Villain-esque
When I posted this outfit on IG, someone commented “Kylo Ren, but make it fashion”. I was flattered because I like to think I project a “dark side” aesthetic even though I’m as unexceptional as your average middle-aged suburban white woman. Is Kylo Ren a villain? Villain-adjacent? Anti-hero? I don’t really know because I’ve yet to see a single Star Wars movie. It’s not my thing, don’t @ me. All I know is that he wears a lot of black and the actor, Adam Driver, has a face which – much like Timothee Chalamet’s – looks like it belongs in a 17th century painting. Pardon the tangent, but have you ever wondered what some of the people in old school portraits would look like in 21st century real life? Or vice versa? Like, people you see on the street look very modern, for lack of a better word, and I can’t imagine how they’d be rendered by painters 400 or 500 years ago. But sometimes you see a person whose face would totally look at home in a Caravaggio picture, and you can’t help staring at that person for way too long because it’s so startling and fascinating. No? Just me? Ok.
Anyway, this outfit continues my exploration of the dress-over-skirt formula. The only thing I switched up this time was the skirt I chose – a long, tubular piece rather than a frothy tulle one. I dig these proportions too; there is less texture mixing, and greater reliance on angles and silhouette as the focus so you might say it’s all quite minimalist.
Notes: Marie Saint Pierre dress (thrifted, $8.50); Aritzia skirt (thrifted, $13): Greta Constantine x Danier belt (thrifted, $12); handmade necklace; Cole Haan shoes ($20).
Rainbow, Squared
We will get to the double rainbow bit in a moment, but let’s take a minute to appreciate this low-key date night effort. The grey in the sweater pairs nicely with the silvery metallic of the skirt, tying together two fairly disparate pieces. Beyond that, there was definitely an element of “scr*w it, I’m wearing these pieces whether they go or not” in my approach; it’s part of my Bohemian avatar, the wild card.
Anyway, my favourite part of the outfit turned out to be the addition of my favourite rainbow stripe scarf:
Notes: Gap sweater (thrifted, $8); Yerse skirt (thrifted, $6.50); Tory Burch boots (thrifted, $25); Zara scarf (retail, $40); Max & Co coat (thrifted, $32).
90s Classic
I’ve started experimenting a little bit with vintage clothing in recent years thanks to the fashion industry’s ongoing revival of 80s and 90s style. This Armani Collezione blazer was a no-brainer purchase; it fits like it was tailored for me, to the inch, although I assume that the original intent was for a looser fit on a smaller body. The cut definitely reminds me of something Agent Scully would have worn – score! I love that the shoulder line, while very strong, isn’t overwhelmingly quarterback-like. It’s the best kind of “power shoulder”.
I wanted to emphasize the stark elegance of the lines of the blazer, so I kept the rest of the outfit pretty basic. I don’t wear jeans a lot to the office these days, but this outfit was a winner.
Notes: J. Crew shirt (thrifted, $4); Armani Collezione blazer (thrifted, $10); Madewell jeans (consignment, $**); Cole Haan shoes (thrifted, $20).
Holy cow I’m glad I’m not the only one who does the “what would these faces look like today?” game! When I walk through art museums, one of the main things I’m thinking about is whether humans really looked like that and have chanted, or it was a style of painting. For example, many people in English paintings from the 1700s and 1800s have very heavy eyelids, with relatively deepset eyes, and then otherwise flat oval faces. Was that real? I don’t think I know as much about art as you, but I am grateful to learnthat I am not the only one fascinated by something similar.
*have changed, that is.
I think you’re right in that the style of painting – and the standards of attractiveness – of the era in question mattered a lot. Most subjects were patrons, so they were painted in a favourable light according to what was considered most attractive at the time. The portrait of Anne of Cleves comes to mind; Henry VIII complained she had been portrayed as more attractive than reality. Trends in make-up/fashion (for women especially) would also make a difference. Imagine plucking your hairline way back – it could almost completely change your face. I mean, I assume … not planning to try that out, LOL!
What’s fascinating to me is occasionally seeing a portrait of someone who seems to have more “contemporary” features, or vice versa – seeing a person with a “historic” face. I don’t know why but the apparent anachronism just tickles my fancy.
I have the same reaction! Looking up the Anne of Clevea portrait now….
And yes, Anne of Cleves has no cheekbones. She’d never make it today!
Like this one!
https://images.app.goo.gl/GKh2gHqdEWtxdMtk6
I have a similar reaction to the modern/historic faces and thoughts on changing beauty standards! I have a friend who I could easily picture in a Renaissance portrait.
PS—love all three outfits, especially the new blazer!