fashion, style, mode, vogue

At first it sounds like the old joke about the young woman who attends a costume ball in the altogether and announces that she’s Chile. Yes, it seems, nudity has invaded the precincts of fashion. And does this strike anyone as odd? Isn’t fashion primarily about, er, clothing? But let’s consult the zeitgeist for a second. Pornography is more mainstream now than it has ever been in the entire course of Western history. Today, every swinger in the land can hop online and within seconds get access to a bewildering range of images, from the explicit to the more explicit. Mere nudes can seem awfully bland by contrast. But then it may be that when the mainstream goes baroque, simplicity becomes the possession of an elite.

We’re also living in a time of sharply polarized attitudes toward such things as nudity and salty language, so this is a trend you may not have seen if you limit yourself to family publications, like this newspaper. But if you subscribe to W, say, it will probably have come to your attention that the unclothed body provides the ideal setting for the display of accessories like jewelry and shoes. A lush body is satisfying to look upon, and the man-made items adorning it do not have to compete with other man-made items that occupy more acreage. It’s a wonder it took so long for stylists to stumble upon this idea. If you look at Manet’s “Olympia,” for example, among the first things you will notice after taking in the expanse of her voluptuous body are her string-tie choker, with its cameo, and the flower tucked above her left ear. A few beats later, you will appreciate her mules — one of them carelessly fallen off her foot — as well as her earrings and her bracelet. Product placement was largely unknown in 1863; otherwise, Manet could reasonably have requested a kickback from the maker of those mules.