« Make that two who would buy it. | Main | Good Morning! »

March 9, 2014

[Bumped] Up on the Catwalk

givenchy.jpg

Runway Rundown: Paris Fashion Week, Part 2 : The New Yorker A flash of beads, a frail butterfly print informing what might be the top of a chiffon shirtwaist, and a surfeit of pale pink curly fur, which engendered a discussion among colleagues later: if astrakhan refers to the fur of an unborn lamb, the pinkish-tan hue so popular at Givenchy this season unwittingly seemed to echo the actual shade of a doomed lamb in utero.

Posted by gerardvanderleun at March 9, 2014 10:09 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

So...

What were the girls wearing?

Posted by: Rob De Witt at March 6, 2014 8:48 PM

What is that "model?"

Posted by: tripletap at March 7, 2014 5:09 AM

Perhaps the fashion industry is dominated by gay men.

Posted by: mushroom at March 7, 2014 6:26 AM

When I see that I think of the video for "Stuck In the Middle with You" by Steeler's Wheel.

Posted by: Potsie at March 7, 2014 6:44 AM

Used to be that the clothes were pretty, and the models, too.

Posted by: Rebecca at March 7, 2014 6:55 AM

Contrary to what the feminists say, an ugly woman can make a lot of money.

Posted by: Denny at March 7, 2014 7:04 AM

I been in whorehouses from Rio to Rangoon, and I never seen nothing like that.

Posted by: BillH at March 7, 2014 7:15 AM

It's not about the models, it's about the clothing. Bart Simpson would say that the clothing both sucks and blows at the same time, and he would be correct. The Paris fashion week is for freaks.

Posted by: DHH at March 7, 2014 8:35 AM

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGLY.

Posted by: Sam L. at March 7, 2014 9:00 AM

My first reaction was "what the hell is that?" Do I pass?

Posted by: Jason in KT at March 7, 2014 9:12 AM

Easy there guys. Nobody is expected to wear this stuff. Its a sort of trickle down fashion...its supposed to influence what actually gets sold and worn on the street.

Posted by: pbird at March 7, 2014 10:13 AM

!st thought - yuck, she'd be better nekkid.

2nd thought - never mind

Posted by: misty at March 7, 2014 11:07 AM

I translated the New Yorker blurb into plain English:

"This is totally bullshit, but I have to say so in a way that this dipsey-doodle mag's readers can relate to"

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at March 7, 2014 11:21 AM

Some things are better imagined than seen.

Posted by: chuck at March 7, 2014 12:26 PM

Is it just me or they trying to look like Irish Wolfhounds on purpose

Posted by: Kelvin at March 7, 2014 1:41 PM

Somebody gets paid to write like that?

Posted by: Harry at March 7, 2014 2:28 PM

That's the ugliest thing I have seen on a woman since Woody Allen showed up with Mia Farrell.

Posted by: Roger in Republic at March 7, 2014 11:17 PM

Severe lack of ideas.

Posted by: ghostsniper at March 8, 2014 11:24 AM

First - you need a beautiful woman.

Second - anything placed upon her will look beautiful.

http://photobucket.com/images/mae%20west?page=1

Posted by: Mikey NTH at March 8, 2014 4:06 PM

I'd have the same expression if I had to wear that.

Posted by: model_1066 at March 9, 2014 11:47 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)