Thursday, 31 December 2009
From 'Toppers' (I gladly kill people who actually say it like that). It makes me look like an anorexic victorian, although my hands barely fit through the ludicrously un-stretchy sleeves. I like it though. Oh and for some reason I bought some slashed Hollister leggings in the sale... I think I was hallucinating.
This epitomises my grandad.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Pleated bodice dress
I know what you're thinking. 'How did they manage to find such a vast cockroach?'
It is indeed mind blowing. And not often that you see such an innovative approach to dress making.
Vivienne Westwood Anglomania
Plaid print band mini skirt
Poor skirt. It realised it was ugly checked and pleated like I must have worn when I was 9, and somehow deviated off to the right in a panic.
Cashmere hooded top
Oh dear Burberry... Just because it's cashmere (and £350) doesn't disguise the fact that it's a really chavvy and cheap looking hoodie.
...And net-a-porter.com apparently make no attempt to change my opinion.
Leaf-crepe harem pants
These are just perfect. Now every time I take a shit in my trousers, no one will know.
The most overpriced items in the world:
Christopher Kane £175
Jonathan Saunders £185
Helmut Lang £155
It's a feckin t-shirt.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
The model from lacoste love of pink advert
Keira Knightly (8 months before i got mine but still.)
The model in the toni & guy electrical advert in my magazine. No picture available.
Need I go on?
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Anyway, during these non-spendy weeks, I have made a mental note of things I randomly see and want and am going to buy on boxing day (or not quite so soon). But obviously, a mental note is nowhere near as good as a real note, and who wouldn't want to read my shopping list?
1 - Redken Glass 01 smoothing serum
From the moment it was featured in some magazine I happened to be reading ages ago, I have been intrigued by this product, being a fan of the 'Professional' haircare brand Redken. Somewhere along the line intrigue turned into want-to-buy. The thing that clinched it was seeing a model with a top knot in a magazine. Her hair looked soft, shiny, and tamed. I thought 'hey, I bet Redken Glass 01 could do that.' So there you go.
2 - Some wardrobe basics (sorry for sounding so disgustingly cliche)
In er, peachy colours, apparently.
From left: Topshop, £14; Topshop, £10; Topshop, £14;
3 - Some more True Blood books
My guilty pleasure. Not particularly well written but very plot driven and I fancy Eric (not explaining, read them to understand/watch the eps). I'm up to Definitely Dead and these two are next...
4 - Lipstick Queen Lipsticks
If you've never heard of her, just google lipstick queen. Poppy King only does lipsticks because she loves lipstick. Saints are 10% pigment, Sinners 90%. I'm considering Sinner in red or rose. I'm also intrigued (intrigue has won me over once again) by 'Black tie optional' a lipstick that looks literally black, but gives a berry sheen.
5 - Grey cable tights
The ones I want are actually River Island, but I couldn't get the image of them. I wanted some grey ribbed tights (specifically) a few months ago, but I got side tracked and got some wacky horizontal stripe ones from Topshop instead (imagine some kind of rugby outfit). Now the desire has resurfaced.
6 - Tassle loafers
Brown or black. The ones pictured are Topshop, but at £50 I don't think so. I haven't found any suitable ones yet, but then again neither have I looked very hard. My mum had a classic black pair from Russel and Bromley, but the time came and passed in which I could fit into them (she's a size 3), and I wasn't interested back then. I intend to wear them with my grey ribbed tights!
7 - These beauties
These shoes (Topshop £30) are in fact art. My emotions are a mixture of enchantment at their sheer loveliness, shock at their humble price for all those pearls, and wistfulness at their current out-of-stock status.
Well that's about it, I think. I mentioned earlier about how a real note is better than a mental one, so of course I'm bound to have forgotten some of the things on my list. I won't dare to add up the prices of all the things on my list, because I don't want to find out for sure that I can't afford it all, but inevitably it will be too much. Dayyyyumn.
I couldn't agree more. To illustrate this quotation, I will provide you with some images of various fashion trends that define the word 'ugly.'
Peg leg pants/harems/ankle grazers
I would recommend any of these if you wish to:
- Shorten and fatten your legs
- Wear unsightly and oddly shaped trousers which crease and bulge in peculiar places
- Create the illusion of a very low down pregnant bulge
- Look like a douche.
Fur gilets (especially black ones)
Great for looking like a gorilla.
Baggy, manly, builderish. Ugly.
Whatever the hell this is
So one aspect of fashion I hate is the ugliness and blatant disregard for the female figure displayed in some of its creations.
Another aspect I hate: the way some people put together the most vile 'pieces,' look like a blemange or a general douche and are then called fashionable. Hey, anyone can do it: simply pair a knee length bright floral skirt with a paint splatted velvet crop, add a faux fur belt, some jacquard leggings, and, say, a purple fascinator. Not forgetting, of course, some faded brown scruffy lace ups and grey pulled up ankle socks. How artistic; how, creative and daring yet beautiful? Troll through pretty much every single fashion blog in the world or lookbook etc, and you will find versions of this. But hey, fashion isn't about looking good in clothes! It's about - looking shit...?
On another note, here are some good things I have stumbled upon today that made me feel happy.
- California Select's ebay store. Ignoring the £8 postage
- Oxfam online - actual nice vintage stuff you can get online
- These lovelies from Topshop:
- sold out in my size, weep :(
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
So I was on an intelligent, witty and educated website today called dailymail.co.uk, when I saw this article: 'Plus-size Crystal Renn takes on a typically slim model to prove fashion CAN flatter any figure.' I laughed when I discovered that, in fact, it CAN'T.
The size zero looks better. I find these two images are the best for comparison, as it's plain to see that the high waisted skirt just makes the size 16 look dumpy. It's also too short for her and is borderline tacky - surely they gave them two different clothes sizes? On top of that, her legs look chunky and the ankle socks just shorten them. But the size 0 has the other extreme: her legs look long but far too thin and bony.
One model is too thin. The other is overweight. Why does it have to be anorexic or size 16? Surely slender yet healthy 8-10 (UK) models are the best of both worlds? Problem solved by Fay.
I liked it when Mark Fast used a couple of 10-12 models along with his conventional ones at his catwalk show. They fitted the clothes just as well as the skinnier models, and you didn't have to worry about them snapping or collapsing.
The title of my post sums up my (dad's) theory of why models are getting so skinny. It's because most fashion designers are gay men. Size 0 models are not shapely, they are straight-up-and-down. They don't have boobs and bums. Neither do men. Therefore gay men, who fancy men, would consider size 0 more beautiful than bigger sizes. I can't imagine how it would be women who fabricated this stick thin ideal, as it's pretty obvious how much they are now all protesting about it.
Monday, 21 December 2009
school finished for christmas last friday, and we had a non uniform day. there was in fact no point of us going to school that day at all, as we didn’t do anything except eat and watch people humiliate themselves. obviously most people failed to dress for the weather, which was freezing. Oh, except some of the year above, who were trying to outdo eachother by being the most daring and creative on the ‘winter accessories’ front (furry hats). I passed chewbacca on the way to the locker room.
our living room is looking ludicrously christmassy. my mum seems to have got carried away and put christmas lights on our ugly leafy plant, and decorating our stair bannister with a complex tinsel and baubel structure. I for one have spent many stressful nights arranging our early arrived presents under the pathetic 2ft tree: achieving the right balance between big and small, wrapping colour, and recipient of present. It’s tough.
Luckily everyone seems to have recovered from the tragic advent calender realisation - we tried to buy a calender so late that there were no average ones left and we ended up with a picture one (it, er, glows in the light) and some sort of advent ‘crackers’ shit. My attempt at creating a revolutionary calender out of an egg box failed. I’m going to watch dollshouse now.
Friday, 18 December 2009
I'm such a sheep. I started blogspot of my own accord, i.e. found it without the influence of my schoolfriends. But I was, in fact, copying people after all, as I was writing shallow, pointless drones of fashion shit I'm not even interested in cos i thought it would get me famous. So i switched to stuff I actually care about (see my later posts.) Yet, as is the way with me, I got borrrreed. Ignored the voices in my head saying 'you need a blog to be a journalist..' and 'it will help you get into CAMBRIDGE!' - and tuned out.
Few weeks later (every day of those being guiltily reminded of my little blog, usually followed by at least 10 seconds worth of debating whether to go back), I log on to facebook late at night and guess what I see... 'blah blah blah blah blah.tumblr.com' says someone's status. What's this? I think. Someone else... someone else got a blog? I hesitantly followed the link and honestly, I was pretty impressed. So of course, with glittering starry eyes I join tumblr - dutifully, almost robotically.
It's a bit shit. But then other sheep like me get one and try to act all vintage and chic. Multitudes more appear on facebook every day: the minute I log on I'm bombarded with random french-named wannabe tumblrs (mine's called lavenacava: it's latin so it doesn't count). So i'm kind of not impressed with tumblr and am henceforth returning to blogspot, where i belong. But tumblr or blogspot, they're both still blogs.
And the moral of the story is, I was too meek to advertise and display my blog before everyone else slowly began to cotton on. Now, if I post my little tuppenceworth of a blog on facebook, people will roll their eyes. They will roll their eyes and they will snort and they will sigh. 'Another one,' they will think as they sharpen up their stabbing knife, rightfully so.
Therefore, either my blog will remain hidden for ever, or return when all the fad has died down, as a late, stale, slow old man, which is probably worse.
Going back to the fact that I have two blogs. I have two blogs. What a weird, surreal and unfair situation to be in. It means if I post something on one, it can never grace the pages of the other. However I have a very excellent solution: I will simply copy and paste my good tumblr posts, of which there are about 2, and put them in some artistic format like italics to let you know they have been resurrected from the graveyard.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Isn't it great? And isn't religion shit?
I wish I could have been a part of the 4,680 atheists that donated £5 to run the advert (see this article, and while you're there, read the comments: I found them delightfully intelligent and engaging). It was in response to a previous Christianity advert, leading the population to a website which tells them they will face torment in hell if they don't convert.
I am an atheist, and as much as I enjoy it I believe arguing the existence of God is pointless. It will get you nowhere. Because your opponents have 'faith,' and, well, 'faith' is above logic. It is IMMUNE to argument.
Thus, we must target the agnostics: these wondering, pondering, floating masses. Imagine it: the theists and the atheists in a furious race to recruit the 'neutrals.'
Richard Dawkins didn't consider this, and turned into a blithering angry man preaching atheism to bloody bishops. - Not gonna work. I love that he's trying, but with all due disrespect it's getting embarrassing. He's not exactly the image that I would like to represent atheists.
On a final note, I would like to express my hatred for the way that religion is forced upon children in schools practically before they're toilet trained. It's just bloody unfair. Everyone deserves a chance to make up their own mind before they're brainwashed one way or another.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
No. I'm not going to turn off the standby light on my television. No, I'm not sitting in a pitch black or freezing cold classroom at school. And no, I'm not going to purchase solar panels to put on the roof of my house.
I think it's about time someone told the blunt truth about climate change. And to help me are the good old BBC news website. Browsing the website today, I found the article: 'What happened to global warming?' and it proved to be an excellent starting point for this post. The article states 'The warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. [...] For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.'
What's that? So - hold on: the earth ISN'T actually getting warmer right now? That surprised me. With all the fuss about global warming, no matter how pathetically trivial, I would of at least thought it was actually HAPPENING. What's important is that my surprise came with no hint of relief. To be relieved about something you need to have been worried first.
Fact: climates change. The earth's temperatures have been fluctuating for as long as it has existed - there was an ice age, for god's sake - and somehow I don't think that was caused by car exhausts.
Short of going back to living life like we did 300 years ago, there's nothing we can do that could remotely change the environment. And believe me, you're going to be hard pushed to find ANYONE that would give up so much, no matter how much they care about polar bears and shit.
Goverments' climate change policies don't DO anything; they weren't designed to DO anything. They were designed to make people feel like they're being beneficial, to keep people happy. Recycling? - On too small a scale to do anything, and always will be. A tiny, tiny percentage of what you recycle is really used for anything worth it.
Solar panels? - Utterly crap, terribly inefficent, end of.
Turning the lights off? - When public buildings such as schools and the like urge you to turn the lights off when you leave a room, the last thing they're concerned about is the environment.
Heating? - See above.
Standby lights? - Don't you DARE try and tell me that leaving that pathetic little orange light on my TV on is going to kill a polar bear. I WILL strangle you.
Do you want to hear about a real issue? We could feed the world on the food that is thrown away BEFORE it even reaches the supermarkets.
Debate THAT. Unless of course, you're still too busy raving about dying polar bears to focus on dying children.
'timeforchange.org' would, of course, disagree.
'The main cause of global warming is in mankind's attitude to Nature.'
Sure, sure. Oh and also, WTF? That's not even a proper cause. The second I see the word 'nature' written with a capital letter, the culprit loses all credibility it may once have had, and I run a mile whilst doing my sceptical eyebrow raised face that I practice viciously.
I'll leave you with this. Think of the sheer vastness and massiveness of the sun. The sun heats our planet, rememember? Now think of switching off a lightbulb in your home.
Trust me, although you might think that's helping at all, you cannot compete with the sun. And (excuse my nonscientificness) if the sun wants to intensify and make our planet hotter, there's nothing we can do to save ourselves. END OF.
Thankyou for listening. You may want to know my opinions on other ethical issues, and my attitude to animals *stifled laugh*. If so, then let me know you're interested and leave a comment, or follow me. Right now I'm thinking 'screw fashion for the time being.' But once I've had the chance to have a nice old topshop trolley dash (I wish), who knows what will happen.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
I'll leave you with some nice pictures of stuff I like.
- Vintage from absolute vintage
- Alexander Mcqueen
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Not this time, however. For the first time in history, mine are actually quite ok. In fact, I seem to have ended up with two pairs.
The brogues are from Topshop and the other ones are from Schuh.
We started off at Schuh, then went to John Lewis, Next, even Barrats, and back to Schuh, where I eventually got them. My mother had previously turned them down on the grounds that they weren't practical (or too flat, or something), but by this time she was weakened and exhausted, so it was easier to persuade her. (I'm not a complete psycho/sociopath.)
I found comments such as 'The ones in here are very ugly as opposed to completely hideous, I spose' to be quite handy when used with impeccable timing. Because if I didn't deploy my wonderful rhetoric skillage, I would have ended up with vile, chunky, fussy shoes.Shoes for pampered children with over protective parents. Shoes with STABILIZERS. STRAIGHT JACKET shoes. You get the message. But i want to have hardcore shoes. Shoes that shout, 'I'm damaging my feet and am too poor to afford sturdy shoes, but I'm way too hardcore to care.'
SO ANYWAY. When we got home, my mum started to regret her decision. I could see where she was coming from. I mean, these shoes weren't disgusting. She hadn't done her job properly. So she offered to get me a second pair, a slightly more practical pair. For the days when I'd have to do a lot of walking. I pointed out to her that I would never wear these 'practical shoes' if I had the option of wearing some nice shoes. But of course, maybe I could find a shoe that had both qualities... Practicality and style. I hesitated - was I aiming too high? Was I just setting myself up for my dreams to be shattered?
But in the end I got some pretty damn cool brogues.
Saturday, 29 August 2009
It's not exactly mankind's boldest creation, this dress. It screams 'I'm preppy and can afford Hollister' (which I can't, really). After years of not allowing myself to become yet another follower of what is surely just a small seagull, I've finally blown it.
To tell the truth, those years may have been filled with wistful gazings at pretend shopping bags I created on abercrombie and fitch and jack wills - but every time, I pressed the small red cross at the top right of the screen. Because I was too good for them. By not pressing 'buy' I was maintaining the small ounce of individuality I had.
I'm not saying that the stuff is boring. It's just that it's too easy to be labelled well dressed or fashionable if you shop at a lable like Hollister. It's almost cheating: throw on a polo and wave the logo in everyone's face, and there you have it. Where's the challenge? I just don't like it (please note: my dislike is not in any way fuelled by resentment or jealousy).
It's not as if the dress was easy to obtain. This shop is pitch black. I have to squint to see the actual clothes, let alone the prices. Apparently it's their 'theme.' Pffft. Then there was the nauseatingly long queue. No, I literally went through hell for this dress that a billion people already have.
But why? Why did I buy this dress if I'm so opposed to the whole idea of brands like Hollister?
I didn't. My mum got it for me. We went in out of curiousity, she offered to get me something; and for god's sake, why would I say no? I love getting new things.
There we go. My beliefs and philosophies were totally trampled by my greed.
On the subject of Topshop, a sweater arrived today from there. It has SHOULDER PADS. Should be interesting. Oh yeah, I shop in Topshop. Surely that's not in the same category as Hollister. Is it...? ..Nah.