The PS1 at Target

April 15th, 2011 § Comments Off § permalink

I am a huge fan of the democratization, retail-wise at least, of fashion and design.  I especially love how larger retailers such as Kohl’s and Kmart have been partnering with acclaimed niche designers to bring better designs to the masses.  Not only does this add a bit of glamour to Kohl’s, Kmart, et al., it also provides an opportunity for niche designers to share their ideas with a much wider audience.  My favorite such collaborations have been the Lanvin for H&M line (I especially loved the commercial in all its Gallic quirky-chicness), Thomas O’Brien’s first season with Target, and Stella McCartney’s collection for GapKids (pictured above).  I almost bought Ms. McCartney’s whole collection of girls’ clothing even though I don’t have a daughter!  As my good friend Dave once asked, “Why do cheap things have to be ugly and/or unfashionable?”  Why indeed?

Though I believe that everyone benefits from the diffusion of better design, I think that there’s a difference between a seemingly even exchange of capital (such as the partnerships mentioned above), and outright plagiarism by one party or another.  In the case of fashion retail, it is often the larger retailers that plagiarize high-end designs and sell them as their own.  For example, I walked into Target a while back and saw an almost perfect knock-off of one of the most popular bags of the last few years, Proenza Schouler’s PS1 bag.  Obviously the quality of the material and craftsmanship weren’t there, but the dimensions, handles, and belts were all virtually the same.  Apparently Proenza Schouler wasn’t too happy about it, and I can understand why.  They designed their bag with an immeasurable amount of time, effort, passion, and money—a.k.a. expertise—and Target was selling it for a measly $34.99 (and in pleather!).  Here’s a pic from New York Magazine’s article on the whole kerfuffle:

Target (above) vs. Proenza Schouler (below)

I started to wonder, however, whether or not it was actually a bad thing for Proenza Schouler’s business that Target, or anyone for that matter, was replicating their bag.  For Target, it’s clearly a no-brainer.  The retail giant is quickly catching up to fast fashion stalwarts Forever 21 and H&M, in my opinion.  If it keeps bringing in more high-end designers, either via their GO International Line of fashion designers’ greatest hits at Target prices (which, ironically, Proenza Schouler has participated in) or other such partnerships, it will further strengthen their already very attractive brand identity of being everyone and their mother’s happy-place of things we actually need (and then some).  Thus from Target’s perspective, the more fashion-forward pieces the better.  If it can get people to recognize and expect that from their store, who cares if it may be stealing?* 

For Proenza Schouler, however, I think it’s a bit more complicated.  I remember reading one fashion insider put it this way: “You know you’ve made it [in the luxury retail world] if they’re hawking your wares on Canal Street.”**  I think it’s true.  The replica makers wouldn’t knock just any bag off, it would have to be a very popular one that they knew they could make money off of.  So if your design has caught enough attention as to warrant a spin-off business of sorts, you really have gained a lot of aesthetic influence in the global fashion world.  You could see all those knock-offs as exposure that cost your company nothing to physically create, which could lead to a higher profile and increased brand recognition, which could lead to more investors and more money, leading to more business and more profits, ultimately leading to more creative opportunities and aesthetic freedoms.*** 

In any event, the PS1 has by all accounts been a huge hit (check out the sheer number of colors, sizes, leathers it is now produced in!).  The two designers behind the label seem to be very successfully evolving from industry darlings (they were discovered by Barneys at age 21 at their fashion school graduation) into permanent New York fashion establishment.****  What I personally enjoy most about Proenza Schouler is their use of colors and textures on clothing that looks designed for a downtown girl that I imagine to usually be in all black.  And there’s almost an athletic-chic quality to their designs; for instance I can totally imagine working out in their iconic satin bustier dress (below), or going swimming in one of the dresses from their most recent collection (under the bustier).  Though I would never do that of course!  Athletica just seems to be one of the narratives running thru a lot of their collections.

Spring/Summer 2007

Spring/Summer 2012

Anyway, the PS1 is now available for your retail pleasure at Target.  Curious to know which bag is up next for Target’s Mossimo brand.

 

*Though the novelty of cheap chic is starting to wear off.  Target even did a “Greatest Hits” of the GO International Line last year sometime.

**Canal Street in Manhattan is replica heaven.  I’ve never been there but I’d like to someday.

***Which seems to be problematic for creative types.  More on this later.

****Proenza Schouler is also the inaugural winner of the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund, a prize of $300,000 and a year of business mentoring from a coterie of established fashion professionals.  Check out the documentary Seamless.  From what I understand the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund has become a big enough deal so as to draw non-American designers to bring their fledgling businesses to New York rather than the other fashion capitals of the world like Milan or Paris (your business must be U.S.-based to be eligible for the prize).  French-born fashion sensation (and current CFDA nominee) Joseph Altuzarra is the best example of this.  The dismal science and American entrepreneurialism strike again!  Here’s a look from his very first collection:

 

 

Jonny Greenwood

March 18th, 2011 § Comments Off § permalink

I love these pictures of Jonny Greenwood from the British band Radiohead, longtime defenders of the “Only Band That Matters” title.  More on this later.  My friend thinks that Jonny has too unique of a face to be attractive, but I find him to be quite lovely.  I think it’s how his hair balances out the breadth of his facial features.  Or maybe it’s how it shelters that colossal brain of his.  Whatever it is, I love analyzing the parts of a sum.

Quite dashing, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole band in poloroids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the girl from Deerhoof and Thom Yorke.

With bandmate Ed O'Brien.

Rare photo of Jonny smiling. I had this on my desktop for a while.

All photos from Dead Air Space.

 

 

Love and Hate

March 12th, 2011 § Comments Off § permalink

A wise woman once told me that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  I thought of this when I caught the 100th episode of Travel Channel’s “No Reservations” with celebrated food writer Anthony Bourdain.  The show chronicles Mr. Bourdain’s search for the world’s great cuisines, and his rather acerbic personality vis-à-vis his love for all things food makes for some great entertainment.  I had never seen the show up to this particular point, but the 100th episode was on Paris so I thought I’d give the show a try.

Suffice it to say, I couldn’t take my eyes off the TV.  Mr. Bourdain and his companion ate their way through a Paris that most of us Americans probably don’t know exists, i.e. I don’t think the Eiffel Tower was on their list of sights to see.  The pair was apparently investigating a resurgence in simple bistro dining in Paris led by former chefs of Michelin-starred restaurants, who, after cooking their way through the world’s greatest restaurants, have returned to Paris armed with nothing more than a new appreciation for non-stuffiness in their cuisine.

After reveling in the ability of cable television to impart some culture to my stay-at-home momminess, an offhand comment Mr. Bourdain made about Food Network personality Tyler Florence got me thinking about criticism and why it is that so many of the critics I enjoy have a bit of a mean streak.  Now I understand how Tyler Florence’s success, he with his boyish good looks, purportedly questionable cooking skills and the marketing force of the Food Network would be anathematic to the more cultured essence of Anthony Bourdain.  But I had to ask myself, why did Mr. Bourdain have to bring Tyler Florence of all people up?  What really is the difference between the two?

A few days later I caught the tail end of music critic Ed Ward’s review of the newly released album of Apple singles (the Beatles’ own label) on NPR’s “Fresh Air.”  I was happy to recognize the tune “Those Were the Days” by Mary Hopkin, as my dad loves her and relishes the fact that she was discovered by Paul McCartney.  I hummed along, feeling all nostalgic over my dad’s very un-immigrant appreciation of pop culture, but right when the song stopped, Mr. Ward referred to the song as “sentimental schlock,” and an example of some of the more questionable artistic decisions the Beatles made back in the day.  His comment really popped my bubble and again made me stop and think about of the nature of criticism.

After thinking about it for a few days, the only answer I could come up with is that people with strong opinions somehow show us that they care about what they’re talking about, hence the reference above to love and hate.  I am tempted to go so far as to say that if you don’t hate anything, you probably don’t love anything; you are instead swimming in the safe sea of indifference, and somehow, that does not work for art, because art cannot be separated from values.  I know that there’s an element of shtick to all critics, and that Mr. Bourdain himself has been criticized for making a career out of his causticity (he calls Gwyneth Paltrow that “one bitch who refuses to eat ham,” and offers this diatribe against Rachael Ray), but for the critics who manage to get beyond shtick, I think that they have the ability to show people that there is something more to what we’re seeing, whether it be food, music or anything else, and it is their job, and maybe even delight, to show us what it is.  And for all his meanness, I loved Mr. Bourdain’s show and am 100% sure that it much more entertaining and recreational than anything I’ve seen on the Food Network, save for a few of the “Iron Chef” episodes.

And maybe that’s okay.  Food Network can carry on in its own way, celebrating food in a simple, friendly way, where all the personalities seem as uncomplicated as they are good looking (Ina Garten is my personal favorite).  For something a bit more than that, I would try “No Reservations.”  Instead of taking you to the bakery La Poilâne to try real French bread (just have them FedEx you a loaf), or to the street markets for an ur-locavore experience (most cities have farmer’s markets these days), and or even walks along the Seine (see Monet, Claude) to experience Paris*, you’ll get seated with the likes of Joël Robuchon at his restaurant for some authentic sole meunière (the guy will probably take the bones out for you right in front of your eyes) or maybe think of trying tripe with Tony himself at Je Thé…me.  At any rate, you will see something fresh, new and different than what you would expect, and that to me is the greatest thing about turning on the tube.

So thank you, Mr. Bourdain, for being such a jerk.  I can see through it now and know that it’s just love you have hidden under your ass-hat.

 

*Where Ina took us on her “Barefoot in Paris” episode, which I loved of course.

 

 

Fabulous

December 15th, 2010 § Comments Off § permalink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve been seeing the new “Now on iTunes” billboard around town and I absolutely love it!  I think it was a great decision for Apple to have chosen a relatively unknown picture of the Beatles for the ad, as it is always nice to have something new and fresh, especially with a subject as oversaturated as the Fab Four.  Black and white pictures always add a little class, too.

Anyway, the billboard reminded me of a conversation I had with my husband a few months ago about the Apple.  Apparently Steve Jobs spent some time studying calligraphy before starting Macintosh in the late 70′s, and it was the fonts (among other things, I’m sure) that made its first products unique.  I thought it was really cool that something as seemingly meaningless as calligraphy could be part of the history of a company responsible for making some of the world’s most coveted products, due in large part to the simplicity of their designs.  I’m sure there are a number of books on this very topic (or check out this link for a short version), but I guess I’m writing about it now because it supports my whole thesis that beauty matters, and that it is everywhere.  Like, don’t you think the person who decided to make the iPods white was a genius?  They’re the most beautiful little accessory ever, and so useful, too.

I type this all on a PC of course.

 

 

Introduction

November 12th, 2010 § Comments Off § permalink

This blog has been a long time coming. For years I have wanted a place where I could share my ideas about what makes something beautiful, but for some reason or other just never found the right place.  I thought I would find it in academia as a music historian, but that didn’t work out.  I thought I’d find it in the fashion world as a clothing designer, but that really didn’t work out.  Then I thought, forget pursuing beauty as a career.  I’ll just try and live as happy a life I can as a very well-paid secretary!  That worked out really well until I got fired a few months later.

But here I am now, about two years later, ready to give the beautiful another try as the boss of my own blog, Quam pulchra es.  I took the title from a motet I really like by the English composer John Dunstable (1390-1453).  Dunstable was setting some of the Song of Songs to 3-part harmony, and these few words mean “How beautiful.”

Few things in life make me happier than stumbling upon something beautiful, whether it is a sound, an image or an idea.  I grew up playing the violin and became a “born-again” musician in high school while experiencing the music of Gustav Mahler (1860-1911) in youth orchestra.  I don’t use the term “born-again” lightly; the experience really was quite mystical and I remember it like it was yesterday.  We were rehearsing the waltz movement of Mahler’s first symphony, and as a second violinist I had a simple harmony to accompany the main melody.  After the phrase ended and we were dismissed for a break, I flew out of the rehearsal hall, positively euphoric (and probably a bit manic), screaming, “MUSIC!  MUSIC!” to anyone who would listen (actually I was probably screaming so loud that I made people listen).  I ran around the building jumping for joy, feeling like I had somehow become a brand new person.

The thing is I’m not sure what was so extraordinary about that short phrase as to elicit such a response.  Was it maybe the image of fin-de-siècle Viennese, waltzing their way into world war and the ultimate dissolution of empire?  At age 15, probably not (though that was totally what I was thinking the other day when I heard the waltz on the radio).  Or was it just the right amount of sappiness as to push my adolescent hormones—already raging on account of a certain male instrumentalist—over the edge?  Closer, but not quite (he turned out to be a total jerk of course).  I guess it was more that up to that point, though I had grown up listening to music, going to a lot of concerts, playing a lot, etc., I just had never really experienced how beautiful it could be.  There was probably also something to being such an integral part of the orchestra, together creating this whole beautiful sound.  At any rate, I became a full-fledged musician after that point, and went on to perform quite a bit, study music in college, and even attempt a Ph.D. in musicology.

The reason I share the Mahler story with you is because it became the first of many such moments of aesthetic wonder and delight.  This blog will recount many of them (and new ones I make along the way), and the conclusions about art I have drawn from them over time.  I figure that most of the content will be related to classical music as it is sort of my creative base, but since I have been more interested in fashion these days I will most likely write about that a lot too.  Some preliminary subjects I hope to write about are: 1) form and function, 2) the creative impulse, 3) art as recreation, and 4) the need for context (among others).  That all sounds a bit ivory tower, but I found out very early in my career—much to my dismay—that my ivory tower is more a gingerbread house—sweet, frosted and ultimately flimsy, so we’ll see how all that goes.  If anything, I hope to share how enjoying beauty makes my life a much happier place.  I like to think that I have trained my senses well enough to be able to find beauty everywhere; it really is about the way you behold it.

So welcome to Quam pulchra es!  I hope you enjoy your stay here.