It's Fashion Week in New York, and if you're expecting to see a Depression-appropriate procession of feedsack dresses described in thoughtful, chastened prose—well, that just shows how out of touch you are with All Things Fabulous and Anachronistic.
Here, for example, is New York Times fashion reporter Cathy Horyn at one of the Monday shows:
The outfit Ms. Horyn describes is pictured above.
You may be as surprised as I was to discover that Ms. Horyn means this passage to constitute praise for that particular DVF ensemble. A few lines down she writes approvingly:
The collection was not so much about great fashion as it was about the things you want now. ... Those stretch jeans and jacquard knit leggings, which were the basic underpinning of the layered collection, come in checks, tapestry patterns, black glazed cotton (like leather at a glance) and a print that suggests camouflage. They’re the kind of easy wardrobe pieces that women are always looking for.
I understand everything about that last sentence except "easy," "wardrobe," "pieces," "women," "always," "looking, and "for."
Of course, the Times fashion staff is not like me and thee. Au contraire, they are writers capable of producing an aperçu like this one, posted yesterday on The Moment, the Times fashion section's Twitter stream:
Crack the code, and you too could be blowing backwards—through the unemployment line if not the carwash—in red leopard leggings.
Photo from Getty Images, at Fashion Week Daily.