TALKING POINT | The Rise of the Street

A different point of view about using street as design inspiration.

What comes to your mind when the word "street" is uttered? For me, who resides in the crowded, collapsing capital called Jakarta, traffic, dust, and endless constructions are the top three answers. Different take on the "street" will surely come out from the blessed groups whose view includes the Eiffel, the Empire State Building or the Brandenburg Gate. Street, for them, might spark inspiration, raw energy and stylish crowd hanging out in hip places. Put a photographer in that spot, and you will get stream of invigorating street style shots, capturing real people dress in an effortless chic manner ready to be snapped any time and still look cool. This particular understanding of "street" then brings title of "high street" to Zara, Topshop and those alike, in a way entitling them to claim the style of the street as rightfully theirs.

I have vague idea of which one comes first: whether the high street chains produce accessible clothes and gain profits, which lures the high-end designers to draw elements of the "street" for their own collections, or whether the designers inspire the high-street brands to adopt their design at a more affordable price range. In both cases, the street is much praised, and its influence transpires to all layers of fashion kingdom. Sneakers, backpacks, denim, bomber jackets, slouch dresses, and more - almost everything on the runway can be called "street," and here we see how street transforms from the roads you walk on into an adjective in the fashion universe. Street equals to laid back, slightly rebellious, oftentimes wild. Street is young and sporty. Street is new, more commercial, more accessible. The rise of the street is even further escalated by the couture fashion houses: Dior introduces sneakers in the spring '14 couture collection and Chanel brings "street protesters" (a.k.a. white-dominated models screaming feminism manifesto) to its spring/summer '15 runway. 

Reflecting back to the streets of Jakarta, or even the streets of Berlin (this I can testify for I have physically been there), the spirit of the real street has definitely lost its meaning in fashion. On the street people are struggling to survive, thumping the ground to make their way to work. Teenagers who hang out on the streets are no longer revolutionists, they simply have nowhere to go or they just don't have money to go anywhere. Street, at the same time, is a familiar pathway that can lead you to home. But to cite street as an inspiration for glamorous pieces being appropriated for daily wear (cue: Hedi Slimane's Saint Laurent) is taking advantage of a struggling place. Anything but street, I beg you, a word to describe your clothes and what is currently in trend.  

P.S. Style.com has been re-designed and it includes "street" as the menu now. I am an opposition in this case, although Tommy Ton's street style photos are always the ones I impatiently click during fashion week.

image: style.com

  

TALKING POINT | Why I No Longer Buy Women Magazines

And the internet is just one of the factors.

Maybe from the first glance at this post you would assume that I am about to spill derogatory arguments about how printed magazines should die, how they have lost their power and all, but that is not it. As a matter of fact I am an avid magazine reader--since the adolescent days my mom put me in several teenage magazine subscriber list in no time because she concerned about my ability to grow properly as a female adult--and to be honest with you, I still am an avid magazine reader AND writer. But women magazines are no longer in my purchase list these days--the franchised ones to be exact. Instead, titles like Smith Journal, Delayed Gratification and some random independent magazines are what caught my eyes and brain and heart, despite of their relatively high price. They deliver fresh reporting, oftentimes experimental writing, or in another words: something I cannot obtain from reading big titles like Vogue, Elle or Glamour. This wave of independent publishing might have been seen with one eye by more established publishers, but in fact, their streams of content are to be considered serious counter act in responding to the deteriorating publishing industry these days. But that would be another story.

The first and foremost reason as to why I stay away from women magazines is actually personal. I do not feel that my voice as a grown woman is well represented by those magazines. The pages are filled with the newest trends and items that are repetitive and correlated with the imagery of lean women, most of the time are the Caucasian ones. Maybe that will not be the case for magazines printed in the US or Europe, but isn't it an irony for local magazine to feature ridiculously massive pages of Caucasian models when their readers are NOT Caucasian? Proceeding further to the other content, I think that the promotion of monotonous lifestyle--working from Monday to Friday, hanging out on weekends, chasing after hot guys, visiting beauty salons, travelling once in a while--has come to the down side of the curve. And to assume that all women are supposed to go through that particular lifestyle is somewhat shallow. That alone is an irony when the magazine itself aims to empower women and celebrate femininity. But who are the women we are talking about here?

Without a second doubt, internet has also come into mind when proposing argument against purchasing women magazines. Brilliant websites and blogs like Man Repeller and The Cut suffice the criteria as mandatory reading for modern women. Feeds from inspirational public figures and even friends can enrich modern women as much as magazines do. Not to mention the fast pace of reporting culture the internet has brought. Trends change faster, news are available as soon as the event happens and (online) discussions are prompted at no time. This, I think, has caused almost all magazines to feature the similar thing, bring similar discussion to the table and lay out singular point of view when it comes about trends. All trends, anything. Whether it is about fashion, health, finance or work, the voice printed on the paper sounds pretty much the same. I can imagine the editorial meeting starts with something like: "So, what is new this season?" And everybody starts googling, in which they will come up with uniform results. Therefore, presenting something "new" and nothing else should be rethink by the editors, because such way of work brings no additional value to the readers. And when it comes to advertisers, who are we kidding here, the women magazines, or should I say the "highly commercialised" magazine as a whole, have turned into some kind of catalogue. They display whatever the advertisers wish to.

To close this rather lengthy piece I just want to remind myself. Not all women magazines gradually transform themselves into rubbish. They are, after all, what keep part of the economy going. But to think about how influential media really is, don't we wish for a better quality of magazine to influence women in a more positive way? And until that dawn of women magazine revival comes, I would be happy with my current reading list. What about you?

image is from here

P.S: A new magazine has just been released by Net-A-Porter group, titled Porter. From this article it sounds promising and all, but I am not ready to spend that much amount of money for a women magazine that comes from a luxury retailer. It claims to adopt "global approach" as part of the editorial voice, quite literally, because the first day it is sold in the US, I visited my local bookstore and found the very same issue.

TALKING POINT | The Simplicity of Being

I ramble about minimalism (again) and the price we have to pay for "less design."

left: an editorial using Stella McCartney's collection, from tumblr; right: Thakoon Addition Pre-Fall 2014

A simple t-shirt, a structured blazer or a nicely shaped skirt--are those what we are looking for when skimming clothes in stores? Something that would effortlessly blend with the rest of what stays in our wardrobe, perhaps? Or something to complement that statement pieces we've long acquired but has never been worn because the right match is not present? I know that is what I tend to do when going shopping these days, precisely hindering myself from the crazy motifs while having the Celines, the Wangs or the Balenciagas (from Ghesquiere's Spring/Summer 2013 that I still cannot erase from my fashion reference just yet) in mind.

The resurgence of everything pared down, simple and clean, or what columnists and writers refer as the "minimalism" trend leaves me with my own dilemma. Why is fashion, something so close yet so far to reach slowly turning into something overly accessible (cue the easy-to-pair pieces) these days? Where are the ornamentation, opulent fabrication and intricate silhouette? In a not-so-distant past I justify the beyond logical pricing of designer offerings because of the intricacy and expensive fabrics, but now that everything seems like what I have or about to have in my wardrobe, the excessive pricing somehow does not make sense anymore.

What happened to the crazy, over-the-top, whimsical fashion, people? Yes, I do not dismiss the fact that there are still visionary designers who go that way, but now everyone seems to prioritise minimal shapes over everything. Design wise, one has once said that the best design is not to design at all. I partly agree. But when you label it with a lot of zeros, don't the designers have the obligation to put certain magic touch to justify the price?

I guess it is not fair to generalise all designers who champion the clean, pared down look to commercial designers who race after the trend and grab buyers' attention. While going through some pre-fall early arrivals in style.com, my sinister argumentation of designers going for simple look boils down to a fact that a handful actually exemplifies certain kind of vision. These brands really make clothes people actually want to wear, and that is a genuine, pure complement a designer can get. Otherwise, what is the point of pre-fall? Why do we even have such label for a season that does not exist (in real life)? I will leave the answer to you.