YOUR DAILY UNDERWEAR: Koi Suwannagate

so this is cool.
Koi Suwannagate, resort 2009.
it's feminine but very strong and strongly sexual (not waifish or angelic or weirdly childish/innocent)
the model florence faivre is so perfect for this
she should wear those things every day
the above 2 are my favorite (not the 1st tho) because they are so womanly...they would work on 20 yr olds and 40 yr olds equally well...the cut of those pants is making my dog hump me...also they are "modest"--in that they cover up the skin and aren't tight-- while being very sexy and showing off the body like crazy. it's this sort of serene, powerful, mystery sexy thing; the wearer is being almost overly sexual while also being "appropriate". on the other hand i am all for The Display of Skin and do not think that that is any less sexy than this. it's just that this (this covered-up sexiness) is something that a lot of people want/try to do and it is done here sooo well.

i probably would have been OK with the following 2 if they hadn't been so sad and I-WANT-TO-BE-LANVIN-esque. but, helas...
this material looks so heavy it is weighing down my eyelids i SWEAR. it also looks like this cheap-ass tablecloth we use when we are sure to be spilling juice. no no no.again: it is a big heavy bag that does not look like linen and does make you sweat. i also HATE where the ruffle/skirt-like attachment is placed; i hate obvious fashion and this isn't exactly where they (ruffle/skirt-like attachments) tend to be so i appreciate that i guess....but no. absolutely not.
ok
eat the dump
HALFF

YOUR DAILY UNDERWEAR: Erickson Beamon

What brought this on was that earlier I was looking though the Spring edition of Elle Accessories and on every jewelry page an Erickson Beamon piece caught my eye. Like no other pieces, just those, on ten pages or something. So here it is:
Karen Erickson and Vicki Beamon are really interesting because they don't have this one look that they consistently create like most designers (most designers will have their one idea and then add a concept or two or some theme for a collection). Instead they do this thing where they do have their touch but experiment with so many looks that a lot of the time the stuff is totally not recognizable and you would just never guess it was them.
For example here is their old-lady-with-a-brooch style:
it is interesting and different but that is the general idea...
compared to their boho stuff (which i prefer..):
i love these because they're boho-gypsy-native-american in a really non-offensive/-pathetic way--like if you are the kind of person who wears really effing expensive clothes and 3 million hundred thousand dollar bags etc and then you're in mexico (true story) and you find these made-on-the-street, one-dollar-a-pair fantastic earrings and they are just great, well then fine that's cool (yes, yes) but it's also a little bit dishonest and a little bit not frank. i mean it's like you're wearing these "exotic" earrings which you think are cool because they are so cheap and great and made on the street.. but that's not who you are, really..
I just think there is something so frank and straight up about these--they aren't diamonds and glitz and "rich" style; they are glamorized folky things made for a certain lifestyle where folky things have to be glamorized. so fabulous..
i found these too which are really cute (and again--totally different from the other designs):
again they're so funny because looking at them like this i sort of feel the urge to buy them for my little sister who just turned 12...but when you zoom in a bit they scream EVEN THOUGH I AM TEN AND I COULD GO TO CLAIRE'S AND BUY STUPID BUTTERFLIES FOR 2 AND A HALF BUCKS I WANT TO BUY THESE BECAUSE I AM RICH. and it's sort of nice and (again, i know) honest and sweet.
plllleeease eat the dump
HALFF

YOUR DAILY UNDERWEAR: Sonia Rykiel Accessories, Spring 2008 RtW

so while the rest of the world has moved on (they moved on a few months ago) to bigger and better things (or just more recent things)--2009!--i am just stuck stuck stuck on sonia rykiel's accessories.
i do tend to be stuck on her stuff because everything about the label is so well thought out and very much to my taste: the collections make sense, the selection of models makes sense with the collection and the label and also the models are just fab, the shows really take it all to another level while still retaining the collection's personality--adding not too much but not too little, and even the name (SONIA! RYKIEL!) fits.
the other thing is that both she and her daughter have this thing where they are funny (they sell sex toys now...) and don't take themselves too seriously (hello, sex toys...) but are still serious about their work (hello, perfect accessories) and always look very, very, very intimidating in pictures.
ohhhhh!
i thought i would have pics but it turns out they are nowhere to be found so go to http://www.soniarykiel.com/
and be sure to check out the glasses! i wear glasses every day and i do think i need those red/red-orange darlings!
also eat the dump

YOUR DAILY UNDERWEAR: Vogue Italia's Black Issue

so i was perusing blogs yesterday when i came across Vogue Italia's Black Issue in its entirety at Fashionista.
and i felt compelled to say a few words about that darn thing because it is probably the most racist thing ever.
the basic idea is that an issue with only black models is a "black issue"--a different issue, an out-of-the-ordinary issue--and that a magazine which features primarily black models is a "magazine which features primarily black models": whereas an issue with all Caucasian models is just an issue, and a magazine which features primarily white models is just a magazine (a mainstream magazine which does not cater specifically to white people). the implication is that whiteness is the norm and that whiteness is relevant to every other race, and that Caucasian-ism is this sort of base from which all other races come.
but thinking about it in terms of the reverse situation really does the trick, i think: you walk into a magazine shop full of magazine covers all featuring a black model/model of any other race (Vogue has an actress, Self has a smiley muscly person in a bikini, etc etc); the only white-modeled covers are in the WHITE corner which holds magazines geared specifically towards white people... Here whites become the minority, the alienated, not the mainstream.

what also struck me was that the black models/black people featured in the issue mostly had very traditionally white features. they were also not very dark. of course that does not take away from their blackness but racism is not only about the actual race (white vs. black, for example) but about color: dark vs. light. it wouldn't have bothered me so much but two or three times I HAD TO REMIND MYSELF they were black. i mean i thought i was looking at white women. when this happened it wasn't because of the models' looks necessarily but a lot because of how they were photographed. so i thought that was bizarre, really.

Jessica at Feministing gives her opinion here.

otherwise (well yeah..) the issue was really, really beautiful, really well-done, the photography by Steven Meisel was genius... a quote of his has been floating around, too: "I thought, it's ridiculous, this discrimination. It's so crazy to live in such a narrow, narrow place. Age, weight, sexuality, race--every kind of prejudice."

this got me thinking a little bit about how there is so, so, so much focus on fashion's weight issues, especially--because in terms of modeling there are few issues to choose from (really only the physical aspects)--and I think that that attention was definitely well-deserved a few years back but now the attention has become routine and almost useless (and, like with skinny jeans, i do think the public is getting a little bored) whereas almost no attention has (really!) been paid to fashion's race issues, which are a lot more serious, i think, for a couple different reasons: a relatively short time ago curvier shapes were in, then muscles were in, etc, so body-trends are pretty fluid and change quickly i think; also skinniness does have to do with genetic disposition but also very much with eating, so demanding skinniness is demanding a behavior--whereas demanding whiteness is demanding something that is or is not, that can't be changed: i think that is a lot more offensive.

all right well
great photography anyway :)
definitely take a look
and eat the dump, please
HALFF

YOUR (second) DAILY UNDERWEAR: fall 2008 RtW, Paul Smith

so i know it is a little late for fall 2008 reviews but.
my father and i were talking fashion yesterday á table which was really very nice and he told me that he loves Paul Smith. this surprised me because my father is not mushy-fat but you know--hard-fat?? he has a sort of hard, big stomach...anyway it surprised me because as far as i can tell Paul Smith stuff is only designed for that long, lean body (maybe even a younger body) and really just has to do with lines (which is very beautiful and i think very beautifully done in this case) and so i didn't quite see mi padre looking good in anything like that: attire that is serious in the sense that it requires the wearer to look a certain way to wear it and makes the wearer look silly/sad/pathetic when they do not meet the criteria..i told my father i'd like to see him in a more alber elbaz-esque get-up which has more to do with a sense of humor (my father doesn't dress with a sense of humor very frequently; when he does he wears tiny little bathing suit-shorts with big shirts from africa and humongous [see monstrous!] new balance sneakers...) but he is really fixated, i think maybe on the socks...so i have taken a look at the fall 2008 RtW collection and here are my thoughts:
first-off i do not like the "general idea" which is not even very clear to me but seems to have to do with clowns, punk, boarding schools, waiters, crocodile dundee, pirates, pyjamas, outer space--all in order of appearance, as i am writing this while going through the slides...
well i do not like things to be so jumbled if the jumble is not even the point.
here are some of the worst:

now what exactly do we think is going on under that coat? maybe it is a satin tie that looks like my 12-year-old sister's best friend's bathing suit. yes. or (i had a think!) maybe it actually gets tucked in and wraps around to the other side, thong-style (yes, yes) where it reattaches to the neck. i'm actually quite sure that's it. it's a neck-ball-neck thong. honestly i don't know what to say. (it's just so genius!)

again--what is going on under that thing? this may be even worst than the last because he's not even working the hideousness of it; it's like at the last minute they decided maybe it would be very, very smart to put a big black band around his middle for no apparent reason, and then maybe he thought people wouldn't love it so much so maybe he would try to hide it, but then he realized that because of the strange way he walks, closing all the buttons would not work (the entire jacket would undoubtedly fall apart), but he had already done up the top buttons and he had to get walking IMMEDIATELY! sooo the three belts/two belts and a big and thick rubber band went on display, really just encased, really just the center of attention. lord. really i am all for adventurous fashion but i like everything to have a reason to be and maybe i am just being slow but i am certainly not grasping the intention behind this.

the issue here with me is that the jacket looks (and the image quality here probably doesn't let you see it) so cheap and thin and not right for what it seems like it is supposed to be: more formal, maybe--i mean the shoes and pants are so great and heavy and suited to autumn, the shirt fits with that, and then we get this sort of light, drab, pajama top-like thing...if that were the point i wouldn't mind it but i get the feeling it was supposed to be more intense on top...looking at it, it sort of seems like it's just mismatched to its outfit, like it was just supposed to go with something else...anyway looking at it is giving me a migraine so on to...
some of the best:

i am a great fan of this look: the suit itself is cut beautifully but more classically than the others so pulling off the patterns is easy--however it doesn't really seem like it was designed that way (the non-confrontational cut) because of this balancing issue but just because it is better that way (less kid-trying-to-make-people-look-at-him, etc). the colors play off each other well, the bag is fabulous (not even the bag itself but just the idea of the bag being there), the model (who is he?) also is very much suited to the look. there's also this big dose of charm involved: you definitely see him in a certain setting, he definitely leaves the runway (i see a college campus and books??) and lastly the clothes are wearable and gorgeous and expensive and practical all á la fois which is great. oh it is making me sigh.

so this is predictably gossip girl but there is enough going on that is not (gossip girl) to make it work. i think that the strength of it is really its interestingness--the mix of totally different components that work so well together. of course i am madly, madly, madly in love with the jacket/blazer and will be procuring it for my future (very, very, very future) son. the only thing is that i don't love the shoes but anything else would have been a distraction probably.

the cleanness and the lines here are so awesome (imagine my big/hard-bellied daddy in this..), the thin belt is perfect because, as people often forget, simplicity is very powerful and even overpowering and produces the same sort of effect chaos in clothing does, the shoes and glasses also work to counteract the effect the the simplicity; i do love extremes but the beauty in this is that is is impeccably balanced out.

well. there were also some brightly colored pants that were nice but a little boring, maybe a J Crew + American Apparel mix; there was one long sort of trench-like coat that i gasped at (it was so great, really); and pretty, boyish cardigans.

but no time!
so eat the dump, please

YOUR DAILY UNDERWEAR: my intro

happy sunday!!
i have been reading other bloggers' 1st entries for quite a while now and i am still not really sure what i want to go with... ( happy and cute?? fierce?? funny?? to-the-point? witty/sharp/british??) so i am going to go with some relevant facts and maybe (!) informative parentheses if i feel the need:
-my name is HALFF
-i am young and located in jersey, usa which is really funny
-this blog will discuss all things pop culture but mostly fashion, music, movies, celebs, books, current events and other blogs about the above...all only if deserving of my time, energy, blog space etc..
K thats it
eat the dump