Kate Middleton's wedding dress

The wedding dress that Kate Middleton wore yesterday fit in to an aesthetic that was very clever. When they talked about austerity in the run up to the wedding day I imagined that they would refrain from spending but actually it translated to the entire wedding. What we saw yesterday was an aesthetic that invoked English folklore, the trees in Westminster Abbey coupled with the Bride's dress were reminiscent of Maid Marian (or Queen Guinevere if you lean toward a less traditional view of her). The delicacy of the material was obvious. The lace at the top of the dress appeared modest but fragile and coupled with a veil that was not hoisted away but actually clung to her face it spoke of nature and a romantic ideal of ancient Britain. The cut of the dress may have reminded people of Grace Kelly but it also brought forward a notion of medieval dress that we consistently see in movies. She was not given a cleavage and this made her seem sedate, collected, without pretension. The dress was conservative, befitting of someone who will go on to have a certain level of duty and responsibility but it also allowed us to see a woman whose privilege is of a more conservative kind. This dress was subtle and clever as was the aesthetic of the wedding and the message to everyone watching was clear, this is an old, ongoing institution that this woman understands. This country is old, ongoing, has weathered many storms. Yesterday they attempted to aesthetically marry folklore to the aristocracy and it was very interesting.

Co-operative textiles

Ayrshire Weaver's recognised as world's first co-op- "250 years ago, 16 Fenwick weavers signed a document, promising to support one another, work honestly, and charge fair prices."

Magnus & Bella

This is the wedding ring made for me by Magnus & Bella

Oh the bias of the press

Galliano's Fashionable Beliefs is a remarkably arrogant article by Laurie Penny who is usually rather more prone to writing articles that I have sympathy for. Instead of letting my fury have full reign, with that sympathy in mind, I am going to attempt to dissect the problems with her New Statesman post a little more calmly than I generally would.

Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. I'm ignoring the headline and byline since she probably had no part in writing them and getting straight to the meat of the post. The first thing Laurie does is launch an assault on the fashion industry. She gives no indication of whether she discerns the breadth of the industry or the difference between a designer, buyer, model, agent, independent dressmaker, gentleman's tailor and High Street retail assistant (to name just a few jobs in an international industry) but rather accuses everyone involved of unexamined prejudice. If it's a joke it's a particularly insulting one and if it's not then I'm sure I don't need to enlighten you all as to the logical flaw because in writing about prejudice in fashion she has made a statement that suggests rather a lot of it.

In the third paragraph she makes a little jibe about fashion being about appearance rather than clothing. This would sit better if she had either revealed a better understanding of the industry's breadth initially or described the section of the industry she was finding fault with. She goes on to point out that the fashion industry, specifically modelling, is racist but doesn't tackle the issue of racism in the industry sufficiently, doesn't discuss complications or how it might be resolvable. Then Laurie points out that "model agencies recently suggested that perhaps consumers just don't like looking at black people" but gives no source for this piece of information. If you have read other pieces on this blog you will see that I can find no fault with the statement that racism is inherent in modelling. I disagree with the recent statement by Alex Wek that it isn't racist but Laurie's criticisms are undermined by her blase attitude to specificity and an obvious misunderstanding of the importance of describing the section of an industry that you find fault with. This is also a separate issue to Galliano's alleged anti-semitism because while Galliano is a well known and influential designer he does not run modelling agencies and is not a magazine editor and conflating all of those issues together is too simplistic. Even if few black supermodels are present on the runway (catwalk) that does not mean they should automatically be ignored by magazines but open a copy of British Vogue and it's clear that there's a problem across specific sections of the industry in terms of modelling. It is unclear whether Laurie lacks the clarity needed to write on this issue or if she is ignorant of what she's describing but her article doesn't quite crack the issues she alludes to.

The fifth paragraph essentially shrinks the entirety of the fashion industry down to one man: Galliano. The sixth discusses misogyny but yet again Laurie uses hyperbole when she says that fashion has an "apparent conviction that any woman with the temerity to do more than silently starve herself is abhorrent". This would be a minor exaggeration if Laurie was describing fashion models but again she is not, this time she uses the term "fashion culture" so anyone involved in the culture of fashion has that conviction which presumably means that I believe I am abhorrent. Well, as a 5'7" 10 and a half stone woman I can tell you quite emphatically that I eat 3 meals a day, snack inbetween, eat dessert very regularly, am a feminist and think Laurie Penny has just insulted me and some other lovely people rather horribly.

The Model Agency, Channel 4

It's been a while since the fashion industry has been represented in a thoroughly cold, calculating light on the TV but The Model Agency on Channel 4 tonight reflected the saddest aspects of it.

It was never going to be easy to portray modelling sympathetically because it's the most enraging element of fashion for most of us. Female models are usually very young and the women and girls who are chosen to be models are picked purely for their appearance. That in itself is quite shocking when taken in terms of everyday western existence because appearance may be prevalent but it's rarely the only criteria that has a bearing on our opportunities. The decisions made by the fashion industry (editors, agency bookers, designers etc) keep the perpetual cycle of young, tall, white, rake thin going and individuals usually maintain a denial of their complicity in that perpetuation of norms. That denial is possible because so many different people with different jobs are involved in giving models work that no one can claim to be responsible. Designers need specific (types of) models because they're fashionable, agents need to provide the models designers want, editors need to reflect the catwalk, sell magazines and put models into magazines that readers want to see or emulate or aspire to be.

When it comes down to bare facts a programme on a modelling agency was going to be controversial for many reasons but surprisingly my usual criticisms, the flaws that I already perceive to be verging on unforgivable, weren't the aspect of the show that grated the most. The worst thing about The Model Agency was how very childish the staff at Premier seemed to be. I suppose it's possible that a trick of editing misrepresented the bookers at the agency. It was clear that the remit of the documentary was sensational rather than mundane but quite why it was necessary for so many of the staff to reflect the behaviour of the 16 year olds that they work with was the main question left in my mind. Why was a grown adult who claimed responsibility for the well being of a teenager crying down the phone when the model had clearly had a difficult time alone abroad? Is it regarded as normal in that sector? That she was left to approach the problem in that way when she was obviously as distraught as the model and that the other staff felt it was appropriate did not reflect well on the agency or fashion in general.

GSK Contemporary 2011

Aware Art Fashion Identity is the GSK Contemporary exhibition showing at the Royal Academy of Arts until 30th January 2011. I went to see it last Sunday and it was quite interesting but there were a couple of odd display decisions. The worst element of the exhibition was without doubt the decision to place Grayson Perry's Artist's Robe in an alcove on the stairs. It looked good there, I understood the impulse, I just don't see why it wasn't defeated by logic. You couldn't walk around the garment, felt that you couldn't linger beside it, couldn't take time to look at the cloth properly. I stopped to look at it and felt psychologically hurried because I was standing on the stairs and there was no other artwork in view. Later on in the exhibition an Alexander McQueen garment was given so much space that 5 people could walk around it standing next to each other which felt oddly insulting to Perry's work. The choice of display for the robe befitted a grand house opened to the public by the National Trust but it wasn't a great choice for a textile exhibition.

In spite of that criticism the content of the exhibition, particularly the first room was interesting. Claudia Losi's jackets made from the cloth whale were extremely interesting. Helen Storey's Say Goodbye was a really intriguing concept, the Roma blankets that had been made into coats (Sewing Together) by Maria Papadimitriou can be viewed at Centre for the Aesthetic Revolution and were a fascinating insight into the textile tradition of a culture that suffers from so much negative characterisation. In short I got a lot from the exhibition, it felt like it could trigger many interesting paths of discovery and made it clear that textile art is strangely undervalued in London's galleries because there were so clearly many different approaches to different subject displayed here. Hopefully we'll see more of this kind of thing.

Textiles-Exhibitions-Art

I've always been more concerned with garments than fashion. A piece of clothing constructed by someone I've never heard of with a clear genesis and context is as of much interest to me as a Vionnet dress so the Imperial Chinese Robes from the Forbidden City exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum was a must see. It's very difficult to put into words the response to so many robes, so beautifully woven, that are from a culture that is so at odds to the one I live in. That kind of couture is invaluable because we all encounter it so rarely in our day to day lives. Unless you're lucky enough to have a family member or close friend who can create such intricately detailed clothing this exhibition presents you with a craftsmanship that you might not have met before. Having researched weaving in the last 12 months it was quite compelling to be able to understand the method of creation. It's a shame that the robes could only be seen from the front (this is such an enduring pain for me- that clothes are displayed like paintings rather than as sculpture) particularly since the backs are no less detailed than the fronts but it's an exhibition I would consider visiting again because it was such a pleasure.

Magnus & Bella

Magnus Jarlson and Isabella Day are making a ring for me at the moment. They specialise in bespoke jewellery that is designed to the specification of the client. I've asked them to make me a ring that features leaves in the arts and crafts style and I'm expecting a prototype in the post at some point in the near future. It's very exciting!

McQueen

Is there anyone who loves clothes who didn't have a slight yen to meet Lee McQueen? Even if I had met him I couldn't have uttered a word because his work was wonderful. It wasn't just the clothes that were stunning, quite a few of the shows were unexpected and intriguing. You can read about McQueen as a designer with an eye for complete detail rather than a simple outfitter on the Design Museum's website.

His final walk has been posted on Youtube and the BBC has placed some photos onto their news site. It simply remains to say goodnight Lee Alexander McQueen and thank you so very much. Thank you.

Lee Mattocks

I just want to link to this blog post about Lee Mattocks at Inspire the Starling. I popped into an MA Fashion Artefacts show at the Mall Galleries on Pall Mall (in central London) this week. A lot of the work was interesting but Lee Mattocks' bags repeatedly drew me back to take another look. This type of repeated examination is always a clear sign that I particularly like an artwork or garment and although taxidermy is an odd attraction it worked spectacularly well in the context of the pieces. I felt it was far more original and unusual than any of the other work on display so take a look at the link.

Thinking about beauty yesterday has left me considering the difference in the fashion photoblogs that are on my RSS feed. The Sartorialist favours a very polished style of dress. When he takes photos they tend to be of people who have spent a lot of time perfecting their faces and bodies as well as their clothes. Styleclicker features people who dress far more casually and generally seem less preened. The clothes tend to be more accessible and less expensive. I think I like Hel Looks the most because I'm less likely to actually encounter the style of clothing that is featured on the blog. It has a really Scandinavian focus and that results in a set of photographs that endlessly fascinate me because the shape of the clothes are so unusual in London. I don't think Scandinavian clothing is admired enough or lauded for its difference to the clothes in our part of Europe. I can aspire to the clothes on The Sartorialist because I can't afford them, I can wear the clothes on Styleclicker if I can pull myself together to make my outfit work (and if I bought a proper full length mirror) but when I look at Hel Looks I can see something that seems a bit magical.

(via http://icanhascheezburger.com/)

When I was around 13 years old I had a conversation with my nan about supermodels and she told me that "models are quite plain looking people" and it's true. It would distract from the clothes if truly beautiful people were wearing them (which isn't to deny the simple perfection of the average supermodels face).

Tanya Gold

This is an interesting article by Tanya Gold. You get the impression that she's attempting to write an anti-fashion article but are left with a sense that she doesn't understand that fashion and clothes are synonymous with each other. Most people wear clothes that have been fashionable or are fashionable that they chose because they liked them (well most people of my acquaintance). They don't go to the shop and choose something because it's in, they choose it because they want to wear it and the trend element is coincidental. Gold doesn't seem to be connected to that idea, she talks about Harvey Nichols and other clothing shops as if she was somehow compelled to buy and that indicates someone who had an addiction to shopping rather than someone who chose clothes to wear. In light of this central theme the other anti-fashion argument seems out of step with what she's expressing about herself. How is the addiction of consumerism linked with a girl dying in an accident on a train or a model describing her dislike of her job? The article doesn't make it clear, I suppose that's the point of something so anecdotal. In a sense it could be argued that the heels led to a train death or that the fashion industry results in bad circumstances for workers but no one writes about the atrocious pay of administrators in London offices and their working hours. Gold doesn't tackle in the context of normality and the norm is an expectation that young women (and men) are the dogsbody in all working environments. Nor does Gold seem to be calling for 6" heels to be banned because they're a health and safety risk so she's invoking the example of the train only for its dramatic effect. In her mind the fashion industry kills people, it is worse than all other industries.

I too dislike 6" heels and it's annoying when the shoe shops only seem to sell shoes that I wouldn't want to walk in but the compulsion to buy those shoes when you already have many pairs is the real focus of this article and that's not the fault of fashion. Sometimes it's necessary to resist things we like (or don't like) to do because we live in a culture that allows us access to many unhealthy things.

Gold says that "You can get so fat they don't actually want you in their clothes." The question is who she's referring to because it's true that a lot of designer clothing is made in small sizes but mythologising this to the extent that you can't name the job title of the people who are restricting the size of clothing isn't a critique that I can engage with. That's not the quote that makes me sad though because when Gold states "I can look at the clothes on the catwalk now and laugh at their imbecility. They are not for me" it is sad. Tanya Gold is writing off a design industry, not simply the consumerism that accompanies it but the hard graft of craftspeople and designers that conceived original work that is displayed on catwalks. Sure not every designer does this, some are extremely derivative but again that's not a reason to tar an entire industry with the same brush. This is a sad, unexamined article and it's a shame because it contains snippets of truth that should be discussed more.

Recently I've been thinking about our relationship with garments in portraits. It seems that they are usually viewed as objects of significance, an example of wealth and status, an indication of broader trends within the fashion of an era. How do you separate a representation of a garment from the context that an art historian or curator of paintings places it in? Perhaps we can start to think about these images in the context of clothes that are worn rather than objects that were owned. This is easier said than done because we live in a society that values possession so much. Most people when thinking about garments, when looking at adverts for designer clothes, see something that they like and contemplate what it would be like to own rather than wear such an item. There are schemes that allow you to borrow designer garments and accessories for an evening or two but these exist because the items are out of people's purchasing capability. This focus on buying and possessing now makes it more difficult to consider the act of wearing clothes in the past. Status is always a pressing concern when examining portraiture because those types of paintings (as opposed to representations of religious, historical or fictional scenes common during the Renaissance or in the Pre-Raphaelite movement) are so often portraits of the rich or aristocracy but this should not dissuade people from considering the act of wearing such clothes or thinking of them as garments on bodies because even one off coronation clothes have been worn once.

I am going to start collecting links to children's clothing companies that I think are interesting at Outfitting Kids. This is partly because I know this blog isn't getting updated at the moment but also because I want to keep a comprehensive collection of the companies that I come across by accident somewhere more interesting than Delicious. Having images and links in one place allows everyone to see at a glance the type of clothes that are available from a specific site.

Apparel manufacturers in the US are trying to adapt to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act with varying degrees of success at the moment. If you put CPSIA into google you get all kinds of information on the act that comes into force in February. My main source on the subject has been Fashion Incubator. Kathleen Fasanella is a pattern maker and has had a really consuming series of months as she has tried to explain why the legislation is so negative for businesses.

The reason I'm writing about this is it strikes me as something that should be understood by people who are interested in clothing internationally as it is clearly going to limit consumer choice. While everyone wants children to be safe the appropriate resources have to be provided when you bring in new legislation. If a government demands increased product testing it has to ensure that testing can be done at a reasonable price without bankrupting an industry. If that can't happen then legislation should be brought in step by step for different sections of an industry. If a government demands that more police should tackle drug crime it can't expect as much time on other types of crime or it has to provide money for policing, this is called common sense and the problem with the CPSIA is that it doesn't employ any.

Chalayan Exhibition

The Design Museum is currently showing an exhibition of Hussein Chalayan's work. The content of the exhibition is good, it has some pieces that can best be described as seminal and some newer work that I have never seen before and really liked. I felt that the space wasn't big enough though, I would have liked to sit down on a bench to contemplate the odd design and a little more division between exhibits would have allowed me more head space. If you've never seen any of Chalayan's pieces you should definitely take advantage of this opportunity.

I am having a baby in July and have started to window shop children's clothes online. It's become apparent that we enforce gender on children, babies can't choose their clothes but most of them fall into a gender category. Take the Adams site, they have clothes for baby girls in pinks and reds and cream, clothes for baby boys in blues and greens and oranges and clothes for any baby in cream and beige. It's pretty deplorable, I love the colour blue but apparently if I have a newborn girl I'm not meant to dress her that way? It's exactly the same at other large retailers like Mamas and Papas and Mothercare is only a little better. Thank you then world for giving me Nordic Kids which creates clothing for all children in the brightest, best colours with lovely patterns! What a relief!

I've been enjoying the sketches supplied by designers for Michelle Obama's inauguration outfit. There are 32 images to browse on WWD.com and they're all quite different. I really enjoyed the LaCroix suit and the Marc Jacobs dress, which surprised me a little. I suspect the Oscar de la Renta dress is high in the running as it really connects with her style in a way that some of the other outfits don't seem to.

I've been looking at Fashion Cultures edited by Stella Bruzzi and Pamela Church Gibson which is a fashion theory reader published in 2000. It contains a few different essays that I fully intend to read. There's a piece on patriarchy by Pamela Church Gibson and Fiona Anderson's Museums as Fashion Media that are definitely on my reading list and in the back of my mind there's a voice telling me to read the whole book. I am desperately trying to listen to that voice but some of the pieces sound like I'm going to encounter some internal anguish. Can I manage a chapter on Fitzwilliam Darcy or Gwyneth Paltrow in a fashion reader that takes a cultural stance? Darcy perhaps but I suspect I'm going to abandon poor Gwyneth Paltrow. The interesting thing about the reader is that it feels dated enough that a lot of the subject matter and discourse has been very present over the last 8 years but not so much that it's interesting from the perspective of history. A case in point is an Angela McRobbie essay that opens with a discussion about the No.10 Cool Britannia party. If I were a little younger then that might be compelling because I would feel that more time had passed but there has been so much analysis of that episode of British history in the last 8 years and specifically what it meant culturally that I'm tempted not to read the work. Perhaps I'll just skip the first page and see where she's gone with it!