I don’t understand either – the woman’s choice of dressing or Scott’s choice to shoot. The choices made above the waist are so stylish but the extreme choice she’s made in how to wear the skirt takes away from the beauty she has, in my opinion.
It’s an edgy look and–at a time when much attention is being given to eating disorders–it’s a tad subversive. There’s shock value here. Few will react with a yawn to this photo. It’s not the sameold sameold pretty that one can find on hundreds of fashion blogs. This is art with a mission–its purpose is to cause a visceral reaction–a reaction that will cause many viewers to alter their ideas of what is beautiful, acceptable, or even disgusting. Low rise is not a new idea. Jeans often sit very low on the hip. What makes this different is the absolute emphasis that the width between the top and the skirt puts on the very visible and delicate pelvic bones of a woman with a minimum of body fat. Displayed this way on this woman, that part of her body suddenly becomes uncommonly sensual. And painfully vulnerable.
Sorry, j’ecris. It may just be that she’s too skinny for the skirt and it’s sliding off her.
It’s a little farfetched to think that someone would wake up one day and think, “Let’s make an artistic statement out of my pelvic bones.”
Although I agree that it is exciting to experiment with extreme proportions and body type as a challenging form of self expression AND I do believe she is out the gate early on the low riding skirt idea ( “sagging” for skinny girls, minus the boxers….)…my quibble with her look IS…I don’t think this works with any old skirt! Just as the sagging look wouldn’t work with say, pleated pants as effectively as jeans, I think the floral peasant-ish skirt looks like it is being re-purposed to do too much work. Marc, of course, got it right with his plainer skirts making the proportional, sculptural statement of showing the hips bones…it was like a retro-subversion…the hip bones as fins, like on a car?????? And/ or channeling that iconic Vogue image of Edie S with the strong lighting and jutting hip bones?
Nice try, but I would have shifted through the closet to find a less busy skirt to do the job! that’s all I’m saying….XO!
I agree! I like the pose, I love her hair, her face, very beautiful woman, and the shirt is so lovely and chic. BUT I don’t get it why on earth is she wearing the skirt that low? It does not look good at all. The proportions goes totally wrong and it looks like it will fall down any second.
agreed. she looks very cool, and i’m not going to get in any sort of debate over anorexia. while i dislike the preponderance of overly skinny bodies in fashion, i’m actually of the body type that naturally has jutting hip bones (and i do think they’re one of my best features) – but this look is just ODD. it reminds me of baggy pants-ers. i love the top – the gaps along the bottom edge are brilliant – but the skirt looks like it’s so low down that i’m going to get an accidental crotch-flash and/or it will slide off her body any minute, and that simply isn’t attractive or comfortable to me. “oops” is the phrase that comes to mind w/ the bottom half of this look.
i love pushing style boundaries but when it involves bodily discomfort and awkwardness in the name of being “cool” i think it loses its point. i live in an urban area and see plenty of baggy pants-ers on a daily basis, and have for years. but watching a guy walk around constantly pulling up his jeans as he’s walking, or walking with his legs held together as if he has to go to the bathroom, it’s the most awkward thing ever, and i seriously wish the “style” (while i totally get its cultural and social reasons and implications) would go out.
Hooray! I thought it was just me who found the skirt worn so low to be a bit vulgar. What does it look like when she sits down? And is it worn as low in the back? Was the skirt cut to be worn this way or does she have some weird reverse mullet hemline action going on here? From the sweater up–gorgeous!
I’m sure elegance can be bigger than a size zero, but the fact is that Janice, the woman in the photo is a size zero, and she is gorgeous. If the girl was a size 4 or 6, it would be considered rude if you said that it would be more beautiful if she was a bit slimmer. Lets just appreciate the beauty that this woman attains, and not what you think would make her more beautiful.
Totally agree. It’s a fantastic image . I’m tired of naturally thin women being spoken negatively of when in fact they exude their own particular fragile and feminine beauty that should be accepted and even appreciated in the same way that naturally curvaceous women are often enough celebrated.
Thank you! It’s so refreshing to hear this perspective. I was called skinny and taunted throughout my teenage years, and people thought nothing of it because apparently ridiculing someone for being thin is politically correct. Negative comments on body type of any form are harmful; just like there are are curvy body types that are naturally so, there are tiny bodies that are also natural and perfectly healthy… We should celebrate beauty and fashion in all it’s shapes and forms.
Beautiful woman! I adore her style, the haircut alone is gorgeous! I do however think there are better areas to emphasize bare skin, then again if were that stylish ( freshly waxed, and trimmed south of the boarder-wink!), maybe I’d have her confidence to pull this look off! Scott, you captured the light just lovely in this photo…well done!
how many of us dream of having Scott stop us on the street to take our picture? lets be honest, we kinda all do. maybe seeing this picture made this pretty lady’s day…so let us be generous with our words and thoughts. no one should have to read negative comments about their body. bigger, bony, long-hair, short-hair, tattooed….we are all kind of lovely, no?
THEY ARE TROUSERS. it’s NOT a skirt.
And her pants are not that low. It’s the way the light is hitting her body that makes it seem as such. And stop freaking out about how thin she is. It’s inappropriate.
Haven’t seen a skirt worn this low since the last tribal fusion show I went to. Not sure how I’m feeling about it as a street look. Actually, I am–a healthy 1/2 inch higher would maintain the aesthetic while making it clear that this is a deliberate look, not a wardrobe malfunction in progress.
I think a little hip bone can be sexy, but this skirt is just pulled down too far â€“ even if she pulled it up an inch it would be a million times better. That said, she is definitely gorgeous, and I love her haircut.
This picture is so strange! I’m wondering what it looks like from the back (is her crack showing?), do her pants fall down if she takes her hands out of her pockets? And why are people so repulsed when one wears their pants too low in the back, but if they’re low in the front, it’s suddenly “elegant” and “beautiful”. She is a good-looking woman, but I just don’t get it.
What a strange foto: I first see her beautiful profile but, scrolling down, a wrinkled sweater and, further down, a skirt pulled so low it barely covers her pubis. There is someting startling and indecent about her skirt, her pose.
That’s Janice Alida. She’s a model so those pelvic bones are to be expected. I worked as a dresser during Milan Fashion Week a few years ago, and these models are really naturally thin. They have really small bones and lanky frames.
I am actually agreeing with you! C’mon guys, give credit where it’s due, and yea… the top part is just but great! Very gorgeous, but scroll down and oops! she could have worn something better. Baggy pants for example, worn at high waist or maybe a fitting official dress. That facial look is great for such a bottom!
Are we even sure that is even a skirt as many have suggested? I ask only because it appears (on a close inspection of hand placement) that she has her hands in pockets. So maybe a pair of shorts or some sort of tailored pant, hung low?
Doesn’t matter whether it’s a skirt or a trouser or shorts. It’s too low. You need a safety margin in case of catching on door handles or small children grabbing your clothes, or mischievous people giving a tug as they walk past. Any of those and this would be a wardrobe malfunction par excellence. Just like those gangsta types who wear their waists around the tops of their thighs.
I like the top though. KInda cute the way it has little splits over the hipbones.
Nobody is tearing this girl apart. On the contrary, many are commenting on how gorgeous she is. We just don’t like the way she wears her pants. You can almost see her pubic hair. And one has to wonder how this looks from the back.
funny, but i’m going to have to disagree with you. you cannot almost see her private region. I think the slits in the top accentuate how low the trousers are. i do think that negative comments are juvenile and immature. some people are saying that it would look better if her trousers were higher. sure, a valid opinion. but for you to assume that you can almost see her private, which you cannot, and to make comments like “one can only wonder how it looks from the back”, is kind of rude in my opinion. keep negative comments to yourself.
You’re the one who’s being rude, not me. It is called the pubic region, and that is where the hair normally ALMOST starts. She calls attention to it by baring that region for all to see, and I comment on it, not in a negative or rude way. Are you trying to some how censor the comments on this blog, by telling me I should keep my “negative comments” to myself?
As always, your images are stunning. This is just very ‘thought provoking’. Are you making a statement? She is lovely, but the bones and posing of this is, so odd. Considering the position that has been take at Vogue and some of the other magazines on being so ‘thin’…I am a tad surprised. I want to think there is a message here for those with a poor body image…thank you for all of your incredible images.
Your point could be valid had this been an advertisement. Most fashion advertisements are supposed to portray beauty, so if you had a problem with a super thin woman being portrayed as ultimate beauty, I could understand that and would respect your point. But Scott’s blog is about capturing what is happening on the streetsâ€”he is not necessarily declaring to the world, what beauty is. It’s not a messageâ€”it’s a storyâ€”and that story is told from the streets. He captures many shapes and sizes on this blog (sure, maybe he gravitates toward leaner figures). But this is a healthy woman, on the street. There is no statement trying to be made. It’s just a woman who was probably going for a walk, when someone asked to take her picture. Stop reading into it.
I know this point has been reiterated many, many times, but what if he captured a larger, beautiful woman, who was actually overweight? Would one be justified in commenting, “it’s surprising that you would promote this lifestyle in spite of the obesity endemic”? I think that would be rather unnecessary.
It’s a story, not a dictum on what’s considered beautiful.
For the record, the GUCCI girls in the pictures right before this are being mauled and having insults aimed squarely at their “skeletal” backs. All this tittering and tut-tutting: “concern” for these ladies used as pretext. Preposterous and mean in equal measure.
I was about to comment in speculation that this is not a skirt, but pants, however, you just beat me to it.
For those of you who thought they were worn too low, does this change your perspective at all? Just curious.
Great look, except that she is wearing that skirt way too low. It looks bad, and her hip bones jutting out are not aesthetically pleasing. If she had worn it somewhere closer to her natural waist, the lines would have worked so much better.
yes i agree. all those men who want t marry her…. just goes to show i have no idea what men find attractive in a woman. it’s not personal, i just don’t find this attractive or even interesting. saying that i was interested in reading the comments.
I actually thought with the Marc Jacobs show that the low-slung skirts eclipsed the beauty and length of the model’s legs, so I can’t understand why anyone would want to use these proportions. Plus an exposed midriff is chilly – lots of important organs to protect in there. I do like the colours and the pattern though!
I suppose that when I’m hanging (daily) in my Carharrts in Montpelier, Vermont USA, I push them down this far with hands in my pockets and a t-shirt covering my stuff. Enjoy the raw, she’s not making it hard. Nothing is wrong, it’s just different.
Scott – come to MontP. You’ll search, but there’s stuff to be found.
I’m not not used to this elongated proportion created by her bared hips. I’ve noticed it in Marc Jacobs newest collection. Harks back to McQueen. It’s very unattractive even though her body is beautiful. It’s an almost alien look. Very sexual.
It looks like there is some sort of a skin-tight, flesh colored undergarment covering her lower abdomen. Otherwise, the front fastening of her trouser’s/skirt’s waistband falls right on top of her mons pubis. Not a comfortable look, nor a particularly sexy one. In fact, it is reminiscent of the very low slung trousers, worn over very visible, very colorful boxer shorts, favored by certain members of the not-so-sophisticated class. Not a good look, IMO.