Fashion for Writers

In our second installment of FFW Heart-to-Heart, Meggy & I review the new issue of WORN magazine (available here,) talk about our disinterest in fashion glossies, our zine-making and zine-loving pasts, and of course, our superfine moms. You can find our first FFW Heart-to-Heart on overdressing here!

M: So, before we begin, we’d like to mention that WORN got in touch with us, asking if we’d like to review their magazine. And, being interested in non-mainstream fashion, we happily accepted. Thus, this review. As a touchpoint, I’d like to add that this really reads as a labor of love for everyone involved — and the pieces, whether they’re about stewardess fashion or finding the right sort of vintage glasses, are suffused with a sort of delight that I find charming, especially as a former zine kid.

J: There was something really homey and pleasurable about sitting down with WORN. The articles were unpretentious and genuine — although when I say unpretentious I don’t mean lacking in intellectual rigor (and vigor!) The article on stewardess fashion in the 60′s and 70′s was hella fascinating, as was the article on the scatological implications of Guerlain using trace amounts of an anus-bordering cat gland in their “Jicky” perfume.

M: I also found the stewardess article to be the most fascinating piece here — maybe in light of my mother’s own teenaged wish to become a stewardess. (And even now, one of the Chinese airlines — I think it’s China Air? — is still well-known for their unusually attractive stewardesses.)

J:  Snap, our mothers’ pasts are each other’s dopplegangers because my mother was encouraged to try out for a stewardess position in the 70′s (according to my mom, it was considered the best job a woman could get in terms of prestige and financial stability,) but she lost out to her best friend, because apparently her best friend had a ‘sturdier’ beauty.

M: I wonder what that means!

J: I think it means a woman who is beautiful but could also do some damage in a farm, whereas my mom probably looked like the kind of woman who would break out in hives if asked to pull weeds out of the ground (sorry, mom.)

M: I really enjoyed the representation of women of color in the stewardess piece.

J: I agree! On the whole, I really appreciated the diversity of images and voices in this issue of WORN. Even though I was never a zine kid, I was a zine fan-girl, and like you said, reading WORN reminded me of sitting down with a stack of zines because all the articles and the authors feel so relatable.

You know, the thing that I thought was the most interesting about the article on the evolution of uniforms for stewardesses (“Flights of Fancy,”) was the bit about Boeing deciding to hire women as flight attendants in the 1930′s because “people considered air travel risky; having a female on board would demonstrate its safety. After all, if a young woman wasn’t afraid, how dangerous could it be?” And I have to say that, when I used to travel as a child, whenever there was turbulence, I would look at the flight attendants serving coffee in the aisles, and I would think: They aren’t scared, so everything’s okay.

M: I also thought that was interesting. Also: the idea of stewardesses-as-nurses, which is not played up as much (or at all?) these days. (And, yes, there are other articles in this issue, but this one felt the most substantial to me.)

There was something else that I wanted to ask your opinion about, which was — I find the role of fashion editorials in “alternative” style magazines interesting; for example, how non-mainstream fashion magazines try to subvert that. There’s one editorial in this issue. What did you think about it?

J: I thought it was sort of bold that the editorial didn’t credit the clothing. And I appreciated the Letter From the Editors, which addresses the very issue you bring up. The editors write, “We’re not a shopping guide or a catalogue, we’re a mood board. We’re an idea bank and a what-if-you-try-this-list. We want to give you the one thing we could all have readily at hand: inspiration.” And I really appreciate that as a mission statement for how to approach fashion editorials.

M: Right. Especially since my reaction to fashion editorials in glossies tends to be a mix of boredom and annoyance.

J: On a purely personal and aesthetic level, I have to admit, the editorial didn’t really inspire me a whole lot. I could feel the creepy shadow of past Vogue editorials — the ones where some model is standing in a field and there are wild animals present or vaguely ‘tribal’ elements lurking about’ — hovering like a spectre over this particular editorial. What do you think of it, Meggy?

M: I wasn’t a fan of the editorial. Just now, during our conversation, I was trying to imagine what my ideal editorial would look like, and I was even having trouble coming up with ideas — there’s the issue of what models you end up picking, what clothes, what environment. I think my ideal editorial would have a motley crew of my friends as models in my living room, wearing vintage clothing in imaginative combinations — but I think I’m less interested in editorial-as-magic, or editorial-as-transportation, than most people are.

J: Samesies all the way. I guess there comes a point when pretty images are just that — pretty images. And that seems to be least persuasive and the least interesting aspect of fashion for me. The personal stories, the human backstory to why clothes and pretty bric-a-brac are meaningful and valuable is always vastly more interesting, which is why I’m intrigued by your idea of getting a bunch of friends to dress up in vintage in your living room!

I think WORN hits its sweet spot when the articles are personal, like the first long article about the nostalgic value we attach to our clothing and learning to let go rather than hoard. I also liked the articles that delved into the historical-social narratives of clothing, like the stewardess article we fawned over, and the article about how perfume was once FERAL and actually frightened and upset people because of how ‘animalistic’ it smelled.

M: Yes. I also have to laugh a little because I think what interests us most about WORN is what we try to represent in FFW.

J: We’re narcissists!

M: Well, we’re fashion bloggers, which is the same thing.

J: How do you think WORN magazine fits into the fashion milieu? And what do we think of fashion magazines, anyway?

M: Oh, gosh. If we get into talking about fashion magazines, I might never stop, and this Heart-to-Heart will be ten pages long. In brief: I’m not a fan of 99% of fashion magazines. And the things that interest me about WORN, the things that I like to read about and think about, are the sorts of things that aren’t being addressed in most fashion magazines. So much of fashion magazines, I find (and this is a big buzzword in the fashion world in general, as I’ve learned from my tiny role in it), is the idea of “aspiration.” And the idea of what “aspiration” means, for most fashion magazines, is $1200 Mulberry Alexas.

J: And leaves most readers feeling panicky and deadened inside afterward.

M: I do, at least. (Without even addressing the issue of models, which is a whole other kettle of rotting fish.) Which is why I don’t read glossies anymore.

J: I think what WORN really nails is “reflection,” something that big glossies almost never do well, and that’s the sort of fashion writing I want to read.

M: Hear, hear.

(Image from WORN journal)

Oh hai. Just hanging in my French kitchen, next to some rubber gloves and food stains, checking out the cute spread, “Hide and Feature,” on bloggers, including two of our very favorite bloggers: Hannah from Hannah & Landon and Eline from A Fluffy Blog!

xo,
Meggy & Jenny