Jälle faktuurist/On texture again

Kavatsesin kirjutada jälle faktuuridest ja eile sattusin ühe vene päritolu ameerika stilisti sellisele postitusele (vene keeles). Mistõttu mõtlesin, et pean kirjutama pisut teistsuguse rõhuasetusega, mitte nii, nagu algselt kavatsesin. Kui vene keeles ei loe, pole midagi, seletan ära. Idee on see, et jämeda tekstuuriga reljeefne sviiter kanda kalliskivide jms ehetega. Nii et tuleb pikk tekst.
At first I was planning to write about texture but I came across this post by a Russian-origin American stylist (in Russian). Therefore, I decided to write from a slightly different angle and not as initially intended. If you don't read Russian, no problem, I will explain. The idea is to combine textured chunky sweaters with fine jewelry (precious stones etc). So get ready for a lengthy text.
Pean ütlema, et selle stilisti maitse on minu omast üpris erinev. Pole hea ega paha, lihtsalt erinev. Tavaliselt loen tema postitusi hea meelega, et järele mõelda. Antud juhul on teema väga tänuväärne. Rubriigi nimi on "Why it works": stilist analüüsib, miks mõni ootamatu kombinatsioon on hea (tihti saadavad lugejad vastavaid küsimusi). Selline lähenemine arendab tohutult; püüan alati niiviisi arutleda ka oma kudumite üle (samuti on oluline diagnoosida, miks mõni asi ei tööta).
I have to say that our tastes are rather different. Nor good neither bad, just different. Usually I read her posts with pleasure in order to think over. In this case the topic is very promising. The rubric is called Why it works: the stylist analyzes why a certain paradoxical combination looks good (often readers request explanations of this kind). Such an approach is quite productive and develops your thinking; I always try to ponder in this way also about my own knitting (it is important to diagnose, too, why some things do not work).
Ta räägib moeajaloost ja sellest, et kootud sviitri saatus on muutlik: kord on see au sees, kord jälle kaob poodiumilt mõneks ajaks, aga pole hullu, mood peegeldab meelsust ja seda "teab iga viienda klassi õpilane" (omalt polt lisan, et oleks hea, kui tõesti teaks). Kui kehaehitus lubab, siis võib kanda ka suuri pakse sviitreid. Kui aga keha pole miniatuurne, soovitab ta mõelda materjalist ja eelistada kašmiiri, siis pole palmikud jms nii väga paksud (erinevalt akrüülist sviitritest). Aga kašmiirist sviitrite hind võib olla lausa neljakohaline number. Mida teha? Ta soovitab otsida internetipoodidest, e-bayst ja kaasata "neid, kes koovad". See aga puudutab meid, sõbrad.
She talks about fashion history and about changing status of sweaters: sometimes it is in vouge and sometimes it disappears from the catwalk but this is not new because fashion is a reflection of the state of mind and "every fifth-grade child knows this" (I would add, it would be nice if it were really so). If your body shape allows, you can wear also thick and chunky sweaters. If you are not very slender, she recommends paying attention to the fibers and to pefer cashmere because in that case cables etc do not look very plump (differently from acrylic sweaters). But what should one do if we are talking four figures prices in the case of real chasmere? She sends us to e-bay or to "those who knit". This is about us, my friends.

Ma ei ole kunagi kudunud kašmiiri ja ausalt öeldes ei tunne vajadust selle järele. Hea meriino võiks olla alternatiiv. Võib eksperimenteerida villaga, nt panna peenike vill mohääriga kokku, kohe on kude faktuurne. Veel on olemas selline tore asi nagu pseudopalmikud (need, kes ei koo, peavad palmikuteks, kuid tehniliselt pole palmikud).
I have never worked with cahsmere and, frankly speaking, don't feel like doing this. Some good merino will do the job. Or you can experiment with wool, for instance, add mohair to thin wool and the fabric gets more texture. And there exists such a nice thing like mock cables (those who do not knit, often take them for cables, which, technically speaking, they are not).

Isiklikult ei näe ma vastuolu jämedakoeliste sviitrite ja ehete vahel. Reeglid reegliteks, kuid stiil ei lähtu tingimata reeglitest ega ainult välisparameetritest (kehakuju, juuste ja silmade värv jms), vaid seest. Ma ei arutaks kulda ega pärle (miski neist pole "minu oma", seetõttu ei oska midagi öelda; pärl on üldse väga kapriisne asi ja erinevalt levinud arvamusest, sobib väga vähestele). Aga hõbe ja üldse ilma kivideta metall, suured ja markantsed ehted sobivad küll.
Personally I don't see any contradiction between chunky sweaters and jewelry. Rules is one thing but style is not only about rules or your external characteristics (body shape, colour of your hair and eyes etc) but from within. I would rather not talk about gold and pearls (neither of them is "mine" and, therefore, I cannot say anything about them; pearls are very tricky and, contrary to general opinion, suit very few people). But silver and metal without stones in general or large and noticeable jewlery would do.

Küsimus on ka selles, mida taotleda. Postituses esitatud Vogue'i kaanepilt loob üsna eklektilise mulje: palmikutega sviiter ja palju väga erinevas stiilis ehteid. Minu arust "it does not work" sellel konkreetsel juhul, sest on liiga palju ülearust, ehted "vaidlevad" omavahel. Ka eklektikas peaks olema midagi, mis seda mitmekesisust koos hoiab.
The question is also about what you are trying to say. The Vogue picture in the post gives one a rather eclectic impression: a sweater with cables and a lot of jewelry rather different in style. In my opinion, this particular example "does not work" because there is a lot of redundant things and the pieces of jewelry "argue" with each other. Also eclectis shoud have a something that holds together all the diversity.
Niisiis, kas taotleda kontrasti (paks sviiter - õbluke keha - õrnad ehted) või taotleda jõulisust (paks sviiter - kehakuju pole oluline, loevad proportsioonid ja reljeefse mustri valik - jõulised ehted)? Võimalik, et on veel teisi kombinatsioone.
Thus, ask yourself, whether you are out for contrast (bulky sweater - tiny body - elaborated jewelry) or rather for a dynamic, strong presentation (damn, I am really unable to pick up a suitable equivalent for the Estonian word 'jõuline') (bulky sweatery - whatever body shape, just think about proportions and about the choice of stitch pattern - large jewelry). Maybe there are other options, too.
Lõpuks selline pilt (Maiyet, sügistalv 2013-2014). Sviiter pole väga reljeefne, aga siiski mitte õhuke. Hea idee üleminekuga värvitud lõngadest (Aade Lõng jms). Ja ehe, mis sobib sinna päris hästi.
Finally, have a look at the picture (Maiyet, Autumn-Witner 2013-2014). The sweater is not very chunky but not thin either. It is a good idea for variegated yarns (Aade Lõng etc). And the necklace that goes quite well with it.