March 28, 2008
just a few tidbits. first, patrick writes in with some information about lauren’s dress.
in your recap of of the season premiere you incorrectly referred to the dress that lauren ruined with the curling iron as a “french couture dress”. the word couture refers to a garment that is custom made for a particular client usually employing mostly hand sewing. specifically it refers to custom garments made by a fashion house that is recognized as producing Haute Couture by the Chambre syndicale de la haute couture which has very precise standards that need to be followed in order to get the title. I believe there are only 13 houses in the world that currently have the title of Haute Couture.
what lauren was wearing is what would be called pret-a-porter (like the terrible altman film) or ready to wear. it was something that was produced in standard sizes ready to be worn straight from the rack. i’m sure it was not cheap but nowhere near the price of a couture piece which run easily in the hundred thousands.
one of the problems i ran into when writing “hiatus” (which i want to continue but i’m not sure if i can or will) is that i know absolutely nothing about fashion. this was troubling when trying to depict lauren’s interior life; i know that she would be thinking about fashion and garment construction and using those kinds of metaphors and noticing brands and designers and etc. and i just have no knowledge base on any of this kind of stuff.
moving on, did you think i was a little over the top when i was talking about “the hills” and its lack of reverence for monuments and landmarks?
what does this say about paris? it says that it is just another image to be appropriated and sampled as necessary, but it no longer has a real essence, no true importance that the editors and cinematographers have to revere…the landmarks are just marks in the land…
i was concerned that maybe i was pushing it a little. well, that was a stupid concern:
If you are among those who dismiss Heidi Montag as being just another product of another reality show, consider this: Montag has a clothing line, a music career that continues despite a disastrous first attempt at a music video, and she even had hopes of altering the famous Hollywood sign to say “Heidiwood” in time for a splashy April 11 fashion show.
According to Us Weekly, Montag’s publicity team (who deserves congrats in their own right for turning Montag into the brand she is) wasn’t able to make it happen. Los Angeles city council member Tom LaBonge told the magazine, “We rarely accept alterations of an historic monument.”
finally, singer-songwriter juliana hatfield wrote a totally emo overshare-y blog post about how “the hills” is destroying society. a short excerpt:
I believe that television – and cable tv in particular (and now the internet, and all the other technologies which weren’t such a presence when I wrote the song) – is ruining our country. Ruining us. Some people actually think that what is on tv is real. It’s wired into their brains. With so many reality shows, they get the “reality” on these shows mixed up with real reality, and it leads to identity confusion. And dimwittedness. And conformity. And greed (people want what they see on tv). And it moves to the streets, the malls, schools, to the culture, as a uniformity of experience, language, dress, style, thought, desire.
whoah, reality bites! obviously, i am working on a response song and a totally emo overshare-y response blog post which i will post either this weekend or on monday. originally my response song was going to be me crooning “juliana…fuck you” over and over again with varying intonation on top of a loping country strum for two or three minutes but then i remembered that JA and HM would look down on me for my lack of caring and understanding and faith/hope/love and so i am going to act nice and gentle, promise.