Friday, October 20, 2006

I thought Cher would be pictured here, lounging among the egrets and wearing a headdress that mimics the crest of the birds. Or better yet, a music chip, like the kind that come in birthday cards, playing "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves". I find it very strange that Cher is nowhere near this dress, especially since the seller describes it as: “VINTAGE 70s PHOTO CHER PRINT HALTER DRESS NOVELTY” (sic., yeah with all those capitals just like that). I mean, what would you think?

Okay, perhaps I am being too hard on Ms. Firecracker’s Vogue Collection. Ms. Firecracker is just trying to make a buck, and aren’t we all? But Ms. Firecracker, this is not even a halter dress. And why is it listed as a Halloween costume?

A friend of mine hates and abhors the semicolon; I loathe clothing descriptions that randomly include a celebrity’s name. I know, I know, sellers are just hoping to reel ‘em in on the key word searches, and as Bertolt Brecht often said: first food, then morals. After all, I’m no different, I reference all kindsa pop culture trivia with my J. Petermanesque descriptions. Describing clothing is no easy feat.

Do I like this dress? Well, after I got over the disappointment of not finding Cher, I enjoyed the heron-type birds (where’s that Audubon guide when you need it?), the ripples in the water and the movement implied by the bird’s open wings. I do have a weakness for photo prints, but am suspicious of the sloppy all-over repeat print. It does have potential.

I’d celebrate the Armenian part of Cher’s heritage by pairing this dress with a long fitted tapestry coat in a complementary color and a wide contrasting sash. I’d totally cheat by including some silver and lapis Afghani jewelry, and top it off with a great big papakhi (a puffy Georgian hat made of ringlets of sheep wool). In short, I see this dress as part of a band, not a solo artist.


Post a Comment

<< Home