Is that how they think we're feeling? Graphically, the photo is excellent. Riveting, really. But come on, the posture and the fashion seem to say no, nothing, I want nothing.
ADDED: The brand is Theory. Here's my description, from 2007, of discovering this brand:
Yesterday, my sister and I were traipsing through the Village and Soho. She wanted earrings and mementos. I balked at going into one store that had big sales signs in the window and -- I took one step up toward the doorway -- looked completely chaotic inside. I'd linger in the place next door until she was done with the chaos. The place that suited me was called Theory. I prefer Theory to chaos. She rummaged through the chaotic sale store and bought nothing. Not meaning to buy anything, I found two ideal black sweaters at Theory. I resist chaos but am a pushover for a rational pullover and a Cartesian cardigan.AND: Isn't the man in the photograph wearing what Hillary wore during the election season? A long angled-out coat and black don't-even-look-at-my-legs pants. The woman in the photograph is wearing the light color on the bottom, forming a strong upward-pointing triangle over her crotch, a reversal of the downward-pointing triangle of female genitalia.
Posts
36 comments:
It's a vagina suit.
"A clothes company that (with reason) considers me one of its best customers sends this:"
It's because you're stubby, right. Although they probably refer to it as ,'petite'
"Rusty said...
"A clothes company that (with reason) considers me one of its best customers sends this:"
It's because you're stubby, right. Although they probably refer to it as ,'petite'"
No, it's because she spends a lot of money with them.
rhhardin said...
It's a vagina suit.
Haven't you been listening to the boss? That's a labia suit.
I love finding meaning in expensive clothes too. But the printer made a mistake. Their already high prices all have an extra zero added to the end.
From the Encyclopedia of Fashion:
"Gauchos first made an impact in the fall of 1970. American designer Anne Klein (1923–1974) offered gray flannel gauchos that appeared in an August 30, 1970, issue of the New York Times Magazine 's twice-yearly fashion supplement. They soon caught on with the mass-market apparel sellers. Often they were shown with boots, another new trend in women's wear of the era. Within a few years, however, gauchos had declined in popularity. The mid-calf length broke the line of the leg, and they seemed to give the wearer a wider silhouette, or shape, than desired. Unflattering to most, they eventually became synonymous with some of the decade's more ill-advised fashion fads."
I am a man
and I can have sex!
anytime that you want to...
I am a man and
I have my needs!
But they're not that important... - The Man Song
This dominant female form of advertising is not new. How about the Liberty ins ad where the black women belittles and humiliates a shorter obviously beta black male for bumping a food truck.
or the one where the husband is loading the dishwasher and the wife is reminding him to hand scrub the baking pan to him saying yes dear, only to be discovered disobeying.
Are they meant to appeal to a type of woman or a type of man?
The man seems a little limp.
It would be a role reversal suit if it had padded shoulders.
As it is, she's just waiting for a better man.
We need a women good at math fashion statement.
Is that how they think we're feeling?
Yes, with good reason (the model even looks like Jen Psaki.)
Pocket protectors have been overlooked in women's fashion.
Oy!
Only 25% off? Maybe should pay customer 25% to buy.
Slide rule on a belt loop.
Those photos just reinforce Larry's Third Law: Fashion is for suckers.
"The man in the photo?"
Are we sure there is one?
I am surprised Althouse hadn't gone further with the photo analysis.
Feet.
The woman owns the frame: she fills the vertical space without being cropped. Horizontally, not only is she owning her half of the space, head forward, arms folded, pants aggressively wide, but her right foot is poised outward, putting her toes across the horizontal center: stepping into the man's 'half' of the picture, staking her claim. "My foot is in your space? What are you going to do about it?" her expression and body language say (the shoulder facing to him slightly raised -- the cold shoulder -- and her head leans away from him -- he is not worth her time or thought).
Meanwhile. the man is not only in the background, diminutive in the frame (obvious), and in the act of not just leaving (obvious) but rather of quietly slinking away (body language, face). But there is more.
He has relinquished the frame to her: not only is he leaving, but note that his foot (the feet, again) is already partially out of the frame -- the only body part of the models not contained in the image. He is already in the process of being an afterthought.
The photo implies that next in the sequence he will be gone, and her right foot will shift further into what was 'his' space, and she will shift her weight to occupy the center...
Anyway. I see it.
I am Laslo.
They look so... somber? ..... disappointed? .... contemptuous?
Is it too "common" of me to think people that sell high end clothing should should portray the owners as happy when they are wearing those clothes?
The gaucho is 'womanspreading'.
I am Laslo.
Clothes for biological dead ends.
Alpha female, beta male.
Neutral mourning ensembles.
It was in the movie The Zero Effect that your post's idea was summarized:
Daryl Zero: Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.
It was in the movie The Zero Effect that your post's idea was summarized:
Daryl Zero: Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.
Althouse seems obsessed with genitalia.
One word for Theory’s fashions for women: asexual. The mass-market equivalent is J.Jill.
That's a male in the background? Oh, good Lord.
As to the clothing on the female, I guess the designer doesn't know how to design for a woman with B cups or larger, nor for a woman older than thirty.
I have a picture of myself in Tokyo wearing gaucho pants and matching vest. With knee-high leather boots. I think it must have been 1976. What's the difference between gaucho pants and culottes?
Looks like they are trying to update Katherine Hepburn, but she doesn't need updating, and if the pants were longer they sell more.
She looks rather, ....severe. And he looks like he is heading for an exit lest she begins to criticize.
She looks like she's auditioning for a man strong enough to bend her over the kitchen table and keep her there till he's done with her.
He looks like he failed.
Of course the hakama she's wearing adds a degree of difficulty. (That's why you must heed Gibbs' Rule Three: Always carry a knife.)
Post a Comment