Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Avant garde ugly

Today can best be described as a plethora of pleather and avant garde ugly. It's going to take me years to get over the fashion horrors I saw today (and H&M is the perpetrator).

It's been awhile since I've been on a major shopping spree, but I thought I was at least somewhat up-to-date on the latest styles and trends. It turns out, however, that "up-to-date" means raiding the back of your mother's and grandmother's closets and taking out the things that even they would be embarassed to wear.

You know what I'm talking about. Imagine that pea green polyester sack trying to pass as a dress and that ostentatious pink and orange patterned shirt that you laughed at as a kid as you leafed through your mother's high school yearbook. Then wear the pink and orange patterned shirt with the pea green polyester mumu and you have a complete outfit.

This isn't even retro. Retro means the garment was actually manufactured decades ago and requires you to forage through racks of secondhand clothing. It may still be ugly, but it's earned ugly.

What I saw today was just a cheap imitation of a style that was an eyesore in the first place. But what worries me more is that if there is a supply, there must be demand. Who wears this stuff?

And another question: Who decided it would be a Good Idea™ to revive the worst of the worst fashion mishaps of the 70s and 80s?

That person deserves to be beaten with a fermented herring.

Here's a tip: If it looks like your grandmother's curtains, it may not be the best fashion choice.

And some of the construction of the various garments was just confusing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it really should be pretty obvious which hole is the neck and which is the sleeve. But in more than one instance today, that distinction was blurry. It may be that "up-to-date" fashion requires you to put your head through the sleeve and leave the other one dangling. Never mind that it leaves half of your chest exposed; it's all in the name of fashion.

I also noticed an inverse relationship between price and the amount of fabric used to make a garment. For just 199 SEK, you can purchase an entire sea of polyester. On the other hand, 1999 SEK will get you piece of string otherwise known as a thong with a Dolce and Gabbana label slapped onto it. (I think I would rather pay the 1999 SEK to have the polyester removed from sight).

Maybe I should stick with my Gap basics for the time being. Of course, next year I may have given in to foul fashion and I'll be forced to eat my words. Again.

In the meantime, I'm sticking to the thought that if it was a bad idea the first time, it's going to be even worse the second time around.


Anonymous Lore said...

Thank god, so its not only me then.
Can we supersize the herring for the person who thought that moonboots (or whatever you call those furry eskimo-looking shoes) deserved a second run?

12:06 AM  
Blogger Curiosa said...

Fur is for felines, not for footwear.

8:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home