Um, it's technically a street style shot. . .

And I LOVE what Gemma Ward is wearing in it. I'm dying for a hat just like that. Pity they were all $80 at Cheap Jack's.

Ballerina briefs = panties.

I'm not sure why Elle featured a pair of panties as the bottoms to an outfit in the February issue. It wasn't a lingerie spread--the model was fully-coiffed, had on a top that was a top and not underwear (it was actually a rather lovely blouse that could have looked nice with real bottoms instead of panties--or, oh, sorry, a "ballerina brief"), and was wearing shoes, jewelry, and a handbag. Actually, most of the spread was very nice, but calling underwear a "ballerina brief" doesn't make it something acceptable to wear in public.

Unless you're Sienna Miller:

Actually, I take that back. Black tights or no, panties are never a legitimate bottom. Sorry, Sienna. We'll all remind you not to forget your skirt next time.

Screw It

You know what?

I like it. If anyone can pull it off, she can.

(That's Rinko Kikuchi in Chanel, if anyone out there hasn't already seen her on all the worst dressed lists.)

How can you be an individual when your style is trendy?

Ok, I know, I know. Ever since Kate Moss proclaimed her love for Irina Lazareanu, just about everything about her, from her lithe frame to her glossy black locks, has been "in." Especially her bangs. Everyone has blunt bangs now. British twelve year-olds get their fringe cut "like Irina Lazareanu." Self-respecting hipsters have more hair over their forheads than neanderthals did. And hey, she's definitely got a look:


It just happens to be a look that's become everyone's look right now.

But if my bangs were inspired by the lovely Jane Birkin (70's sex symbol extraordinaire) instead of her, can I keep them for a little while and still be original? My hair's still blonde, too, if that makes any difference. . .

Reconsidering Amanda Peet

Ok. I loved her in Barefoot in the Park, didn't so much like her in Lucky, and now I'm not sure what I think of her. My earlier impressions were that she's a fine actress, but perhaps less of a style icon, but she's looked pretty lovely in pictures lately, AND (though I just learned this recently) she apparently went to Peter Som's show in fashion week. Peter Som! I mean, I don't think unstylish people go for Peter Som. In the above picture, I love the combination of the frilly-ish, feminine dress, and no-nonsense, serious black coat. I'm not sure what the label they are, but the shoes look like Louboutin, and we all know how I feel about him.

In this next picture, it looks like she's wearing Isaac Mizrahi (which would make sense, since he designed costumes for Barefoot in the Park), and I love it on her. She can certainly work a mini dress. I've also been downright crazy about babydoll dresses lately, so that doesn't hurt my opinion of her fashion sense. I'm not sure I've ever seen her wear color, though, which is a little upsetting--it takes a brave New Yorker to be willing to experiment with blue or purple (or anything that's not black or grey), but doesn't that it make it all the more better when they do? Still though, I usually think that the shape and the cut of clothing is just a little more important than the color, and she seems to have a pretty good grasp of shape and cut, so I guess I shouldn't criticize.

Ok. I take it back. She's not unstylish at all. In fact, she's pretty cute and she does have good dress sense. Still though, we'll see if she ever takes a chance on color.