What is interesting about the article is not the fashion per se. Indeed from the photos the most fashion hints this gives are that bustiers are "back" (?) (should they have ever left, one asks?). More interestingly, and as highlighted by the fabulous Jezebel, this piece just becomes one more entry into what I find the bizarre and mystifying world of the fashion discussion raging on "women's bodies", which has been going on, seemingly, for far too long with comparatively little result.
I just don't get it. To be blunt, why does everybody care so much? I completely disagree with the ridiculous position the fashion industry takes in promoting *cough* beauty. Stick-thin waifs, to my mind, aren't the attractive sort, mostly because they're just so fragile-looking and you just want to give them a hearty steak sandwich. Equally, the whole "fat-fetish" debate, which has begun around so-called "plus sized" models such as Crystal Renn, I find pertinent but causing another sigh in the face of ridiculousness. It's true: when women who aren't looking like twiglets are photographed or discussed, the de facto style guideline seems to be for them to either get their kit off or squeeze into a corset. Basically, we're back to the 50s cheesecake era, which was the kind of "beauty" many of the early feminists were so desperate to get away from. Now you could argue that (in fashion terms) the new larger/busty/empowerd/woman-figure has begun to look a bit familiar:
The Hendricks cover is a case in point. And a nice view of how fashion really isn't giving any ground they don't want to. Instead of her wearing, ooh, say clothes, for example, we see her in what can only be described as va-va-voom/hello boys "fashion". She looks confident, empowered and also perhaps a little bit nervous. One senses that this photo-shoot pays the bills but isn't necessarily her first-choice paid gig. We'll ignore the Botticelli/Rapunzel-esque strand of red hair flowing down her and off into infinity (note to NY Mag: if you're going to make these references, go all out, not just to the wig dept.), and also I think safely ignore the "fashion" part of the title. Because it isn't. It's just a strange combo of celebrity and body and a curious mix of fetish/desire/unattainability/vulnerability. Hendricks as a woman, ironically, seems to have melted into the background on this one.
But the line is a difficult one to tread, and hence plunges us into the mire of post-post-feminist culture and thinkings. Where does the division lie between "empowerment" "sex-object". In this cover it's actually difficult to tell, mostly because NY Mag has quite a broad audience, although one assumes women are the main target. In which case, is this cover meant to say to women "look, Christina's got big boobs, she's normal! You're normal! Now, buy our magazine!". Or is it just meant to say "look, Christina looks hot, you've got to look this hot if you want a guy! Buy our magazine and find out!". And men (depending on which category they fall into) will go "OMG! Christina Hendricks is on the front cover of NY Mag in a corset! OMG!! Like, purchasing now!!" or, "Is that the hot ginger girl from Mad Men! Dude she'd better do Playboy real soon".
Ok, ok, I know, stereotypes. But really, how does that cover pertain to fashion? Wouldn't it have been a lot braver (I mean come ON people!) to have Hendricks wearing modern clothes looking fabulous? And then saying to women "Christina Hendricks looks great this season and she isn't wearing a Mad Men outfit or underwear, buy our magazine ladies and learn more". And well, as to the men's reactions to that, who knows? We'll not speculate further on the tangled male psyche.....
I guess what I'm trying to formulate here is the idea that what is needed is some kind of normalcy to the argument. Yes, a lot of what is pushed on people, both girls and boys, is an extremely specific, visual, unforgiving aesthetic of being and living. I mean, christ, even geek chic gets nasty! It is fantastic that we have beautiful, talented actresses like Christina Hendricks make it because of their abilities. It's often difficult in Mad Men to separate the way she looks (fabulous) with the way she acts (fabulous). The two are really part of the same package. And Hendricks is also playing the game a bit here. If she really felt so strongly about not making her body an issue, just don't do fashion shoots because that's what you're going to get. But she'd be silly not to, as an aspiring actress. Plus it's good she does, because she looks amazing and is (curious phrase but always seems to get used) a "throwback" to a different fashion in women's bodies (I mean how ridiculous!). But the danger is that women just keep going round and round the fashion/body merry-go-round without ever seeming able to get off it or just stop the whole silly mess.
Her comment about her appearance in contemporary clothes points to why Hendricks could have the ability to wield an incredible amount of power in the fashion wars (ongoing). We accept her as Joan in Mad Men because her body IS that era: it's Mansfield, it's Marilyn, it's everything we love about it, that glamour and fabulousness all dripped into an hourglass. Basically, harmless nostalgia. What is less comfortable is when we are confronted with that in a contemporary fashion climate. We actually don't know what to do with it, how to dress it, how to even photograph it. So we strip it nude or stick it in a corset or a fabulous gown. But they'd never do a shoot with Christina Hendricks bumming around in jeans and t-shirts or cashmere twin-sets (not making enough of her assets, you see). In our heads this is how such women should be seen: in a sort of past/present, if that makes sense. The Dita Von Tees idea. Just think though, how much more effective, how much more interesting, the NY Mag cover could have been with Hendricks wearing proper spring fashion? High street or otherwise. But that would be far too dangerous, because it would start to pick (slightly) at the fantasy fashion-world.
It's dangerous for these lone women to become "body spokes-people". It's the Sophie Dahl factor. It's like when Beth Ditto drops to a size 10 (this will hoepfully never happen). We get angry at these women for not being the pioneers, but how many are needed? And why is it only up to them? We expect larger women to stay large to "fly the flag", but when Jessica Simpson puts on a couple of extra pounds most magazines and blogs go crazy (not the informed ones, obv.). And when Sophie Dahl decides she wants to lose weight (for whatever reason) she's seen as "letting the side down", even though on daytime television 50% of advertising will be for women's weight loss regimes, diet or beauty programmes. So what is this, some kind of crisis? If one objectively analyses all the different messages being pushed onto women and girls, what's the outcome? Nothing short of a padded cell, that's what. But voices against this mass-confusion of "what women want" are small and usually derided: they smack of old "Greer-feminism" and are seen as outdated, risible and just plain laughable. Which is ok because, like the gays, it's still ok to laugh at feminists. They're funny. And don't make magazine covers.
If there's any point to all this ramble, I think it's that in our "enlightened democratic times", it shouldn't be a case of "what women want", but a case of "whatever women want". This may still take some time, folks, so bear with us. In Hendricks's case, she's an actress and she wants to be successful. And in this current climate this is what she has to do to get it. Good for her. It's just a shame that in doing so she has her body used as a symbol for other things - like this - possibly the worst kind of flattery. But this ain't going to change, millions of women buy these magazines. And if it does, if we really become normalised to the idea of women coming in all shapes, colours and sizes, then fashion implodes on itself, because the aspirational culture on which it is based becomes redundant, because people actually become content and confident with the way they look, and cease to worry about "size".
Let me leave you with some fashion covers of the moment. Obviously, the photoshop issue is for another day. Just compare what these women are wearing and how they are posed against the treatment of Hendricks - there is a difference, no? Or is there? Is it a case of "odd one out", or "best of the rest"? When we talk about the "size issue", in fashion terms maybe we should extend this remit? Are we looking at a body, a woman, or a celebrity? Perhaps it's just a girl thing.....
*men's section - coming soon!*
No comments:
Post a Comment