March 14, 2011 § 5 Comments
We’re not keen on negativity here at Mannequin World. If you don’t have anything nice to say, and all that… But anything that makes it all less exclusive and wanky is alright by us. I’ve always thought that style shouldn’t be the realm of a clique of skinny, monied harpies, or those who seem to roll out of bed and ooze style (when actually all they’ve done is run through Urban Outfitters smothered in glue).
Dressing oneself isn’t rocket science, but there are those who would have us believe otherwise. Take this trend of creating new garments by sticking two together – the legging that looks a bit like a jean is a ‘jegging’ and the skin-tight, stretchy trouser is now a ‘tregging’. It all bands together to create an “it’s all Greek to me” ethos, which is not what fashion should be about. It should be fun, frivolous, creative and daring – not something that means you need a thesaurus before you open your wardrobe in the morning.
Not that I’m condoning this, but purely for illustrative purposes, here’s a list of cut’n’shut clothes that we’ve have made it onto the high street:
Jeggings: Leggings that looks like skinny jeans (specifically, they have faux jean pockets and sometime **vom** zips)
Tregging: Leggings that looks like trousers (not to be confused with jegging)
Coatigan: Cardigan with a coat appearance – not to be confused with the Cardigown
Cardigown: Cardigan, usually long and belted like a dressing gown. “Like a dressing gown” is the key phrase here, when wondering whether to purchase or not.
Mackets: A cross between a mac and a jacket
Shacket: Jacket that looks like a shirt
Shoots: AKA shoe-boots – I’m actually quite a fan as these are far more flattering to one’s ankle than ankle boots
Mandles: Sandals for men
Skorts: Shorts that look like a skirt – otherwise known to sensible folk (and those who grew up in the 80s) as culottes
Whorts: Thick shorts, normally worn with tights in winter – “Oooh Madge, love those whorts! Where did you get them?” “I got them from my OH the other week!” I don’t think so. Again, I actually love the shorts n tights winter combo, I am merely pointing out the superfluous nature of these definitions.
And let’s not forget the cosmetics: manscara and guyliner; marketing (as Punt & Dennis point out in their new tour) purely by inserting the word ‘man’ into already established products. Genius. Or not.
So this is why I love this glorious sketch the OH found on YouTube the other day. Watch and giggle…
October 28, 2010 § Leave a comment
In recent weeks, Mannequin World may have given the impression that there is no such thing as too much leopard print. That you can slap those spots on and the only possible harmful effect would be an excess of slinkiness. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Leopard print is a dangerous fashion protocol, to be applied only under controlled circumstances.
Take this dress from River Island. It looks like it’s got body con styling, with some flirty ruffles to soften the look and V-shaped mesh inserts to flatter and shape and the waist. “If I wear that,” your dazzled brain begins to whisper, “then I’ll look a bit like Rachel Bilson in Cavalli.”
So you try it on. But you do not look a la Bilson. You look like you’ve dressed up as Halle Berry in her “sexy secretary” role for the 1994 Flintstones movie, and instead of exuding the glamour of a person with a fabulous party to get to, you look like you’ve been turfed out of a cosplay convention specially themed around the dreariest scrapings of the pop culture barrel.
Is it because the one-shoulder of the River Island dress is a bit too Tarzan? Is it that the fabric doesn’t have the subtle drape and flow of the silk chiffon Cavalli? Is short and tight and leopard so much sexy that the high street dress vaults over “hot” and into “camp”? Whatever the ultimate explanation, the important thing is that the closer you get to spending three-and-a-half grand on a dress, the less likely you are to look like Fred Flinstone’s office tail. Use this new knowledge wisely, oh my mannequins.