I have a feeling that this topic does not interest knitters but it is important to formulate it to myself and this is why I am writing this. During the recent weeks I read several posts that can be generalized in the following way: "suits/is flattering" is not synomymous to personal style. Careful, it is a long text.
Üks iisraeli stilist on päris huvitavalt analüüsinud oma blogis (vene keeles) populaarse blogija postituse. Kui te ei loe vene keeles, seal on screen-shotid ja tolle blogija põhiteesid inglise keeles. Blogija tegi eksperimendi, läks mitmesse poodi ja palus sealsete stilistide teenust. Sõnastas nii: tehke, et mulle sobiks figuuri järgi (inglise keeles on olemas sõna "flattering", mida on raske tõlkida, aga et figuur paistaks võimalikult ilus ja kena). Peab ütlema, et proovikabiinis telefoniga pildistades ei saa ikkagi adekvaatset pilti kasvõi nurga tõttu. Blogija laitis peaaegu kõik komplektid maha, tehes järelduse, et ilu on vaataja silmis. Mõni tahab muidugi veel kaugemale minna ja öelda, et paha moetööstus määrib meile pähe jms, ei viitsi jätkata (selle peale ütlen, et see on väga mugav viis panna maha igasugune vastutus, paljugi mida kusagil arvab, inimesel on vabadus oma peaga mõelda ja oma silmaga vaadata). Pealegi on teatud optilisi seaduspärasusi, mis mõjuvad nii või naa, kas seda pidada ilusaks või mitte, on muidugi ise asi.
An Israeli stylist has provided quite an insightful analysis of a post by a popular blogger on her own blog (in Russian). If you don't read Russian, you can see screen-shots and the main conclusions by that blogger in English. The blogger in question made an experiment, she visited several shops and asked for a stylist service. She rendered her request in the following way: she wanted something flattering. One has to say that taking photos in a try-on cabin with a telephon would seldom give you adequate pictures, at least because of the angle. The blogger disliked all outfits and arrived to a conclusion that the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. One can of course go even further and state that "dreadful fashion industry is imposing images etc" but I don't bother to continue this line of thought (I just say this: it is very convenient to avoid responsibilty; there are many things on offer and many opinions, so what, you are free to use your own intelligence and to look with your own eyes). In addition, there are some optical phenomena that affect you in a certain manner; whether you consider it beautiful or not, is a different matter.
Iisraeli stilist vaatab kaugemale ja sügavamale, nimelt, uurib selle blogija stiili ja teeb järelduse, millega mina olen nõus: neiu enda stiil (või ettekujutus oma minast, kui soovite) on midagi niisugust, mida eesti keeles võiks nimetada (ilma halvustamata): "sitsid-satsid" ja "plikalik": käharad seelikud, lühikesed topid jms. Ilu on muidugi vaataja silmis, kuid sama figuuri võib riietada üsna erinevalt. See, mida pakkusid neiule stilistid, võib tunduda ilus või kole või mittemidagiütlev, aga et talle ei meeldinud, ei tähenda, et ei kaunista figuuri, vaid pigem seda, et ei vasta tema ettekujutusele iseendast. Vene keeles on hea irooniline väljend: сделайте мне красиво (sõna-sõnalt: tehke, et oleks minu jaoks ilus) ja tihti arvatakse, et see on stilisti ülesanne. Aga üks asi, kui teil on vaja luua teatud muljet, ja hoopis teine, kui on vaja leida oma stiil. All on paar pilti, mis visuaalselt meeldivad mulle, kuid ma ise nii ei riietuks.
The Israeli stylist takes it further and goes into the matter, namely, she tries to get into the blogger's style and summarizes it as follows (and I agree): the personal style of the lady (or her self-image, if you wish) is something that you can call in Estonian (without being pejorative): "sitsid-satsid" (lace and ribbons), "plikalik" (girly): fluffy skirts, cropped tops etc. Of course beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but keep in mind that the same body can be dressed in different ways. What the shop stylists offered to the lady may seem nice or ugly or plain nothing but the fact she did not like it does not mean that it is unflattering to her body but rather that it does not correspond to her self-image. There is an ironic expression in Russian: сделайте мне красиво (literally, make it beautiful for me) and people often believe that this exactly what a stylist should do. But these are different things: making a certain impression and, on the other hand, finding your own style. The next picture shows and outfit I like but I would not wear it myself.
Veel üks suurepärane stilist ja rätsep, kellega olen suhelnud ja kes muide peab lugu kudumitest, kirjutas väga näitliku postituse. Ei pea lugema vene keeles, vaadake pilte. Üks taim, mida võib pildistada erineva nurga alt ja erineval taustal (taim ise on ühe ja sama koha peal, muutub ainult fotograafi asend ja tehnika). On väga palju võimalusi, kuid on ka teatud piirid: seda habrast põllutaime on äärmiselt raske pildistada nii, et see tunduks pidulik ja/või majesteetlik. Sellest järeldus, et muidugi saab mängida n-ö ühe ja sama "faktuuriga" , mis on kellelgi antud, proovida erinevaid stiile, kuid teatud asju oleks raske saavutada ja võib ka küsida, kas on vaja.
Yet another wonderful stylist and tailor with whome I have communicated and who, by the way, likes knitting and knitwear, wrote quite a revealing post. You don't have to read Russian, just look at the pictures. There is a plant that can be phtographed from a different angle and with varying backgrounds (the plant is the same and in the same place, only the photograph's position and photogrpahing technique changes). There are many possibilities but some limits as well: this fragile field plant cannot be presented as something festive and/or grand. So you can drive a conclusion that of course you can play the same "frame" you have got and you can try different styles but some things are very hard to achieve and one can ask whether you need this.
Et asi ei oleks nii abstraktne, vaatame nüüd pilti. Mul on liivakella figuur (või sinnapoole). Tean, et klassifikatsioone on mitmesuguseid, aga, ütleme, figuur on selline, kui on olemas talje ning õlad ja puusad on enam-vähem taasakaalus. Kui kirjutada otsinugsse "hourglass body shape" vms, tuleb väga palju linke, pilte ja soovitusi. Mis ei arvesta muidugi eluviisi (kas mul on vaja õhtukleiti või riietust, et metsas kolada - mul ei lähe vaja kumbagi), näo kuju, näojooni ja palju muud. Teoreetiliselt sobiks mulle selline kleit:
In order not to be overly abstract and speculative, let us look at this picture. I have an hourglass-shaped figure (or something approximating). I know that there are different classfications but, let us say, we are talking about a shape whith a clearly defined waist and hwere shoulders and hips are more or lass balanced. If you google "hourglass body shape" or somethging lik this, you'll get many links, pictures and recommendations. Which of course do not take into consideration your life style (do you need an evening outfit or something to walk in the forest? - In my case, neither), neither the shape of your face, facial features and much other things. Theoretically, this dress would fit me:
But in reality I would not look twice at this dress. Why? It is not me. I do not waare dresses. I do not want to emphasize the waist and the hips. The widening skirt is beutiful but not for me. To put it short, it may be very nice but "not me". But what is "me"`The very first picture (for instance). By the way, this is an outfit by Donna Karan whose designs I rather like. Of course, not everywhere and not in all situations but it is a possibility. One should look at picturea and try to realize what one likes and what one dislikes and why. The latter is extremely important. Some things are such that they can be "domesticated". Some garments are more or less neutral and can be placed into different context and look differently. If you wish, you can reread this post.
Kommentaare ei ole:
Postita kommentaar