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.

There are websites built to sell products, sites that express personal opinion about the industry, critical and positive sites, basically online fashion spans a huge distance in intention. Although I've spent time criticising individual websites I don't attempt to critique the broader approach to fashion as it exists online because it's difficult to get the right initial perspective to even start to do that. The industry has thousands of commentators that come at it from different angles. Take the Sartorialist, his views are expressed mainly through image, his personal taste is definite and the photographs are a compilation of the quirks of style he favours. Many other sites take the same tack, on my RSS feed I have Hel Looks which also has a selection of fashion photos taken on city streets. I favour the site because the style preference translates so well to the medium of photography, Just Glitter Lust is another street snaps website though I don't view it as often.

There is also a big online trend towards taking photos of yourself in clothes that you've bought. Style Bubble features its author regularly as does Kingdom of Style. I don't like the politics of Kingdom of Style very much. Michelle can lean towards a type of criticism of people's bodies that honestly I don't like, mostly because I don't think anyone needs to be an arse about people's imperfections and size. That attitude reeks a bit of living in Photoshop fantasy land. In reality it's impossible to eliminate every poor feature of an organic body but she does point out good design regularly so I keep her on my feed. Fashion and humour, particularly fashion that focuses mainly on pictures and not words doesn't really do humour that isn't cruel and I'd rather just read about outfits. I've cut a lot of bad journalism out of my RSS in the last couple of months, fashion isn't about fame and I don't want to read about a dress just because it's worn by a celebrity. I avoid the Glamour blogs in the US and UK for that reason (and because the writing kind of sucks). If I want to read a gossip column that occasionally comments on frocks I'll go for something so outrageous that it is funny, Perez Hilton basically.

There are the few unique websites that do something completely different, my favourite is Fashion Incubator, it's a good read, enlightening, interesting, actually teaches me something about the fashion industry and the importance of basic skills like pattern cutting. I haven't found anything as relaxed and honest about fashion on the Internet. I also read Kuwait Style because fashion is as interesting globally as it is here, spotting the similarities and differences is fascinating. I intend to write about Ovatus Fashion in the near future.

I would like to read more about fashion theory online but there's a lack of it about I think. Perhaps those just aren't popular sites though so they're more difficult to find.