You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Fashion’ category.

So my post is based off of Manali’s post below. I remember watching “The Devil Wears Prada” and thinking that Streep’s character looks really good and intimidating. There is no doubt she is the woman on the top. Her dress (voice and demeanor) in the movie all speaks to that. She very much embodies the “Executive Woman”.

After reading Manali’s post, it made me remember the movie and my impression of Meryl Streep at the Oscars for that movie “The Devil Wears Prada”. She does wear Prada on the red carpet but the look is very different. The image is here:

I remember my first impression of seeing the red carpet Meryl Streep and I remember thinking how “dumpy” she looks compared to her character. It kind of seemed wrong that her character looked so fashionable and put together and here she is on the red carpet, at the Oscars and she looks frumpy.

But now that I look at the image again (and having an idea of how Meryl Streep tend to dress on the carpet and the semiotic exercise we did), I actually quite admire her for her dress. She rarely dresses in the “Hollywood glamor” even though she does wear designers, but I feel like this allows her to be a bit more personable. It makes her seem like she is comfortable in her skin. She is still presentable but she will wear what makes her comfortable and she doesn’t really care how the media perceives her. People know she is good at what she does. The “sex appeal” image is also something that she doesn’t want to go for. She still seems like a person you can talk to (if you aren’t overwhelmed that she really is a really talented actress).

What I cannot figure out with Joanne Entwistle’s book chapter is why she did not include any visual examples.  Sure fashion trends come and go, but she could have shown the same woman wearing different garments and point out the differences between how a woman is portrays herself.

Hilary Clinton was first lady from 1993-2000, where she had the role of being the president’s wife. It is not an official role and she did not get paid for being First Lady.  What she wore was feminine, had bright colors, lace, form fitting, etc. Could she have worn these same clothes and be taken seriously as a leader when running for President in 2008?  Compare the two images, the one above and the one below based on what she is wearing. What kind of message is she portraying? What is she saying about herself?

My point here is an attempt to give a visual example for Joanne Entwistle’s argument. Which I agreed with as I was reading, but would have had a better understanding of if she gave me visual examples other than just describing garments.  Over spring break, I remember watching the Today Show and there being a segment about the Wrap Dress turning 40.  Would have I understood what the wrap dress even was or it’s role in feminism was by Matt Lauer just standing there and describing it?

In addition to my previous post about fashion designer Iris van Herpen.

In the future, our clothes may be 3D printed. One of her quotes, “Everybody could have their own body scanned and just order clothes that fit perfectly.” Have a look at the article below and let me know what you guys think:

Also here is a sample of some of her dresses:

I do think they are kind of cool.

Dutch Fashion Designer Iris Van Herpen had models vacuum-packed and suspended in the air during her show during Paris Fashion week. This lady designed those really tall and weird-looking shoes Lady Gaga wears and does a lot with 3D print outfits.

Anyways, have a look at the link and let me know what you guys thing!

Below are my ten museum examples and some explanation as to why I selected them.

Immersion Museums

H.R. Giger Bar and Museum (Gruyères, Chur, Tokyo, New York)


A bar/museum which immerses the guest into the artwork of H. R. Giger.  I chose this because I really like Giger’s artwork and this is an opportunity to visit the worlds he has created.  Where else are you going to get to sit right next to the Space Jockey?

Titanic, The Artifact Exhibition


Designed much like the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. each visitor gets a boarding pass and works their way through the exhibit in that person’s role.  I chose this one, not only because I really enjoyed seeing these items that have been recovered, but it also made me incredibly angry when I left.  In the gift shop, RMS Titanc, Inc. the only company which has ownership rights was selling coal they had brought up to the surface that was on the ship.  When I saw they were selling artifacts, I immediately equated the exhibition to grave robbing.

Conner Prairie (Indianapolis)


A living museum where visitors become part of the environment. Actors see you as living in their time period.


Hotel 21c (Louisville, Bentonville, Cincinnati)


A hotel, bar, and art museum.  Shows how contemporary art can fit into every day lives.

Shot by Warhol (IU Art Museum Exhibition)


Exhibition which primarily focused on Andy Warhol’s Photography and had a few other items, such as the Brillo Boxes and a Silkscreen.  When I saw the Elizabeth Taylor silkscreen, I was really disappointed.  When I see paintings in a book, they do not look as detailed and when I see something in real life, it comes alive. It looked just like the book when I saw it in real life.

Corvette Museum (Bowling Green, KY)


Exhibition showing the history of the Chevrolet Corvette.  I like this one cause I have seen this collection many times and it has been in the news lately due to a sink hole swallowing several of the cars. The organization has announced before they send the damaged cars off for restoration, they are going to display them, as they are to show what all these cars have gone through and how they will return to their former glory.

The Children’s Museum (Indianapolis)


Hear me out on this one.  I like it because it allows all visitors, not just children, the opportunity to see into the lives of past Hoosiers.  In particular they have on display Ryan White’s boyhood bedroom and Mustang that was gifted to him by Michael Jackson.  The Ryan White story was before my time, but it gives the opportunity for children to see into the life of someone who was just like them and thrown in to the limelight when people found out he was suffering from AIDS.  It gives everyone the outlook that he was just a normal person, just wanting to be a kid, when the people in Kokomo, IN wanted to make sure that did not happen.

An American Legacy: Norll, Blass, Halston and Sprouse (Indianapolis Museum of Art)


The Indianapolis Museum of Art had an exhibit, which featured the fashion designs of Hoosier fashion designers.  This exhibit showed that one does not have to be from New York or some exotic land in order to be a successful designer.  I (sadly) was not able to go to this exhibit, but later found out that Stephen Sprouse grew up about 30 miles north of where I grew up.  It is still my goal to own a Sprouse item in my lifetime.

The Vacuum Museum (St. James, MO)


If you are saying WTF, then my goal has been accomplished.  Much like what Warhol did, the operators of the Vacuum Museum are going after the same idea.  Take a mundane object and make it a piece of art. According to the website, they pride themselves with the fact every vacuum is still operational.


Henry Ford Museum (Deerborn, MI)


The Henry Ford Museum is just random. A really cool place to visit, but it is just one of those places that seems to have no flow and has everything you could think of.  The chair President Lincoln was sitting in when assassinated is on display, same as the car President Kennedy was in when he met the same fate.  These items are on display with items such as the first pre-fabricated house and a neon McDonald’s sign.


Here is just an example of the designy decanters. The full list can be found here:

A decanter like this (looking like blood in veins) plus the seven sins glasses can be apart of one hell of a dark party experience.

I wanted to share this video so that I can show you all the influence sneakers have on people. It’s not just a hobby, it’s some people’s way of life. Some people start from a you g age. Some continue this way of life, others grow out of it because they start to realize that they are just sneakers.

After watching this video I thought to myself that I should just leave my love for sneakers behind, but then I realized I cannot do it just yet. It’s something about sneakers that draws me in. The color way, the style, the comfort, etc.

Watch the video and see a little of sneaker impact yourself…

From the Hansen reading:

“As technology, LEDs ‘belong’ to the computer and to the Internet era as they look good in print but are particularly stunning on the backlit screen of the computer.”

This quote has grabbed me almost more than anything I’ve read in this entire class (and there have been some doozies). It makes me ask, why are technologies ever popularized? What kind of factors go into the proliferation/dissemination of technology?

To me, LEDs aren’t particularly interesting or engaging. They’re just glowing lights, and to see them in Arduino and such isn’t really that compelling to me. I’ve wondered why so many people create designs based around LEDs, and this is an interesting thought. I don’t know how true it actually is (maybe other people find LEDs much more interesting or see the possibilities better than I do), but still, makes me wonder.

I remember seeing clothing with LEDs at the CHI 2012 Interactivity exhibit. The creator touted this clothing as interactive because you could zip and unzip panels in the clothing that revealed or hid the LEDs. I thought this was one of the more boring interpretations of “interactivity” when it comes to clothing and couldn’t for the life of me figure out why this was cool/interesting enough to display at CHI. Something just fell flat with me. Maybe it’s just disenchantment with LEDs in general, or the fact that “ooh look we used LEDs, we’re totally using technology in our clothing” was about as far as it went.

On the other hand, I also remember reading about a hoodie someone created with LEDs sewn in the shape of arrows on the back of it, and you could use the LED arrows as turn signals while riding a bike. I thought this was a lot more impressive, particularly because it’s not just starry-eyed “hey check us out, we got LEDs in clothing” but the LEDs actually have a purpose in the clothing other than “this is cool”.

I can’t recall whether I’ve written about the mirror stage on the blog before. If I have, then this is going to sound a bit redundant (only a bit, though..) and if I haven’t, hurray!

Jacques Lacan originated the mirror stage and illustrated it with a narrative about an infant (between 6 and 18 months of age) beholding its reflection in a mirror and being struck by the discordance between its felt imperfections and the perceived perfection of the mirror image looking back at it. The image looking back at it is a gestalt (through the infant’s eyes) in that is it “perceived as a unified whole,” in contrast with the felt fragmentation.

We confront gestalts all the time. Maybe multiple times a day. The best example I can think of (because it’s the one someone used to explain it to me) is a model in clothing magazine. The clothes seem to fit him/her perfectly. Not an odd fold or wrinkle in sight. It makes me want to buy the clothes so that I can feel the way that model looks: unified and whole.

As I made my way through the Entwhistle reading, I couldn’t help but think about the “professional woman” as defined by Malloy as a gestalt and what troubling implications that such a conception carries with it: wholeness (in this case) for women is defined by a man, wholeness (in this case) is masculine whereas fragmented is feminine, wholeness (in this case) is heterosexual…I’m sure there are others, these are just the few standouts in my memory.

What I find so interesting about all this is that a fashion movement – if I can call it that – presented as a means to advance women in the workplace seemingly masks (or maybe it doesn’t) its perpetuation of patriarchy and inequality.

Throughout the reading of this paper, I really couldn’t tell if the author was being overly sexist or feminist.  There were certain lines and quotes that just rubbed me the wrong way.  Perhaps it’s just the culture we have established now, but I really hate the fact that women ever had to dress a certain way in order to look professional and get ahead.  I realize that was just a result of the time and expectations back then, but it just seems so foreign now.

For example, the following passage that was quoted from Molloy just strikes me as a bit condescending towards women:

The results of wardrobe engineering can be remarkable.  By making adjustments in a woman’s wardrobe  we can make her look more successful and better educated.  We can increase her chances of success in the business world; we can increase her chances of becoming a top executive; and we can make her more attractive to various types of men.

It just seems to suggest that women are not successful or well-educated.  I would hope that this is not the case, but I can’t really tell not having that particular reading in front of me.  I understand the ignorance of certain people during this time frame at thinking women were not as intelligent as men or deserved to not be paid as much, but this quote just seemed to be a little bit of a blatant dig at women.

Perhaps it was the fact that men have always worn suits in the business world, but it just seemed that hiring stylists to help women to look better and smarter was a bit over the top.  Making men look more masculine hardly seems to be

A comparison that I draw to this, but with a much more positive and non-condescending tone (at times) is TLC’s show What Not to Wear.  Granted, Stacey and Clinton can be a bit…ummmm…frank about women’s less than stellar initial wardrobes, I feel like they always strive to play up particular body styles of the women and cater to their personality.  The paper mentioned certain instances of individualism in the clothing, but Molloy’s idea of dressing just seemed a little bit too prescriptive and hardly individualistic.

It’s a hard call to make for what the author actually thinks in regards to feminism and individuality, and obviously Entwistle recognized that Molloy may be a bit outdated.  The following quote is from page 216 and speaks of Melanie Griffith in the film Working Girl definitely made me question what the author thought of this idea that the movie brought out:

The moral of this story is a highly individualistic one which emphasizes that all a girl needs to succeed is self-motivation and good standards of dress and grooming.

I’ll agree with the fact that a girl (or boy for that matter) does need great self-motivation and good standards of dress and grooming.  Pretty people tend to be more approachable and likable, especially if they have nice clothing and smell good, but I don’t think that’s all you need to get ahead in the world.  The author doesn’t really talk about how they view this “moral” of the movie.  It’s interesting that it is mentioned by the author, though, at least for me.

Overall, it’s an interesting overview of the history of how power dressing came to be, and perhaps that’s why the author doesn’t really assert much of their own thoughts on the issue.  Just some things that struck me while I was reading the piece.  Take them or leave them.