Am I too Pollyanna-ish if I Suggest We Not Shit on Each Other?…
About critique and especially in fashion …
About critique and especially in fashion …
So something kinda got to me recently and I drafted a response, erased it. Chalked it up to none-of-my-business-slash-maybe-I’m-overreacting.
And then it happened again. So now I’m going to try and explain.
Incident 1
The first thing that got to me was on the blog The Flair Index, which I love. It’s helmed by a former fashion editor with a minimalist approach; I love her writing, her work, her style, and generally what she stands for. It’s not always “me,” but I love it. In a story on Street Style Takeaways, this writer and fashion industry vet says, “Today, the way people dress in the majority of street style photos taken at fashion shows is beyond my scope of understanding or appreciation, many look ridiculous–I never see people walking down the street like that, even in NYC. There are breakthroughs and women who put things together in novel ways that is inspiring, or they just nail a certain look I like and make it seem rather effortless (because that’s how an outfit should be, not contrived and contorted).”
The thing that got to me was “ridiculous.” Many look ridiculous. That very judgey word. And also “that’s how an outfit should be.”
Wow. First I think of all the people out there during fashion weeks, the time that went into these looks. The hope. For many it’s probably a dream moment. These are people trying to express something. It may be your style or not. It may not be effortless or minimalist. But ridiculous? Nope. Nothing about putting yourself out there and experimenting, exploring, expressing is ridiculous. It’s brave. No matter whose taste it is.
And there’s a different between critique and judgement. Critique would be — “I love a minimalist aesthetic and feel it serves me well as I move about my real life. At Fashion Week I saw nothing on the streets that felt relatable and real.” Sure, fine!
See that’s about the style not the person. And about critique versus judgement. “Ridiculous” inherently contains strong judgement. Def: deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.
But if I were to say this in the comments, that would be calling someone out, the writer, whose work I love! And I realize — I hate calling each other out. Especially among women. I’d be engaging in the very thing I don’t like. I go back to Madeleine Albright’s “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” There’s a whole world out there willing to rip into us as women. Why rip into each other? So I didn’t. And then came …
Incident 2
This second, mini-gasp moment was on the instagram of a stylish person I love love love to look at, Sarah Rutson (endless, impeccable creds), who went on a big anti-SATC reboot style story.
There’s the caption part, screenshot above. (I think but can’t be sure the “to me!” was added later. Regardless, I don’t think it makes a difference.)
And then there’s the story part, which started with:
“The whole joke of SATC ‘styling’ is on who exactly at this point?”
I was stopped in my tracks — just the scare quotes around styling, implying: you can’t even call this styling. I was taken aback that someone would come so hard for another’s passionate work. Without even knowing the context, what the scene called for, etc. But maybe I’m a baby. Pollyanna. Right?
Next up — showing a head-to-toe look by Falguni Shane Peacock — which is based in India and looks heavily rooted in its traditions. Rutson commented on this look “it’s just heinous at every stage.” Really? It can be different. It can be not you. But this feels just so judgey. And not informative. It’s not your style. That doesn’t make something inherently heinous.
And then, on the SATC styling: “It’s actually a total mockery of style full stop…” It’s the “full stop,” like thusly it has been declared. The end. I don’t know! Really?
Then in the story we get all of Ms. Rutson’s own looks (every single one pretty mind blowing and inspired, chock full of ideas) and why they, by contrast, work.
So I did comment. I wrote this— “I love everything and deeply admire your talent (and have since forever) but I don’t love the judging tenor of “atrocious” — to me it’s subjective and experimental — and above all it’s work done by a human being who is passionate and I hate tearing each other down as we express ourselves learn and play with clothes.”
Her response:
“ I respect how you feel and your personal feeling of opinion it’s not for me to judge as it’s yours . I do not doubt passion of the stylists on SATC …. Indeed I would says we are all passionate about what we do ……. An opinion on any design or art/ creation is built to evoke an emotion and a feeling. …but with that there will always be different opinions good and bad …. My emotion when I personally see these outfits evokes the word and feeling of “uugghh atrocious “ another woman said she was “pis#ed” and angry that women in their 50/ were depicted as “pathetic desperate clowns “ , one person said here they personally loved it ….. these all valid PERSONAL perspectives I don’t judge them …. Public creative output is there for a critique …. I love people have different takes and viewpoints …. No one is wrong ….. you judge my use of the word atrocious as if it’s a personal attack to the stylist … it’s a word that evokes my personal emotion that is all ….. creativity is there to evoke something …. More than anything creativity for the most part to me is not there to be vanilla or evoke NO emotion at all that would be indifference and indifference would be really the saddest outcome of all !!!!!!!! ….. regardless SATC is making people think and talk about fashion and style and wherever their personal narrative is to it sometimes uncomfortable sometimes glowing …. I never want to be in a place where we read a critique after a show and they say nothing at all and sit on the fence …. Everyone has a style and a point of view , mine stands as it is on this one ….. occasionally I get really passionate about something and SATC styling has brought it out in me …. I so look forward to seeing if I will see far more outfits that I will adore in the show …. Not a hater or tearing people down …creativity is there to evoke passion .. either way …. I stand for let none of it be vanilla … and SATC love it or hate it it’s not vanilla ……..”
So. Am I soft?
My thing here is that there’s so much of an expanse between “vanilla” or “saying nothing” and “atrocious” “heinous” “mockery” — which are so out there I’m not sure they advance the discourse.
And these responses that there’s a duty to keep it real, to have a discourse, etc. imply that there’s inherent value to the criticism that can’t be achieved without a less judgmental form of observation. And that for me to say so is sort of Pollyanna-ish, with the inevitable result a world of bland custard. But are either of those things the case?
I think about the widely acclaimed and deeply missed LA food critic Jonathan Gold. How not only beloved but also revered he was by the most expert foodies and fellow critics out there. In his LA Times obit, there’s this:
“Jonathan was an unusually generous critic. He could make a restaurant but he would never break one.
Unlike so many restaurant critics who seemed to derive pleasure from composing the clever and quotable put-down (as, for instance, New York Times critic Pete Wells, who infamously compared the soup at Manhattan’s high-end Per Se to “bong water”), Jonathan was never unkind.
This empathy did not lessen his impact as a critic; on the contrary, it conferred a kind of superlegitimacy on him, as chefs knew that he knew what they were trying to do, even when they fell short.”
I don’t think there’s this big important duty to criticize fashion you deem “bad.” But even if you think there is, I think it can be done in a way that’s interesting and not uber judgey to the designer, wearer, or stylist. Each of them is doing their work for a reason just as valid as yours and just as worthy of respect and kindness.
This empathy did not lessen his impact as a critic; on the contrary, it conferred a kind of superlegitimacy on him, as chefs knew that he knew what they were trying to do, even when they fell short.
And oh yeah, 3
Funny story. We had a very challenging client who loved the logo and visual package they selected. Lots of lovely comments, etc. Then they disappeared for 6 months. When they returned, they told us they had talked to their cousin who is in marketing and “she had some concerns that echo our concerns.” (!) Apart from the obvious (logo approved, ghosting for 6 months, contrary feedback out of the blue, etc.), it bothered me but wasn’t unexpected in this business that someone would come in having not been a party to a single discussion, and offer this sort of feedback. It made me wonder who the cousin was, so I googled her. The first thing I found was a huge opinion piece she wrote for Adage criticizing The Met’s new logo: “the Metropolitan Museum of Art is on the verge of making a major mistake. The new logo is, in a word, unbecoming.”
LOL. Says. You. That was 2016. The logo is still in place and so is the Met, it would seem. Both doing pretty well, whether or not either one is your jam. Of all the things I’d want to be out there writing about and making a name around, devoting so much space to negative impressions of someone’s work would not be high on the list.
In fashion, this right/wrong kind of judgey criticism is worse than in ad world, though. Because in fashion, in street style especially, it’s a person putting themself out there, a person saying “This is who I think I want to be.” Why not admire that effort and vulnerability?
I don’t want to unfollow either of these stylish women. And I don’t want to put a damper on fashion criticism. But I do think there’d be even more of a discourse if we didn’t act like we had the definitive answers. And instead just respected anyone out there trying to find them. And in the process, ourselves.