kiss my capris

deposing the rules of fashion

When Tim Gunn was a guest on the "Oprah" show, he provided six fashion rules for "mature" women (mature = over-40). Older women should never wear:

1. Pleated pants
2. Low-rise jeans
3. Horizontal stripes
4. Jackets that hit at mid-thigh
5. Double-breasted blazers
6. Capri-length pants

I call bullshit.

First of all, since when did being old start at 40? Jeez! This puts some women who are having their first child into the same age category as great grandmothers. This isn't the 1950s. Age groupings for women have changed considerably. Women are very active -- working, athletic, travelling -- well into their seventies today. In some fields women are just getting their careers going in their 40s.

I confess that I have always hated any sort of these lists of rules. Dos and don'ts. Like most of these kinds of dictates I have an innate tendency to see them primarily as there to be broken. They are a mainstay for hack copy in fashion magazines but there is nothing original or fresh about them.

These specific six rules are about what is flattering to body shape as well as what is in fashion at present. Pleated pants and double breasted blazers are not overly youthful. They are just not especially flattering or currently fashionable. Horizontal stripes are widening. Based on the assumption that no woman under age 40 buys clothes from Liz Claiborne, I will use summer fashions from Tim's new employer to demonstrate the problems with these rules.

1. Pleated pants - no one should wear these. Ever.

mo pleats mo fugly

2. Low-rise jeans : women under 22 shouldn't wear these--and not very many of them can get away with it either. I'm not convinced that they are a particularly attractive look for even the best of figures. It is just a cut that can't quite get away from the idea of "cheap and slutty":

On the other hand, Liz Claiborne is well known for perpetrating the style crime of mom jeans and those are just as bad.



3. Horizontal stripes -- This rule is ridiculous. The principle is one based on body shape not age.
Here is the thing with fashion rules: even the people who make them don't follow them. Tim's very own Oprah makeover selected a dress with a horizontal stripe pattern for a woman who had just given birth to twins:
And a striped top can look fine on a larger body:

Omygod! Is she wearing capri length pants?!

In fact, it would seem that this season's Liz Claiborne plus size collection breaks every one of Tim Gunn's rules.

4. Jackets that hit at mid-thigh : Frankly I don't even understand what this rule is about. The look would depend on the particular outfit and the cut of the jacket:


Here is an example from LC's plus size collection:
This is a fine casual or light exercise outfit but the problem I see with the LC collection is that it is dowdy and it hides women's curves rather than highlights them.

It will be interesting to see how Gunn will approach this area at Liz Claiborne given Tim's well-known "issues" with the bodies of zaftig women (i.e., any woman over a size 4 and/or any woman with fleshy curves).

And that place needs some help. After a while the LC collection started to really depress me. The idea that they wanted women to dress this way. I think they got some of their fabric ideas from somebody's great grandmother's old davenport:

Yes, it's metallic too!

If you must have a rule how about this one: don't wear fabric that might be used to upholster furniture at a funeral home. But I digress . . .

5. Double-breasted blazers: these aren't in fashion now. Just as with pleated pants, the "rules" don't have to do with age. There is nothing overly youthful about a double-breasted blazer, mid-thigh jackets or horizontal stripes. They have to do with style, cut, and shape and what is in fashion.

6. Capri-length pants : This is the one that really gets me. I thought about naming this post: "kiss my capri wearing ass." Sure capris are not the best for short legs. But capris are a fashion staple -- there's no getting away from them either at the gym or in the summer (especially at the beach). Even with short legs capri-length works especially if you are wearing the same color on the top. So shoot me.

Here are LC's cropped pants selections.

I don't care what age you are.

These pants are fugly!

On the other hand, here are Eileen Fisher's:

To die for... and they come in petite.

Eileen Fisher targets the same age group as LC and is similar in price range (slightly higher but not by much). Nonetheless, Eileen Fisher has a much more youthful and fashionable and versatile look.

It is one that is not beset by the kind of mindset that has fashion "rules" about what you can and can't wear at a certain age. In fact the company is based on thinking about women and fashion in a manner that is opposed to these kinds of restrictions.

Frankly, if Tim Gunn really wants to reinvigorate LC he is going to have to change the way that he thinks about fashion... and women.


two posts from 02.05.07:

• tg on how runway models should look (after the tyra banks discussion):
• continued commentary on the preference for heroin chic / boyish body type in fashion

town | gown

I saw it coming.

I was just wondering when -- and how -- the bow was going to break.

One of his dearest moments was when Tim Gunn asserted with intensely sober conviction that:

"Project Runway is nothing without its integrity."

God love him but this statement was utterly preposterous. Commercial television is not about integrity. Reality television even less so. He finally had to realize that in doing Project Runway he was working for Bravo and not for Parsons.

Having a current professor from a highly respected university in a primary role for a reality television program was a radical idea to say the least. Frankly, I'm sure that Gunn's involvement with the show raised some eyebrows if not some hackles at Parsons. At least I would hope so. An institution is really in trouble when everyone goes along without objecting.

There would be some who'd think that Project Runway did not reflect the academic level or pedagogy or basic philosophy of the institution. It would raise questions about conflict of interest; standards of excellence; and institutional image. These are not trivial matters.

I'm not saying that Tim Gunn presented anything less than an image of excellence. I'm just saying that despite his calm exterior and debonair manner he was actually treading through a minefield. It was inevitable that something had to go.

He wasn't going to give up the opportunities that he was now being offered, and why should he? Furthermore, his move into corporate world will now allow him to give back to Parsons. For one, he is going to be raising a lot of money for them. Not just because he will have a substantially higher income. He will also be establishing ties to people who earn the really big bucks. The development office must be giddy.

It seems impossible, but, yes, Tim Gunn is going to be loved even more than he is already. After all, which is better:

A. for Tim to be the department chair who is flitting about doing interviews on inane infotainment tv shows, earning buckets more cash than everyone else, regularly seen gushing over the kind of design work that is not respected by at least some of his colleagues (hypothetically speaking of course . . . not that academia is petty and jealous or anything)

OR

B. for Tim to have a important position in the fashion industry that allows him to provide student internships, hire graduates and raise funds for the institution?

At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do for Liz Claiborne. I mean, it has fallen into the style pit of mom-jeans. And did anyone catch the reference to shopping at the Liz Claiborne Outlet on The Office?


Dwight: There is a Liz Claiborne outlet. I know you like that store. Go inside and shop until I can meet you.
Jan: How do you know I like that store?
Dwight: Many of your blouses are Claibornes.
Jan: How do you know that?
Dwight: It’s part of my job.
Jan: No, it’s not. It’s officially not.
Dwight: Noted.

The Office 3.3 The Coup