Is coordination a relic?
First, thanks to everyone for your contributions to my "Wanted: Harder Reading" post! I have a list that will guide me for several years, varied, intriguing and motivating. I'm grateful and excited!
The New York Times Style section ran this photo recently; I've cropped it so you aren't influenced by the face.
I stared it it for the longest time.
Reaction #1: "What? Did she reach into her closet blindfolded?"
Reaction #2: "What am I not getting here?"
Reaction #3: "Is my reaction age-related?"
The answers:
1. No, her eyesight is just fine; this ensemble was chosen with as much deliberation as Michelle Obama's ballgown.
2. Damned if I know, and maybe someone will help me.
3. Probably. I came of shopping age in the last great American Era of Coordination, the early 1960s, when a girl's Villager skirt and sweater matched or she stayed home and watched American Bandstand.
I remember my roommate Jodi, just back from an exchange year, saying, "It's so different in France; you see a girl wearing a red skirt and a green sweater!" We were shocked.
While I've moved far from that age's hypercoordination and enjoy odd colour combos or pattern-mixing (mostly on others), that outfit is just... baffling. The preppy cotton blue-striped shirt, the sumptuous silk pants: neither refers to the other in hue, weight, sensibility. To my eye, the pieces fight when paired.
That striped/floral mashup is on Jenna Lyons, adored and honoured Creative Director of J. Crew; she chose it to wear to the line's spring launch.
Lyons does occasionally wear quiet, complementary hues:
But she also wears this:
I find Lyons talented and striking–but can't get my head around that first ensemble. Women in my age bracket (I'm 64) fret about what we can wear well as we grow older. There seems a point where many of us lop off the audacious end of the coordination continuum.
Or maybe, if you started choosing your own clothes around the time Lyons, 44, was born, you never went that far. In the '60s, a woman in Jenna's first outfit would have looked mad; we coordinated early and often, as shown in this '60s photo:
Was I imprinted? Today, I find certain mashups outside my comfort level. While I'd eagerly wear those green floral pants, I'd choose a shirt that picks up one of the colours. I'd wear the striped shirt with jeans or maybe with red cords- whoo-hoo, wild!
Coordination doesn't have to read like a '60s flashback; Advanced Style showed style icon Linda Rodin, in her sixties, coolly coordinated in black and turquoise.
I admire Rodin's chic from tip to toe, and more to the point, understand it. And she says she wears her strand of grey pearls "every day".
What's your coordination quotient? Your take on Jenna's ensemble?
The New York Times Style section ran this photo recently; I've cropped it so you aren't influenced by the face.
Reaction #1: "What? Did she reach into her closet blindfolded?"
Reaction #2: "What am I not getting here?"
Reaction #3: "Is my reaction age-related?"
The answers:
1. No, her eyesight is just fine; this ensemble was chosen with as much deliberation as Michelle Obama's ballgown.
2. Damned if I know, and maybe someone will help me.
3. Probably. I came of shopping age in the last great American Era of Coordination, the early 1960s, when a girl's Villager skirt and sweater matched or she stayed home and watched American Bandstand.
I remember my roommate Jodi, just back from an exchange year, saying, "It's so different in France; you see a girl wearing a red skirt and a green sweater!" We were shocked.
While I've moved far from that age's hypercoordination and enjoy odd colour combos or pattern-mixing (mostly on others), that outfit is just... baffling. The preppy cotton blue-striped shirt, the sumptuous silk pants: neither refers to the other in hue, weight, sensibility. To my eye, the pieces fight when paired.
That striped/floral mashup is on Jenna Lyons, adored and honoured Creative Director of J. Crew; she chose it to wear to the line's spring launch.
Lyons does occasionally wear quiet, complementary hues:
But she also wears this:
I find Lyons talented and striking–but can't get my head around that first ensemble. Women in my age bracket (I'm 64) fret about what we can wear well as we grow older. There seems a point where many of us lop off the audacious end of the coordination continuum.
Or maybe, if you started choosing your own clothes around the time Lyons, 44, was born, you never went that far. In the '60s, a woman in Jenna's first outfit would have looked mad; we coordinated early and often, as shown in this '60s photo:
Was I imprinted? Today, I find certain mashups outside my comfort level. While I'd eagerly wear those green floral pants, I'd choose a shirt that picks up one of the colours. I'd wear the striped shirt with jeans or maybe with red cords- whoo-hoo, wild!
Coordination doesn't have to read like a '60s flashback; Advanced Style showed style icon Linda Rodin, in her sixties, coolly coordinated in black and turquoise.
I admire Rodin's chic from tip to toe, and more to the point, understand it. And she says she wears her strand of grey pearls "every day".
What's your coordination quotient? Your take on Jenna's ensemble?
Comments
In contrast, the blue and purple outfits are just so, so eye-numbingly boring, and it's entirely due to the matching - that blue sweater with a pair of black pants and maybe a yellow or pink scarf could be quite nice, but not as they stand!
I don't think I speak for a generation, but I'm 29, and my personal sense of style is more like the Rodin picture you link - neutral colors work with each other and provide a good background for the colors and textures that stand out, which, in turn, should at least be on speaking terms in either color or texture.
Having an outfit where your top half hasn't spoken to your bottom half since Britain retreated from India just makes no sense.
That said, the first picture really looks like something a person might throw on when escaping from a fire, or one of those "odd" people taking to herself on the bus. It just looks wrong - nothing ties it together, even as proper contrast.
I actually like Ms Rodin in the Advance Style photo, and it is rare that I find their models dressed with charm and wit.
At the same time, I don't find the combination to be awful or ugly, just not something I would choose. I think it's another example of something akin to runway fashion not being what we wear in real life.
For the record, while I've come to enjoy pattern mixing in small doses after much experimentation, I feel best when my outfit creates a unified whole. That doesn't necessarily mean matching, but as you say, coordinating.
Also, context is a lot. My tall and thin dissertation director--often garbed in full Burberry regalia--once came to class in those uber-preppy 4 color corduroys. This was about 30 years ago and I can still remember how no one in class could pay attention--we all avoided looking! Yet I can see Jenna in these at a fashion event.
I'm still trying to wear my pearls with casual outfits! To me, they don't go with casual clothes--even though I DO understand the concept. So, we all have certain things ingrained.
But, in fashion, it's always about selling. For a company like J. Crew, there is nothing else.
Not only does it misfire in color and weight of fabrication, it misfires in levels of formality. Of course she is promoting a brand which is (attempting) to straddle age brackets. I suppose buttoning the shirt all the way to the top is an attempt to coordinate the formality of the pants to the casualness of the top, but it leaves me cold and wishing for a lovely cashmere sweater!
But being at the launch of the new line, she wanted attention for it and certainly got ours.
Jennifer
Lately, I try to be less critical of other people's style. If I saw this outfit on a person on the street, instead of rolling my eyes I would try to tell myself "If this outfit makes her happy, why not?". But then I doubt that I would find someone genuinely dressed in this outfit on the street (except maybe if one is vying for the attention of the sartorialist).
On Lyons, I ask myself whether this outfit is "genuine" or attention seeking/trying to be cool? I see a similar (lack of) aesthetic in the JCrew catalog, a kind or everything goes with everything philosophy (or delusion).
I imagine the pants with a refined white shirt a la Ms. Herrera, contrasting color shoes, a belt in another contrasting color, a necklace in yet another color, and I would call it bold and tasteful. But as it is, with the fresh-out-of-the-dryer shirt tucked in haphazardly into the pants, and this on someone who has access to all fashion resources imaginable, I find it sad.
As a mom of a toddler and baby I myself sometimes leave the house in a random top and random pants. I wonder whether I should start feeling cool on those days instead of feeling like a mess. Hey, maybe Lyons only wants to make us feel better.
Thanks darling Jenna, nice try! I still feel better when I make an effort.
irem.
I live in flyover country, and if I showed up in an unmatched ensemble I'd be treated like a crazy relative you have to invite but don't like. That is, an outfit like that wouldn't make me look fashion forward, it would be fashion faux paus.
Darla
If I were to redo it I would use a crisp white shirt over a silk tank and add masses of pearls and some bright pops of jade or coral into the mix.
If she feels confident and pulled together I applaud her bravery. It is just not a look that I admire.
But on the runway these days there are very few ensembles that excite me.
C.
I don't live in New York or L.A., so I can't say whether this kind of outfit is common there. Around here (Houston) she would just be stared at, mostly. Houston socialites (of which I am not one!) are big customers of couture, but judging from the pictures I see, they are more into the coordinated look. People like Lyons, I think, are living in a very insular world, where other fashionistas, and the media, are convinced that whatever they wear is fabulous. Who in Lyons' world would ever tell her she looks ridiculous? Meanwhile, the rest of us see that the Empress has no clothes, at least nothing that WE consider stylish. Especially women in our age group, who tend to have well developed senses of style and are not desperate to be trendy, unless the trend happens to fit in with what we like and know looks good on us.
---Jill Ann
Ros: Again, it's a function of 'where you were when'. I was too old by then to even think of Buffystyle.
lagatta: It did *if* you were a hippie chick. However, preppy coordination - the look at many US campuses- thrived alongside the rags and feathers. When I abandoned them for Indian tops, my girlfriends raided my J Crew roll-necks. Now I wish I had them!
Yes, Advanced Style skews way further toward the "creative" than you will see in the Passage.
Susan: I found the J Crew runway better styled than her outfit!
Pseu: Think you;re on to something! And fact is, an appealing 20 yr old can look fetching in her hodge-podge. Many of the young women here dress like thant but it's more likely from jumble sales or Value Village.
J Crew is a pricy way to get that effect!
coffeeaddict: Thanks for providing the younger woman's opinion. The shirt and pants n fact would have fit in perfectly in other eras, '50s or '60s.
frugal: Anyone except a few editors (and a very few at that; Suzy Menkes comes to mind) in the industry are notably thin. But though clothes sow well on thin figures, that still does not make them attractive to me.
Susan: Drop by on Jan. 31; I'm showing a pearl reno of my own pearls. Might give you some ideas ;)
Jennifer: Agree a lot of it is about attention, but I also found shots of her in quite quiet combos and a stunning pink coat. I don't think she has to dress like that to be admired; women love her.
And yes, the more clicks the better for J Crew.
Evelynne: 41 is the age when you can look back and recall these clothes the first time around (worn with coordinating pieces) but young enough to branch out a bit... nice.
Anon@10:15: Many have commented in the past on the jumbly styling of J Crew's catalog and web site. I do think it is somewhat age-related, as I see young women today wearing things my contemporaries would have thought would not work- and sometimes they do.
nobody: LOL! Even one of my Parisienne friend's' daughter e-mailed me to say the same thing.
Darla: In fact was tempted to do just that and see how I felt. But know- just weird.
hostess: Your restyling is consistent with those of us with more classic, conventional taste- and a different aesthetic. I would wear the pants but am pretty sure they are dry clean only. There is a skirt in that print too. Short, as you would expect.
C. That's the word- risky. Much less chance of being misread on your daughters.
Shelley: Oh yes! Mothers meant well, but what an undertaking. And good point- Lyons is 6 ft.
I also think JCrew is crap, excuse my language, but that's probably a separate issue.
---Jill Ann
Gauss: Agree about vast middle ground... and think as I age it contracts.
MMeLà-Bas: Not a look for short/curvy but neither is a good deal of J Crew. Their cut is close; fit model must be an 18 yr old vegan.
Kathy: Love the jeweled/jeans effect; you GO!
materfamilias: Well, this IS a tempest in a teapot, and the world has many other matters to which to attend!
JillAnn: It's thestre, no? So we might buy a piece and feel raffish even if we don't bend it like Lyons.
Their quality varies, but whose, apart from higher end lines like Stella McCartney's, is not?
I'm in my early thirties and I firmly believe in coordination. Not Matchy Matchy, but a certain togetherness that conveys purposeful dressing. I'm a woman with purpose, why should I dress like my breakfast includes a bowl of oatmeal, a cup of tea and a sturdy lick off one of those psychotropic frogs?
It's the same thing with hair that looks messy on purpose. I'm all for casually tousled, and never regretted missing out on the once a week wash-and-set but I like to carry myself with a bit more polish than a "I overslept and brushed my hair with a toaster strudel" look can afford.
BTW, I'm new to your blog and just adore it, and not just because I'm rarely seen without pearls. Thanks for writing such fun posts.
First time commenting although I have been enjoying your blog for a few weeks now.
So, after that soupçon of oversharing, I'll say that I'd consider myself a harmonious dresser. Shocking for shocking's sake is, in my opinion, not the province of those of us on the far side of the yardarm.
Rhiannon: You are very welcome here; it always heartens me to see younger readers @ blog written for women past 50 and their voice is an addition I appreciate.
Rubi: Is that yardarm or keel ;) ?
Anon: We tend to forget what the world was like before a woman in the middle of nowhere could get Italian silk flowered pants delivered to her door.
I keep hearing that the quality is uneven but the few things I've bought bought in the past 5 yrs have been acceptable. Not disagreeing, just trying to sort out the plus and minus of JC. I do like their revival of heritage brands like Red Wing and the wedding dresses that cost hundreds, not thousands.
Swissy: We do look at them longer, as we scratch our heads... but cannot get myself to want to try this look no matter how much nerve I could muster.
His remarks are here:
http://blogs.ft.com/material-world/2013/01/16/j-crews-mickey-drexler-on-the-elephant-lurking-in-the-luxury-industry-room/?
As for Jenna Lyons' first outfit, I'm in the minority, but I don't find it all that jarring. The blue shirt reads as a solid, so it looks ok to me. On the other hand, the second outfitm with the rugby stripes, is heinous.
I'm not convinced of the conspiracy theory. Deliberate mis-matching is a style that conveys a certain free-spiritedness, but which requires pretty strict parameters to pull off. This doesn't mean you'd need to look beyond your own closet, though.
I don't see so many actual people who dress like Jenna:).
Anon@10:19: Thank you for the much-appreciated pearl support :)
LPC: I see it on 20-sometings but it's a 'street' look, not business. My age bracket risks looking like the cataract surgery was unsuccessful.
The more extreme pattern clashing, particularly in the first photo, does not work for my mid-40s eyes.
It conveys to me a continuation of what my friend Greta called the "poor chic" style of her beloved Bennington classmates -- wrinkled, torn clothes, worn with a shiny Rolex.
From my earliest adult years, my instinct was to "cut" a look, i.e., to omit something expected, or wear one thing of contrasting tenor. It was a mostly subconscious desire to convey confidence, to avoid looking like I'd bought into something hook, line, & sinker. My aversion was how my sorority sisters dressed, but my cautionary mental image was Julie Kavner as Rhoda Morgenstern's apprehensive sister, fretting over her bag not matching her shoes. Today, we'd say I wanted to convey irony.
To see this ultimately reflected in J. Crew's pages was at first mystifying, and turned increasingly fun, as they moved from contrasting just pattern and color (like melon chinos with a faded navy shirt), to grafting texture, mood and level of style, as in the first Jenna pic. I bite exuberantly into the luscious peach of such freedom-in-glamour.
For many reasons, I have never found room in my wardrobe for garments a la those glittery silk floral pants, but I find every one of the pictures you've selected fabulous. (Except for the third one of the divine Jenna. And that's probably because the skinny pants thing mystifies me.)
Thanks for the opportunity to think this through, which has me concluding that our individual style lenses are borne not of age, but of the style influences we came from.
I'm 48.
Bisous!
I do actually like those 60s outfits (partly because they look warm!) but you can find similar examples of matching in current outfits if you look.
While 17 years age difference is not a generation, I sense it is, in terms of aesthetics. My friends and I would have gently asked the girl with no earrings (but pierced ears) if she had been asleep when she got dressed.
We were conformist even when trying to be unconventional. When we became hippie chicks we just traded uniforms. Seventeen or so years before you were reaching for irony, we would not have read your artful omission.
Eventually some of us built that eye but when I go back to my home turf I still see the girl fairly often, now an elder, co-ordinated and usually quite coiffed.
Eleanorjane: Sometimes I see a young woman in such a look, down to the penny loafers and cabled tights, but she is usually (in Montreal) wearing it ironically, with one of those undercut hairstyles.
They usually had a colourway that, if not coordinated, at least was complementary, in the pattern mix. The key technique, especially for Koos, was patchwork, and piecing is a very different mood than top-and-bottom mismatching.
I had a major crush on those boho clothes in the 70s and early 80s, wore Koos, Little, Diane Frès, Thea Porter, all that riot-of-pattern... but would not have put a menswear striped button front shirt with those plus silk flowered pants.
Yes, haphazard is the word- and these pieces were not made to be mixed, unlike some of the designers we remember.