From a letter to the Washington Post about an opinion piece about why women get so excited about a particular brand of clothing distinguished by bright colors and exuberant patterns like this:
One look at those patterns and you're ready to believe the letter-writer, no? How could a desire to swathe yourself in that mean anything more than lighthearted fun-loving? Givhan instructs:
Lilly Pulitzer is preppy. It is part of a preppy uniform that announces itself from fifty paces. It is not so much a declaration of wealth as it is a perceived statement about class, lineage and attitude. Anyone can work hard and save up enough cash to go out and purchase a Chanel suit or a Gucci handbag. A devoted student of Vogue can cobble together a personal style that speaks to its public identity. But Lilly Pulitzer suggests an advantage of birth. The clothes stir up scrapbook notions of ancient family trees, summer compounds, boarding school uniforms, and large, granite buildings inscribed with some great-great-grandfather’s name. Lilly Pulitzer represents something that money cannot buy.Too hateful? How can you look at those patterns and feel hate? I know there's this old tradition of country club people wearing really bright colors and stupid patterns, but what was that ever about? Wasn't it lighthearted fun-loving? Why shouldn't people with less money see the fun too? There's a lot of expensive fashion that is adapted from what younger, poorer people are wearing in the streets. What difference does it make which direction fashion trends move? I think Givhan would answer that I'm asking the wrong question, because this isn't fashion — "Lilly Pulitzer is not fashion. It is clothes." — and non-clubby folks who purport to like these things are delusional. The stuff is ugly and so it must be that they only want to look like the rich.
The clothes are, upon close inspection, not so terribly attractive. Actually, they are rather unattractive. And that is part of their charm. They are not meant to be stylish — that’s so nouveau. The clothes are clubby. Country clubby. One-percent-ish....
ADDED: Givhan's argument belongs in the "What's the matter with Kansas?" school of liberal opinion-writing. The common people don't know their own real motives and interests and letting them think and do what they like is a problem.
MORE: I blogged about Lilly Pulitizer once before, at the time of her 2013 obituary, which I presented like this:
Lilly Pulitzer dresses were "really wearable only by the few who were so rich that they could afford to have bad taste."So the Times obituary declared not only that the clothes were in bad taste, but also that only the rich are allowed to act upon such bad taste. Now, 2 years after Pulitzer's death, Target offered a Lilly Pulitzer line that was cheap, and you can see how dissonant that is with the values of elite commentators like Givhan. It wasn't the price that put these clothes out of the reach of the non-rich. They can make the clothes cheap, but still, you have be rich for these clothes to be wearable.
Says the NYT in the obituary for Lilly Pullitzer, who built a "fashion empire" out of "tropical print shift dresses and lighthearted embrace of jarring color combinations like flamingo pink and apple green." Lilly was born into wealth and married into more wealth. She had 3 children and a nervous breakdown.
“I went crazy. I was a namby-pamby; people always made decisions for me. The doctor said I should find something to do.”The family estate included citrus groves, so she opened a juice stand with another woman, and juice stains inspired the print dresses....
পোস্টগুলি
৫৭টি মন্তব্য:
Critic criticizes. News at 11.
I get the feeling that Ghivan was tutored by Ellsworth Toohey.
Don't wear Lilly Pulitzer if you want to be in Robin Givhan's club.
I see a green-eyed monster.
Who is Lilly Pulitzer, and why do I care?
Amen!!!!!
Class warfare over bright colors.
Brought to you by The Personal is Political
Robin Givhan went to Princeton and she's giving to shit to people wearing preppy cloths from Target. Self loath much?
I wonder how she feels about men wearing shorts.
Heh. First thing I thought of before I read the article was Lilly Pulitzer being mentioned in The Preppy Handbook back in the '80s. My mom is from CT and I had to break the news to her as a kid that I thought they were ugly even if the imaginary rich people who existed in her head liked them. In fact, they are so bad, they helped me break the Back East spell forever.
Would Target Shoppers even know or care in 2015? Doubtful.
I have no problem with the bright colors and patterns.
I don't like the dresses because when a woman wears them you cannot properly check out her ass.
I am Laslo.
Lily Pulitzer sold Juice at a stand. Processing the fresh fruit was messy. She choose bright colors to hide the stains. I associate her colorful clothes with hard independent work ethic.
Another Molehill meet Mountain moment.
Had to Bing LP images to see what the big fashion deal is, some of which look kinda 1960's or so.
"Anyone can work hard and save up enough cash to go out and purchase a Chanel suit or a Gucci handbag... Lilly Pulitzer represents something that money cannot buy."
Has Ms. Givhan missed the fact that Lilly Pilitzer is *selling* these clothes, and in fact selling them for considerably less than Chanel or Gucci?
Or is that, perhaps, the real problem?
It's one thing to have to deal with the nouveau riche pretending to be classy, but now we have to put up with uppity working class folks, too??
Eh.
What sort of rich person buys expensive clothes off the rack?
We buy cheap generic clothes, or have them made by a tailor/dressmaker if they have to be good.
Givhan LOVES, JUST LOVES, Michelle Obama's fashion. Some things are fine, others are just atrocious. Has she ever criticized Michelle?
Easy to criticize those rubes that buy the cheap version from Target.
I think Lilly Pulitzer is fun and summery. People in sunny places and midwesterners like bright colors, New Yorkers and DCers less so.
If Monica Lewinsky had worn a Lilly Pulitzer dress no one would've be able to find the semen stain.
I am Laslo.
Most tribunes of the people hate the people.
"Lily Pulitzer sold Juice at a stand. Processing the fresh fruit was messy. She choose bright colors to hide the stains. I associate her colorful clothes with hard independent work ethic."
Well, she was already a very wealthy woman. She started the juice stand to deal with mental problems supposedly associated with having nothing to do. Don't get some image of her as a gutsy working-class lady making her way in the world. She was trying to claw her way back from a wealth-induced nervous breakdown. (See the update to the post, linking to my blog post about her obituary.)
I don't hate them quite as much as an adult. As a kid I considered them incredibly inferior to actual surfer/beach style. I still do, but I care less.
"Robin Givhan went to Princeton and she's giving to shit to people wearing preppy cloths from Target. Self loath much?"
I don't see the argument for Givhan being self-loathing.
Her beat is fashion and politics/culture and she has to look for these connections. I think, in this case, she's fretting about the masses getting hoodwinked by... Oh, I don't know. Isn't all fashion like that? Playing on emotional urges to get people to buy more stuff?
Givhan isn't really a fashion reporter; dishonest hit pieces disguised as fashion reporting are her stock in trade.
I like the summer dresses to the extent that they remind me of the mod/hippie styles of the 60s.
But when I look at the fashion photography and how the dresses are styled today — see what's at lemondog's link — it makes me sad for what is lost. I don't see the youthful lightheartedness when the model's feet are pressured into high-heels and she's clutching and clutch purse. That's early 60s pre-liberation. The shoes should be flat sandals, and the bag should be something that leaves your hands free. To me, that's the real test of whether you're wearing the clothes for the reasons set forth in the WaPo reader's letter or for the reasons cited by Givhan.
A lot of preppy women of certain ages who wore Lilly pretty much had the color and the wealth going for them and little else. But a beautiful young woman with a fabulous figure in a Lilly was a magnificent sight to behold. Lilllys were not cut to accentuate the figure but rather to mask its flaws. Yet for the right woman the figure would overcome the mask and the result was spectacular.
And yes I have someone in mind.
"If Monica Lewinsky had worn a Lilly Pulitzer dress no one would've be able to find the semen stain."
Speaking of juice.
"The shoes should be flat sandals,"
One of my jobs in examining recruits for the military is the female recruits. A couple objected when I checked off their feet as "flat feet" or actually "pes planus" and they asked me about it. I certainly haven't done a survey but I do wonder if the fashion of girls wearing sandals all the time has increased the number of flat feet.
Certainly near sightedness is way up.
Lilly Pulitzer's clothes in the 60's and 70's were a breath of fresh air. Not only were the prints wild and wonderful, a woman didn't need a long line bra and panty girdle to look good in one. Whoever brought Spanx into current women's clothing should be taken out and shot.
If it weren't for snobbery, how would we know who the elites were?
Would the WaPo critic like anything from Walmart or Target?
I doubt it.
The patterns look awful when taken by themselves, but fashioned into dresses, they do look beautiful. Thanks for the link lemondog.
There is something, though, about the rich that excuses garish taste. This post made me remember a photo of William F. Buckley, Jr's apartment I saw some time ago in the New York Times. Don't know how anyone could sleep in that room.
One thing I noticed is that the Target line includes XL and XXL sizes. When I looked at Lilly Pulitzer clothes back in the 70's even the L did not fit my wide hipped/big shouldered frame. I liked the garish prints and the light material but it just wouldn't fit. I bought a granny dress instead.
The high fashion that Givins is predisposed to admire allows elites to make a public statement that they are not like "them".
Now if this fashion is made available to the single mom who works as a cashier at Target for eight hours everyday, well, she just might be mistaken for Robin Givhans.
And this simply cannot be allowed.
The title alone pretty tidily sums up my opinion on Robin Givhans: Hateful and not worthy of publication.
Robin tries too hard.
This reminds me of feed sack clothing. A little before the Great Depression, manufacturers put prints on feed and flour sacks so people could make clothes, pillow cases, quilts, etc., out of them. My paternal grandmother had made pillow cases out of them, and we'd get to sleep on them when we visited. From my mother's side, I think we may have some quilts with some of that material incorporated. I don't think one can speak intelligently about the class associations of prints without bringing in feed sack clothing. That history might have something to do with colorful prints being associated with frugal people.
"How can you look at those patterns and feel hate?"
Faux surprise, right?
Anything useful to the Prog narrative can be turned into an object of hate.
Target tres inexpensive.
There were some confusing internal inconsistencies in Robin Givhans column, but it’s an interesting column.
Lily Pulitzer clothes are immediately recognizable. People that buy instantly recognizable fashion are lazy to some extent. The clothes may not be inexpensive but it’s a cheap way to make a statement. If you are “fashion conscious” it’s the lack of effort that leads to distain and resentment.
It is totally legitimate for a fashion writer to hate (hence be “hateful”) a particular designer’s work. A passionate hatred for a designer’s work is the job of a fashion commentator. Look at K Lagerfeld’s remarks (your earlier post) Why are they interesting and fun? Because they are emphatic and extreme.
(I would be interested in her take on Pucci vs. Lily Pulitzer. Both are expensive, immediately recognizable, and jarringly garish).
But that’s me.
The maddening thing for her and her ilk is that these clothes are not, relatively speaking, expensive. It rubs the noses of the progs in the wrong way to know that the rich stay rich by being careful with their money.
Plus L Pulitzer did not design for sluts.
So the Kardashians have to know that Lily is a way you will never be.
I don't follow women's fashions but Robin Givhan has always seemed like a racist with a chip on her shoulder pads.
Isn't that the most likely explanation here?
I think she protests too much. I don’t know anything about fashion, but I confess to knowing a little bit about prep etiquette. Mostly it’s about being wealthy and dressing in an ironic shabby manner. The ironic part requires that you actually own a waterfront estate at the end of a long crushed stone driveway. But hardly anybody has that, so it’s just meaningless fashion fun. Which is great. We all can’t go to the Martha’s Vineyard and drink at the Black Dog Saloon, but we can pretend. Maybe that’s what disturbs her so much.
Those color patterns remind me of the Mitt Romney's family portrait used by MSNBC for a "one of these things is not like the other" skit.
It cause a social media backlash, not the clothes, but the idea of a wealthy white family adopting a black child.
Givhan may have gone to Princeton, but she’s still a middle-class wage slave grinding out her living word by word. When old money wears loud “fuck you” colors or cheap frayed Brooks Brothers shirts or dress shoes without socks, it mocks bourgeois status anxiety. Givhan can’t confront the mockery directly without conceding her class inferiority, but she can object when proles attempt the same maneuver.
I prefer to eat BBQ in a dark sweatshirt. The grease stains are not readily apparent and, if you're stuck for a napkin you can always wipe your mouth on the sleeve or rub your hands on your chest. The stains while not blatant are visible and are not removed after washing. After washing the stains take on an evocative, interesting pattern. It's like a subtle, understated form of tie dyeing......I don't know if every man has the necessary panache to pull off this look, but it makes a statement. I'm thinking about bringing out a line of clothes based on my BBQ stained sweatshirts. I'm sure it will appeal to the old money crowd.
If one does not understand or like Ivy / Collegiate / Trad / Preppy originally American style of dressing then they don't get the GTH (go to hell) style of casual dress when dressing for leisure.
It's what those brite shorts in the previous post was about.
People who attach this much importance to clothes are shallow and, as in Givhan's case, vicious as well.
This reminds me of the woman in high tech who complained that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg always wore the same grey T-shirt, which made her feel silly in that she wore expensive different outfits every day.
As I say, people who attach so much importance to clothes are inherently shallow, all the more so when they complain about what other people wear.
What does she say about Vineyard Vines?
And what about Vera Bradley?
"As I say, people who attach so much importance to clothes are inherently shallow"
I don't know... its a pretty big deal to some I'm guessing.
sydney said...
"There is something, though, about the rich that excuses garish taste. This post made me remember a photo of William F. Buckley, Jr's apartment I saw some time ago in the New York Times. Don't know how anyone could sleep in that room."
Pat Buckley was the fashionista in that household, she was famous for it. WFB was very conservative in his taste as well as his politics. He dressed in Ivy style, but was know to buy suits at JCpenney occasionally. Of course in it's hayday, late 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s, one could buy it at every retail establishment.
Was recently moving, and found a box of very bright pants. Had enough rich preppies in my fraternity in college that some of their dress wore off on me. The waists in those pants are probably 28 and 30, and I haven't been able to fit in them since about those ages. If I can get back down there, I might wear them again, being of an age now where it is assumed I no longer care about fashion. I still have and wear garish polo shirts though, learned at that time, to the dismay of my partner who didn't have the experience of living with people who think this sort of thing is normal every day wear.
Wearing that stuff was weird at first, coming from a solidly middle class background. But I had the safety of a group similarly clad, and by the time I ventured off alone, I was comfortable that if anyone thought it odd, it was their problem not mine. But, ultimately I reverted to my western middle class roots, dressing in jeans, button down shirts, sneakers, and occasionally boots, because the rich preppy look was never really me.
Nothing infuriates a control freak like a rebel.
I bet Ghivan calls herself a "liberal" too. When are the hateful going to surrender that label as the irony of it finally becomes too much for them?
Must be sad to see hate everywhere in everything...that you don't like.
Am wondering what her take is on Ikat. Or Kente Cloth, for that matter.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন