From the New York Times Style section:
Shifts of taste and style are trivialities, of course, without any serious meaning. But they do perform one important function, as Proust pointed out: they notch our hours and moments and decades and leave us with visual mnemonics, clues by which to remember where and in which dress and what jeans (and wearing what cologne) one was at a particular time. Tracking the way styles evolve gives us insight, too, into the forms of beauty we choose to idealize.
Models who were vacant optimistic cheerleader types prevailed in the politically clueless 1970s (Christie Brinkley, Patti Hansen, Shelley Hack); brooding brunettes took over during the Age of Reagan (Linda Evangelista, Cindy Crawford and Yasmeen Ghauri); and off-kilter aristocratic types (Guinevere van Seenus, Stella Tennant, Erin O’Connor), emblematic of upper class women, came to the fore during the second Bush imperium.
What fashion now prefers as a beauty ideal is another type, the robot, personified by the stunning Raquel Zimmerman, a blond Brazilian of German heritage whose physical proportions are so symmetrical that many designers use her body as a template. That Ms. Zimmerman also has a kind of vacant cyborg aspect cannot be altogether incidental. Possibly this is the reason why Louis Vuitton hired her for a new ad campaign in which her face has been made up and manipulated so aggressively as to render her less humanly expressive than Lara Croft.
Elsewhere in the article, the author discusses the latest trends for men: unshaven faces, casual sweater-vests and no-name thrift-shop jeans. Just compare the impages on page 1 and page 2 (I would upload them now, but I’m on a dreadfully slow computer).
They get to be chic in beards, long frizzy hair, potbellies, and $2 jeans. We’re fashionable when we look like less-than-human, perfectly symmetrical (and perfectly put together) cyborgs. They get musicians, the Lower East Side, Brooklyn, Allen Ginsberg, India. We get robots and Louis Vuitton.
They define music, art, travel — and get to draw from all of these things in their physical exhibition of their complex identities. The beards, the Chucks, the skinny jeans, the $50 vintage t-shirt — these aren’t frivolities when the dudes do it, it’s part of hipster culture. It’s meaningful in a way that’s separate from simple consumerism, that isn’t about these men’s bodies being used as showcases — these men are the whole show, baby. Their fashion represents them, and they are the artists, the movers and shakers, the writers, the creative types, the people who set the standards and whose cool the fashion industry tries to catch on to (and they totally don’t care about fashion). They don’t stand in to represent a generation; they are the generation.
We get pigeonholed by decade, our faces and bodies spoken about as defining objects, as if Linda Evangelista is kind of like a piece of the Berlin wall. The dumb happy blonde, the serious brunette, the unstable and indulged debutante: How better to visually demonstrate political cluelessness, oppressive conservatism, and imperialist wars waged on behalf of big oil companies?
But I’ll stop while I’m ahead. I need to go practice my vacant cyborg look in the mirror.