Fashion

[gertrudecloset]

Lawd hab mercy......

Fools of themselves!  Why not just draw a painting?  Art has more than one medium.  For instance, I don't see what's so big about the Mona Lisa but I wouldn't call the famous artist who painted her "making a fool of himself."  Art is a means of self expression and is in the eye of the beholder.  What was provided here for viewing was Fashion.  Not clothing.  There IS a difference maybe some should learn.

Fashion is Art   Clothing is not....

Paintings are Art

Photography is Art

Ballet/Fine Dance is Art

You don't have to

[JamandBread]

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

For Harlem's Fashion Row

---

I actually like these. I would have styled the gold foil dress differently, but I could see these designs on the street.

[JamandBread]

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

---

I believe the model is a young man.

[pet sitter 4 u]

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

---

I believe the model is a young man.

---

Whatever...the "person" then is that better?  Good grief!  Gender police strike again.  

[JamandBread]

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

---

I believe the model is a young man.

---

Whatever...the "person" then is that better?  Good grief!  Gender police strike again.  

---

You might want to calm down. Gender police? Do you need policing? You said you were surprised the Q censors didn't pick up that "she is practically naked". I simply stated the model is a man.

Project much?

[pet sitter 4 u]

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

---

@JamandBread wrote:

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

---

I believe the model is a young man.

---

Whatever...the "person" then is that better?  Good grief!  Gender police strike again.  

---

You might want to calm down. Gender police? Do you need policing? You said you were surprised the Q censors didn't pick up that "she is practically naked". I simply stated the model is a man.

Project much?

---

Look, this person's look is androgenous which leaves ambiguty on a clear and OBVIOUS gender id TO ME which appears TO ME what the designer intended thus causing conflict.  I'm done.  I have a life and not wasting and more time.  Oh, and please do have the last word by all means.