At the Hilarious Pessimist, Dalrymple tries to understand the world of modern fashion:
The female models looked as though they had been kept in a cellar for ten years by a Bluebeard figure: they were painfully pale, like axolotls, and on the verge of fainting from hunger. Their clothes were such as you might expect to result from putting a variety of fabrics into a food mixer. I have never since seen anyone wear such clothes in any other place or situation. What can the economics be of all this?
Yes. And furthermore, I find the grim look of depressed anorexic patients to be repellant. A women is attractive when she smiles with sparkling eyes. But that is not permitted on the fashion walk. Why is that?
Nice to see TD write on the ridiculous absurdity that is modern fashion.
Something he didn’t mention is that it is largely gay men who dictate what is to be regarded as “beautiful” in this business, when their opinions are surely irrelevant to what is attractive between the sexes. By current evidence they are even corrupting!
I cannot think of any men who would find what the woman in the picture has (willingly) been turned into attractive (the dress just looks like an average dress, too). Her image is more likely to elicit pity and concern. When asked, men generally prefer women with a more fulsome, healthy and feminine figure, and yes, a smile!
The fashion world: a silly farce followed by sheep – multi-billion dollar or not. True style and good taste never go out of fashion, nor do they require excessive sums of money.
Ugly women, ugly looks, ugly clothes, ugly walk, ugly business. Or is that Ogley business.
Pingback: My My… | Dalrymple Watch
Prithee poor wretch, you must eat
Earlier this year I sent an email to someone in which I explained how in a recent conversation I pretty much summed up my feelings by quoting Burke
“Man is qualified for liberty in proportion as he is prepared to put moral chains on his appetites…”
Actually he says ‘in exact proportion’ but that for me sounds a little too much like what Newton might say ‘for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’. A science of man in other words.
Anyway, in this email I elaborated:
“I’m more inclined to substitute libido for appetites – and I did make that unpopular point very clear; I mean, what little I know of Maslow’s hierarchy, it seems that ‘sex’ is usually rated as rather fundamental, and I don’t think that’s only as a necessity of reproduction but as a raw appetite. Well, I might say, just go to any supermarket and look at the magazines, it somehow makes Maslow’s hierarchy seem a gross understatement.”
As TD says
“The female models looked as though they had been kept in a cellar for ten years by a Bluebeard figure: they were painfully pale, like axolotls, and on the verge of fainting from hunger.”
Maslow’s pyramid… hierarchy thingy is looking a little dated to me. The talented Kate Moss said something like ‘nothing tastes as good as skinny feels’. I guess that translates as something like nothing tastes as good as hooking-up with the likes of Pete Doherty feels. It’s about priorities.