And some of it - or was it still just my imagination? - looked like what Vassilisa the Beautiful might wear to a business meeting:
To give you an idea, here's Vassilisa's everyday get-up:
Towards the end of the collection, however, came something which cannot - I don't care about Karl's actual inspiration, which seems to have a lot to do with lions, whatever - cannot be anything but Vassilisa's Sunday best:
And happily, the bride's dress was a variation on the same theme (it's probably good that the groom's not wearing a caftan; it would have looked corny, I guess. But so did the tuxedo, in that context):
Right, and there were a few dresses which seemed to be decorated with frog skins:
I like how you employ "seriously weird" as a quality criterion :)))
ReplyDeletewell duh! I walk my talk!))
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeletewait... or is it that you talk your talk? or talk your walk? ... ;)
good one))
ReplyDeletewhen I make an argument from phenomena, i talk my walk. when i use language in agreement with said argument, i talk my talk. when i do justice to said phenomena in my practice, i walk my talk and my walk. hm...sorry for killing a nice joke by analysis..
and... is this entry an argument, a using of language or a practice?
ReplyDeleteoh boy...i wish i knew how serious you are, to decide how serious to be. This post is an attempt to write a bit more than 'awwww chanel couture the golden-blue looks are gorgeous awww..' by means of accompanying text to these beautiful photos. now let's see: it's not an argument, though it can be an example. using language is practice, so...yes, and yes.
ReplyDeleteso... talking is essentially the same as walking, right?
ReplyDeleteum...essentially? i'm not sure. i guess 'walk your talk' refers to the meta-talk, as in 'there's no monstrosity in weirdness'. talking, however, is walking when you don't runaway screaming 'monstrosity!' in the face of weirdness but say something like 'the first seriously weird outfit...'.
ReplyDeleteor the other way around. as suggested by comment #2.
ReplyDeletei swear i'm not doing this for having '10' then '11' in the comment count, but what do you mean?
ReplyDeletein the second comment you said that in the post you "walked" your "talk", implying that the previous meta-talk was "talk", whereas in comment #8 you said that meta-talk was "walk" and the post was "talk".
ReplyDeleteisn't it nicely confusing?
hm, if it is, it's not intended to be. What i meant in #8 was that the post was both walk and talk. it was walk because it was an act that happily lived up to the standards of the speaker, and it was talk just because, you know, it was an act of using language. and meta-talk is always talk. Howzat?
ReplyDeletei think both is both. because meta-talk is also a practice.
ReplyDeleteoh boy..))
ReplyDeleteso how do you like the looks?)
gorgeous :)))
ReplyDelete