Friday, November 13, 2009

attentive attendees.

i spent wednesday afternoon at the tiger of sweden showroom with stylists, bloggers and tiger representatives. we enjoyed an intimate showing of their spring line accompanied by sparkling and brunch nibblies. afterwards we were offered a hands-on experience with the final products in addition to materials and processes accompanied by a solo cellist from apocalyptica playing in the corner – something quite eerie, but also and ultimately exciting. the fact that there was an opportunity to discuss the company history and present in addition to fashion in general, material development and, moreover, my favorite topic of finland as a fashion market created an atmosphere of genuine interest going back and forth. time flies when you're having fun and the brunch lasted until midnight...

tiger does tailoring with the expertise and subtlety of old school craftmanship. i have lamented before that their cuts do not suit my body shape – an unfortunate fact for someone in finland where affordable quality is rarely offered. their sartorial history shows in the elegance of the garments and i have often admired their work on others. now that i got to fondle the sleeve fittings and collars with the kind of intensity i rarely let myself slip into at retail stores, the construction and detailing became more apparent than ever. the combination of classic cuts with contemporary edgy fabrics and vice versa are what makes their line so interesting.

one of the topics we discussed revolved around staple pieces of one's wardrobe – something many bloggers have talked about lately. especially we dissected the belief that investment pieces should be classics, that is, the idea that splurging can be rationalized if the garment in question is a classic, i.e. a goes-with-anything, item. i find the logic disturbing: classic more often than not means boring and if your own style is not the refined preppy, investing in basics might imply misplaced money. the reasoning behind investing in "timeless" design is that you never get bored with them because they say "nothing" and, supposedly therefore, have a lengthier lifespan in your wardrobe. they are easier to wear because they require no thought...

see where i'm going?

what is the point of investing in something that arouses no feelings of joy, love or pleasure? aren't the pieces really worth investing in the ones you love because they are special? sure the feeling of a quality sweater compared to a cheapo piece of krapolah speaks for some investing, but i still think buying the sequined dress that makes you drool every single time you see it rather than a cashmere v-neck sweater in camel is way better an investment. when everything in your wardrobe makes your heart ache with joy, style becomes a heavenly habit.

thus, although tiger might be unable to provide a three-piece suit for me, i am putting my hope in two items this spring: a frilly dress from their jeans line.
the 80's california surf punk attitude might feel somewhat dated already, but this baby had me on goosebumps the minute the model walked in. summer, i am ready in acid wash yet again! the soundtrack: sigue sigue sputnik's "21st century boy"




the other item is a tan leather blazer from the main line that's cut just above the waist and fits snugly around the torso. here the body shape issue becomes apparent, but i decided that i can always wear it undone because the cut of the back allows it. the softest leather and the muted tone works any season, me thinks. surely an investment piece if there ever was one. (i had a fairly difficult time trying to capture my dorky face...)

thanks and huge props to tiger team. more (and better) photos from the event here, here and here, and a videoblog here.

6 comments:

Kamicha said...

I totally agree about the investment pieces, they definitely should be courageous and they should delight you every time you see and wear them.

And the body issye - yeah I wear most of my jackets open, too.

Sugar Kane said...

Agree 100% with you on the investing issue. Also, I admit to not actually grasping the idea of timeless pieces - or to me, they are those WOW pieces, wearable works of art or things that bring a smile to your face and make you feel good about yourself.

I got bored with easily recognized Good Taste (TM) already in the 90's (back then known as wallpaperism), and don't see anything interesting in the current flood of "tasteful, pared-down, modern classic" fashions that rely on label identittes, not ones own personal vision. Sometimes, reading blogs repeating the mantras of middle-of-the-road style guides, I feel very, very lonely in this - So thank you for being a friend!

Anna said...

En tiedä miten hyvin olen pointtia saanut teksteissäni esiin, mutta olen siis täsmälleen samoilla linjoilla näissä asioissa. Mitä vaatteisiin satsaamiseen tulee, suosin aina itse mieluummin näyttäviä (ja ennen kaikkea ITSELTÄNI näyttäviä!!) vaatteita kuin yleisesti klassikkoina pidettyjä vaatteita. Pyrin rakentamaan vaatekaapistani sellaisen, että vaatteet ovat minulle itselleni ajattomia ja pitkän tähtäimen henkintoja - eihän niiden muille tarvitse sellaisena näyttäytyäkään (hyvänä esimerkkinä tästä esim. kasarimuodin tietyt elementit: mulle ne on mun omia klassikoita, ei jotakin, johon tartun trendin tullessa ja jonka taas pian hylkäisin).

Ja mitä vaatteista saatavaan iloon tulee: kuten taannoin totesinkin, haluan jokaisen hankintani olevan krympättävä, suurta iloa ja mielihyvää tuottava!

Anu said...

Mä puhun mielelläni klassikoiden hankkimisen puolesta, mutta mulle klassikot eivät ole kamelinkarvaista ulsteria ja ruskeaa nahkalaukkua, vaan juttuja, jotka mä itse määrittelen omiksi klassikoikseni (listasin niitä omassa blogissani jokin aika sitten). Ajattomuus ei välttämättä ole sitä, ettei vaate sano mitään, vaan se sanoo jotain niin abstraktia, ettei sitä voi kiinnittää tiettyyn ajanjaksoon ja siksi se ei ala tuntua vanhalta ajan myötä.

Nämä mun käsitykseni tietenkin ovat vähän vastoin sitä, mikä yleensä mielletään klassikon määritelmäksi.

Oliko se Sugar Kane, joka joskus sanoi olevansa liian vanha pukeutumaan tylsästi? Se on varsin pätevä ja aina toimiva linjaus.

stellagee said...

kamicha, yup, delight is the word. and i want to have jackets i can wear closed, i do, but sometimes cannot...

sugar kane, timeless does not mean boring, exactly. wallpaperism i have dubbed brûlean taste and yup, it is essentially boring. most style blog lists of wardrobe essentials are often only a reflection of the dull imagination of their makers.

anna ja anu, teidän teksteihin ja listoihin mä oikeastaan viittasin siinä, kun aloin pohtia ajatusta tuosta klassikkoasiasta. eli teidän omat klassikot kuvaavat hyvin sitä, miten sen listan ei tarvitse olla aina se sama "musta kynähame, valkoinen kauluspaita, siniset bootcut-farkut, jne..." annan krymppääminen on ihanaa, haluan krympätä mäkin. ja anun aikuisversiot eri alakulttuureista ovat sitä omien klassikoiden työstämistä parhaimmillaan.

joo, liian vanha pukeutumaan tylsästi on hyvä motto. koitan itsekin muistaa sen, vaikka välillä laiskuus ja konventionaalisuus hiipii ja iskee.

Sugar Kane said...

Mä oon tainnut alkuunpanna sanonnan: "mulla ei ole _aikaa_ tylsille vaatteille", ikä ei siinä ratkaise vaan halu keskittyä elämän kiinnostaviin puoliin. Koskee muitakin sosiaaliskulttuurisia toimia kuin muotia.