It's a strange thought that in an explosion clothes and people are equally reduced to dust. Today my class and I were shown a largely unaccessible footage of 9/11. Witnessing disaster always makes you think. This video even more so. Maybe because it was closer to what the New Yorkers might have seen on the day than any other.
There was a particular close up of one of the towers from which some people were seen stepping out of the windows. One of them is in flames, or clearly struggling with some burning object or jacket.
It is painfully real yet I can't help thinking about the apocalyptic end of Fight Club. I am witnessing the destruction of the financial centre of the Big Apple. That was a day when the Fight Club cynical humour was appropriate. I am sure women did not bother taking off their heel shoes before running for their lives (as they suggest you do on airplane security drawings). You just run the best you can in such a case - heels or no heels, pain or no pain. Not that many people managed to reach an exit, other than the windows.
From the ground around the World Trade Centers the commotion is increasing. People are gaping at the towers, too shocked to know what to do. It is a bit like an erupting volcano: a disaster too overwhelming to comprehend. I am still overwhelmed every time I see a video of 9/11.
It is not long before the first Tower falls crumbling to its base. Its Twin follows and leaves the site in clouds of smoke and dust. The volcano has erupted. Two of the tallest buildings in America have disappeared within minutes.
The most uncomfortable feeling I have is to know that the people I saw stepping out of the windows, probably some 80 something floors above ground, never escaped.
We then see clouds of dust. People running from the tsunami of smoke. Smoke under which were buried thousands of people and tens of thousands of clothes and shoes when we think about it.
I can't stop wondering though if even in the apex of disaster we don't cling to stupid little things like a watch, a necklace or a pair of shoes. Maybe more victims than we think died with a fashion item or accessory in hand simply because it had a particular significance to them.
It doesn't make any of this less terrible but it's nice to know small things can bring even mild comfort at the worst of times. Who said you can't walk through Heaven and Hell clutching your favourite handbag!
Tuesday 30 September 2008
Girls like boys like girls
Androgynous fashion. We have all heard of it, it is everywhere. Designers love it and it has to be said, a man's shirt over opaque leggins and a cincher belt do look great. But what about another close trend: masculine fashion?
Yesterday I bumped into an article on Agyness Deyn and lesbian fashion. I was told that with the affluence of boyish styles around, lesbians were at risk of being robbed of their style.
It is the endless question of clothes and sexuality. Does cropped hair, a waistcoat and a tie make you look gay? It certainly does in a gay club, but how about in a heterosexualised space? Probably not.
Why? Because Agyness Deyn, Keira Knightley, Sienna Miller and the likes would all be dating each other. And so would any other girl who likes waistcoats and baggy jeans.
The author has a point when she says it can be very confusing for the gayday (that amazing radar detecting who's gay and who's not). But what does it mean at large?
Lesbians have their own style (like Punks, Emos and any other self-identified group). And they claim it. But it is worth asking where that style originates from.
For a long time lesbians were believed to be men in wrong bodies. A claim made by psychologists and sexologists a century ago. That was the start of identifying a masculine woman as a lesbian.
Obviously things have changed. So why cling to the idea that masculine fashions belong exclusively to gay girls? True, girl that dress like boys and look like girls are sexy - men as well as lesbians will agree. But I think it is time to put aside the term "lesbian fashion". Because mentalities change, clothes change and sexuality changes.
That lesbians favour the angrogynous style is great, but any girl looks fabulous with an edge to her femininity so let everyone experiment with the other sex's clothes!
Yesterday I bumped into an article on Agyness Deyn and lesbian fashion. I was told that with the affluence of boyish styles around, lesbians were at risk of being robbed of their style.
It is the endless question of clothes and sexuality. Does cropped hair, a waistcoat and a tie make you look gay? It certainly does in a gay club, but how about in a heterosexualised space? Probably not.
Why? Because Agyness Deyn, Keira Knightley, Sienna Miller and the likes would all be dating each other. And so would any other girl who likes waistcoats and baggy jeans.
The author has a point when she says it can be very confusing for the gayday (that amazing radar detecting who's gay and who's not). But what does it mean at large?
Lesbians have their own style (like Punks, Emos and any other self-identified group). And they claim it. But it is worth asking where that style originates from.
For a long time lesbians were believed to be men in wrong bodies. A claim made by psychologists and sexologists a century ago. That was the start of identifying a masculine woman as a lesbian.
Obviously things have changed. So why cling to the idea that masculine fashions belong exclusively to gay girls? True, girl that dress like boys and look like girls are sexy - men as well as lesbians will agree. But I think it is time to put aside the term "lesbian fashion". Because mentalities change, clothes change and sexuality changes.
That lesbians favour the angrogynous style is great, but any girl looks fabulous with an edge to her femininity so let everyone experiment with the other sex's clothes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
