Mercury rises for Isabelle Wen
By Jules Quartly
The writer begins strongly, using commonplaces of contradiction (what Isabelle Wen is not doing) and contrast. The paragraph ends with apposition, defining the "collection" as "a futuristic slant on what-to-wear":By Jules Quartly
The mercurial Isabelle Wen decided against a runway show this year and instead transformed her Taipei atelier into an art space to introduce her Spring/Summer collection, a futuristic slant on what-to-wear.
Vivid descriptive prose selectively establishes the setting. The subject is a fashion designer, so naturally the details relate to her fashion business. Usually "of course" is an annoying excess, but here it works fine because it makes clear the writer knows that referring to "models running around" is a bit obvious. Antithesis is used well ("but clothes were" the main focus), and also comparison: "like three-dimensional works of art."
There were models running around, of course, but clothes were the principal focus and they hung from the ceiling in the central exhibition area, suspended in space, slowly rotating like three-dimensional works of art.
The writer now moves to a higher level of generality, placing the fashion show in a wider context:
They
In a small gallery leading to the main room there were manipulated photographic images of Wen by art coordinator Nicolas Chu. In the "floating room" there was a bed with a spectacular comforter made from orange ping-pong balls, by Chen Hui-chiao.
By referring to "bed" in the previous paragraph, the writer insures coherence, linking the two paragraphs. The writer then uses a strong verb ("beaming").
Opposite the bed was a television beaming images from a Wen fashion shoot at the Museum of Tomorrow, on Civil Boulevard.
The writer moves to lower levels of generality within the same paragraph:
Models with bobbed, neon blue hair wore brushed-silver midi coats, pop art mini dresses and golden Formula 1 driving shoes.
Cause-Effect follows (the fashion shoot "introduces [Wen's] futuristic Mercury collection"). A lower level of generality describes the "overall impression." The paragraph ends contrasting this show and previous shows ("similarity/difference"):
Isabelle Wen's fashion shoot at the Museum of Tomorrow introduces her futuristic Mercury collection. The overall impression was of neat, clean-cut designs with an emphasis on metallic colors. It was a more minimalist approach than in the past and the garments appeared to be easier to wear.
"Definition" of "concept": "Barbarella," etc.
A transparent raincoat caught the eye, with its white belt buckle and a crystal-embossed angel design on the back. As did the mini-jacket with a silver snake pattern and matching bag. The concept appeared to be, "Barbarella hits the night market for her space outfit."
Cause-Effect: "I called the collection," etc. Note there's nothing special about this quote, but it works. We catch the subject in an ordinary exchange of words, not the usual greeting, etc. Some more Cause-Effect follows on the nature of Wen's inspiration:
"I called the collection Mercury, after the planet and the [element]," Wen said at the opening last week. "Usually I am inspired by a dream or something to produce a collection, but this time the clothes came first and the name came after."
Some descriptive prose, even a short sentence might have set off these two quotes better, instead of making it look like the writer is just adding quote after quote:
"I ordered the fabric and had all the ideas about 10 months ago, but then something horrible happened and I just wanted some light, something shiny in my life, so that was why I came up with the concept."
The writer uses a quoted word ("horrible") from Wen's previous speech to insure coherence in the next paragraph, where he also uses indirect quotation to condense or sum up previous quotes of Wen instead of wasting time quoting every single word:
The "horrible" event Wen referred to was the crash of Idee department store four months ago, when Rebar Group Chairman Wang You-theng fled the country with other people's billions. Wen had four outlets in the store and said she lost NT$20 million.
"We have sued them already but we can't get our money back because it belongs to the bank. The company of Isabelle, the fashion brand, has almost gone back to the first year because of this.
"Wang You-tseng, I think he's horrible, he's destroyed Taiwan. Actually, I'm super good friends with his daughter [Idee chairwoman Wang Lin-mei] and a couple of weeks after it happened we had dinner together. You know, even after three hours, I couldn't say a thing. What could she do?
"I couldn't even pay the New Year bonus. I tell you it was so bad, so many small companies went down because of this. I cried for weeks."
A lot of quotes here, but what is quoted is of interest. Next the writer describes an important action (Wen trashing her store):
At around the same time management at Taipei 101 decided she could not renew her store's contract. Wen was livid and trashed her store the night after it closed.
"This" nicely refers back to the content of the writer's previous paragraph:
"This was their policy, they didn't want Taiwan brands on the second floor, they made it very clear. It almost made me want to give up Taiwan. I can't understand their thinking."
More coherence using the demonstrative pronoun "these" to refer back to the previous paragraph. Quotes around "huge losses" makes it clear the words are Wen's:
It was these "huge losses" that led to the decision not to hold a traditional fashion show and ultimately rethink her business.
The dialogue takes us to lower levels of generality using cause-effect:
"Actually I did not want to do anything and I could not afford to do the runway presentation, so the fashion-as-art exhibition was a response to these terrible things."
Good antithesis ("but") to insure coherence (linking to the previous paragraph):
But adversity is the mother of invention and Wen has risen to the challenge before. Her new collection is strong and she has employed an operation director, Sandrine Boscaro Compain, to take her brand to the next level, especially abroad.
A descriptive phrase ("The French-Italiam business school graduate) defines as it replaces the proper noun, Wen:
The French-Italian business school graduate said she was consolidating operations and developing sales and marketing strategies.
The dialogue takes us to lower levels of generality:
"I have no logic, I need someone to do this for me," Wen said.
Now the writer returns to indirect discourse, using only selective phrases instead. Cause-Effect is the main means of development here (why Wen wants to leave Taiwan):
But whether she stays in Taiwan is another question. She said the country was "totally crashing" and was obviously feeling bruised by the financial crisis at Idee and the attitude of Taipei 101's managers.
It appeared she wanted to escape her problems here, as much as succeed elsewhere.
"Maybe my ideas are not totally suitable for Taiwanese and if I go elsewhere then they will appreciate me more. Perhaps this is the way," Wen said.
Now the writer moves to lower levels of generality: Not why, but where. The writer concludes defining "movement" not only physically but artistically ("moving forward"). He then blends a direct quote ("fashion is art") inside an indirect quotation ("what she designs") and ends with a flashy antecedent-consequence (before/after) in approval: that is, what Wen designs today is what people will wear tomorrow.
As for whether the direction would be east or west, this seemed to be moot. Either way, Wen is moving forward. As she says, "fashion is art for the future" and what she designs today is what we will be wearing tomorrow. Adapted from the Taipei Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment