Radical Chic redux

Along with the natural/afro hair, politicized hip-hop style, and authentic African names that I think an Obama candidacy and presidency is going to bring to the forefront, I'm starting to wonder if some Black Power-influenced style is going to come back in 2009.

I mentioned in this post that I think the color black in general is going to only get more pervasive, and that in the winter the classic black turtleneck is going to be huge. I'm also imagining lots of sober, simply-cut (minimalist) black jackets, suits, and coats, and flat black boots. And I'm thinking that the camouflage trend of this winter/spring is only going to get bigger and encompass a generally militant-ish look. Plus, I continue to insist, long hair for men. Add to that a dumbing-down of (or maybe even dispensing-with?) makeup (here, here), the continuation of skinny jeans, the not-dying popularity of sunglasses, especially still the Wayfarers, the seemingly-random turban and hats-in-general trend, and it's all sounding a little familiar:

...Christ, if the Panthers don't know how to get it all together, as they say, the tight pants, the tight black turtlenecks, the leather coats, Cuban shades, Afros. But real Afros, not the ones that have been shaped and trimmed like a topiary hedge and sprayed until they have a sheen like acrylic wall-to-wall--but like funky, natural, scraggly . . . wild . . .

...The Panther women...are so lean, so lithe, as they say, with tight pants and Yoruba-style headdresses, almost like turbans, as if they'd stepped out of the pages of Vogue, although no doubt Vogue got it from them. All at once every woman in the room knows what Amanda Burden meant when she said she was now anti-fashion because "the sophistication of the baby blacks made me rethink my attitudes." God knows the Panther women don't spend thirty minutes in front of the mirror in the morning shoring up their eye holes with contact lenses, eyeliner, eye shadow, eyebrow pencil, occipital rim brush, false eyelashes, mascara, Shadow-Ban for undereye and Eterna Creme for the corners . . . (from Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers ©1970 by Tom Wolfe)

Of course Black Power overtones are exactly the last thing Barack Obama needs, so I hope this doesn't come back too strong or too soon. Hopefully not really until he's in office. And I really, really hope it'll be about black pride instead of black separatism.

Ideally it will represent, also, not the nihilistic defeated attitude of 1969, but a non-materialistic, honest attitude, and be part of a sweeping-away of the overconsumption-oriented style that has reigned for almost this entire first decade of the 21st century.

I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes

The darkness isn't going to go if you turn your head, though.  More darkness is on the way.  In fact it would be appropriate, if you see a red dress, to paint it black, because black and more black is what we're going to be seeing this summer.

That's right, here it is, my favorite time of year: time to make the New York Downtown Young Ladies' Summer Fashion Trend Report.

It's all about separates, neutrals, minimalism, utilitarianism, lots of skin, and a tough attitude.

All the outfits worn by New York Downtown Young Ladies are a variation on this theme:

• white, black, gray, denim, or khaki short shorts or short skirt, high-waisted
• + white, black, or gray top of some kind
• OR black or white sundress BELTED AT THE WAIST -- NO empire line
• potential vest, layered shirt, or jacket in white, black, or denim -- NO SWEATERS

Guidelines for accessories:

• sandals, esp. gladiators or anything with an ankle strap, leather NOT jelly, espadrille, or other, TRUE sandal NOT FLIP-FLOP -- OR leather or canvas black/white/neutral lace-ups OR boots -- tough boots as motorcycle or winkle-picker, NOT round-toe scrunchy
• NO bag -- OR utilitarian bag - backpack, fanny pack, or as last resort TRUE handbag (no shoulder straps and especially NO HOBOS)
• the best accessories have some sort of significance or symbolism: for instance, political pins, wedding rings, friendship bracelets
• earrings are long and made of feathers or fringe or are hoops or simple studs but are NOT chandelier.  multiple ear piercings are good.
• chokers

Grooming:

• hair: should not be styled -- it should be air-dried and left in its natural state.  If it's frizzy in its natural state, it should be frizzy; if it's flat, it should be flat.  your growing-out bangs should be in your eyes.  don't trim your hair.
• makeup: pretty skin, some mascara.  NO EYELINER.  lip balm.
• no nail polish

Underwear

• I was a little wrong about bras.  it's OK to wear a bra, but it shouldn't be a heavy-duty bra.  It should be a garment and not an undergarment.  it should show -- the straps should show, or the color should show through your shirt.  or you can wear it on its own -- if it's a sports bra.  that could be really cool, actually.

The following are forbidden:

• irony
• color
• notions of "luxury" or "glamour"
• boho

Other notes:

• the right denim is old, thrifted, men's denim -- ideally a little torn.
• don't try to be sexy.  it's an election year, get over yourself
• shoes are going to be getting more and more utilitarian.  sandals this summer will give way to sneakers this fall and hiking boots and flat boots this winter.  notice how the nineties are coming back?
• also in that vein: perhaps instead of long hair, a bit of a sinead/ani moment?
• this winter the black turtleneck will succeed these black winter clothes.

Tinted glasses, haircolor for men, nun casualwear

Great people-watching on the downtown 6 train today.

I saw my third man wearing tinted prescription glasses (not sunglasses) of 2008. The first two men were wearing yellow-tinted glasses and I saw both of them on St. Mark's. One was wearing a very nice suit and the other I don't remember that well but was generally a bit nebbishy-chic I think. This man on the 6 today had pink or "rose"-tinted glasses. He was a short, plump thirty-something man wearing a tight blue-and-yellow-striped long-sleeved polo shirt, lots of rings, and a gold bangle bracelet. Like with the other 2 men, I was too afraid to ask him what the deal was with his glasses. I didn't like his as much as the yellow glasses because they were very high-style, whereas the yellow-tinted glasses on the other men were otherwise very normal and I thought that was cool. What's the deal? Is this a fad? Does it have to do with insisting on one's own subjective experience of reality?

Second: I saw a tall businessman, also in his thirties, in a nice suit, with platinum-blonde hair that I for some reason did not buy as his natural haircolor. I started wondering whether he'd started going gray and was dying his hair back blonde. His face looked older than his hair, somehow. Then I saw it in a different light and the blonde looked more believable. It was hard to believe someone that nicely-dressed would be *tacky* enough to dye his hair. Then I wondered whether it wouldn't just be very punk rock to dye one's hair, if one were a man. Natural colors that were just a little bit off would be cool. A reddish tint on a natural light brunette, black on natural dark-brown hair.  Here's a redhead from Face Hunter who went Manic-Panic-red with great success.

Then I saw what I think must have been a nun in a nun's casual-wear ensemble. Do nuns have special casual-wear uniforms?? The all-over light-blue color was the main reason I thought she had to be a nun. That and most of what she was wearing was handmade: handmade light-blue knee-length A-line skirt with white embroidery (obviously done by one of the automatic stitch functions on a sewing machine -- scallops and zigzags); a light-blue V-neck cardigan, baggy fit, definitely hand-knit; white blouse looked like it could have been hand-sewn; and then my favorite, this chunky beaded necklace of alternating white and navy beads. This with tan hose and black-on-black cheapo sneakers, maybe Reeboks. And a short pageboy with bangs. She was doing the crossword. Is this an approved nun's holiday ensemble? Or was this woman just some sort of wacky Holly Hobby? I love spotting handmade clothes. They always just leap out at you. They look so original, and so wrong.

Plum

An article today in the Times discusses the implications of the trend of businesses naming products and services after the color/fruit "plum."

Lots of associations with plum are tossed around in the article. Plum the color is said to evoke royalty, sophistication, emotion, individuality, class, calm, cleanliness, health, vitality, and purity.
Plum the fruit, in its literal form, is described as connoting sweetness and naturalness. But most of the discussion of plum the fruit centers around its metaphorical connotations, which have to do with something highly desirable and elite -- "something you strive for" -- such as a "plum job" or "plum assignment." One CMO quoted in the article mentioned the sayings "sweeten the deal" and "juicy deal" and noted that "in many societies, plums are given as rewards or gifts."

The article doesn't do much to relate all these various connotations of plum together in a way that explains the zeitgeist of the trend. What's missing is a theory that relates the creativity and hedonism of the color plum's meanings to the business-speak, achievement-oriented overtones of plum the fruit.

My theory is that this "plum" trend is all about the convergence of commerce and art in marketing. With art's makers priced out of cities and its products priced out of the budget of most consumers, art for art's sake is a less and less viable pursuit. The tide is turning, and aesthetics is ceasing to be an end in itself and beginning to be a means of "making special" Western culture's main socially shared significance: capitalism. Consumption is now the most meaningful way for an individual to participate in the group; modern self-transcendence takes place through transactions.

The growing sophistication, beauty, and pervasiveness of marketing are evidence that advertising is fast becoming the art of the post-postmodern age. Plum is the perfect motif of this evolution because its multiple meanings as color and fruit encapsulate the hallmarks of the ascendant superrich whose purposes are served by consumer culture: their obsession with luxury; their equation of creativity with entrepreneurship; their monopoly on self-realization; their status as the new royalty; their ability to afford health and well-being; their power as patrons of the arts.

Plum is very much a business branding trend -- not a fashion or general aesthetic trend. The author mentions this point only at the very end of the article, in a bit of a throwaway. But I think it's quite significant, as it points out the exclusivity of "plum." Plum is not for the masses; it's for the rich, creatively-entitled elite, and in a type of self-enforcing sumptuary law, it will not be glimpsed outside their world.

Baby-you-cheated blue

Light blue appears to be the color of choice for women standing by their philandering politician husbands.

According to Color: Messages & Meanings (Eiseman 2006), light blue is second only to white in conjuring up feelings of cleanliness and purity.  Dressing the wife in light blue, then, emphasizes that although her husband has sinned, she herself is untainted, and that her cleansing influence is washing over him, helping to clean up the mess he has made.

The favored shade of blue for females in politics

This morning a tipster directed me to the Drudge Report's side-by-side comparison of Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher wearing the same "Thatcher Blue" (link).

It reminded me of another woman in politics, Barbara Bush the elder, who also famously liked to wear bright "Barbara blue."

It makes sense for a woman seeking popularity to wear blue, since it's well-established that blue is the #1 favorite color of people everywhere.  This particular bright, primary blue is the kind of intense color that children tend to respond to well.  Maybe these ladies are trying to evoke happy childhood feelings in us?  Or maybe choosing this super-charged blue is a way of taking the conservatism and respectability of darker blue and making it eye-catching and exciting.

Candidates' colors part II

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day debate in South Carolina had the Democratic presidential candidates dressing close to type. In anticipation of the more clearly-drawn battle lines of this debate, the campaigns dressed their candidates in ways that sought to visually pinpoint their unique strengths.

First, the ties. Edwards went with a bright-blue tie that looked very similar to the one he wore at the New Hampshire debate. Could it even have been the same tie? Actors going for call-backs are often advised to go ahead and wear the same outfit they wore to the initial audition, the reasoning being that this will help the casting director remember his/her first (good) impression of them. Maybe Edwards wore a similar tie to help voters remember how he looked back when he was doing relatively well in the polls.

Obama's tie was possibly another showbiz trick -- one cleverly adapted from some classic on-air no-nos. On television, certain colors and patterns don't come across well: specifically, bright red tends to "bleed," or look fuzzy, and small, high-contrast patterns, like stripes, can appear to wiggle. Nevertheless, Obama wore a red-and-white thinly-striped tie. He clearly has some good wardrobe people; they finally got him a jacket that fits, for one thing (in the previous two debates he had some collar-gap issues). They must be aware of the problems with red and stripes on T.V. I think they deliberately put him in that tie, knowing how it would look: on my screen, it glowed and scintillated, drawing attention straight to him in the wide shots of the three candidates. It was almost as though you could see straight through his chest to his burning, passionate Democrat heart. Brilliant.

Clinton's "tie" in this debate was a bright-orange scarf. Yet another bold color choice! Orange's greatest strength as a color is its power to conjure up a feeling of exuberant happiness (think of the ads and packaging for Clinique Happy). Particularly during this week of bad economic news, Clinton's people wanted to give her an aura of cheerfulness and optimism. Orange may have also been a ploy to increase Clinton's desirability: it has notoriously been used in the decor of fast food restaurants because of its proven power to stimulate the appetite. Were we supposed to feel "hungry for Hillary?" I found the effect of the tucked-in scarf to be a bit off, making Clinton seem a little too bundled-up. Still, it was much better than the distracting necklaces she wore in the previous two debates.

Grooming: Didn't the candidates look lovely? Everyone's makeup looked fantastic. Edwards's skin looked like a newborn baby's! Obama's looked like sweet milk chocolate! Clinton's makeup was much better than in Nevada. She looked a decade younger. They've switched her to shiny lipstick, which makes her mouth look fuller, younger, and more pleasant, even when she does her disapproving pursed-lips thing. Her eyeliner was better, too -- less harsh than it has been in the past. She was positively doe-eyed! Good show!

I can't write about the men's suits, because I really don't know anything about men's suits. They were...dark navy blue single-breasted suits? That's all I've got. Of course, there's much less to say about their suits, since the men's suit is such a standard garment. But there's tons to say about Clinton's suits! Her suit at this debate was very nice. I applaud her return to the nehru jacket after two debates of traditional jackets with lapels. The high, collarless neckline makes her look secure, put-together, streamlined, and modern. It's a great personal signature. I had a problem with the single button at the neckline, though: it was a neat touch, but bunched in there with the clip-on mic and the scarf, it made her neck area look cluttered. The suit was beautifully fitted to her, though. You could really see this from the back -- and weren't there a lot of shots of her from the back! I thought that was really unfair. Did we see any shots of Obama's or Edwards's behinds? Clinton's figure looked lovely, especially considering her jacket broke the cardinal rule of jackets for pear-shaped women: Thou Shalt Not Wear A Jacket That Ends At Your Widest Point. Her jacket fell right at the widest part of her rear. I understand her wanting to cover her backside, for professionalism's sake -- but at the cost of emphasizing being broad-in-the-beam? The horror! A cropped jacket that shows more leg is a necessity for elongating this type of figure! The color and fabric of the suit were the best part. The fabric looked really refined -- maybe a silk/wool blend? It had a subtle, light-absorbing texture. And the color was perfect: a flattering but serious brown: earthy, sophisticated, and just dark enough to project authority.

The poor candidates were forced to abandon the security of their podiums for a ridiculous faux-casual chair-sitting set during the second half of the debate. Each of them sat in a very distinct and characteristic way: Edwards, the populist, let his legs hang open casually, revealing a little too much crotch; Obama, cool as ice, crossed his legs; and Clinton, the proper professional lady, kept her knees together and her ankles crossed. Both men's socks were, thankfully, long enough to conceal leg skin. But only Obama's people were thoughtful enough to give him brand-new shoes with perfect, unblemished soles (not so for Edwards, whose scuffed bottoms made a couple of brief appearances).

The set was the typical red, white, and blue, in a patchwork pattern. In close-up, Edwards and Clinton were in front of blue squares on the mosaic, while Obama was in front of red. Obama's red background probably made him come off as even more aggressive during the points in the debate when he got all riled up. Clinton's scarf was not such a good match with the decor this time. She was right to pick a softer, "pumpkin" shade of orange, though, instead of primary orange to go with the set, which would have been horrendous next to her face.

At this point, with the green, pink, and now orange, it's clear that Clinton is making a point of excluding red and blue, the more obvious colors. I actually think that's a smart choice. Women so often find themselves choosing between too-masculine and too-feminine versions of business clothing. By breaking out of the box with her collar shape and colors, Clinton makes it clear that she is not trying to look like a man, but does so without looking too much "like a woman" in the wrong way. That's a truly difficult task, and she, or her handlers, are doing a great job at it.

One more debate to go... For my coverage of color in the previous two debates, see Their true colors.

All-black is whack

The all-black look is overdone: most people agree with that. But lots of people love black and want to wear as much of it as possible. What's the best way to pull it off?

Lots of people compromise with almost-all-black, adding color in just one place like in a top or accessory. That's a little more interesting than all-black, but it doesn't have much personality, unless you're really good with the details. It's also hard to make it look balanced since the one spot of color draws the eye like a magnet, making you look poorly-proportioned.

It's best to flip the ratio of black-to-color so that black makes up the minority of your outfit. Just a dash of black, in an accessory or a single item of clothing, is enough to make an outfit pop. It also makes you look cool, because a restrained use of black shows you're not trying too hard.

The most modern colors to combine with black are neutrals. I've been seeing lots of people on the street combining black with natural-colored leather shoes, bags, and belts. This is a great look because of the strong contrast between the ascetic modernism of black and the earthy classicism of the neutral. It is also very easy to put together.

To make a black + neutral outfit even better, it's good to add some color in the form of a print. Once you've got one print in there, it's O.K. to add a solid color. But an outfit looks best with at least one print to play off against the solids.

I'm not saying no one can ever wear all-black. But very few people can pull it off. You have to be extremely intense to make it work. And you have to be a wizard at combining different textures and fabrics, because that's what makes an all-black outfit work. And you have to either be very good-looking or have very deep, cool, or clear coloring -- ideally both.

Their true colors

I've been fascinated by the color palettes of the most recent two Democratic debates. Though conservative, the set designers' and candidates' color choices were quite telling.

For one thing, they suggested that the campaigns have advance knowledge about the colors of the sets -- because there has been a striking degree of color coordination between the candidates' clothes and the backdrops behind them. (Do the debate's producers provide information to campaign officials about what colors they will be using? If so, is this done secretly or openly? I would love to know.)

At the January 5th debate in New Hampshire, the sets were large, bright screens of vibrant -- verging on jewel-toned -- red and blue. The three front-runners' color accents mixed perfectly with these sets. Obama's shiny red tie matched the glowing red of the background, and its gold stripes were a complementary safe neutral. Edwards's bright-blue tie was a near-perfect match with the clear blue of the set. Clinton, in an interesting choice, wore a green top under her black suit. The selection of green suggests an effort by Clinton's campaign to bolster her popularity with younger voters who are drawn to Obama's coolness. Green is a currently-trendy color that has associations with the trendy cause of environmentalism. It also stood out within the otherwise red-and-blue color scheme of the debate (while harmonizing with it). Green was a risky choice, since in addition to its positive connotations of tenacity and reliability, green has overtones of stubbornness, predictability, and backward thinking. But after her loss in Iowa, Clinton's handlers probably thought it was important to take such a risk in order to raise her profile. Richardson wore a blue tie, but its dark, relatively matte, subdued tone did not fit in with the rest of the color scheme -- and, surprise, he soon dropped out of the race.

I found the bright colors at the New Hampshire debate somewhat overwhelming and felt that they placed the Democrats in an atmosphere that was too aggressive and intense for their personalities. Of course, the set was designed with the Republicans (who went first) in mind as well, so it must have represented a merging of their sensibilities. Republicans need straightforward, powerful colors, which means strong primary tones; this was modified for the Democrats, perhaps, by tweaking the colors into the jewel range, which made them look more open and optimistic, referencing the party's orientation towards the future.

The color scheme of last night's Nevada debate was more nuanced, befitting its exclusively-Democratic stars. The set backdrop was composed of vertical screens displaying a close-up of the point on the American flag where the bottom-right corner of the starred blue canton meets the striped portion. That point on the flag, non-coincidentally I think, is just left-of-center: the sweet spot these candidates are aiming for. It is also a middle ground between the stars (symbolizing the heavens, or God and faith) and the stripes (symbolizing, for many people, the red of blood shed for the country and the white of the liberty it was shed for). However, the blue portion predominated, perhaps reflecting the peaceful tone the contest is struggling to maintain (in spite of the questioners' repeated attempts to rile them into a fight). Most intriguingly, the blues and reds blurred in such a way that the backdrop included whole swathes of obvious purple -- which, with its connotations of creativity, was a daring but fitting choice to underscore this primary season's embrace of change.

These set choices were made by MSNBC and its production designers, of course -- not the candidates -- so what they really reflect is the image the network wanted to project of its news coverage. That image, in turn, was chosen to reflect the mood of the audience (politically-engaged Democrats) it's trying to attract. And that mood, based on the look of the set, is very high-minded, idealistic, and positive.

The two front-running males were once again matchy-matchy with the debate's set. This time Edwards wore a tie that looked remarkably like the one Obama wore for the New Hampshire debate: an attempt to make himself look more like the youth majority's first choice? Obama's light-blue tie was the color of the blurry sections of the background at which blue (peacefulness and order) met white (freedom and purity), making a light-blue color that toned down the conservative, authoritative connotations of blue into a non-confrontational, optimistic shade -- good for someone who got flak for the "likeable enough" comment. Clinton went for pink. Pink is unabashedly feminine, and the campaign's choice of it for Clinton's top is a sign that they are, despite protestations to the contrary, continuing to play the gender card. More shockingly, pink is a color which image consultants recommend wearing in order to inspire feelings of sympathy. Dressing Clinton in pink signals an attempt to keep capitalizing on the emotional response voters had to the Edwards-Obama "double-teaming" and to Clinton's coffee-shop tearfulness. But while holding onto her emotional appeal, the Clinton campaign does not want to lose the candidate's authority: her top was a deep, strong shade of fuschia (which, unfortunately, almost-matched her lipstick in an unflattering way).

I'll watch the next debate with interest and post again on the evolving color story of the Democratic contest.