07 January 2008

Yeeeah, I don't think I get this.

For me, enjoying glossy fashion pictorials is never a function of liking the clothing on the models but rather the feelings evoked when I look at the clothing on the models. I like the moods these haute couture houses cast over you with their quirky minimalism (Marc Jacobs, Jil Sander, etc.) and their sexually ambiguous human collages (Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, etc.). Perhaps if I had the means to purchase even an extra button off of one of these garments, I'd consider them less as entertainment and more as real advertisements, but frankly, something tells me I'll never know that transition.

My tinker needs the entirety of the evening to figure out whether I hate, love or just plumb don't get the David Sims' shot Spring/Summer '08 Balenciaga adverts featuring your and my favorite hanger, Jennifer Connelly.

I've been looking at these two photos for a while now, and the only 100% sure conclusion I've made is that her hair is a brilliant recreation of how mine used to look after six straight innings of wearing a catcher's mask and shin guards.

Thoughts?

14 comments:

Catherine said...

I am an ardent defender of couture-is-art!! but these do nothing for me. Her face could be so much more interesting and her lithe body has so much more potential, it pains me to see her strapped into Lion King gladiator stilts and a dress inspired by paper mache.

Nice colors, anyway.

samantha said...

The shape of the dress from the waist down is an interesting contrast to the position of Jennifer's right leg and the laces of the boot. I appreciate this as art, but as fashion it's just not my cup of tea!

callie said...

her face looks about as beautiful here as I've ever seen it, but her legs and arms are painfully airbrushed. I know she's thin, but her thighs are not the width of the Olsen twins'.

you played softball??? you continue to surprise me, J.

The Princess & The Pea said...

All I can think when I look at these pictures, is why don't I look this good pale as pale can be??

fugly said...

I think it is just FUGLY!

etcetera said...

do. not. want.

Anonymous said...

blech!!!

Anonymous said...

puke.

Anonymous said...

Way too skinny. And she looks like a damn robot.

sarah said...

her face is beautiful and that's about it. like callie said, "painfully airbrushed." why do they do this? i just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer looked her best in "Career Opportunities" back in 1991. She actually had T&A. Those who haven't seen this should add it to their Netflix queues right away.

CDP said...

Her face does look beautiful, but her body (legs especially) looks spindly and weak; she usually looks really strong.

FnC said...

WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!! She looks ghostly and alien-like!! Her pose is completely awkward and stiff like the dress is so binding around her midsection that she is forced to move in jerky, robot-like spasms....

1blueshi1 said...

I can only venture to posit that her legs have committed a heinous crime...and have now been imprisoned in a visual of said heinousness--as the first commenter said, I am all for unwearable clothes as art photos on the pages of Vogue, but this is just WRONG. It is not art to make fabulous human beings look ugly, no matter how many blue-lipped, bed-headed models the fashion industry sends down the runway (only to collapse and die of starvation at the end, but that's another comment for another post)