Fashion feeling’s fucked up

“Wear this denim skirt with a white blouse and dark panties.”
“Don’t combine black with black.”
“Never wear two prints together.”
Everyone with a slight interest in how to look good in clothes is being hit by millions of advice: do’s and don’ts. Ignorance is the best way of handling them, I guess, because those tips are in fact not more than a attack to your own taste. Why should we only wear one print at a time? Because when you would be seen by a fashion editor, she would think you’re dressed in a wrong way? But people who dress differently are remarked and called ‘self-willed’ in a positive way. So tell me, why would we listen to advice that changes every time a new collection is showed?
 Lady Gaga: which came first: chicken or egg?

Fashion designers like people that inspire them, like Lady Gaga (it’s up to you to decide whether she’s worth it or not!), but do you ever hear them talk about people who always wear exactly what they made? Let me tell you this: they find it probably quite boring that someone only wears catwalk copies instead of having a personal style and taste. You have a lot of people though, who only care about ‘the newest! the latest! the real!’. Par exemple Anna Dello Russo. She has an appartement for clothes only, because she has so much clothes and shoes that she needs it. Straight from the catwalk stuff, worn once or not and then a news collection arrives and the ‘old’ clothings can’t be worn anymore. Imagine that she would be seen in a pair of trousers of last season… As a fashion director you can’t do that. You’d deserve to be banished.
. Anna Dello Russo, can you even remember this dress?
It is a weird life when you have so many stuff that you are not able to wear everything, and that you wear everything just once. For average people this is impossible, and in fact it is really decadent. Today’s tendency, dear readers, is that you have to renew yourself every time. Every f*cking time you show your face, you should surprise, shock, entertain. You should be feminine, a little bit male and completely up to date. Because – and this might just be the most surprising thing – that would mean you have ‘feeling with clothes’. You’re ‘fashionable’.
Daphne Guinness Daphne Guinness attends the launch of NARS 15X15 a project to celebrate 15 years of NARS at Industria Superstudio on November 12, 2009 in New York City. Daphne Guinness, please shock us!

Permission to doubt all of that? Thanks. I’m not an obedient fashion magazine reader. When someone tells me to do this, I’ll want to do that. Et cetera. Therefor I’m not ‘fashionable’ and so on. But a few weeks ago I combined a  sweater/dress-sweater I bought two years ago with a new pair of stockings and I rediscovered the beauty of the sweater. In my very humble opinion, that is more ‘feeling with clothes’ than Anna Dello Russo has. Clothes are not disposable things. The Zeitgeist wants us to cherish our clothes, to buy clothes that will last long time. The new luxury, remember? Why are fashion pioneers not participating? When, oh when have we stopped thinking for ourselves?
Please. Do me a favour. Wear what you want to wear, don’t mind the opinion of fashion people/magazines and so on. What do they know? In the end, they have to change their mind every collection. We don’t have to. Hell to their opinion, we’ll have our own!

1984 – Is it horror or heaven…?

Seldom have I read a book as scary as 1984 (George Orwell). No skeletons, no blood, no living dead or any kind of horror like that, but the frightening fact that we’re not free at all. You might think we are free in our minds – we aren’t. Everyday we’re being influenced a lot, without even noticing it. But there are worse kinds of influence.
There is nothing that can’t be changed. Even your thoughts are not more than things with no mass that can be changed into anything. You can believe that killing a murderer is justice. But the murderer probably believes he’s done the right thing. And with a little effort you can convince everybody of one of those two opinions. Everything is relative. (Believe me, I don’t like saying this things because they take away all certain things)  One day you might think this, the next day that. And what will be the right sight? I’m drenched with this mentality because the book forces me to overthink this. It forces you to doubt every single thought, every single conviction. It takes away every feeling of safety because of your belief in your own righteousness.
We should all be able to doubt our opinion but we also should be able to hang on to our goodness. I don’t dare to judge anymore though. I want to be good, but that’s pretty hard when you don’t know what good is anymore. It is time for me to divert and comfort myself, so I can think again  ;).

Read this book when a) you want to read a classic novel
b) you want to think about freedom
c) you need something that scares you subtly
d) you need to overthink good and bad again
e) we actually should all read this to feel free again

The Dutch Wiki-page about the book has some mistakes, don’t read that but read the book. Think about good and bad and justice. Safe us  ;).

The Ultimate Dancing

A new season of SYTYCD started on the Dutch and Flemish TV-stations. Dancing programs are booming here, you have SYTYCD, The Ultimate Dance Battle, you had Dancing with Stars and Stars on the Dance Floor etc.
When the program is about dancing (and not about famous people who learn to dance) you mostly get funny, great or touching moments. Like Isabelle Beernaert’s choreographies, they are mostly strong because of the true-harted emotions, and this one is my favourite of her. Just a piano and a voice (Adele’s powerful voice) work most of the time. Add the really good dancers and blend with colours: Someone Like You.

The Devil and Miss Prym

Is human nature bad? Would we kill for the greater good? Even when the greater good will turn out to be egoism? Paulo Coelho asks us this when reading his book The Devil and Miss Prym. A small village full of hard-working people is offered a great opportunity that could save them from their good but boring lives. But they have to kill someone. Anybody. Chantal Prym is the messenger of this deal, made up by a strangers that stays in the village for a week, whether she wants it or not. She starts struggling with good and bad, angels and devils. The villagers are struggling to get the possible murder justified. All because of the stranger, he wants to know if human nature is bad.
While reading, you can’t escape asking yourself the same question. Will they kill someone? Is it possible to murder when you take somebody’s innocent live? Would I be able to do that?
The answer is mostly frightening: we don’t know, but we will all try to get our choice justified, whether you kill are not. As soon as you suceeded in justifying, you could do anything.
To know how it ends, read the book, you probably won’t regret. It’s written in an accessible way, it doesn’t feel as a ‘heavy’ book. At the same time it makes you doubt human standerds, human moral, compassion and choices.
Would you kill for a better live, even when you always liked your ‘old’ live?

Twisted beauty of Anastasia


Anastasia, Inez Van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin, 1994.

For me, this is a great picture. It has the whole story of Anastasia Romanov captured in it. At least, I think it’s about her :). You can see it the way you like. But the mix of vulnerability, the ‘mask’, the hair, the shoulder,… It all fits.
Inez Van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin are famous photographers. They always seem to show something beautiful, but at the same time edgy, not right, somehow twisted. As far as I know, of course. I like their work a lot, because they can give you the feeling there’s something not right although you don’t know what it is. One look is enough for you to feel a bit uncomfortable, and at the same time you just want to look at it. Attractive and a little repellent, beauty with a rough border.
To know more about Anastasia Romanov’s story: watch this. Or look at Wikipedia, but right information can never be ensured.
For more Inez and Vinoodh: this might just be your place to be.

Parental advisory… what for!?

Ever seen this sticker on one of your CDs? It says that your parents should sit next to you while listening to your music and tell you when something is too explicit. (Like any parent does that. Or maybe in America)
The first CDs that got this ‘warning’ were metalCDs (Danzig, Guns N roses, etc.).
In my humble opinion the sticker is often exaggerated. Avril Lavigne’s album Under My Skin got one because she used the word ‘shit’ in one of the songs. Like you don’t get to hear that daily.
But why do metalCDs get this warning? It’s not all about violence or drugs or death…
Like Dio’s song Don’t talk to strangers. That is parental advisory, it doesn’t need it. Parents should be happy if their children listen to this kind of educational songs.
And there are other examples. Rainbow in the dark (Dio) – about the art of nature, wouldn’t you think?
Holy Diver (Dio) – about religion and holy people (or at least that’s what the title makes you think)
But seriously.
…And Justice For All (Metallica) – says it all.
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (Iron Maiden) – based on an old poem.
Lord of the Flies and other songs from the same artist – based on books, so it encourages children to read.
Run to the Hills, Iron Maiden again, “discusses the violence visited upon Native Americans in the 19th Century” (Wikipedia). It seems to refer to the Sioux wars sometimes. It’s a good thing to remember things that shouldn’t have happened so we can avoid those things in the future (like we don’t make the same mistakes all over again).
With Paschendale they remind World War |. Again, things that shouldn’t be forgotten.
Then we also have Tool – Vicarious. Might seem violent, but in fact it’s about today’s perversity: we all need sensation, we all need to “watch things die”. Wherefor are there gossip magazines? To read about how happy all famous people are? This world sometimes bases itself on our urge for sensation. Have you ever seen people staring at a burning house, while not helping or anything? Exactly.
So why would we warn people for music that actually wants to make you think about today’s world? R&B never started a revolution. Punk did. Metal did. (Punk and metal were both an urge for freedom, I believe, and of course punk was related to anarchism)

I can only give you a tiny amount of songs to prove that metal is not a superficial, violent music genre. Maybe some groups are violent etc., but we all should know that less appreciated songs can be more meaning.
And I might still add some other songs.

Angry Matryoshka Alert

For me, this counts as a good poster, don’t you think?

Thank you, Wiki.