Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Those were the happiest days of my life

In an ideal world, a person who has enjoyed two months' (hard earned) break would turn their mind to serious things, including the front pages of the daily newspapers, budgets and section 137bb. (Yes, it has two bs. No, I'm not knowing.)

I spend today wondering about the non-classics items of clothing. I know all about the classics all the books say we must have in our wardrobe. I want to know what the non-classics are. What things are destined to be donated to charity or selling on eBay for a few dollars by the end of this year? Bird prints? Jumpsuits? Ballet flats? (No! Not ballet flats!)

Meanwhile I was wearing my classics, which I guess subscribe to every list of classics every compiled:

 A plain black sheath from Jigsaw

 A plain silk-cotton blouse from Banana Republic

Ferragamo Vara pumps, thrifted from St Vincent De Paul in Rozelle, a nice plain black leather belt from the Turnaround second hand clothing store in Newtown,  Wolford tights and the Mulberry Bayswater that is obviously not a Kelly bag.

The train was empty. It always is when it gets to my stop.

At lunch time I took my interesting train of thoughts to a local charity shop and flicked through the racks to see what wasn't classic, what may had been discarded because they were dated or out of sync with current fashion. It's a subjective conclusion. I found lots of dresses cut on the bias, lots of loud blousy floral prints, lots of button-down frocks from the mid nineties and a ridiculous shallow baking pan for cooking heart-shaped muffins, all of which I believed to be superseded and irrelevant in fashion terms.

I also found countless classics - well, items the style books would brand classic - but that apparently weren't for their owners, not any more. Oh, and a lace tablecloth, which obviously I bought straight away.

It's got me thinking.  Are classics a myth?


  1. What beautiful, artistic photos. I applaud your creativity.

    I'm not competent enough about clothes to answer your question. Often, a word (e.g., "classic") has a meaning that differs from what it ostensibly signifies and I suspect that's the case with this word. I'm still a novice at female-culture.

  2. I think classics are subjective, depending on the person and his/her style.

    A classic white button-down and black skirt for example. Although I currently own a white button-down (thrifted Burberry London for $4), they are not classic for me. They get yellow in the armpits, and white is really not my colour.

    Black skirts...well, I own many. Not a single one is plain - my most classic one is made of leather.

    They aren't staples in my wardrobe - I would much rather wear something odd or unique. A purple skirt might be more classic with my style, and a brocade blouse with some fancy detail might be more me.

    A classic can be whatever you want, I guess that's what I'm trying to say (not very well).

  3. Thank you Shy! I'm yet to hit on the perfect format photographic format for my photos so have decided to just grab them when the day allows them. I appreciate you compliment. Your photos are always wonderful so I take your appreciation as high praise!

    You're right. Sheila. I've been thinking about classics a lot and concluded that most of my favourite clothes are all anti-classics as far as the books are concerned, but absolute staples to me. I've started a post on that topic that I'll upload when I've finished the photographs! And I agree with you about white shirts - I simply cannot wear long sleeved white shirts. They never look crisp and clean on me; somehow I always looked crumpled and ill-shaped after five minutes. I'm curious about a leather skirt - I'd love to try one but not sure if I could carry it off. Whenever I see someone wearing one I am always struck by how great they look.