Lately, I find myself drawn more and more to these odd sack-like silhouettes from the 1950s and 60s.
But as excited as I am about this pattern, I had serious misgivings that I would love the finished dress. After all, how many hours of my time do I want to spend working away on something that I am not going to like in the end? Then again, how am I going to know if I like the look until I finish the darn thing.
Do you have to be shaped like Audrey Hepburn to pull this off? Some of these dresses are so shapeless, I am beginning to think that a waif-like frame is not required.
But I still feel as though this sort of silhouette is going to look best on someone six feet tall and very thin.
Is this Balenciaga frock inspired by a Miró painting flattering to the female form? Probably not . . . but it sure is stunning. And if the garment does not even attempt to flatter the body does that, in fact, make it easier to wear?
It seems like all you really need to wear a sack dress is some confidence.
Should clothing styles be flattering? And what the heck defines something as flattering? What do you think?
[Click on image for source]
I think you are right about height, weight should be less of an issue, though maybe you need a fiat chest. I love the pics, at 5ft 4 I think they would drown me. The Audrey Hepburn suit might be flattering, with the sleek pencil skirt. I think burda did the pattern in a previous vintage edition. Happy new year.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be right about the flat chest for some of these looks. There is a reason that supermodels are so thin - they resemble clothes hangers so that the clothing is shown to its best advantage, no matter how outlandish the design may be.
DeleteAnd I think a more petite frame would have to be a lot more concerned with proportions for some of the more creative looks.
i always liked the blouson backed Jacket _ there must be a load of tailoring underneath
ReplyDeleteI would definitely love to see the insides of these garments!
DeleteI think flattering is a very subjective matter. Personally I like things with a defined waist, and I cannot think of a single garment I own that doesn't have this feature. I am starting to experiment with styles beyond my general fit and flare, I have become fascinated with the drapes and pleats on a lot of 1940's bodices, so am excited for sewing in 2106.
ReplyDeleteI think whatever styles you end up trying, it will be great. I always love seeing your construction details. It really inspires me
Like you, most of my closet contains garments with fitted waists. I guess I just feel the need to try something different, even if I end up looking like an oompa loompa!
DeleteI am pretty thin and am drawn to these types of shapes/silhouettes. Sometimes waist definition works for me (I have a 24" waist) and sometimes it doesn't. There are so many variables in an outfit (including shoes, hair, jewelry, etc) and whether it is flattering or not is a case-by-case thing - I can't generalize.
ReplyDeleteGreat conversation.
I know every time I've tried on a suit or dress similar to the ones above, I've been disappointed. I'm also 5'3", use a size 22 in patterns, and usually don't try on those sorts of dresses with heels. However, the confidence to rock such an outfit is probably a crucial point. I say you go girl, if anyway can make it look fabulous, it's you!
ReplyDeletewww.alittletalent.com
I find a lot of these styles really fun, too---but with the same misgivings. What I like to look at vs what I like to look at on my are not always the same things. Though I think you would have a better shot at pulling them off than most of us. ;)
ReplyDelete'Sack' dressing has its place in fashion and can work with almost all figure types--of course with variations. I prefer loose over form fitting on any given day, provided the fabric drapes well.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I think what we define as "flattering" depends on the "ideal" figure that we individually have in our heads, and also what we deem to be our best and worst bits. Giving it a bit of consideration, I would say that I think of clothes which make my tummy look flat and my waist look smaller as flattering on me. I suppose that says more about my own perception of my "ideal" shape than it does about my actual body. Also with high fashion design like some of the beautiful pictures in your post, I think the reason they tend to be associated with smaller frames is because the lines will hang correctly (as the designer intended) on these shapes. Curves may change the flow of the garments? Just speculating! It's an interesting debate! x
ReplyDeleteI am drawn to this silhouette, too. It feels like the structural inverse of the New Look. I hope you do make something up as an artistic experiment.... Who knows, the sack style may come back in vogue; everything comes back around again and we haven't seen this look in a while.
ReplyDeleteYou wear everything well, and your construction skills are impressive.
ReplyDeleteAnother year ends, and again I send you gratitude and appreciation for all that you put out here.
Looking forward to seeing where 2016 takes you.
For me, there are - sometimes, not always - big differences between what I like and what I like to wear. I kind of like the styles above, mostly for the tailoring that must be behind the shapes - but would never wear them. For me, what's flattering has a lot to do with what one is comfortable in. I like definition of my curves - I'm comfortable in it so it's flattering on me. Or it's flattering on me so I'm comfortable in it?
ReplyDeleteI've been in to a much more sack like silhouette because life/work is just too hard right now to be uncomfortable, but I've been surprised that my sack dresses are by far the most complimented! I think especially if there are a few good details, figure flattery really isn't all that important.
ReplyDeleteI think the trick to these dresses is you must have nice ankles. And beautiful shoes. Two definite yeses for you on that front Laura Mae. Look forward to seeing you in a new and completely different shape.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I'm here, may I admit my slight envy over the previous poster who mentioned her 24" waist.
I used to focus on my waist, and then it went away. My new boxier form has been hard for me to wrap my brain around.
ReplyDeleteMy recent line of thinking is going for a sculptural look (thus why I know those Balenciagas very well) - perhaps if I present in a visually assaulting manner, I'll be more comfortable? And am I trying to go for an broader effect because something more subtle is beyond my grasp at the moment?
I may be overthinking the art teacher style.
Certainly I would never be able to pull off these styles but they certainly are intriguing.
ReplyDeleteAudrey Hepburn is the best example of this look because of the timeless quality she achieved.
ReplyDeleteI am also often intrigued by styles like these but I find them tricky. Mags mentioned you might need a flat chest but in my experience, being really flat can make you look like you're just a lump under that wide garment. Having a neat, well-defined shape which sometimes brushes against all that fabric often seems to be the trick.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I have found out, many women can wear sack-like dresses, if they have the confidence to pull it off and manage to find a style to suit them. Something which you can only do by trying it out. And by different styles I mean things like: Flared or tapered, pleats or gathers at the back or loose fit all round, soft and flowing or with lots of hidden tailoring, top or dress and how long?
I've always thought of these kind of dresses as a feminine, more chic version of Justin Bieber's saggy diaper pants. I think you could pull it off and look super gorgeous though. Would love to see a series on the construction of such a dress!
ReplyDelete"Flattering" tends to be code for "makes you look thin/traditionally feminine/attractive to the opposite sex". But I think it can be expanded to include what makes one FEEL good wearing a garment--confident, comfortable, stylish, attractive even if the silhouette doesn't achieve traditional figure ideals. It's not the dress that's 'unflattering'--it's our perceptions which have been shaped by our cultural norms that make us think an unfitted silhouette must necessarily be unflattering. I love the look of these structured sack dresses. They'd never look on me as they do on 1960s models, but they're still interesting garments. They challenge ingrained ideas, too, which is always a good thing. Anyway, I'd love to see you incorporate more silhouette variety, because in my opinion, you can carry off anything.
ReplyDelete