watch shows and movies from the forties and fifties. We can still relate to those styles, and in fact they’re making a come-back. Study the suit cuts, the colors men wore, the shoes and ties, the hair cuts. Find what you like, and what can fit into your lifestyle, and just copy it!

Cary Grant shows true style and substance with a simple, relaxed pose (see above image). No aggressive expression, no slovenly style. Here is male aesthetics at its best.

J. Vintage Styles

Look for vintage style magazines (including women’s magazines), style history books, etc., and read about the dress and style expectations of those eras. Go to antique and vintage clothing stores and search their racks. As the shop owners for information. Many of them have a fountain of knowledge about style and design.

5. Ignore those who call you "old fashioned"

The MTV DJs or the slovenly week-end sweat shirt wearers have become standard bearers of our contemporary style. They are NOT experts. If your children or younger acquaintances tease you about your style, ignore them, and continue with what you’re doing. They will come around if they see you’re serious. Young people are susceptible to beauty, both boys and girls. We just need to show and teach them. Adults who tease you with subtle jibes are not worth paying attention to, especially if they are the types that wear the droopy sweat shirts and old t-shirts. They might come around, but don’t be too concerned about that.

6. How to approach those annoying loud cell-phone monologues, and jeans hanging down to the knees

Find it in yourself to “confront” slobs, bad language, loud cell phone conversations disclosing intimate details, etc. Don't do this every day, though, and don't stress yourself out. But, try it once in a while to show such people that they’ve passed beyond norms of decorum. This might get risky since people can get really angry, but assess who you can do it to. People need to know that such behavior is unacceptable.

7. How to personally make a difference

I think revolutionary things start with leaders, or those who take a bold step ahead of others, and who are not afraid of confrontations and negativity. But, prepare yourself mentally, intellectually and personally before you embark on your “making a difference” mission. Here are some things you can start with:

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

C. Find a magazine, a newsletter, a community paper etc. which will accept your articles.

D. Talk to family and friends about your observations, especially if it concerns them.

E. Make suggestions to your retail stores about clothing items to bring into the store.

F. Form a society like "The Society of Sartorially Conscious People," or "The Well Dressed Group" as you develop ideas and plans on how to make the differences you wish to see around you. Many changes in the past occurred because people formed groups of some kind for support and for strength. Fashion is no less serious, and requires as much energy as any other movement.

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

A. Please, thank you and excuse me go a long way.

B. Decent and polite behavior attracts people to you and your style.

C. Don’t shirk from full-on arguments, and don’t get bullied by bullies. But choose your place and your manner carefully when interacting with such people. Often, abrasive behavior will only alienate you from others, and prevent you from making your influence. Everyone can a potentially be on your boat, but some more than others.

9. Running to the Hills

I haven’t thought about this. I think it is an option, or could be an option. But this place, this whole place and not some cave in the hills, is our world. I think we need to defend it where we are. We can metaphorically run to the hills by building our own community as I have described above. But that should (could?) be the start of us building our defensive/offensive strategies, when we can begin more concrete changes. I think some inevitable confrontation is looming in the future, so we better get ready now.

10. "Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it."

And yes, you are right (or George Orwell is right). There are still many beautiful things around us, natural, cultural, familial, and so on. Enjoy the lovely spring that is already here, and the warm summer months just ahead of us. Read good books, look at good art, take care of yourself physically and spiritually. Start a hobby such as photography, woodwork, marathon running, etc., to enjoy life and to keep you in good spirits. We are not here to destroy, but to create.

And be good to people, even the slothful ones.

Fifth Avenue: The Structure of a Perfume

[Photo by KPA]
I put together my two Fifth Avenue bottles, and a fridge magnet with a dusk shot of New York, for the collage above.

This is actually not a new post, but a re-posting of my 2011 post The Structure of a Perfume: 5th Avenue by Elizabeth Arden.

Summer is the season for perfumes, both store-bought and on the many fragrant flowers blooming everywhere.

While I was looking for scents with linden blossom scents (here is my post), I also thought I would try to find Elizabeth Arden's Fifth Avenue in the various department stores.

Her Fifth Avenue, and Fifth Avenue After Five are still on the shelves. I have both (courtesy of the discount perfume counter at Winners!). Both are now priced around CAN$55, which is relatively low-priced for a designer perfume.

I was explaining to the salesgirl at the Bay about the perfume structure:

- That it is both a horizontal and vertical allusion to the beautiful avenue: Vertical like the skyscrapers, and horizontal like the grid-like, long and straight avenue.

- The bottle has now become iconic, and the shape takes on the many variations of Fifth Avenue.

From her reaction, I thought she had been to New York. But, she said she never had, but knew of these places through the movies! Such is the cultural education of twenty-somethings of our era. How hard is it it grab a bus to New York, and to find a Y with decent but cheap accommodations?

Elizabeth Arden produced a series of Fifth Avenue perfumes.

Fifth Avenue NYC is for cocktail evenings, not After Five, but after dark.

Fifth Avenue Nights, with the sparkling dots, shows the glittering lights of the skyscrapers.

Fifth Avenue Style evokes the fashion on the avenue.

Fifth Avenue Gold, the wealth and luxe in the avenue.


Elizabeth Arden's New York Quartet
Clockwise:
- Fifth Avenue Gold
- Fifth Avenue Nights
- Fifth Avenue NYC
- Fifth Avenue Style
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill on Bill" Don Quixote Fighting Windmills

The text reads:

City in Bloom

The nonchalant look prevails at the Union Square Greenmmarket on Sundays. A bunch of poppies plopped in a bucket were not arranged by a designer, and yet they have an appeal that would attract an artist's eye. The same is true with the shoppers' attire. It's New York at its most relaxed style moment, excluding the kids who look like summer butterflies in their print dresses and shade hats. The new Andy Warhol statue, a few yards from his Factory, peers over the square from its column perched in a seating area north of the park. It wasn't long before Campbell's soup cans were decorating the pedestal, some holding flowers.

[Photo and text from On the Street, the New York Times Style Section, June 5, 2011]



Bill Cunningham closing in on a burgundy hat. His quest for beauty often brings him up close, usually to color. He probably also liked her yellow clutch. He uses whatever palette he's given, but I imagine he goes out of his way to avoid drab blacks and greys, unless he's infusing some sense of humor into this "colorlessness."



The famous Christian Louboutin red soles, and with leopard print and fur trims. Worth crouching down for. But then again, I would imagine Cunningham was looking for the contrast between the sneakers and the stylish ankle boots. He might even have a narrative: Well-heeled lady with scruffy boyfriend. That seems to be the trendy coupling of our era.



Louboutin originals run for about $1050, knock-offs for around $160. I doubt that the "street boots" on Cunningham's model are the real thing. This fits with Cunningham's "style in the street" vision. And I doubt that he cares too much whether they are real or not. Why not look good for a fraction the price? Equality in beauty. Still, he would know, and everyone else would know, that these are not really the real thing. To see that, one would need to go to the high class, high society functions. There is a hierarchy in beauty, after all.



Cunningham takes a photo of model and actress Carolyn Murphy, which is printed in the fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar. I don't know who she is, but it is typically likely that Cunningham does. His shot looks spontaneous enough that he wasn't part of a photo shoot, and just happened to see Murphy in the street. High fashion meets street sense, spontaneously.

I wonder why he's taking a shot of her head? It must be the pale pink handkerchief she's tied around her head - à la Jackie Onassis?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently did a review of the film Bill Cunningham New York, about the fashion photographer Bill Cunningham. He doesn't figure in Wikipedia's list of Fashion Photographers, and if any of them would know him, it would be through his tiny sections in the New York Times Styles section Sunday edition: "On the Street" and "Evening Hours."

He parallels his work of taking photographs in the streets (and the high society) of New York with Don Quixote fighting windmills.

I would say that is how the artist is these days. Bill is given a certain palette, often of unattractively dressed women who have been told by contemporary style experts that ugliness is the way to go. But he refuses to accept this, although he is somewhat immersed in that culture. His way out perhaps is to photograph all kinds of details to avoid the "whole ugly look." He often does find a pretty handbag, or a colorful shoe in that midst to offset the running style. He is a Don Quixote fighting the windmills.

Here is an article he wrote on his street fashion photography method.

Bill on Bill
By Bill Cunninghham
October 27, 2002

I started photographing people on the street during World War II. I used a little box Brownie. Nothing too expensive. The problem is I'm not a good photographer. To be perfectly honest, I'm too shy. Not aggressive enough. Well, I'm not aggressive at all. I just loved to see wonderfully dressed women, and I still do. That's all there is to it.

As a kid, I photographed people at ski resorts -- you know, when you got on the snow train and went up to New Hampshire. And I did parties. I worked as a stock boy at Bonwit Teller in Boston, where my family lived, and there was a very interesting woman, an executive, at Bonwit's. She was sensitive and aware, and she said, ''I see you outside at lunchtime watching people.'' And I said, ''Oh, yeah, that's my hobby.'' She said, ''If you think what they're wearing is wrong, why don't you redo them in your mind's eye.'' That was really the first professional direction I received.

I came to New York in 1948 at 19, after one term at Harvard. Well, Harvard wasn't for me at all. I lived first with my aunt and uncle. I was working at Bonwit's in the advertising department. Advertising was also my uncle's profession. That's why my family allowed me to come here and encouraged me to go into the business. I think they were worried I was becoming too interested in women's dresses. But it's been my hobby all my life. I could never concentrate on Sunday church services because I'd be concentrating on women's hats.

While working at Bonwit's, I met the women who ran Chez Ninon, the custom dress shop. Their names were Nona Parks and Sophie Shonnard. Alisa Mellon Bruce was the silent partner. Those two women didn't want me to get mixed up in fashion either. ''Oh, God, don't let him go near it.'' You have to understand how suspect fashion people were then.

But finally, when my family put a little pressure on me about my profession, I moved out of my uncle's apartment. This was probably in 1949.

I walked the streets in the East 50's, looking for empty windows. I couldn't afford an apartment. I saw a place on 52nd Street between Madison and Park. There was a young woman at the door, and I said: ''I see empty windows. Do you have a room to rent?'' She said, ''What for?'' And I said, ''Well, I'm going to make hats.'' She told me to tell the men who owned the house that I would clean for them in exchange for the room on the top floor.

So that's where I lived, and that's where my hat shop was. Elizabeth Shoumatoff, the artist who was painting President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he died, brought in Rebekah Harkness, Mrs. William Hale Harkness. She and the ladies from Chez Ninon sent clients over. They had to climb all those stairs, and the stairs were narrow. The place had been a speakeasy in the 1920's. There was a garden in the back with a lovely old Spanish fountain, all derelict. That's where I had my first fashion show. The only member of the press who came was Virginia Pope of The Times. I got to know her very well years later -- saw her almost every Friday for tea. But anyway, her rule was to go herself to see any new designer. So there was this lovely, gracious lady at my first show, and the next day in The Times there was a little paragraph: ''William J.''

See, I didn't use my last name. My family would have been too embarrassed. They were very shy people. This was maybe 1950.

To make money, I worked at a corner drugstore. At lunchtime, I'd stop making hats and run out and deliver lunches to people. At night, I worked as a counterman at Howard Johnson's. Both jobs provided my meals, and the dimes and nickels of my tips paid for millinery supplies.

Society women were coming to get hats. It was a good education, but I didn't know it. I didn't know who these people were. It didn't mean anything to me. And then, of course, you get to realize that everybody's the same.

I made hats until I went into the Army. I was drafted during the Korean War. When I came out in 1953, I was still looking for empty windows. I found one on West 54th.

John Fairchild had just come back from Paris to run Women's Wear Daily in New York, and he knew the ladies of Chez Ninon. John said to me, ''Why don't you come and write a column for us.'' Of course, the ladies at Chez Ninon were thrilled: ''Oh, good, get him away from fashion. Make him a writer.'' They didn't realize what John was really up to. He thought, Now, I've got the inside track on the clients at Chez Ninon, which was every Vanderbilt and Astor that there was. Plus Jackie Kennedy.

What John didn't realize was that the people at Chez Ninon never discussed the clients. Private was private.

I had never written anything, but John was like that. He wanted to turn everything upside down. He just said, ''Write whatever you see.'' He was open to all kinds of ideas -- until I wrote a column about Courrèges. When I saw his first show, I thought, Well, this is it.

But John killed my story. He said, ''No, no, Saint Laurent is the one.'' And that was it for me. When they wouldn't publish the Courrèges article the way I saw it, I left. They wanted all the attention on Saint Laurent, who made good clothes. But I thought the revolution was Courrèges. Of course, in the end, Saint Laurent was the longer running show. So Fairchild was right in that sense.

After that, I went to work for The Chicago Tribune, for Eleanor Nangle. She had been there since the 1920's. A wonderful woman. The best of the best. The Tribune had an office in New York, in the Times building. One night, in about 1966, the illustrator Antonio Lopez took me to dinner in London with a photographer named David Montgomery. I told him I wanted to take some pictures. When David came to New York a few months later, he brought a little camera, an Olympus Pen-D half-frame. It cost about $35. He said, ''Here, use it like a notebook.'' And that was the real beginning.

I HAD just the most marvelous time with that camera. Everybody I saw I was able to record, and that's what it's all about. I realized that you didn't know anything unless you photographed the shows and the street, to see how people interpreted what designers hoped they would buy. I realized that the street was the missing ingredient.

There's nothing new about this idea. People had been photographing the street since the camera was invented. At the turn of the 20th century, the horse races were the big thing. Lartigue was just a boy then. But the Seeberger brothers in France were taking pictures. They, and others, were commissioned by lace and fabric houses to go to the grand prix days at the Longchamp, Chantilly, Auteuil and Deauville racetracks and photograph fashionable women. The resulting albums were used as sample books by dressmakers.

Vogue and Harper's Bazaar were doing a similar thing, but they photographed only name people at society events. And Women's Wear has been photographing socialites and celebrities for years. But the difference for me is I don't see the people I photograph. All I see are clothes. I'm only interested in people who look good. I'm looking for the stunners.

I started taking pictures for The Times in the early 70's, though my first street fashion appeared in The Daily News. Bernadine Morris, whom I had known since the 50's, said to Abe Rosenthal: ''Take a look at his work. You have all these sections to fill.'' Then I got to know Arthur Gelb, and one day I told him about this woman I had been photographing on the street. She wore a nutria coat, and I thought: ''Look at the cut of that shoulder. It's so beautiful.'' And it was a plain coat, too. You'd look at it and think: ''Oh, are you crazy? It's nothing.''

Anyway, I was taking her picture, and I saw people turn around, looking at her. She crossed the street, and I thought, Is that? Sure enough, it was Greta Garbo. All I had noticed was the coat, and the shoulder.

Arthur was marvelous. I came in that morning in late December 1978, and no one was in the department except Mimi Sheraton, the restaurant critic. I showed her the Garbo picture. She stopped typing, got up, and away she went with the picture. Minutes later, the phone rang, and Mimi said: ''Come down here, Bill. Arthur's desk.''

Arthur looked at the picture and said, ''What else do you have like this?'' I had been hanging out at the corner of 57th and Fifth, and I said, ''A picture of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, the king and queen of Spain, a Kennedy in a fox coat.''

I also had a picture of a woman who turned out to be Farrah Fawcett. I didn't know. See, I never go to the movies, and I don't own a television set.

Arthur said, ''Let's run these.'' The next day, Dec. 30, there was a half page of pictures in the Metropolitan Report.

I never bothered with celebrities unless they were wearing something interesting. That's why my files wouldn't be of value to anyone. I remember one April in Paris Ball when Joe DiMaggio came with Marilyn Monroe. But I was mesmerized by Mrs. T. Charlton Henry of Philadelphia. So chic. She'd take the train up in the morning to Penn Station and walk to Bergdorf, to be there when it opened. And when she came in, she'd say, ''Good morning, Miss Ida,'' ''Good morning, Miss Elizabeth.'' She knew everyone's name.

Back in the 60's, I remember that Eleanor Nangle and I were sitting at one of Oscar de la Renta's first shows in New York when she heard antiwar protesters down in the street. She said: ''Come on, Bill, we're leaving. The action isn't here.'' We got up and skipped out of the show. I knew from photographing people on the streets that the news was not in the showrooms. It was on the streets.

At The Times, when Charlotte Curtis was covering society, she called me one Easter Sunday and said, ''Bill, take your little camera and go quickly to Central Park, to the Sheep Meadow.'' That morning I had been on Fifth Avenue photographing the Easter parade. So I got on my bike and went up to the Sheep Meadow, and there before me were all the kids -- the flower children. All these kids dressed in everything from their mother's and grandmother's trunks, lying on the grass. It was unbelievable. It was all about the fashion revolution. And it was because Charlotte Curtis had called me on the phone.

MOST of my pictures are never published. I just document things I think are important. For instance, I've documented the gay pride parade from its first days. It was something we had never seen before. I documented every exhibition that Diana Vreeland did at the Met, but every picture is of her hand on something. I do everything, really, for myself.

I suppose, in a funny way, I'm a record keeper. More than a collector. I'm very aware of things not of value but of historical knowledge. I remember when Chez Ninon was closing in the mid-70's. I went in one day, and the files were outside in the trash. I said to the secretary, ''Well, I hope you gave all the letters from Jackie Kennedy and Mrs. Rose Kennedy to the Kennedy Library.'' And she said, ''No, they kept a few, but they felt that the rest were too personal, so they threw them out.'' I rescued everything I could and still have it.

I go to different places all the time. And I try to be as discreet as I can. My whole thing is to be invisible. You get more natural pictures that way, too. The only place where I really hung out was the old Le Cirque on 65th Street. My friend Suzette, who did the flowers there, has been with Sirio Maccioni since he got off the boat from Europe, when he was a captain at the old Colony restaurant. Everyone said Suzette tipped me off, but she couldn't have cared less about who was there.

Most people wouldn't believe that anyone would be so dumb to come every day and stand for two hours without knowing whether somebody was coming out. But I like the surprise of finding someone. Most photographers couldn't do what I do because of deadlines. You spend days, weeks, years waiting for what I call a stunner.

I think fashion is as vital and as interesting today as ever. I know what people with a more formal attitude mean when they say they're horrified by what they see on the street. But fashion is doing its job. It's mirroring exactly our times.

The main thing I love about street photography is that you find the answers you don't see at the fashion shows. You find information for readers so they can visualize themselves. This was something I realized early on: If you just cover the designers in the shows, that's only one facet. You also need the street and the evening hours. If you cover the three things, you have the full picture of what people are wearing.

I go out every day. When I get depressed at the office, I go out, and as soon as I'm on the street and see people, I feel better. But I never go out with a preconceived idea. I let the street speak to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He Who Seeks Beauty Will Find It" Such Optimism Is Not Enough Anymore

Seeking Beauty

Bill Cunningham at the Frick's Young Fellows Ball in
April 12th 2013, in the East Gallery

The exhibition is:
Renoir: Impressionism, Fashion, and Full-Length Painting
which ran from February 7, 2012 to May 13, 2012

The painting, on loan from the Musée d’Orsay in Paris, is:

Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919)
Dance in the City, 1883
Oil on canvas
70 7/8 x 35 1⁄2 inches
Musée d’Orsay, Paris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re-written from the Camera Lucida posts:
Bill Cunninghham New York
He Who Seeks Beauty Will Find It

Bill Cunningham New York is a documentary about a gentle man, who is the New York Times fashion photographer. Cunningham started off as a milliner (as a child, he used to inspect the hats of women sitting in front of him in church), and eventually got into fashion photography. His early post was with Women's Wear Daily, where he took photographs of ordinary women wearing designer clothes in the streets. But, after the lady's journal mocked these ordinary women by juxtaposing them with wealthy socialites wearing those same clothes, he quit. Women continually bring up his kindness, saying that he is one of the kindest fashion photographers they know, and won't ridicule them with his pictures. He continues to take photographs of fashion on ordinary women in the streets, and on socialites at various functions. He his two regular columns in the New York Times Styles section Sunday edition: "On the Street" and "Evening Hours." He also has a slide show section of "On the Street" in the New York Times online issue.

Cunningham appears delicate and humble, but his photographic method is feline, and almost predatory. There are moments when he waits, with humped shoulders, looking like a wild cat about to pounce on his prey. He has a strange method where, still humped over, he brings his camera high above his head and takes shots of whatever is below. I think experience has shown him there is always something (or someone) interesting in the view beyond his sight.

New York City is his fashion depository, and he travels throughout the city on a bicycle. He is somehow able to take out his camera and shoot the passing scene of New York's street style as he rides his bike. He has never been in an accident, at least as far as I could learn from the film, but he has had his bike stolen twenty eight times.

The sound track to the film is by jazz musician John Lurie, whose raw music fits with Cunningham's cut throat maneuvers through New York City traffic, exposed (and raw) on his bicycle.

He wears a blue jacket, which has become his uniform of sorts. He found it in Paris, where it is the uniform for garbage collectors. He likes its utilitarian sturdiness, but one of his fashion icons says that it has its own style. He purchases a whole batch on his trips to Paris. Through rough weather, he wears a plastic poncho which covers him and his camera, and which he regularly patches and repairs with duct tape.

He started out at Details magazine, where the editor would give him a hundred pages (limitless, to any photographer) to fill per issue. This freedom of creation has passed on to his New York Times assignment, where, although his newspaper space is limited, he nonetheless has the whole of New York City with which to fill his blank pages.

He even educates his photo editor, a matter-of-fact type of guy who just want to get the job don. In one scene, this editor cut off the hands of a photograph of a New York socialite Mercedes Bass. Cunningham comes to the rescue, saying that the woman looks like the portrait of Madame X by John Singer Sargent, and cutting off the hands would destroy any resemblance.

His fame now allows him access to the most prestigious in the fashion world - people will stop and pose in their latest regalia for him to photograph, and fashion editors will sing his praises. But, I think it is his unassuming personality that convinces people. They don't fear malice or mockery from him, and talk of the kindness in his photographs. Through his humbleness, he also convinces everyone he meets, from the street to the gala dinners, that they are worth photographing.

He has lived for decades in a rent-stabilized artist's studio in Carnegie Hall. During the film, he was in the process of getting evicted - Carnegie Hall wanted the spaces for educational facilities. He has since moved into more spacious quarters.

He has an infectious cheerfulness about him. Perhaps that is why everyone, from people in the street who know nothing about him, to the high society in their designer outfits, allow him to take their photographs.

There was a serious, emotional moment in the documentary when he said that he goes to mass every Sunday (I think he said at St. Patrick's). He started to well-up, and it took him a while to collect himself. He gave no explanation for his emotions. I think that now in his early eighties, he must be thinking about his mortality, and his place in the afterlife. The interviewer, to his credit, left him alone.

He was drafted into the Korean War. He said it came naturally for him to wish to fight for his country. Throughout his life, his family has thought that he was a homosexual. This genuinely perplexes him, although he says he understands that a fashion photographer is not a very manly profession, in their eyes at least. But to the contrary, it needs the hardy, steely determination that he has, which allows him to do death-defying maneuvers such as cycling through New York City traffic. His determination is apparent everywhere. He even fights, in his own affable way, with his photo editor, who finally gives in to his unwavering persistence.

There were many gently funny moments in the film, but the funniest was his story of how he photographed the 1960s hippies and their clothes in Central Park, all in black and white. Their psychedelics were lost in his two-toned photographs. He recounts this with his signature laugh, but that is how he told all his stories.

He calls describes fashion as "the ahmor to survive the reality of everyday life," in his Bostonian accent. "I don't think you could do away with it," he continues. "It would be like doing away with civilization."

But it was a phrase which he used during his acceptance speech for his Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters in France that best describes his commitment to fashion photography: "He who seeks beauty will find it." It is a wonder how this eighty three-year-old battles through life camera in hand. Because he knows he has to fight to find that beauty.

But his optimism may not be enough. Our society is facing the degradation of beauty, aided by those very bastions of beauty that Cunningham admires: The fashion magazines, the designers, and the elite who showcase their items. Perhaps in the years to come, Cunningham will leave these mainstream institutions of beauty, and try to build other, less conspicuous islands of beauty, where unadulterated beauty can once again regain its rightful place in society.

I tried to find out if "He who seeks beauty will find it" is part of a depository of famous quotes. But no, it is simply a Bill Cunningham quote, soon to be famous. Perhaps he said it with "He who seeks finds" in mind, from Matthew 7:8. Not everything he photographs is beautiful, but one can see his intent is to capture the beautiful, however clumsily it is presented to him. Our century is the least beautiful of the centuries. But, we are lucky that we have a Bill Cunningham, who through his ferociously persistent personality, will never tire to search for, and capture, that illusive beauty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cary Grant On Style

Cary Grant
Photo by Harry Benson
1957

Cary Grant On Style
Gentlemen's Quarterly, Winter 1967/68
[Reprinted in the April 2013 issue of GQ]
By Cary Grant

I'm often asked for advice or an opinion about clothes, and I always try to answer the best I can, but I'm not inclined to regard myself as an authority on the subject. Many times during my years in films, some well-meaning group has selected me as best-dressed man of the year, but I've never understood why. The odd distinction surprises me: first, because I don't consider myself especially well dressed, and, secondly, I've never, as far as I can compare the efforts of others with my own, gone to any special trouble to acquire clothes that could be regarded as noticeably fashionable or up-to-date.

Some of my suits are ten to twenty years old, many of them ready-made and reasonably priced. Those that were custom-tailored were made by many different tailors in many different cities: London, Hong Kong, New York and Los Angeles. I believe that American ready-made clothes are the best ready-made clothes in the world: that the well-dressed American man makes a better appearance than the well-dressed man of any other country.

No, it isn't only money that determines how well a man dresses—it's personal taste. Because of the demands of my work, I've purchased dozens of suits over the years and they all have one attribute in common: they are in the middle of fashion. By that I mean they're not self-consciously fashionable or far out, nor are they overly conservative or dated. In other words, the lapels are neither too wide nor too narrow, the trousers neither too tight nor too loose, the coats neither too short nor too long. I've worn clothes of extreme style, but only in order to dress appropriately for the type of character I played in particular films. Otherwise, simplicity, to me, has always been the essence of good taste.

I believe men's clothes—like women's—should attract attention to the best lines of a man's figure and distract from the worst. In all cases, the most reliable style is in the middle of the road—a thoughtful sensible position in any human behavior. Except perhaps on the freeway—but, even then, the middle lane, providing of course, it's on your side of the road, usually gets you where you're going more easily, comfortably, and less disturbingly. And so it should be with clothes. They should be undisturbing, easy and comfortable.

There are many established stores or haberdasheries in each city, and probably in your neighborhood. Look at the suits in the windows. See how they compare with those worn by men whose taste you respect and admire. Think about the practical, functional and long-wearing qualities as they apply to your particular job or social activities. It's better to consider carefully before buying than to regret your purchases for months afterwards. Study the cut, the price.

And here, by the way, is a tip. If the sleeves seem disproportionately wider than customary, it indicates a very deep armhole. Don't contemplate buying if you are of average or slim size—you'll get a well-fitting back but an extremely loose-fitting front and sleeves that tend to ride up if you lift your arms. A deep armhole is popular with many manufacturers because each coat fits a wider range of customers.

How much on should pay depends on how much one has to spend. I'm reminded of a piece of advice my father gave me regarding shoes: it has stood me in good stead whenever my own finances were low. He said it's better to buy one good pair of shoes than four cheap ones. One pair made of fine leather could outlast four inferior pairs, and, if well cared for, would continue to proclaim your good judgment and taste no matter how old they become. The same applies to suits, so permit me to suggest you buy the best you can afford even though it means buying less. Rather like the stock market: it is usually more sensible to buy just one share of blue chip than 150 shares of a one-dollar stock.

What should one buy? Well, if a man's budget restricts him to only one suit, then I would choose something unobtrusive. A dark blue, almost black, of lightweight cloth, serviceable for both day and evening wear. I suggest lightweight because nowadays most restaurants, offices, shops and theaters are well heated during fall and winter. I found that so even, surprisingly, in Moscow. With such modern indoor comfort, one need only be concerned with cold weather while out-of-doors.

Which brings us to overcoats. I've learned to wear overcoats that button up to the neck yet still appear neat when left open. It mystifies me that some men wear heavy single-breasted and even double-breasted, overcoats to protect themselves from cold, yet expose the most vulnerable part of their chests with V-neck openings. By wearing an overcoat that buttons to the neck, there is no need for a scarf.

The topcoat I use for traveling can be worn spring or fall. It's black and therefore not only less apt to show dirt and travel stains, but usable for both day and formal wear. It's made of a gabardine-type waterproof material, with slash side pockets that enable one to reach through easily for change, or to carry a book, or something similar, protected from the rain. There is also a detachable lining that buttons inside for very wintery days. An all-purpose coat.

What about a second suit? Well, I think a grey worsted or flannel would be most serviceable. Not too light in color, not too dark. And, this time, of medium weight but not more than what is known as ten-ounce cloth. It might be advantageous to purchase an extra pair of trousers for wearing separately with a sweater or a sport shirt. A grey flannel suit, with or without extra trousers, together with a sport coat could, at a pinch, be sufficient for a weekend in the country.

A sport coat ought to be easy-fitting, its pattern neither loud nor flashy. If you're unsure which plaid or check to choose, then one of those dark blue, single-breasted blazers that have been worn by all classes in England for years, and have since become popular here, is acceptable for most casual wear.

Except, of course, on very hot days. During summer I've taken to wearing light beige, washable poplin suits. They're inexpensive and, if kept crisp and clean, acceptable almost anywhere at any time, even in the evening. Also, the coat can be worn with grey flannels at the seashore or in the country, and the trousers used separately with a sport shirt and moccasins, or a pair of those heavy-soled white canvas shoes that are popular with young college men.

Poplin or seersucker suits are the mark of no special social class or income group, but are worn by all. And, providing he is well-mannered, a young man wearing such a suit can confidently approach the other fellow's girl, secure in knowing that his way of dress is no deterrent.

A cardigan coat sweater of lightweight wool and conservative color is a useful investment. It can be worn without a coat on many occasions, and has the advantage of being easily slipped on without those arm-raising contortions and the need to re-comb your hair.

How do I feel about ties? If I had only one to choose, then I think a black foulard, not too wide nor too narrow, is best, as it's acceptable with most clothes. An expensive tie is not a luxury—the wrinkles fall out quicker and the knot will hold better. Personally, I wear ties of small, conservative pattern and color.

Shoes? I've already mentioned that good shoes look better and last longer. If a man must limit himself to only one pair of shoes for city wear, then they should be black. If two, then a brown pair of darkest chocolate color are useful with almost all suits and, if he has no moccasins, even with grey flannels. The moccasin type of shoe is, to me, almost essential and especially convenient when traveling, since they can be easily slipped off in the airplane or car.

If your pocket handkerchief is monogrammed, don't wear it carefully folded to show the monogram peeking above your breast-pocket. That's somehow ostentatious.

Shirts should usually be white for the evening, but, in the city's grime, it's practical and permissible to wear a light blue or conservatively striped shirt during the day. The type of collar should suit the contours of the neck and face. As a younger man, I tried wearing a flared, too-high collar that, although modish amongst those I regarded as the sophisticates of that day, looked ridiculous on my 17 1/2- inch neck. Luckily, after the embarrassment of viewing myself from almost every angle on screen, that mistake was soon rectified. Button-cuffed shirts are simplest to manage, but if you wear cuff links, as I do, don't, I beg you, wear those huge examples of badly designed, cheap modern jewelry. They, too, are not only ostentatious, but heavy and a menace to the enamel on your car and your girl friend's eye.

Learn to dispense with accessories that don't perform a necessary function. I use belts, for example, only with blue jeans, which I wear when riding, and content myself with side loops, that can be tightened at the waistband, on business suits.

A tip about trousers. Trouser cuffs seem to me unnecessary, and are apt to catch lint and dust. However, whether you prefer cuffs or not, ask the tailor to sew a strip of cloth of the same material, or a tape of similar color, on the inside at the bottom of the trouser leg where it rubs the heel of the shoe. It will keep your trouser-bottoms from fraying.

Do I have any special do's and don't's about clothes? I can't think of and rules about clothes, since there really aren't any, but I suggest you buy trees to conform to the shape of your shoes, and keep your coats on curved hangers.

Take care of your clothes, keep them clean and in good repair. I suggest you avoid using heavily scented cologne or soaps. When I meet a man I like him to smell like a man, or not to smell at all; certainly he shouldn't smell like a woman. Do see that your socks stay up. Nothing can spoil an otherwise well-groomed effect like sagging socks. Don't stuff your pockets with heavy articles and bulging wallets filled with seldom-used cards. They ruin not only the neatness of your appearance but the actual tailoring of your suit.

Don't be a snob about the way you dress. Snobbery is only a point in time. Be tolerant and helpful to the other fellow—he is yourself yesterday.

Don't overbuy. When you contemplate an article, judge whether or not it harmonizes with items you already own. Again, avoid exaggeration of current fashions. It's best to be inconspicuous. But inconspicuous does not mean dull. Extreme dullness can be conspicuous in itself. Just do the best you can.

Come to think of it, who knows how anything becomes bad or good taste? Who decides a standard of esthetics? If it's the majority, then how is it the minority are the ones considered well dressed? Everything is only exactly what it is. If a man wears the kind of clothes that please him, then, providing they're clean and don't shock society, morals, and little children, what is the difference as long as that man is happy?

Any other thoughts on clothes?

Yes. Somewhere I read that Harvard's Professor Archibald MacLeish was asked by a student about to graduate into our highly competitive world what advice he could give him. Professor MacLeish's answer was, "Wear your Sunday suit every day." The inference, of course, being that the suit would give the young man such confidence in seeking positions that he would eventually own many Sunday suits, for any and all days.

Splendid advice even by itself, but it's probable that the professor meant not only his Sunday or best suit, but also his Sunday or best smile, disposition, and behavior—knowing that each begets the other. So wear, not only your clothes, but yourself, well, with confidence. Confidence, too, is in the middle of the road, being neither aggressiveness nor timidity. Pride of new knowledge—including knowledge of clothes—continually adds to self-confidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Aggression Behind Scruffy Jeans

The article below is a compilation of several posts from Camera Lucida (see links below). It will probably go in the "Beauty in Masculinity" chapter of Reclaiming Beauty.

- The Sexy Escape
- The Barbarization of Contemporary Young, White Men
- The Curse of the Vera Wang Wedding Dress
- The Arrogant Aggression of Scruffy Jeans
- The Aggressive Sloth of Young, White Men
- Busy Chelsea, Married Lady
- More Thoughts on Chelsea's Wedding

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fig. 1
Left: Model for a jeans ad
Right: Marc Mezvinsky

This must be the only civilization in the history of our planet where men define their masculinity by wearing scruffy clothes [Fig. 1]. It looks, at first, quick glance, as though men are abandoning style, but they're not.

There is a very particular look to the scruffy jeans ensemble: the un-tucked shirt; the "just so" length of the pants, which fold over sneakers and scrape the floor; those sneakers which are never dirty, but have a clean, almost brand new look; a clean sweater with the shirt hanging out from underneath; a loosely tied tie; a tote bag, or some "man" purse; some kind of twisted thread bracelet, or a copper or silver bangle, and a ring on one ear or some body piercing; disheveled, over-grown hair; and a day-old beard, although clean-shaven is also acceptable. The clothes look clean and washed, and if they have a few rips or tears, that is part of the style.

The slouch is the uniform posture from which these young men assess their surroundings, pretending to look nonthreatening, whereas they are observing closely to make the necessary moves to maintain their stakeout.

This look is not at all spontaneous and nonchalant. The men sporting this look, usually in their early to late twenties, appear to have spent some time putting it together, although with practice it probably doesn't take them too long.

I started observing their expressions and behaviors, and I began noticing a self-centered narcissism. For example, they are unlikely to cede the sidewalk to me, and expect me to walk a half a circle around them to avoid collision. Although these days, I just stop in my tracks and wait for them to make the adjustments. If they are with women, they walk very fast, oblivious to the extra fast pace the women have to maintain to keep up with them, although I think it's more that they're uncaring than not noticing.


Fig. 2
Buffalo Jeans Advertisement

Advertisements also expose the narcissism of these young men. In the jeans ad [Fig. 2], the young man looks arrogantly confident. His ensemble is baggy jeans and a long, disheveled shirt, un-tucked, and worn over some undershirt. He looks aggressive, and possessive. Who would want that kind of a guy around? But in this world of gender equality, there is still male swagger, and female demureness. In this "girl power" era of ours, young women actually seem to find this obnoxious-looking male attractive.


Fig. 3
Man in Bowler Hat

The man in the suit, bowler hat and cane [Fig. 3] is also aware of style and clothing. But he isn't using his style and his appearance as some kind of war against the world, but as a way to fit in the world, and to make it look civilized. At the same time, he is giving clear codes through this bold and well-defined attire that other men should aspire to a similar presence.

The twenty-first century young man, on the other hand, is as much concerned with aesthetics as he is with power and aggression.


Fig. 4
Marc Mezvinsky's expression vacillates between the insipid,
characterless look that is so common in young men these days,
but seems to change into the hard glint of a narcissist without warning.

Chelsea Clinton's husband fits this appearance perfectly. Marc Mezvinsky at times looks like the insipid male that is so common these days, but then flashes without warning a hard glint of narcissistic aggression [Fig. 4]. Despite his scruffy look in Fig. 1, Mezvinsky's pants are clean and trendy cargo pants, and his sweat shirt is a spotless white. And no sneakers for him as he pushes his way forward with a growl.


Fig. 5
Chelsea and Mark: A Match Made in Hell?

Mezvinsky regularly pulls out his bow tie and white shirt in public appearances. Like all narcissists, he knows he has to win over his audience, and his wife, since extreme behavior will alienate them, and he cannot allow anything to jolt his prestigious and affluent lifestyle. He also manages to put on a subdued expression [Fig. 5]. Chelsea Clinton often has a bewildered, and intimidated look in her eyes, albeit with a glint of her own narcissistic ambitions (it has been reported that she is waiting to have her first child in order to pursue a "career"). It must be hard to keep up with her husband.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to Acquire Style and Substance

This article is a re-write of Style and Substance in a Postmodern Age from Camera Lucida. It will probably go in the "Beauty and Masculinity" chapter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cary Grant
Photo by Harry Benson
1957

A young man recently wrote to me and asked:

Your posts are great and so pertinent to the madhouse we currently live in. I was wondering if you think the slovenly dress habits will be discarded within the next 10 years or so as people get fed up with the general ugliness. Or are they too far gone?

I generally gird myself mentally before I enter the public square these days. I expect to see slobs, hear rude language, be tailgated, walk away from cell phone conversations etc. I'm praying that network news goes the way of dvds.

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".

Is this anti-culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

George Orwell (a weird kind of socialist) wrote an essay called "Some thoughts on the common toad" and concluded it saying that in spite of the lies spewing out into the world Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it. A little comfort I guess.

I answered him with what I thought would be a practical guideline on how to maneuver the non-aesthetic mentality of our age:

I don’t know. Beauty, beautiful things, like a culture and a country, take years, centuries, generations to build and solidify. Ugliness and destruction occur in very little time. Even consider dressing: It is easier to slap on anything as opposed to wearing clothes that have an aesthetic sense.

I think our era hasn’t constructed, or built, its aesthetic sense. Other eras built theirs, out of what came from their past. Ours hasn’t bothered with that. I think it stopped soon after the late sixties and early seventies. I cannot think of a definitive eighties, nineties or “new millennium” style, but I can immediately recognize sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, styles, and further into the past.

I’m still trying to figure out why that is, but I think it happened when beauty was “downsized” as I call it, and when people thought it was too elitist. It probably has to do with equality, as I write here. But the problem with “equality” is that it courts the lowest denominator, so everyone becomes equally ugly.

But, the interesting thing about aesthetics is that it doesn’t require “equality” to function in any and all levels of life. The young shop girl can look beautiful (or at least aesthetically pleasing) and can borrow her ideas form the wealthy socialite to form her own pleasant look. Also, when beauty is around, even in limited quantities, everyone benefits. A beautiful statue in park is for everyone to appreciate. A beautiful lady glimpsed at in her car (in a store, a restaurant, etc.) makes people happy, including the lowly shop girl. Beauty does make the world a better place, I’m convinced.

Anyway, back to your question:

I think it is possible to discard slovenly dress habits, and even sooner than within the next 10 years.

1. You can start right away. For example:

A. Rather than wearing sneakers, always wear good shoes.

B. Dress well when going out, even to the corner store.

C. Of course, over-dressing to the corner store can look odd, so try to fit your dress to the occasion. There are great casual clothes around, and you don’t have to slip on a silly t-shirt or a worn out sweat shirt to go out and buy your milk.

D. Have a good hair cut, perhaps copying a style from another period, or using a men’s magazine for ideas (some have surprisingly well-groomed men models).

E. Try to get things to match, in style, color, design etc.

F. Find good accessories like ties, hats, belts, handkerchiefs, jackets. The whole look matters.

G. Avoid jeans at all costs. They look sloppy, and they are boring and unattractive.

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items:

- Sweat shirts or t-shirts
- Sneakers
- Jeans
- Shorts
- Thematic prints like a shirt you bought at your last rock concert, or the tie with Disney motifs.
- Dramatic prints. Stripes and small circles or diamonds on shirts is as far as you should go.
- Baseball hats
- Odd jewelry, or pierced ear/nose
- Tattoos
- Hoodies

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

This is still generally more formal. Even if you work in a casual office environment, dress as if you might meet your next new boss, or your big client.

B. “Street” wear

Street wear is less formal. But you are out showing yourself to the whole world. Do you want to be seen in sloppy t-shirt and jeans, or look nice, presentable and attractive? You can add the thematic printed shirt here, perhaps a Hawaiian shirt for summer, and penny loafers are a good substitute for sneakers. As a hat, a panama hat might be a nice touch rather than that ubiquitous, ugly baseball cap.

C. Week-end and home wear

You’d be surprised at how people dress at home, when they think that “no one” is looking. Of course, their own families are looking, observing and often mimicking. If you have young children, they will be influenced at how you present yourself even at home. Get out of the pajamas and dressing gown mode, and actually wear some real clothes that are not for sleeping in. “Pajama mode” dressing includes baggy sweat shirts and sweat pants, and t-shirts, sloppy slippers/flip flops, etc. Leave the t-shirts and sweat shirts for the garden or yard work. You can be comfortable in a loose shirt and pants. Try a Hawaiian shirt, a short-sleeved golf shirt, sweaters, penny loafers, Dockers once in a while.

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

Dress up when visiting friends, and when friends come to visit. Don’t overdue it, of course, if the event is casual, but look good. Rather than a sweat shirt, put on a dress shirt, or a short-sleeved golf shirt. Try different, subdued colors for a change, like pastel lilac or light blue. Don’t pull out the Hawaii shirt for this one. No jeans, of course, and no sweat pants. But tan Dockers are a good, neutral choice. Penny loafers, and more formal shoes like Oxfords, can substitute for sneakers.

E. Visitors and week-end and home wear are somewhat similar

In a way, you should be ready for some event, even if at home. Some-one may decide to pop in for a visit. Mix your “visitors wear” with your casual home wear when you’re at home.

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

Look up GQ magazine and other men’s magazines. Many have surprisingly good selections of men’s clothes. But pay more attention to the ads. The articles are often featuring the next “avant-gard” designer, whereas the ads are more conservative.

B. Tailors

Go to a tailor. Try to find a small, modest, old-fashioned one, who has had some formal or “old world” training. Such tailors are often a wealth of information. Ask for their advice. Have a suit custom made.

C. Formal Occasions

Look around during formal occasions. See what people are wearing for weddings, engagement parties, christenings, office formal parties, etc. Formal wear has been downgraded so much that wedding suits might actually fit your every-day life style.

D. Public Figures

Watch what public figures – news anchors, presidential candidates, Donald Trump, etc. - are wearing. Study how they accessorize with their ties, handkerchiefs, shoes, hats, and even their hair styles. We are still a some-what conservative culture when it comes to how our leaders are dressed.

E. Fashion History

Look up the history of fashion. How did people dress ten years ago, fifteen years ago? In the fifties, or forties? In the 19th century? During Medieval times? You’d be surprised to find that men took what they wore very seriously. A knight is identified partly by what he wears. So is a king. As is an early twentieth century gentleman.

F. Fashion Statements and Items

Find distinguishing items of different eras, periods and styles. It could be the walking stick/umbrella of the English Gentleman. Or the colors of a sixteenth century costume which you can incorporate into the colors of your tie and lapel handkerchief. Or the hats worn in the 1950s.

G. Different Cultures

Look at different cultures around the world and study how they differentiate between formal wear and casual wear (e.g is “casual wear” universal?). Did they have specific, attractive wear for men? Were men and women equally well-dressed?

H. Different Classes

How do the rich and the poor dress? You might think that only the wealthy are concerned with looking good. But, all walks of people dress cleanly, respectably, and with some flair. Poor people in Africa, for example, the poorest of the poor in the world, managed to develop a bright and cheerful style, with imaginative tie-dye, block print and batik fabrics, which million-dollar designers copy as their latest runway creations. Even cheap Walmart clothes are often colorful and attractive.

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

If you watch T.V., try to find shows that can give you good style examples. Subscribe to a “Hollywood movies” channel and watch shows and movies from the forties and fifties. We can still relate to those styles, and in fact they’re making a come-back. Study the suit cuts, the colors men wore, the shoes and ties, the hair cuts. Find what you like, and what can fit into your lifestyle, and just copy it!

Cary Grant shows true style and substance with a simple, relaxed pose (see above image). No aggressive expression, no slovenly style. Here is male aesthetics at its best.

J. Vintage Styles

Look for vintage style magazines (including women’s magazines), style history books, etc., and read about the dress and style expectations of those eras. Go to antique and vintage clothing stores and search their racks. As the shop owners for information. Many of them have a fountain of knowledge about style and design.

5. Ignore those who call you "old fashioned"

The MTV DJs or the slovenly week-end sweat shirt wearers have become standard bearers of our contemporary style. They are NOT experts. If your children or younger acquaintances tease you about your style, ignore them, and continue with what you’re doing. They will come around if they see you’re serious. Young people are susceptible to beauty, both boys and girls. We just need to show and teach them. Adults who tease you with subtle jibes are not worth paying attention to, especially if they are the types that wear the droopy sweat shirts and old t-shirts. They might come around, but don’t be too concerned about that.

6. How to approach those annoying loud cell-phone monologues, and jeans hanging down to the knees

Find it in yourself to “confront” slobs, bad language, loud cell phone conversations disclosing intimate details, etc. Don't do this every day, though, and don't stress yourself out. But, try it once in a while to show such people that they’ve passed beyond norms of decorum. This might get risky since people can get really angry, but assess who you can do it to. People need to know that such behavior is unacceptable.

7. How to personally make a difference

I think revolutionary things start with leaders, or those who take a bold step ahead of others, and who are not afraid of confrontations and negativity. But, prepare yourself mentally, intellectually and personally before you embark on your “making a difference” mission. Here are some things you can start with:

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

C. Find a magazine, a newsletter, a community paper etc. which will accept your articles.

D. Talk to family and friends about your observations, especially if it concerns them.

E. Make suggestions to your retail stores about clothing items to bring into the store.

F. Form a society like "The Society of Sartorially Conscious People," or "The Well Dressed Group" as you develop ideas and plans on how to make the differences you wish to see around you. Many changes in the past occurred because people formed groups of some kind for support and for strength. Fashion is no less serious, and requires as much energy as any other movement.

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

A. Please, thank you and excuse me go a long way.

B. Decent and polite behavior attracts people to you and your style.

C. Don’t shirk from full-on arguments, and don’t get bullied by bullies. But choose your place and your manner carefully when interacting with such people. Often, abrasive behavior will only alienate you from others, and prevent you from making your influence. Everyone can a potentially be on your boat, but some more than others.

9. Running to the Hills

I haven’t thought about this. I think it is an option, or could be an option. But this place, this whole place and not some cave in the hills, is our world. I think we need to defend it where we are. We can metaphorically run to the hills by building our own community as I have described above. But that should (could?) be the start of us building our defensive/offensive strategies, when we can begin more concrete changes. I think some inevitable confrontation is looming in the future, so we better get ready now.

10. "Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it."

And yes, you are right (or George Orwell is right). There are still many beautiful things around us, natural, cultural, familial, and so on. Enjoy the lovely spring that is already here, and the warm summer months just ahead of us. Read good books, look at good art, take care of yourself physically and spiritually. Start a hobby such as photography, woodwork, marathon running, etc., to enjoy life and to keep you in good spirits. We are not here to destroy, but to create.

And be good to people, even the slothful ones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------