in the 22 years i have been actively thinking about jackie onassis, she has only ever appeared in my dreams twice. in one of those dreams, she wore this:
the daily mail would have us believe this dress is the same as this:
via the daily mail
and perhaps this is a failure of imagination on my part, but um… NO.
i do wonder whether, were the fashion industry to collapse completely, jackie would fade from our imaginations. because it seems so often now her story is used simply to sell things.
true, there ain’t nothing new about this…
since the beginning of time (ie. 1960), she has been used to sell things. whether that be magazines…
newsweek 1960
a lifestyle…
april 1961
a version of american womanhood…
and also, from the beginning, clothes have been a part of this.
as they continued to be throughout her life…
and upon her death…
and ever after…
Gucci/ Facebook, 2014
Gucci/ Facebook, 2014
so mayhaps i am a moron for expecting more from the daily mail.
(mayhaps also at this point that should be the title of my memoir: i am a moron for expecting more from the daily mail.)
via the daily mail
but, lo! they celebrate jackie’s dead day and the forthcoming release of two movies with the shallowest of shallow posts wherein we are instructed to dress like jackie, because “her classic approach to dressing is just as prevalent today.”
(i wonder: whycome there is no box from grant “how to sit like a lady” harrold pontificating on this prevalence? this article seems like the perfect moment for a box from grant “how to sit like a lady” harrold on “how to dress like a lady”… #missedopportunities
also, is “prevalent” the correct word here? “relevant” perhaps?
though i do heart how this puts JKO into close proximity with “the social ills”…)
anyhoo… i like how the article begins on the assumption that we have all taken issue with the notion that jackie is “always in fashion!”
via the daily mail
be real: up until this point, have you imagined her sartorial charms were seasonal?
is jackie a cold-weather fashion icon?
that seems to be the assumption driving this article, which aims “to prove that she was the queen of springtime style.”
thus the mail throws down the gauntlet in a debate no one was having.
based on the five “shop the look” tableaux we see here, our jackie life would consist of sailing in nantucket, picnicking in hyannis, brunching and weekend shopping in capri, and nights out in new york.
via the daily mail
sidenote: i’m rather wanting someone to do a memoir entitled my year of living by the decrees of the daily mail. because wouldn’t that be riveting?
how would your relationships change?
and what kind of life would you have that you would wear a $2,397.89 outfit to brunch?
via the daily mail
fyi, in the life i lead, at these prices, i would be brunching in an h&m top and nothing else.
via the daily mail
have you ever noticed how articles like this always demand that our personality shine through our accessories? do you feel yours ever does?
perhaps my jewels are too cheap, but they just seem an insufficient vehicle for the conduction of my personality’s total shine.
judging from the four comments on this article, at least with the general public, jackie’s fashion legacy is uncertain at best.
via the daily mail
perhaps what the daily mail proves here is that hell yes, missdior1947, there’s no alternative to jackie.
Filed under: Fashions, jackie, the daily mail
