Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Playing Dolls

Following is a lovely essay by Durell Godfrey that appeared in the Easthampton Star. She is a friend of many years yet I was surprised to find that she too was heavily involved with her dolls. She is (lucky her) still playing dolls. Read on and enjoy.
When I was a kid I played with dolls. I was an only child and (maybe consequently) I had a lot of dolls. These were not mushy baby dolls; they were “fashion dolls.” This was the 1950s, folks, pre-Barbie.

My favorite dolls were Madame Alexander dolls (they came in two sizes: 12-inch and 8-inch) and what were called Ginny dolls, which were only eight inches tall. That’s what I asked for at F.A.O. Schwarz at Christmas and birthdays, by size and hair color. I think I had about 10 by the time I outgrew them in sixth grade or so.

My mother could never understand why my dolls didn’t have names. She encouraged me to name them but I never did. I referred to the dolls as the 12-inch dolls and the 8-inch dolls when requesting a present of a new doll or clothing for the dolls I already had. Happily for me, my grandmother was a superior sewer, and she would come up with fabulous outfits for them (and me). Her creations featured lace, tiny buttons and dimity prints, old-fashioned puffed sleeves, and pantaloons. Occasionally something satin would show up, or sometimes a bit of fur. My grandmother went to the theater a lot, and she was very sophisticated.

My dolls were clotheshorses. Their job was to put on clothes. My job was to decide what they would put on. I was a fashion editor in training.

An activity that kept me busy for hours was to put all of my custom-made and store-bought dolls clothes in a pile on the floor. Then each 12-inch doll and each 8-inch doll could “pick” one dress. After each one picked a dress she would wear it and then each got to pick another until all the clothes were sorted evenly. I can’t remember what happened after that. Maybe I would have lunch.
I never messed with their hair the way some kids did. I treated them like princesses. They were models and they got to be admired.

One of my friends, with whom I spent many rainy girly afternoons, would not play this doll clothes sorting game with me. I would let her pick a doll from my lineup and let her doll pick out clothes but she declared that her doll was poor and lived in a tenement and could only have one dress. I just could not understand this. It frustrated the hell out of me. Why wouldn’t her doll want to play dress-up?! Her doll would sit on an upside-down chair (read: tenement) and watch my doll. It was never fun to have it so inequitable, and eventually we would play checkers or draw. Having a doll who was poor was just not a concept I could grasp. Years later my mother mentioned that her parents were both social workers and I suppose that explained some of it. (Or maybe she just didn’t want to play that game.) I do not know what happened to her, but I grew up to be a clotheshorse.

According to Google, “clotheshorse” is considered a derogatory term. I do not have a problem with the title. For me, it’s clothes-play, not so much the buying of an outfit as the assembling of a look. That’s the fun part. Shopping my own closet, I really play dress-up every day.

And when the seasons change I re-acquaint myself with clothes I haven’t seen for months by trying everything on. Warm weather to cold and back. Two times a year I go through that ritual. In between I do things with other people’s clothes: I volunteer at the Ladies Village Improvement Society thrift shop in East Hampton.

One of the things we clothes-loving volunteers do is sort and categorize all the clothes that are donated week to week and season to season. Does this sound like all my doll clothes in a pile with the dolls picking? Yes indeedy. We are grown-ups and we have fun like little girls.
We ask aloud: “What was she thinking? How could she give this up? Did she retire and not need office clothes anymore?” Hence the Armani suits and stiletto heels, the mink coat, or the Oscar de la Renta ball gown. We also wonder why people donate gym clothes straight from their gym bags, but that’s another matter entirely.

When we have finished sorting — summer, winter, designer, and specialty collections like bathing suits and leopard-printed things — the clothes that are season-appropriate hit the floor, priced to sell.
And then my real fun begins. I dress the thrift shop mannequins every Monday. While the shop is closed for weekly restocking you will find me with three mannequins, bald and naked (them, not me), and a rolling rack of curated outfits for my “girls.” I want them to look great when the doors open each Tuesday.

Oh you beautiful dolls

Some might think you just put clothes on the bodies, but I am here to tell you that it’s more complicated and intimate than that. The mannequins have faces and their faces have real character and their postures give them attitude. Like real people, some clothes actually look better on one than on another. I often change their outfits even after I have gotten them all dressed. I take into consideration that the athletic looking one should not be wearing something ruffly; I have tried and that stuff just looks wrong on her. I know that sounds silly, but in truth it’s merchandising. How can you make someone want to buy something if it looks crappy on the model?

There is a fourth model, and while I refer to her as one of “the girls” she is really just a torso (no face, arms, or legs). I don’t feel I need to cater to her attitude as far as outfits go. She does wear jewelry well, however, and often gets something with a deep V neckline. The other dames I dress have removable arms and hands. To get them into clothing means that the floor gets littered with random hands and arms and wigs. 

Interestingly, the L.V.I.S. gets many donations of wigs. Some of the wigs are very beautiful and were no doubt very expensive. We can’t really sell them. Consequently I have a bin of wigs I sort through each week for the girls. One wig might look good with one outfit and wrong with another. One wig will suit one mannequin, while the same wig will make another look slutty. There is a wig I call Meg Ryan hair, which looks good on all three of the girls. There is a gray wig with bangs that I am partial to, but it does not look good with every outfit. Sometimes the girls are all blondes, sometimes brunettes. I love doing this.

To some of you readers this may sound like the dumbest waste of imagination, but for others of you this is a dream job. Admit it.

Each week I pick a fashion theme. For Easter the girls were in bright pastel colors. The week before everyone was wearing flowered dresses for spring. Sometimes they are in black-and-white stripes, and they have been known to all wear denim jackets. Once they all wore gingham shirts, but accessorized to give them entirely different looks. My aim is to educate and inspire, much like the editorial pages of a fashion magazine. Yes, you can wear this with that, and have you considered a yellow pashmina with that red shift?

Well, you could say (loudly) that I do get carried away choosing the right scarf or bag or earrings for each dame, but for me it is fun. I want the outfits to get sold: The aim is to have the girls look so good that people want to buy what they are wearing. Some outfits only last a day or two and are replaced quickly by the sales staff. Come in Tuesday mornings to see the girls in their fullest fashion glory.

The mannequins are really my own very big fashion dolls. Unlike my childhood dolls, these dames will soon have names! In May, there will be an opportunity for everyone in town to name each mannequin. After the hunt for names is over, the dames will be called by their names forever. (I know what I call one of them behind her back, but I am not sharing that yet.)

Here’s how it will work: There will be ballots at the cashier that people can fill in and place in a jar for the whole month. There will be space for four names in the order of how they are standing in display. The ballots can be filled again and again. Kids are encouraged to participate. The ballots will be put into a container and behind closed doors each mannequin will magically pick her own name.

So unlike my childhood dolls who remained nameless, soon I will be dressing Clara or Monique or Jemima, Carmen, Prunella, or Daisy, Murgatroyd, Melania, Ivanka, Sophia, Emma, Gabriela, Isabella, Zoe, Clementine, or Betty. Stay tuned.

Durell Godfrey says this picture explains why she's partial to the gray wig with bangs

Thursday, April 6, 2017

"The End of an Era"

Quintessential Jenna

That's the New York Times, writing today on Jenna Lyons parting ways with J Crew. I don't style myself as a reporter here at the blog, but Jenna and J Crew were enough of a fashion moment to warrant a few thoughts.

In case you haven't heard, Jenna Lyons' contract will not be renewed, and she has stepped down as president and creative director of J Crew. Jenna has been with the firm since 1990. She worked in a fairly low-on-the-totem-pole capacity but stood out (at 6 feet tall) for her personal style, the quirky way she paired J Crew basics with vintage and utilitarian finds. Spotted by new owner Mickey Drexler in 2003, she was anointed to lead a J Crew revolution.

Jenna says...

Jenna at J Crew encouraged women to wear a tuxedo jacket with jeans or a chambray shirt with a ball gown. Sequin pencil skirts with a twin set were fine for day. A camo jumpsuit decked out in chunky costume jewelry and strappy heels rocked the night. Makeup was less; lipstick was all; confidence your greatest accessory. She made nerdy glasses chic and did it all effortlessly.

Powerful even in PJs

How could this not inspire millions of women that it was OK to have fun with fashion, raid Grandma's jewelry box and mix-and-match classic pieces like a third grader playing dress-up? After a while the look became a cliche, but I bought into it because that's what I like too.

Jenna's ethic was classic J Crew for almost 15 years. Fashion is nothing but fickle. Today's Style can be tomorrow's Cliche, and no one will tell you until something like this happens.

What will become of my brocade pants and ballet flats? Will J Crew return to its madras and broadcloth past? Where will Jenna Lyons land next?

I have a feeling she'll do alright. A magazine editor's slot? Her own label? I'm not so sure about us. The same New York Times today predicts the new fashion will be "protective, oversize, soft and enveloping". Now where did I put that sleeping bag???    

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Victoria Beckham Beckons

Tucked inside my subscription copy of April Vogue was a stand-alone magazine. I caught the words Spring and Vogue but didn't connect the title to Victoria Beckham and/or Target. Loved the shirtdress on the cover. The table of contents features shots of Victoria in a cute little black cap with ears. A figure on the inside cover wears a black dress with a pretty scalloped neckline. But wait a minute— something is off. This is not Victoria; she's definitely a plus-sized model. Scrolling down to info on the cover dress, I see it is $35. What??????? Are we missing a few 00s? Then it hits me. The tasteful black and white bulls eye next to her name signifies this is Victoria Beckham's collaboration with Target, available April 9.

News to me! But if I had known, I might have yawned. Target's collaborations have been less than thrilling lately, and Victoria Beckham is not a name that thrills. I've questioned her credentials as a designer. She looks good in everything, though who wouldn't weighing 94 pounds and on the arm of one of the planet's most handsome athletes? She also never smiles.

There is, however, something charming and fun about this collection. There are 200 pieces, ranging in size from XS to 3X, including styles for babies, toddlers and girls in five themed collections:

The vibe is playful and fun, with a nod to pop art, swinging London of the Mary Quant era and re-imagined English florals and paisleys.  “It just goes to show how fun the whole collaboration has been. This is about empowering women, empowering young girls, and making everybody feel like the best version of themselves, and having fun at the same time," explained Beckham. She was also inspired by motherhood and doing things with her six-year-old daughter Harper. In fact the many related designs may even bring back mother-daughter dressing.

Harper and Daddy
Nothing is over $70 with most pieces in the $20 to $40 range. Some of the collection will only be sold online, though for the first time plus sizes will be available in store. And I predict all of it will sell out soon.

Here are a few of my favorites. The romper may not come home with me, but I applaud its cheeky chic. Fortunately I can wiggle into a child's extra large, so the rain jacket might.


Best of all, there is also a coloring book, a sticker book and this:

Friday, March 17, 2017

How Do You Know When...

... you are a little too obsessed by Fashion? Perhaps that would be today, when I spied this lovely hand-dyed and fringed indigo scarf hanging on a post in a parking lot.

How sad, I thought. Someone has left behind a lovely scarf. And how thoughtful for someone else to have picked it up. I sure hope that person comes back for it...

Then of course I saw this:


Thursday, March 2, 2017

Something Fishy about "Funny Face"

Mon Dieu!  March Harper's Bazaar has abducted stills from the 1957 film "Funny Face". They've been rejiggered to show off the season's new looks with some (purposely I assume) crude collageing and colorizing. It looks terrible, and what's the point?

Bazaar often mines its trove of Audreyiana. She was a favorite of one-time fashion editor Diana Vreeeland (who later became editor-in-chief of Vogue). Photographer Richard Avedon loved her (and vice versa). Diana loved Richard. And so it goes.

Not long ago Bazaar featured Audrey's granddaughter in photographs by Avedon's grandson. Nice attempt at an homage to the originals at least.

I think they tried too hard on this one. The drawings by Bernard Seindler superimposed on the photos are (purposely I assume) crude collages and colorized overlays. One dress even has paper doll tabs. Tiny photos of shoes, handbags and jewelry are strewn about. The quality of the stills is poor. Unless you were a fan of the movie you won't understand the context.

The film was in glorious Technicolor. All the lobby stills I found, unfortunately, were not.

You might say I should lighten up. I might mention that "Funny Face" has been a perfect candy box confection of a treat for 60 years and needs no updates. It also shouldn't be high-jacked in the name of Fashion. Below, evidence that Bazaar may have been extracting their revenge for this:

Dovima and Audrey reading on the set

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Ah, Yes, I Remember it Well...

FIORUCCI. The name still thrills with anticipation. The store was on 59th Street and Lexington, half a block from Bloomingdale's. It might be more scenic to shop on Fifth Avenue. Goods on Madison may be more swoon-worthy, but that little pocket of Manhattan was Trend Central. In the late '70s Bloomingdale's was still the It Gal of department stores. She was surrounded by little chain boutiques, cheap shoe stores and Alexander's, a giant discount retailer. North of Bloomingdale's Lexington turned more residential. The famed Barbizon Hotel for Women was at the corner of 64th. But I digress...

Fiorucci landed in New York in 1976. Studio 54. Disco Fever. NYC. While outlandish garb could be found in the Village or lower east side, Fiorucci was different. It was Uptown Gal meets Euro Trash—affordable, bountiful, fun, and it felt like a trip to Europe.

A young Elio Fiorucci

The Fiorucci in Fiorucci was Elio Fiorucci, who founded the chain in 1967 to bring swinging London and American classics to Milan. By the time Fiorucci opened in Manhattan (1976) it was carrying coals to Newcastle— offering disco style to the likes of Andy Warhol and Cher.

Fiorucci can be credited with the globalization of affordable fashion. Elio gathered Afghan coats, Brazilian thongs and Chinese velvet slippers in one place. In addition he pioneered skin tights jeans by putting the stretch in denim. Camouflage prints and leopard anything were always part of the mix. I would not be surprised to learn if the young Madonna were a salesclerk there. Fiorucci surely influenced her style.

The stores were brightly lit and basically all white walls and fixtures. There was so much color, pattern, music and human traffic it was like being inside a kaleidoscope. The graphics— posters, ads, shopping bags— were outstanding and constantly changing.  

As is the case with most of my shopping excursions, I looked often but bought rarely, only after much contemplation. One of my favorite pieces was an ivory crinkle tunic blouse— slightly A-line with a pilgrim collar and wide, long trumpet sleeves. It was extremely impractical for anything like working or eating, but looked great standing there. I wore it to death and only gave it away years later because I figured it was "time". Never a good reason to get rid of anything you love. I miss it still.

Mine was even more impractical

Fiorucci imploded in 1989 due to mismanagement and over-expansion and has been fighting legal battles since while trying many times to re-launch. Janie and Stephen Schaffer, industry pros, bought the brand shortly before Elio's death in 2015.

Today's Fiorucci jeans

The first to be revived again are the infamous stretch jeans ($250), selling at Barney's. A full-range Fiorucci is due to open in London this year, followed by stores in Milan and Los Angeles. Will it fly? By the looks of the fantasy coming down the runways these current Fashion Weeks, I would say we're all ready for a little make believe.

Long may they watch over