It was a terrible day. The only thing that didn’t suck was the weather (which just keeps getting nicer). I found myself walking home through downtown Toronto carrying the jacket and scarf and hat I had needed in the chilly morning. It was nice to think that soon I wouldn’t have anything but my purse and pockets. It put me in the mood for summer dresses…

I almost walked past CTS Vintage, but then I thought, what the hell?

I try not to recommend stores. I think we can all find enough crap to buy without outside encouragement. But I have to say, my last three experiences at CTS (394 Queen St W*) have been delightful.

Nestled into an unexpectedly large space at Queen and Spadina, it’s a shop with loads of thrift stock (at thrift prices) and a vintage section. Justus, the guy responsible for picking the vintage gold at their downtown location, has a stylist’s eye and sense of humour, and he’s not shy with his opinions or recommendations. It’s a nice break from the bored disengagement of most boutique staff (even if it does make it harder to leave without buying).

And that is how, in the middle of my lousy, beautiful afternoon, I found myself trying on an uncharacteristically biblical looking white dress (it didn’t fit the girl in the next change room over and Justus thought it might be just the thing for me) and falling in love. I took it home for 15 bucks.

It won’t save your life, but it might make your day.

- g.

*Check the CTS website for other locations in the GTA. I can’t guarantee the staff will be as awesome.

Well, kittens, it looks as though the demand for high-waisted jeans is not yet at a fever pitch. Fair enough. To be entirely honest, choosing denim on the internet is risky business no matter what. But a few of you brave souls rose to the challenge and one of you is about to reap a chic reward…

Though there weren’t a ton of entries, it was still a tough call. I’m always impressed with a girl who knows how to throw a punch – real or faux – and I admit the idea of having some sassy lady actually singing “Lady” while wearing Lady jeans is almost too good to be true… But in the end I had to go with the girl who was not only chosen by fate (what are the odds you’d be listening to Kenny at the moment you read the post), but who also knew the name of Kenny’s backup band. I never could help being impressed by trivia.

Congratulations, unnamed girl from Victoire! Get in touch and let me know where (and to whom) I should address this fancy package and I’ll put it in the mail, toot sweet!

g.

It’s been quite a year for airbrush backlash. Just last February, raw photos of Madonna were “leaked” (I parenthesize because I can’t believe Madonna had nothing to do with their surfacing) and Monica Belucci appeared sans fards on the cover of French Elle. Then Talk left Claudia Schiffer untouched and, just this month, Marie Claire let Jessica Simpson go bare-faced (I have to admit she looks smashing). And then there was Kim “Not a Celebrity” Kardashian and Sarah “Look, There’s Russia” Palin, and so on and so on.

Now, Britney Spears has given her blessing for pre-shop photos from her new Candies campaign to appear next to their post-production counterparts, ostensibly to expose the illusion of modern image enhancement.

While, in theory, I applaud the idea of wanting to show some semblance of reality, people also need to realize these women are hardly common specimens. Seeing Monica Bellucci without foundation is hardly like looking in a mirror (for me, at least), and I’d venture to say Madonna is not representative of most 50 year old women. These women are blessed with great genes and an army of trainers and aestheticians. I should hope they look nice without makeup.

But even more importantly (and as our editor so rightly pointed out) why is no one questioning the fact that “professional” photography has gotten to the point where it cannot stand without extensive post production? So many of these “before” pictures are JUST BAD CRAFT. If our Brit didn’t have a single spot of cellulite, three bruises and a camel toe (funny how they didn’t highlight that), this would still be a TERRIBLE PICTURE. It’s like everyone’s just stopped trying because they know they can fix it later.

Finally (am I a fashion conspiracist?) in the copy that accompanies this latest, Britney is quoted as saying, “My favorite set-up was against the gigantic wall of pink cotton candy.”

Really? Because it seems that wall only appears after the shots have been retouched.

g.

From Mommie Dearest
Photographers Sofia Sanchez & Mauro Mongiello
Stylist Samuel Francois, Model Siri Tollerød
For Numéro 97

When I was small, maybe eight or nine, my mother bought me my first makeup kit. A cheap drugstore affair, it would serve the double purpose of keeping me out of her “good” makeup while teaching me how to use the stuff before I took it out into the world. In the last few months, celebrity mom Katie Holmes has been taken to task for allowing her daughter (age four) to walk around in ballroom dancing shoes – essentially child-size high heels. In my mind, giving little girls (or boys) the tokens of adulthood is mostly harmless; an amusing gesture, a little parental indulgence.

Right?

Created in 2001 by a Parisian digital arts collective called Pleix, the video below shows a series of four imagined “Beauty Kits for Little Girls” containing DIY beauty treatments. But rather than the customary cheap-makeup-and-nail-polish combos, these kits promise breast implants, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and cosmetic dental surgery.

Part kitschy vintage ad, part modern infomercial, the piece takes you through step-by-step guides, juxtaposing playful music, simple images and rudimentary drawings with creepy flashes of bloody scalpels and bone fragments. It’s both amusing and disturbing – an apt commentary on an increasing appetite for and obsession with (arbitrary) aesthetic perfection that, at this point, seems to claim its acolytes almost in infancy.

This work is already nine years old (just a little older than its implied target market), but I think it might actually be getting more relevant over time.

- g.