An Idlyllic Life, Preserved

professional style, fashion blog, lifestyle blog, preserve, blake lively, career, opinion piece, lifestyle brand, fashion illustration, beauty, work, outfit, wardrobe

After reading a string of increasingly acerbic reviews of Blake Lively’s languidly executed foray into the celebrity taste-making market over the last few weeks, we decided to objectively assess her eclectic blog-tique creation for ourselves. While trying to figure out what Lively could do to, pardon the pun, Preserve, her website as an e-commerce mainstay, we realized the need to examine the concept of the “lifestyle expert” more closely. Where (and when?) did this career path materialize? What distinguishes a bona fide, qualified expert on homemaking and entertaining from a mere peddler of non-necessities? Finally, how can Ms. Lively succeed as a purveyor of goods like artisanal small-batch pickles while simultaneously cementing herself as a trusted authority on the very lifestyle that she endorses?

Though the concept of the lifestyle expect may sound fairly new (and one which we frequently associate with Martha Stewart, queen regnant of all things domestically cooked, constructed, and decorated), it’s actually been around for ages in slightly different incarnations.  What likely began as a social hobby for the noblesse oblige paved the way for various wisdom-imparting women, and, later, for the “lifestyle gurus” we know today.  From Emily Post’s omniscient manifesto on manners to Dear Abby’s cheeky but adored advice columns, lifestyle commentary has always had a place among women.  Then, with the advent of television, we got our first food prep guru (Julia Childs, arguably the O.G. of the celebrity chefs).   Though these guru-predecessors each had a narrow purpose and a specific goal (manners; ethics; gregarious gastronomy), they were loved and respected by women for their expertise in their respective fields, and were relied upon for their lessons and recommendations.  Then, with the emergence of Martha Stewart, everything changed. 

Stewart (whom we admittedly cannot discuss objectively because we generally take her word as gospel) essentially invented, cultivated, and promoted the modern concept of the domestic goddess/lifestyle expert.  Not only could she cook, but she could decorate, host, and even take on impressive home improvement projects—all with grace, creativity, skill and efficiency.  Martha Stewart gave girls and women of all ages and backgrounds an endless supply of achievable inspiration to try innovative, practical, and beautiful projects in the kitchen and beyond.  Part archetype and part fairy godmother, Ms. Stewart has laid a path for countless women (in the media and in their own homes) to try new things, take on new projects, and elevate the quotidian to the elegant and delightful.  It is this very notion of elevation that has led many of today’s self-anointed lifestyle experts down the rabbit hole, often crossing into the territory of eyebrow-raising smugness.  Despite the tendencies of her successors, Stewart has managed to stay true to her purpose.

While Stewart has promoted a lifestyle of elegance, her presentation has always been grounded in democratic practicality.  Though her storyboards, ideas, and recipes often incorporate high quality products or implement specialty tools, her overall concept is universally achievable—by practically anyone willing to put in the work.  Stewart’s ideas (and products) inspire and elevate, but they are earnest and not overwhelming.  Her ideas may have elements of primness, but they are not smug.  Some of her recipes may be difficult to pull off, but they are rarely presented with either cheap shortcuts or obnoxiously gourmand requirements.  It is largely due to her consistent delivery of the achievable dream to the masses that Stewart has managed to maintain a wide sphere of influence over the lifestyle guru/domestic goodness market without being dethroned.  Though there are plenty of chefs, decorators, homemakers—lifestyle experts—who contribute their own valuable expertise, Stewart is generally accepted as the true guru.  Still, the lifestyle expert market is growing, and not all such gurus adhere to the achievable-for-all model.

For example, many post-Stewart lifestyle experts have chosen to cater exclusively to the activities and shopping habits of the upper-crust demographic.  Because a large number of one-percenters (1) don’t mind spending exorbitantly on things they don’t need and (2) generally have far less domestic and DIY hobbies than their lower tax bracket counterparts, the “life advice” directed at the well-heeled is typically more focused on chichi shopping tips and materialistic, curation-based ideas, and less on creation-based projects.  Of course, as celebrity lifestyle emulation has become increasingly popular, the non-upper-class masses have gravitated toward the luxury consumerist ethos, and “lifestyle, generally” has shifted to “lifestyle of the wealthy.”  Coupled with a buy-now-pay-later economic mantra, an increasing emergence of retail therapy and the convenience of e-commerce, the bar on acquisition and affordability (whether real or imaginary) has been partially lifted for the general public.  Having the means to afford things previously allocated to the leisure class has turned into a fluid concept.  Savvy retailers, marketing gurus, and with them, lifestyle experts, have capitalized on this changing tide.

This “champagne taste/champagne pockets optional” paradigm shift partially explains the runaway success of GOOP, Gwyneth Paltrow’s newsletter/celebrity Skymall.  GOOP enjoys an equally massive following of both devotees and dissenters.  Conceptually intermingling the price tags of Net-a-Porter with the approachability of Rachael Ray, GOOP entered cyberspace at the apex of the fashion and lifestyle blogging craze.  Though Paltrow has always noted that GOOP was started for her friends (presumably, her pecuniary peers), she also conveys this idea that the easy, effortless, breezy life (that comes with a not so breezy price tag) is within anyone’s reach.  Though the unintentionally condescending tone of her recommendations and musings often illustrates a deep disconnect from her largely plebeian audience, Paltrow promotes a lifestyle of simplicity through luxurious consumption. GOOP’s approach to lifestyle expertise illustrates the contrast from “achievable by all” to “obtainable by all those with means.” 

Other observers have pointed out that GOOP’s inherently tromp l’oleil approach of spending liberally to curate an image of effortlessness stands at odds with Stewart’s implicit position that it takes actual work to achieve actual results.  But take this distinction a step further and consider the teleological implications of these approaches.  While GOOP’s guide to lifestyling seems to encourage taking pride in hiding the ball on how much was spent to appear au naturel, the Stewart way, which focuses on DIY instead of spending, results in enjoying the fruits of one’s labor and taking pride in both the labor and the results.  Though we are not going to compare the merits of embarking on $500 a week juice cleanses to roasting a flock of Cornish hens from farm to table, it is important to recognize the fundamental differences of these two forms of lifestyle guidance—and that generally, they are fundamentally at odds with each other. 

With two opposing models in mind, Preserve’s niche in the lifestyle market becomes quite perplexingLively’s project, which she admittedly spent several years developing, is one part smorgasbord of pretty snapshots and blurbs, one part eclectic country store for rich out-of-towners, and one part altruistic/reflective travelogue.  Though taken individually, each of these missions is well-promoted and well-executed, Preserve seems to try to accomplish entirely too much in one space, which is confusing for some and irritating for others.  The final product kind of resembles an eager teenager's inspiration board--lots of pretty snippets reflecting an array of competing interests and ideas.

Beyond its ambitious punch list of goals, Preserve’s very ethos is fundamentally at odds with itself.  In part, Preserve sets out to travel deep into our country’s roots and tell the stories of its path-less-traveled Main Streets.  It’s a lovely idea—and the effort is visible in the photos subjects—but, when combined with the elements of lifestyle curation and e-commerce, the storytelling loses much of its meaning and its authenticity.

Other than content cohesion, Preserve also seems to have a hard time identifying a viable target audience. By attempting to appeal to the everyday young American (who is, generally, of limited means), Preserve misses the price mark.  Trying to entice the population of today’s youths—who are, according to Lively, moving away from the big corporate consumption model and toward small, individual, hand-crafted special things with a story—Preserve tries to offer something different, but perhaps falls short of thinking that transaction through to completion.  How can a socially conscious but broke 22 year old be induced to purchase a $500 skirt or a $17 jar of pickled vegetables, especially when said consumer is (1) likely strapped for discretionary funds and (2) well versed in cost-saving options for achieving the same effect? 

Further, the very demographic that Preserve seeks to target—young, slightly artsy, Americana-loving consumers—is inherently unlikely to buy into a website created specifically to appeal to its purported interests.  In fact, that is the demographic most likely to reject anything that sounds remotely like a gimmicky attempt at selling something.  

At its crux, it seems that Preserve tries to reconcile the Stewart ethos—taking pride in craftsmanship and appreciating the hand-made—with the GOOP aesthetic—spending freely in hopes of attaining the appearance of effortlessness (a sort of consumerist Nirvana?).  By profiling artsy DIY-ers and then selling their fancy, steeply priced creations all in one place, Preserve overwhelms the palate.  Part of the taste-making formula is figuring out the difference between whetting the audience’s appetite with captivating ideas and offering a sensory (and conceptual) overload.  It also helps to have a lifetime of experiences and trial and error to pull off a venture of this magnitude and complexity with success. 

Perhaps Lively was not sure what she was getting into when she started this website.  Maybe she was given some bad advice, or was pulled in too many directions by her team.  It is possible that Preserve fell victim to the over-editing effect, as is evidenced by its lily-gilding verbiage and filter-heavy layout.  Criticism of the website, which has held a magnifying glass to the website’s every flaw, has pointed out that Preserve tried a little too hard to be something without really figuring out what that something is.  That’s a harsh observation, but probably not entirely untrue.  It also doesn't help that Lively is often conflated with her most famous role, UES vixen and mumbly aficionado of sequins and bedhead, Serena van der Woodsen.  To see Lively shift gears from big city glamazon to dusty road documentarian is a bit unexpected, particularly for those who have a hard time separating the actress from a character she portrayed on a TV show.  Though seeing Lively in this new light is going to be quite an adjustment for both her fans and critics, it doesn't seem right to hold her acting roles against her future career choices.

Despite its rocky start, Preserve can certainly evolve from a hipster hobby shop to a fun and engaging lifestyle hub, and hopefully the criticism has not discouraged Lively from taking notes and making improvements.  It takes years—sometimes even a lifetime—to build a successful website, let alone an entire lifestyle brand, and to achieve critical acclaim requires luck, talent, and patience. There is no reason why Lively can’t find her own niche in the lifestyle market; it’s just going to take some time and creative restructuring.  

Preserve needs to figure out her audience, and find a way to connect with them that's a bit deeper than an invitation to "preserve the connection."  Beyond that, Preserve needs a clear position to take in the lifestyle expert world without caking on too many layers (effortless shabby overpriced Americana chic, for example, is going to need some tinkering).  When Preserve finds its footing and develops an unique and unconflicted point of view, it could very well find itself thriving among already established lifestyle experts.  It is too early to judge Preserve’s success, and it’s only fair to give its ambitious take on a well-meaning idea the benefit of the doubt.

-Stylish Council

Defining the Other "F" Word: Where Feminism Stands Today

professional style, fashion blog, nyc blog, texas blog
Between views on contraception access going corporate and Hollywood’s ballooning infatuation with strong, quirky, and unapologetically convention-breaching female ingénues, time is ripe to consider the current role of feminism in mainstream American society.  Like many social movements, today’s post-third-wave feminism is simultaneously evolving and devolving; expanding and truncating.  Though overall, the movement continues to achieve great successes, with women leaning in and breaking out and exceeding huge goals, feminism is also bogged down by external stigma and internal fragmentation. 

While the latter phenomenon is a standard byproduct of almost any sustained social movement, the former is a fairly unique problem, and one that is largely propagated by Hollywood and the scandal-mongering media: short of major gaffes or salacious revelations, few topics create a more efficient frenzy than a young female celebrity’s position on, or affiliation with, feminism.  From luring online readers with newsfeed fodder to spinning out-of-context soundbites on TV, media outlets seem fixated on periodically tracking down starlets, crudely grilling them about their stance on feminism, and twisting the response in some pejorative way.

The media’s one-two-punch trick works like a fork in a chess game: there is no way to come out of the confrontation unscathed.  In “are you a feminist?” interview terms, there are two options: answer in the affirmative and risk commercial credibility (because, you know, the scary “F” word might hinder mainstream approval); reject the label or refuse to play ball and risk alienation and backlash from the powerful liberal periphery.  Creating this double-edged sword for young celebrities (many of whom likely grace the inspiration boards of countless little girls), the media does far more damage than simply selling clickbait and stories at the interviewee’s expense.  By implicitly illustrating (via pejorative spin) that an affirmative response is, to put it mildly, not in the responder’s best pecuniary interest, the media sends a message to anyone who might be tuning in: feminism is a stigmatizing, polarizing, misunderstood term, and many women—even spunky, progressive women—are afraid to affiliate with it.  Indeed, by offering an affirmative response (even if it’s calculated, tempered, or vague), the interviewee subjects herself to scrutiny from both critics and sympathizers of feminism. 

The path of least resistance — as several feminist writers have pointed out in their assessments of the feminist backlash against young starlets who are cornered into taking a clumsily articulated position on feminism —seems to entail denying outright feminist affiliation or support, but then saying things that sound smart and progressive and supportive of things that are basically synonymous with feminism. 

On the one hand, this approach seems like a PR-reviewed compromise.  On the other hand, the fact that a woman has to circumnavigate the “F” word and come up with a calculated, politically correct, commercially sound, socially acceptable response instead of being able to honestly answer a relatively straightforward question is patently ludicrous.  Then the real circus begins—the media chops up the ingénue’s response, takes it out of context, makes her sound vacant or itinerant or old-fashioned or confused, and watches the web traffic grow.  Meanwhile, those who consider themselves feminists catch wind of the young celebrity’s snafu (because typically, it’s viewed as a snafu) and then more scathing commentary is unleashed.  Shaming, lecturing, and criticism may ensue, or perhaps just some quiet disappointment.  Regardless of the aftermath, it’s rarely positive. 

Those who watch these scenes play out in the media notice the pattern fairly quickly: young celebrities who respond to questions about feminism are in for a rough time from both supporters and critics of feminism.  For those who admire said young female celebrities, this pattern might create a negative association with feminism.  With opinion formation occurring in microseconds based on choppy web content and loosely established social connections, young women may choose to forego doing the research on what feminism is actually about, and rely on those tangentially observed negative associations to form their opinions, and eventually, their cardinal beliefs. 

But consider the following questions in a vacuum.  Is supporting feminism—a movement rooted in achieving respect and equality among all humans—really that radical?  What makes this movement such an outlier on the spectrum of social causes?  Why is there so much disconnect between feminism as a movement and individuals whose personal beliefs are closely aligned with it?  Perhaps the issue here is that feminism is chronically misunderstood, especially today—even by its own proponents.  How can we wrap our heads around this enigmatic concept—this feminist mystique?

In order to form a well-informed opinion on feminism, it’s important to view the movement—with its 3.5 incarnations, changing priorities and centuries of history—from a holistic perspective.  In a way, because of how far feminism has come over the last 150 years, the movement finds itself splintered into so many different factions that it becomes difficult to truly define and understand its status quo. Though many people view feminism as the pursuit of equality among the sexes and the recognition of their differences (a commonly accepted rough definition), others view it as a movement concerned solely with the advancement of women (a common misconception).  Some see feminism as little more than a male-criticizing, bra-burning parade, while others associate feminism with women angrily demanding special treatment (we can only hope that these two dated stereotypes are on their way out).  Too often, people's views of feminism are based on tired notions which reflect a single snapshot observation—something a woman said that was taken out of context; a moment of rebellion from a bygone era where some singular act was used to symbolize something far bigger than its literal implication.  With so many incomplete, outdated, or simply inaccurate interpretations of this movement, it is easy to forget feminism’s impressive history and misunderstand its roots.

What started as a quest for basic equality in the 19th century (the first wave, concerned with achieving voting, education, labor and property rights) evolved into a larger movement of women’s liberation (the second wave, which sought to recognize sexual, familial and reproductive rights) during the Civil Rights Era.  The second wave touched on subjects previously thought of as taboo and unbroachable (domestic violence, marital and reproductive rights) challenging traditional norms of family structure—and women’s roles therein.  On legislative and social fronts, the rights, freedoms and opportunities for women won by the first two waves of feminism found enough support, and eventually, acceptance, to the point that many of them are crystallized as norms today.  Changing mainstream values from flagrant sexism to a far more respectful and equality-seeking society over the course of just a few decades, the first two waves of feminism achieved an incredible amount of good for women. 

With the benefit of hindsight, the third wave of the 1980s made efforts to reach beyond the scope of the opinions of white, middle-class women on which much of the second and first wave relied in prior decades.  Addressing issues of race, sexual orientation, sexuality, and the preconceived notions of femininity while employing creative means of self-expression, the third wave sought to convey that no singular definition for feminism or the typical female should exist: all women are individuals who are entitled to their own choices and beliefs, no matter what those might be.  The third wave challenged the notions established by its predecessors by pointing out the shortcomings of having one definitive viewpoint or agenda for an entire social movement.  Ideas that were viewed by the second wave as bad for women, such as male objectification, provocative attire, or vying for a traditional family role, were reassessed from a more objective perspective. 

It is partly out of this expanded, individualistic view of feminism that today’s confusion about the movement arises.  The third wave introduced so many variations on a theme that the formation of conflicting views was inevitable.  What made sense to Riot Grrls did not work for those who had more traditionalist preferences.  What inspired the women who started the Slut Walk might have upset the second-wavers.  The same forces behind the third wave that motivated women to go out into the world and find their own niche created so many niches that feminism now carries thousands of different meanings, depending on the “waver’s” individual views.  Though this is not, by any means, a bad thing, the individualism of modern feminism does make it a bit difficult to pinpoint a central agenda and value system for the movement.  It also theoretically gives anyone carte blanche to comment, criticize, and shame people for not being pro-feminist/feminist enough if the words or actions of the evaluee are at odds with the viewpoints of the evaluator.  This is the composite result of having an open definition for feminism, an open floor for judgment, and a growing trend for shaming and chastising people on the internet. 

Adding to the confusion surrounding the “feminism” term is that what resonates with the collective opinion of mainstream society is often the loudest, newsworthy, or peripheral position out of a whole spectrum of positions.  Thus, the bra-burning, protesting, ranting stereotype for “feminist” of yesteryear continues to make the rounds through society’s conception of feminism, while the less radical, passionate and progressive advocate for equality becomes a secondary concept—even an afterthought.  Then, when someone tries to debunk the dated and pejorative notions to explain what feminism is really about, people tend to offer an array of conflicting opinions. 

Since defining the concept is so difficult, identifying with feminism may pose similar issues.  As a result, some women prefer to support the goals of feminism with which they are familiar without affiliating with the movement outright.  Others, aware of the potential for misinterpretation that “feminism” carries, push for redefining its penumbra of ideas of positivity and empowerment under a different name (the Spice Girls promoted “Girl Power;” Queen Bey proposed “bootylicious;” others suggest “equality for all”).  In that sense, there is actually a lot of support for feminism today—it’s just that people have different ways of expressing it.

Though in the future, the movement will continue to face multiple challenges, incite heated debate, and, in some of its more extreme interpretations, propagate certain misconceptions and misunderstandings, it will also continue to forge onward, inspiring and empowering women along the way. While feminism would probably do better without the hashtag sloganeering and classifying and word ban campaigning and celebrity shaming, these unsavory features of the movement’s Greek chorus periphery also serve as great lessons.  Feminism seeks to give people choices—to think and say and do as they please.  This will inevitably result in biting rants for some and inspirational oratorios for others.  In the aggregate, just the fact that there are any options at all—and that they are being freely exercised—is a good thing.

While the stigma and labels and negative associations with feminism are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, it doesn’t mean that women have to listen.  Though the media might continue carrying out its ulterior motives by prodding female celebrities with its predictably malevolent questions, women can change the course of the conversation.  Instead of hawkishly waiting for some young celebrity to fall prey to a media “feminism” fork like a prep school Oprichnik relishing in the screw-ups of a naïve ninth-grader, women can offer some supportive, seasoned feedback and assure the celebrity—and whoever else is listening—that it’s okay to not have a fully formed opinion on something as complex as feminism, that feminism means different things to different people, and that it takes time to decide whether or not to identify with the movement.  Instead of feeding into the negativity of the harpy corners of the internet by glibly proclaiming that some young celebrity is dreadfully uninformed, tragically retro, and/or must be reprimanded for her infractions against an entire social movement, we can positively encourage those who may not be all that familiar with feminism to learn more about its history and values to form their very own definitions and opinions.

-Stylish Council

[Image Credit: Rupsha B.]