So, The Plot Thickens (because the fashion Sickens!)

Ok, let's get one thing out of the way, this is NOT Voirrey, my name online is SMJ Voirreydesigner, I'm her right and left hands these days, and it fell to me to reveal a little more about her, at least her point of view.  If you are following her sparse cogitations (don't worry, I'm getting on her to WRITE MORE STUFF!) you know she's been a little miffed at a certain trend , pervayed primarily by a singular design house, but she's hesitated  to tell all.  So it's my turn, and I know that summer's almost over but I still feel it must be said.  The house which embodied some of the worst fashion this season?

Dolce and Gabbana, both in Ready To Wear http://www.designerzcentral.com/fashion-shows/milan/review-592-dolce-gabbana-spring-summer-2011-collection/

and in their younger line D&G http://www.elle.com/Runway/Ready-to-Wear/Spring-2011-RTW/D-G/D-G#mode=base;slide=0 

Most of the time the Voirrey Group relies on members and friends worldwide, amazing watchdogs who alert us to what's what, but strangely enough it was I who actually noticed it, so I get to go first.  However please let me say that I am a total fan of this house, followed it for years, and may follow it again, but this Spring/Summer just floored me.  Literally, I felt betrayed.  Ready to Wear?  Where?

 This little number really sums it up for me.  Obviously the theme was that same old cliche "inner wear as out wear."  But this is taking it a little too far, ya think? If they were going for sexy, to me they totally missed the mark, that much unmowed shrubbery just dunt do it (to use the vernacular of my rural up-bringing).  I might be convinced to wear the top to bed, but just maybe.  Actually, the arms look to restricting, go figure.

That brings us to exhibit number two.  I have to admit that not all of the pieces look like Frederick's of Hollywood rejects, the white portion of the collection held some potential.  As a lady who LOVES flowy Victoriana, I was indeed drawn to  to this next one.  And now we stop for a brief bulletin for the young and rich, the reality show famous, and the so-called celebrity crowd----In Most Cases, if It's See-through on the Runway, Buy a Liner to Go With It!  That's a basic everyone who dresses in women's clothes should know from childhood, please say it as a mantra every time you shop.  Someday I may even show you my wedding dress, an antique true Victorian, completely see-through, with the most precious chemise beneath. So,  I thought that rather than the Granny panties shown on the catwalk, perhaps a slip of some kind might work.

Nope.  If you look closely, beyond what is admirably pleasant fabric to the actual

construction, well, if I saw it in a vintage shop I'd rip it up and start again.  Why? Well, let's try a couple experiments.  First, if you're actually wearing something, pull on the back of your top until the collar reaches above your collar bone and the top of the shoulder is tightened down.  Is that comfy?  Now take a look at those shoulder seams, and of course tighten your sleeves so that there's no way to get your hands out of the garment, kind of like some Barbie clothes we all had to struggle with back in the day (and I know you did, don't look at me like that).  Could you even GET some sort of liner  under there?  And don't even get me started on the shoddy work of the skirt area, sewn to give the thinnest model a beer belly as she walks.  

Ok, that's my say.  If I were teaching a class I'd go down the pieces one at a time, but I'm going to assume that you've got the gist.  My objections to this line is that it is cliche, sewn uncomfortably and in an unflattering manner.  But most importantly, I have to agree with V, it is part of the pervasive theme in fashion largely catering to the American market, one of crassness posing as sexuality.  And why do I care?  Because I care about what you wear, especially your safety and self esteem.  Taking cues from design lines like this sends all the wrong messages to those around you and to yourself.  Be sexy yes, be as sexy as you want to be, but please, don't sell yourself short with this kind of unimaginative drek.

NOTE:  Please be sure to check out Voirrey SoVoirrey on Facebook, lots of things are gonna be cookin,' and I'm very pleased with V's new icon photo, just having a little fun at Dolce and Gabbana's expense. 

SMJ with Maggie the demonic wonder dog.  Fashionably dressed, honest, under a giant wrap.  And no, that's NOT my choice of couch pattern!

"I'd do anything for love, but I won't do THAT!"

          So folks, it's time for Voirrey to take the gloves off (which her true friends know rarely happens). First, a word about the title of this essay, which long before he made it a hit song, Mr. Jim Steinman is rumoured to be the voice crooning it to Bonnie Tyler so long ago in Alan Gruner's expert indictment/celebration of the dance/club scene, "Getting so Excited." http://www.metrolyrics.com/getting-so-excited-lyrics-bonnie-tyler.html

          Now that I've dated myself, let me get to the point.  It's really a question: when did so much American dressing become exclusively about sex?  And more to the point, cheap tawdry sex? It's time we said we don't need that to find love or love ourselves, it's time we remembered elegance, innocence, sophistication, fun, futurism, classicism, uniqueness and play.

           No, I'm no prude, what I'm saying is, we can have all those things in the way we dress, and yes, any one of those things can be damn sexy too. But somewhere along the line American women, or at least those who design for them and contrive the images they see everywhere, have lost the capacity to look beyond sex as the primary reason for getting dressed in the morning.  

          For example here at Voirrey Central, where I often write and design, I'm afraid to say that the tv is almost always on in the background.  Just a few nights ago, a show unimaginatively called "Jersylicious" came on, and as the member of our team who is , ehem, more than a little addicted to television moved to rescue us all from the epic tales of Snookie and her peers I held up my hand for pause, as a narrator doing his best tribute to the crocodile hunter soon had us all screaming in laughter as he detailed exactly of which I speak, a culture that views decorating the human body exclusively as a means to procure the gender of their choice, but in the most tacky and I must say lazy way possible, repeating cliches hardly removed from those of either a cheap b-reel Western or an even cheaper 80's porn video.  And they are supposedly workers in the beauty industry!



          Given their age and culture, I suppose I can forgive those young people (though not those who put them on the air, I'm afraid).  Before I close, though, I must call one of my own peers on the (red) carpet.  Joe Zee, Mr. Joe Zee, heir apparent to Andre Leon Talley as THE American arbiter of high style, what are you thinking?  For those too busy for the tube, even he has gotten the reality show bug, saving young designers from themselves, all in one tidy little hour of film.  But please, I have to object.  In one episode he was bemoaning the lack of taste in one of his proteges, and then in the next little snippet proceeded to talk about how to embrace the "latest" thing.  I just have to say this:  Joe, if you're going to say that putting a cat face on a t-shirt dress is not design, I must say to you, dear boy, that throwing a blazer over a a truly "blah-zay" leopard print boustier is NOT style!



          To tidy up this diatribe and make it au curant, I'd just like you to note what's going on at this year's Cannes film festival, now in progress.  Take a look for yourself, Hello Magazine and Telegraph.co.uk are great sources, and I'm sure if you look closely you'll notice a difference between the international performers and many of those who act for the US market, no matter their culture of origin.  Our nation is represented by way too much skin, in dresses way too tight, not for beauty but for some vulgar sense of sexuality!  My apologies to the exceptions that prove the rule. 



Rachel McAdams at Cannes, a slightly more creative boustier



          In coming blogs in this series, my team and friends from around the world will weigh in on this sort of thing, the American market being sold a vision of dressing that calls for cheap "inner wear as outer wear" as I've heard ad nauseum lately.  It's the start of our seasonal 5 ways not to dress and 5 suggestions for ways to indeed cover and express yourself.  We'll give many examples but a thread will run through indicting the design firm that most used American cliches in its dressing this season, and I bet you haven't even given it a second thought. I also dare you to guess who before I get the next chance to write. It's all going to be quite revealing, and oh, so very, Voirrey.

   

So, I hear I've been called not all that self-revealing...

SO, here I am, talked into, of all things, blogging.  Please remember my friends, in print I am WAY too verbose, and I shall count on my team, my  friends worldwide, even loved ones to help me out from time to time to get the word out short and sweet.  SO what exactly is So Voirrey?

Basically it's this:  we believe that everyone should have the freedom, means and safety to express themselves, particularly in the way they present themselves to the world.  Up til now that's meant a loose network of retired models, novice set designers, anyone in the fashion industry who in some way wanted to give someone else a leg up.  That might mean helping a new model not get taken advantage of, or convincing some boutique owner to give some last season's leftovers to a small local charity which provides help for those in immediate, crucial need.  We do NOT give to the big box charities, but I'll 'splain that another day. 

Now, we're stepping up the game.  We may even become an official non-profit!  Gone are the days when I might fly to the various countries on Tsunami ally to assist, then jump up to the Isle of Man to see about scholarships for the disabled, then hit Fashion Week, all on the QT. In my lifetime the limelight has become Slimelight, I've even had to change my name!  It may be a brand new world, but I still believe in the creatures within it, and we're going to do our damndest to help out. So, is all this and the foolish picture they're making me publish revealing enough?  Maybe next time we should talk a little more about what is too revealing and what is so Voirrey.