Jan 11, 2013
Juicy topic today, friends, but first, a little business:
It is with supreme disappointment that I must announce that my latest YouTube puppet video, which I attempted to post here yesterday, was declared in violation of EMI's copyrights or some such thing.
It seems you can no longer share home videos of yourself lipsynching to any artist, dead or alive, who ever had a recording contract with a major recording label. Upon reflection, I can see how this could hurt EMI, since so many of my readers would be able to enjoy the obscure recording in question for free and might forever associate it with a man in a ratty blonde wig. I guess I'll have to find a new hobby.
It seems that lately almost every time I leave a comment on a WordPress blog, it disappears. I don't know if it's me or WordPress, but in one case, my comment was sent directly to Spam. Any ideas?
And now, for today's topic.
If there's one thing that can be said for men's fashion, it's that it doesn't make men look in the mirror and wonder if they're too old to be wearing it. We'll wear anything no matter how it looks on us.
But I was trolling Etsy the other day -- as I am wont to do when I am sick, healthy, and everything in between -- and I stumbled upon a well-priced pattern that I thought might make a lovely Cathy gown.
But I wondered if maybe it wasn't a little too virginal, too Jane Powell in A Date With Judy. Then, since I'm given to self-examination, I wondered what it was about it that made me feel that way.
I think excessive frills, ruffles, and anything evoking a Disney princess read as dainty. And dainty isn't really Cathy's strong suit.
While there are certainly patterns today that -- mainly by the envelope art/photograph -- target the "mature" customer, in the old days, it was very obvious: the models are built like Eleanor Roosevelt, they're rarely smiling (what's left to smile about?), and they just look...matronly.
Contrast this with the obviously youthful styles, where the models are laughing, flirting -- all ribbons and bows, ruffles, and roses.
Obviously this age-appropriate thing is not solely about skin exposure, or hem length, or (in most cases) fit. It's something else...but what? Puffy sleeves? Flowers?
Maybe it has less to do with age and more to do with a person's "essense." Take my mother (--please). Seriously, Sonia is eighty-two-and-a-half but she's still "cute," do you know what I mean? When my grandmother was eighty-two, she was wearing sensible shoes and house dresses; my mother wears stretch denim!
Movie star (and mother) Joan Crawford projected steeliness, which suited her as she got older. A sharply tailored suit was perfect for her.
Claudette Colbert projected sophistication but postwar fashion pushed more homespun styles. Does this frilly outfit suit her: yes, no?
It's all very confusing and clearly very subjective.
Readers, if you're on the far side of fifty -- and even if you're not --
Are there fabrics or looks that might have suited you once but, in your opinion, no longer work for you?
Do you think suitable styles have more to do with a person's essence, i.e., what they project (innocence, sultriness and sophistication, etc.) than their age?
Have a great day, everybody!