Ive been ignoring this link for a few days, now, but then a friend sent it to me, which made me read it. No regrets reading it, BUT - Im all for revisiting history and re-analysing narratives using various viewpoints, even if the thesis and/or end result is defanging its nasties like Hitler or Castro or Nixon or Bush or Marcos or GMA, even if its bordering superficiality, as long as the revisiting and re-analysis are done somewhat responsibly, meaning, with an eye towards historical circumstance. Meaning, Id go for reading an article discussing Imelda as a fashion icon, purely because I think its true - shes very chic, very fashionable, I really like her style - in the same way that Id go for reading an article discussing the Holocaust as a major contributor in modern art, but Id want that article to be something that does not sweep away historical circumstance with the blase-ness of scandal and politics aside. So: yes, Ms Zoe Laurente, I agree that a discussion on Imelda wouldn’t be complete without tackling her shoes. But also, a discussion on Imelda and her shoes wouldnt be complete without tackling the historical circumstance of her acquisition of said shoes. Its a no brainer, as far as Im concerned, and its pretty weird that it even needs to be mentioned, especially in the context of the Napoles and Estrada kids instagramming their very chic very fashionable lifestyles probably fed by their parents alleged corrupt practices. I know a website called StyleBible ought to be the last place to look for journalistic/historical responsibility, but then, dont open the door if you have no plans of going in, especially if the house is burning. m.stylebible.ph/fashion/style-report/how-imelda-saved-fashion/
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:10:47 +0000