Why does Fashion hate Breasts?

I had hoped the plethora of crop tops in high street shops was just a phase and not a portent of things to come. But alas, the return of the crop top was apparently a mere warning shot across the bow and now 90s fashion seems to be commandeering the fashion industry in full force. If my tone thus far was somewhat unclear, this is not particularly welcome news to me. 

Perhaps my lack of 90s enthusiasm is because it makes me feel old seeing teenagers wearing the clothes I wore in my youth 'ironically'. But I think that is only a partial explanation and the main reason I do not intend on embracing the current 90s fashion trend is that 90s fashion was not particularly bust friendly. Wrestle a crop top over my ample assets and it's not just a strip of belly that's exposed but my entire torso. 

The Cut has put together a slideshow of the numerous 90s-inspired slip dresses that were showcased at New York fashion week. While the teeny-tiny straps ensure that the dresses appear to 'defy gravity', they are not very practical for the vast majority of women whose busts need a bit more support. And the contours of the average woman's body completely destroys the simple and minimalist silhouette that these dresses are trying to create. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the population can wear this kind of dress and have it look like the designer intended - so why do designers bother?

My friends and I have had this discussion on numerous occasion. One theory is that the fashion industry is dominated by gay men who have little interest in feminine curves. I remain unconvinced by this theory since Marilyn Monroe, Tina Turner and Mad Men's Joan Holloway are all beloved gay icons and none of them resemble the bony, boyish models seen on the runway. 

A theory that I think has more traction is that designers don't really care about the bodies at all - they care about designing something that plays with textures, colours, lighting, structure and proportions. For maximum creative freedom, a blank canvas is required and the shapeless, breast-less models we see today on the runways are probably the closest thing you can get to a blank canvas in human form. Hadley Freeman argues, somewhat convincingly, that this is perhaps a good thing. In a society obsessed with women's bodies, it's refreshing to have designers make clothes purely with texture, colour and structure in mind, irrespective of bodies.

And yet I find Freeman's article somewhat unsatisfying. Perhaps because, ultimately, my large breasts aren't going anywhere without major surgery and they need to be clothed appropriately. Yes, fashion is a wonderful way to express thoughts and ideas but there is also a practical component to it. Fashion needs to be worn and it doesn't seem unreasonable for designers to consider this factor when designing their collections. And anyway, Freeman's argument only really applies to haute couture fashion designers; for the people designing for Topshop or Banana Republic, wearability is surely the most important consideration. I don't mind the use of outlandish proportions or materials to express an idea or philosophy on the runway but when it comes to shopping for my wardrobe, I just want a shirt that will button up comfortably.

---

For those who share my plight:

• Karen Millen does excellently tailored jackets that are more accommodating for big busts
• Boden does lovely tops in soft jersey that are bust-friendly
• Bravissimo has a clothing line, Pepperberry - while the fit is certainly good, the fabrics can often feel and look a bit cheap
• Ralph Lauren shirts are often pretty good for the busty

Edward II for the Youtube Generation

I saw Edward II at the National Theatre on Saturday with some uni friends and it was marvellous. I had expected a very dry and serious evening of ye olde English theatre; what I got was perhaps the most surreal production I have ever seen. The staging was both innovative and utterly bizarre; I spent most of the evening staring perplexedly at the madness unfolding in front of me.

The production was a strange merging of old and modern. Characters had telephone conversations in Christopher Marlow’s archaic English. Chambray shirts and skinny jeans were mixed with brocade doublets and plate-mail armour; everyone looked like medieval hipsters. The set looked like a pop-up store in Shoreditch with shipping containers festooned with knick-knacks like taxidermy animals and retro light fixtures.

The most interesting aspect of the staging was the use of video. The stage was separated into a front stage and a back stage. When scenes occurred backstage, obscured from the audience, the action was projected onto giant screens on either side of the stage. These videos felt kind of like a mockumentary or the behind the scenes videos from a DVD boxset. When the barons laid siege to Edward II's castle, the stud walls of the set were torn down, finally exposing the backstage to the audience. This seemed to emphasise Edward II's vulnerability as he stood amongst the wreckage of the set. Some people may find this a bit gimmicky but I really enjoyed it. For some of the more intense scenes the cameras got very close to the actors’ faces, creating an intimacy between actor and audience which is normally lacking in theatre.

I’m finding it very difficult to explain the surrealism of the staging in words. In the middle of a battle scene, soldiers in full armour danced the hokey cokey. If you like your Elizabethan theatre authentic, this is not the production for you. But if you want to see a witty and creative take on Christopher Marlowe’s dramatic tragedy, I highly recommend it.

Sibling Bonding Day

Every year my brother and sister and I have what we call a 'sibling bonding day' in which we spend the day doing touristy things around London. It's possibly one of my favourite days in the year.

 Started the day with breakfast at Pain de Quotidien. You can tell that Alex is enthused for the day ahead.

 Pedalo ride at Hyde Park

 Beautiful gardens at Hyde Park

 Wellington's Arch

In the afternoon we went to a lecture at the Royal Society (which, as you can tell from the above, I was very excited about).  The lecture was about children growing up in abnormal situations and their ability to cope with traumatic childhoods. 

One of the speakers was Emma Donaghue who was talking about her book, Room. Emma's book is about a woman and her son, held in captivity, as told from the perspective of the son. I was originally wary about a story told from the perspective of a child; Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible includes frequent chapters told from the perspective of Ruth, the youngest child of the Price family, and I always found these to be the weakest of the book. Ruth's voice always seemed contrived and a bit gimmicky. But this is not the case with Donaghue's excellent (and haunting) book. I would highly recommend giving it a read. 

It seems to have gained new salience given the recent Castro case and it's apparently going to be made into a film. I'm not entirely sure how that's going to work since the interesting and arresting point of the book is that it's being told from the boy's point of view. This may be hard to translate onto film. But I'm interested to see whether or not they pull it off.

One of the other speakers spoke about his work studying Romanian orphanages. I recently read a really fascinating article on Romanian orphanages, which can be found here.

Outside the Royal Society with my sister

Baby Steps for Diversity in Fashion

 

Eden Miller’s Spring 2014 collection is the first plus-size collection to be shown at New York Fashion Week. A number of blogs have been pretty excited by this development, hailing the decision as a sign of growing acceptance of a broader range of acceptable body shapes in fashion.

I can’t help but feel a bit more sceptical. Of course this is an immense honour for Eden Miller, and I in no want to downplay this success, but is having a token plus-size show really a sign of acceptance? It smacks a bit of ‘separate but equal’ rather than a genuine move towards greater body diversity.

If there were real acceptance of bigger bodies in fashion, then surely larger bodies would feature in all the shows, not merely the ones specifically for plus-size clothing lines. Seeing JennieRunk modeling clothes for H&M gives me more optimism for body diversity in fashion than Miller’s collection at fashion week. So does Todashi Shoji’s collections which are flattering for larger women but aren’t compartmentalised as fashion that is separate and other from the mainstream fashion shows.

I think it’s great that Eden Miller is showing a collection at fashion week and I agree that it’s a first tentative step towards greater body diversity in fashion. But I will, for now, curtail my excitement. A Slate article covering Miller’s collection asks, “will fashion care?” I’ve been pretty meticulously covering the fashion week coverage from a number of fashion sites and have seen no mention of Miller’s collection – the answer, unfortunately, seems to be ‘no’,

---

Want to read more about diversity in the fashion world? (spoiler: it's pretty bleak)

- Here’s an interesting article looking at the lack of black models (also – a video)

- This is an old, but still very interesting, article looking at bigger bloggers and how their surging popularity has not translated into recognition from retailers

The Rise and Fall of World Powers

Last week David Cameron had what a lot of people are calling a ‘Love Actually’ moment. Dmitry Peskov, a Putin press aide, purportedly dismissed Britain as a small island that no one pays any attention to and, in response, David Cameron launched into a passionate defence, citing One Direction and Shakespeare as evidence of Britain’s past and present glory.  This has resulted in a bit of soul searching on the part of the British media and a reflection on where Britain really stands on the international stage.

Despite Cameron’s florid prose, it’s a pretty undeniable fact that Britain’s importance and influence as an international power has significantly waned since the World Wars. During the Second World War, Britain accumulated huge debts while maintaining an imperial policy that was well beyond its means. Keeping large-scale military presences in the Middle and Far East pushed Britain into economic disaster domestically, increasing Britain’s dependence on the economic juggernaut that was the US. The Suez Crisis, an Anglo-French intervention in response to Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company, is often cited as a key indication of how delicate Britain’s financial situation had become and how much Britain depended on US support. The US was against action in Egypt and Britain was pushed to the brink of financial collapse as a result of the intervention.

Britain’s decline is, of course, in no way unique. The Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous land empire in human history, crumbled due to wars of succession between the grandchildren of Genghis Khan. In the 14^th century, China was the world forerunner in science, mathematics and engineering. Yet by the early Ming period a form of technical stagnation had set in. China abandoned maritime ventures in the 1420s, just when the European powers were starting to explore the world and establish the empires that still shape the world today.

So if Dmitry Peskov’s comments sting, at least we can take solace in the fact that we are not unique in our decline. And yet, when looking at the relatively recent decline of Britain (and Europe in general), I can’t help but think that there is, perhaps, something different this time around. When the Roman Empire collapsed, despite the Romans' innovation in infrastructure, politics and intellectual thought, Europe was pushed into a period of intellectual deterioration and economic regression. This has clearly not happened this time (although I guess it could just be a matter of time).

While Europe’s importance has diminished, the influence of her history, her legal systems and her political theory are still unavoidably evident in the world today. The framework of international relations, the schemas with which we understand the political world, have been forged by the centuries-long dominance of the European powers over the rest of the world. These conceptual frameworks dictate how we think about the world and how states interact with other on the international state.

Democracy was originally just a name for the form of government devise by Kleisthenes in Athens. By the time of the French Revolution, it has accrued a deeper meaning and was linked to a number of political values such as liberty, equality and justice. Now, it is widely considered the only really plausible or legitimate form of government. Similarly, the Human Rights Agenda, so often invoked in discussions of the recent violence against civilian in Egypt and Syria, was born out of the European Natural Rights tradition. The words we use to describe, and the concepts we use to understand, the world around us are largely rooted in the European intellectual tradition.

So Britain may very well be a small nation that no one pays any attention to. But when the US is arguing with Russia over the fate of Syria, it is doing so using the terminology, the legal framework and the international organisations that wouldn’t exist without Britain’s centuries of global dominance.

NB: this article argues that Europe and Britain are still influential conceptually and legally despite their waning importance on the world stage. This article doesn't look at whether or not that influence is a good thing. If you're interested in that though, here's some good places to look:

 

Fraser A (2005) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Now Who Calls the Shots? 
Ake C (1993) The Unique Case of African Democracy

---

Bibliography

For a great book on the decline of Britain after the Second World War, check out: Heinlein F (2002) British Government Policy and Decolonisation, 1945-1963

For a historical overview on the rise and fall of world powers, check out: Darwin J (2008) After Tamerlane

For a bloody marvellous look at how Democracy became the only legitimate political system, check out: Dunn J (2006) Setting the People Free

I'm Back

I apologise for the blog neglect. I was living in a flat with no internet for a month and a half. But now I've moved flats and the internet is back and I can go back to unexpectedly losing hours of my life by clicking on recommended videos on youtube. It's amazing how productive one is without the constant distraction provided by the internet; I read six books in the last month!

Home Away from Home

A couple of weekends ago I went back to my old college for an alumni ball. Going back to a city where I spent three wonderful years and seeing all my old friends together again was an utter delight.

 Amazing chocolate ganache at the Three Horseshoe pub in Madingley. Such an amazing meal!

 

The whole gang together!