… a couple of you (ok, ok a lot of you) have written in re: my post on Michelle Obama’s Loree Rodkin earrings. I do realize the Obamas probably have some money and therefore CAN afford $10,000 + accessories- but that’s not the point. What I was trying to bring to everyone’s attention is that she has been positioned as the “first lady of the people” wearing all those middle priced outfits (instead of Oscar de la Renta she rocked J Crew and H&M). So many fashion writers, editors and critics (including me) have been talking about Michelle Obama’s foray into fashion, but why did’t we talk about it when she was wearing the stuff everyone else could afford? Aren’t we overstating it a little when we call her a fashion icon (for the record, I DON’T) and compare her to Jackie O? Do you only achieve “fashion plate” status when you start upgrading your wardrobe $$$ wise, AND if that’s the case, why is everyone giving Sarah Palin so much flack? Just sayin’…
PS thank you for all of your comments. The discussion is GREAT!
Michelle Obama never put as much claim to be part of the middle class as Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is the very woman who is quoted as saying something to the effect “I hunt animals, not wear them”, implying a difference between those who hunt (the middle class, “regular folks”) and those who wear fur (the higher classes, “rich folks”.
Sarah Palin distances herself from her beliefs and claims even more by allowing a wealthy Republican donor to fund her expensive wardrobe, which she somehow makes to look cheap. How hypocritical is it to criticize the wealthy but then to depend on a wealthy donor for new wardrobes? At the very least, Michelle Obama earned her money while a questionable Republican donor lavished Sarah Palin.
Fashion icons are completely open to interpretation. Michelle Obama is a refreshing visual icon because she differs from many groups of popular women. She differs from traditional first ladies because she’s avoided stuffy suits and antiquated haircuts. She differs from Hollywood because she is consistently polished, appropriate and professional. She’s personalized fashion to tailor to her body,her color palette, and her environment. Perhaps with the exception of the diamond earrings, she serves as an image to the average woman that working with relatively affordable clothing can combine professionalism with style.
If the amount of fashion risks Michelle Obama has taken still has not allowed you to aptly consider her for a contender in the battle to be a fashion icon, then what will it take? Her to be dressed by Rachel Zoe? Her to be even more daring? Jackie O was able to be a style icon partly because the comparison between her and previous first wives were so drastic. Jackie O certainly does contain an elegance no other woman has reached, but who is to say this elegance is linear? Is it not possible for Michelle Obama to redefine elegance for the woman she is? Michelle Obama is not just a mother in her husband’s shadow, she is also successful lawyer and political influence, and these elements need to be taken into consideration before blinding dismissing her.
I cannot help that figures like her receive criticism for critic’s selfish sakes; that the only way to mitigate her power and influence is to try to break it down and attempt to redeem oneself.
I agree! also, read this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2204577/
I’m amazed at all the flack about Michelle Obama’s earrings. My guess is that they were purchased in celebration of this very important event and they will last her a lifetime. She can pass them along to her daughters as a family heirloom.
I’d say $10K is a pretty modest amount and a smart purchase compared to expensive clothing that will be worn only once or twice. Besides, it’s her money and her choice as to what she spends it on.