Michelle Obama's High Style for Hard Times
If history teaches us anything, one important lesson to remember is that all nightmares end. Michelle Obama is apparently an excellent history student. Certainly she's learned from the example of other great figures from years past how to look wonderful without undue extravagance.
Alas, how unfamiliar with the rich panoply that is the American saga, most people are. One tiny indicator of such widespread ignorance is the very much mistaken assertion of a fan of our First Lady.
"I'm guessing Michelle Obama would rather emulate someone like Eleanor Roosevelt who actually made a real difference in the world. She is remembered as the greatest First Lady and I doubt she cared who designed her clothes."
This supporter's mistake lies in those final eight words in her last sentence. How completely counter such thinking is to how most people feel, even to our common humanity. Everyone wants to look nice, would like to be admired. In the final analysis, that's most, if by no means all, of the reason women, those who are able, patronize expensive designers. In this respect, Eleanor Roosevelt was no different from you or me. As a member of the upper echelons of New York society, though, from the time of her birth, until she breathed her last, hand-crafted, high fashion formed a central part of her wardrobe.
How cruel, that preoccupied with their dysfunctional idleness, Eleanor Roosevelt's parents never took their shy daughter to an orthodontist.
A philandering husband, compounding a sense of insecurity about how she looked, made this truly dynamic First Lady always careful to take great pains, both in terms of her clothes and in maintaining perfect grooming. Dressed in Parisian originals and English tailor-mades as a debutante and young bride, later she patronized specialty shops, like Milgrim's and Bergdorf-Goodman.
Some felt her striking hats a touch flamboyant, but wherever she went, even in the depths of the first Great Depression, Mrs. Roosevelt was always well turned out.
A demi-parure of gold mounted tiger's teeth was among her favorite ornaments, since the tigers had been shot by her beloved, (but mostly absent), father. She also often wore superb diamonds, a Riviere necklace and two large rings. She had in addition pearls and other precious gems. And, yet none of this, or anything else she wore, ever competed with her mission to do what good she could, nor diminished her worthy efforts in any way.
The difference between Queens and First Ladies? In the past, the size of their pearls!
Eleanor Roosevelt with Queen Elizabeth, (the current Queen's mother), in1939
"Striking Vogue-like poses in high-end couture wear in palaces across Europe with Royals is not the picture Americans need to see.""As far as Mr. de la Renta saying, "'you don't...go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater.'" Why? Perhaps we should all be celebrating a new fashion statement, 'SWEATERS AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE'... dahling; it IS the thing to do."
"I think one reason people embrace her is the fact that she does not have a 'Let them eat cake attitude'. There are a lot of people all over this planet who are not able to afford designer labels, perhaps they might think a little higher of those of us who live in the US because the first lady is dressing like a normal human being."
"Michelle's promoting young American designers, I just want to add that she is also showing restraint in a time of economic crisis by wearing off the rack clothes -- a sensitive and smart thing to do... As much as I love de la Renta's designs, as well as those by other established designers...he misses this critical consideration of the current economic context. If Michelle were to wear exclusively designer clothes, we can count on criticisms about her being tone deaf and insensitive to the plight of many Americans...Perhaps even being "uppity"... I'd rather Michelle remain herself and real. She's doing terrifically and serving as a great role model not only for women everywhere, but the wives of other heads of state."
These were the responses of a few Obama defenders to criticism leveled at the current First Lady's wardrobe choices for the just-completed European summit. Leveled by some of the nation's most stellar couturiers, their indictment was that, as none of their designs had been selected, the USA's best fashions were not being showcased!
Really? Consistently attractive, how smart the President's wife always manages to look. This hardly occurs by chance and most assuredly happenstance had no part in her high-profile first, but not last, visit to the court of Saint James'.
The occasion was a study in contrast, starting with the Obamas' relative youth, humble origins and crucial role on the world stage as a focus of hope. For this private audience the British Monarch was arrayed in bright pink, sporting a handsome diamond flower-brooch, worth at least a million pounds. Towering over her Majesty and HRH Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, her consort, our American President and his wife wore dark apparel of matching modesty.
An exceedingly rare 23.6-carat pink diamondforms the center of this Cartier brooch. It was
presented to the Queen by a Canadian subject,
Dr. John T. Williamson, owner of the world's
richest diamond mine, as a wedding gift, in 1947
In our troubled times, there they stood amidst opulent surroundings. For many people this sumptuousness seems more anachronistic now, than ever before. Appropriately then, the Obamas' clothes symbolized, that even in the realm of the old order, un-seduced, they can be counted on as effective agents for much needed change.
Deceptively simple, their sober dress reminds one of homespun suits Benjamin Franklin wore while ambassador to Louis XVI's glamorous court, at Versailles. Crowned with wreaths of laurel, the sage of the New World was greeted by aristocrats in their elaborate garb as the very embodiment of Rousseau's natural man. Jefferson's habitual, well worn, fur-lined coat and carpet slippers, adopted during his second term at the White House, also comes to mind.
Juxtaposed with royal splendor, in contrast to irrelevant, merely decorative sovereigns, it was the Obamas' deliberate reticence, offered as a polite gesture of deference, without any presumption to out-do or even to equal the Queen's attire, that actually shone forth causing them to stand out!
At the heart of such choices there lies the subtext of political realities, the appeal of aesthetic considerations versus the danger of unintended negative appearances. Of course Oscar de la Renta makes exquisite clothes, so too do both Donna Karen and Vera Wang. The sort of clothes they would choose for Michelle Obama, the kind they provided, to good effect, to past First Ladies, cost thousands and thousands. Easily able to afford their lovely frocks and handsome suits, neither Mrs. Obama nor the President can afford the public outcry any exclusive adaptation of their luxurious ensembles would be certain to bring about.
As we all wait with high hopes for better times to come, there's another thing they might reflect on. When the most successful and famous designers in the land lament Mrs. Obama going, "in one direction only," one wishes that they'd also be empathetic enough to consider several veteran, but far less well known or successful African American designers. To date, after having spent two years in the spotlight on the campaign trail, Michelle Obama by wearing a dress designed by Tracy Reese, has only once favored, only one designer, from this group.
Follow Michael Henry Adams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/harlemhellion
Christina Patterson: Interview with Benjaman Zephaniah: "I'm Just a Normal Bloke Who Writes Poems"
This "angry, illiterate, uneducated, ex-hustler, rebellious Rastafarian" (which is how Zephaniah describes himself in Too Black, Too Strong) is not like "most blokes who write poems."
Michael Henry Adams: A Queen for Today!
Still reigning, still smiling, after 56 years! The Glorious Queen Elizabeth Rose Who has worked harder or better, and so long, at a tiresomely...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Where we in Britain have made a stonker of a mistake - and it's taken us many centuries to recognise this - is that we have been far too trusting of politicians to respect the tenets of our unwritten Constitution. Because politicians here have for many centuries respected that Constitution and the democratic principles upon which it is based, we naively believed that this would always be the case. For some years now we have paid the price of that naiveté.
Under our zanulabour government, the people of UK have been embedded against our will in the undemocratic Constitution of the EU and our democracy and Constitution thereby eroded.
Our next government will follow the example of the American peoples' excellent written Constitution and ensure that our Constitution is codified to ensure that this nightmare never happens to us again.
Who knows, we might even begin our written Constistution with:
"We the people..."
Unsurprisingly, one aspect of our Constitution that remains non-negotiable for the majority here is our Monarchy. Polls have shown that 80% of the British people want to keep that intact.
"Juxtaposed with royal splendor, in contrast to irrelevant, merely decorative sovereigns, it was the Obamas' deliberate reticence, offered as a polite gesture of deference, without any presumption to out-do or even to equal the Queen's attire, that actually shone forth causing them to stand out! "
A very interesting and thought provoking post, Michael Henry Adams, thank you for that - and hello to you from England!
However, with great respect, Michael, I have to correct your assertion that the British monarchy is either decorative or irrelevant. The British monarchy lies at the heart of UK's democracy and is of the essence of the constitutional checks and balances which prevent dictators from taking political control of UK.
It has stood us in good stead in that respect for many centuries and has remained a force for democratic stability and continuity in our national life throughout the hundreds of brief terms of office of the various political gadflies who have held the office of Prime Minister here. It will form the heart of our political, economic and democratic revival after the next election too.
Point taken. Decorations, jewels, silks. satins and surroundings notwithstanding one ought not to trivialize the significant role played by the current monarch. However, one still can't help but wonder how her Majesty's successor fifty years hence might be regarded?
That successor will be Prince William, one of the much loved sons of our dear Princess Diana. Diana's boys Will and Harry have millions of surrogate mothers in our country who wept tears of joy on Diana's wedding day and who sobbed their hearts out at her funeral. They also have millions of admirers of their own age among young British women. Will and Harry have their detractors too, of course, but these are greatly outnumbered by those who love them. Our royal family are so much more than royals, you see, they are the living personifications of our nation, our democracy and our freedom.
William is going to be a great and much loved King. He will transform our monarchy while preserving its vital constitutional role. Of course, the monarchy will be transformed long before Will becomes monarch. Female children of the monarch will be empowered with the right of succession and our monarch will be empowered to marry persons, male or female, who are members of any religion or no religion well before Will is King.
The Union of Britain and Ireland will almost certainly have broken up by the time Will ascends the throne. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland having long seceded from the Union and England at long and dear last having overcome the discrimination which prevents us having our own parliament, will be independent and free. So William may become King of England alone.
What's your view of monarchy, Michael Henry? Many people view it as elitist and anachronistic, fit only the scrap heap of history. I can understand and sympathise with that view to a certain extent. It must appear to be a very strange institution to those who don't live in a constitutional monarchy or who aren't monarchists. My view is that, given the inherent corruption of most politicians, it's the least worst solution to the problem of the sustainability of democracy. To an outsider, the veneration given by Americans to your Presidents gives the US Presidency the appearance of a serial monarchy with the monarch elected every four years. I like having an unelected monarch who rules for the duration of their life because this enables them to be apolitical.
I loved the historical angle. However I remembered reading that the sweater was expensive and the sweater she wore to meet the Queen was $500.
When I think of stuff like that, it reminds me that Michelle *does* wear expensive clothes. I think she should wear as expensive of clothes as she wants, she is paying for them, she worked hard all of her life, and as First Lady she wants to represent the US as best as she can and if she feels higher priced clothes (and them being made is better fabric) do the trick, then that's fine.
But I find it interesting that people speak of the inexpensive nature of her clothes, when it in reality they are actually expensive, just not as expensive as they *could* be (given the resources the Obamas have in terms of income) and there is a difference there.
Also, no one mentions that J. Crew is actually rather expensive for the average American, but it is viewed as lower priced for Michelle. That's fine, I completely understand that allure of the average American being able to purchase the same thing the First Lady wore last week, and for that alone, that puts her in a category unheard of for First Ladies, but I would like to see some publications pick up on the fact that even though she dresses in clothes at a pricepoint way lower than what she could, it's not as low as some like to point out.
The symbolic point was neither the quality nor the relative expense of the sweater. Rather what our First Lady was eager to communicate was a humble appearance via her sweater's modest imprecations. Had MO wished to be received by the Queen wearing smart formal attire that would have stressed a common status, as both ladies are indisputably representatives of the ruling class, she might have more effectively worn her traveling costume, the elegant floral coat and dress that she wore in Paris or even the red dress in which she 'met 'President and Mrs. Bush at the White House.
Great articles; ignore the distractirs. This is the only site where "the haters" can post to get a response other than their usual group think.
I must say Mr. Adams, bravo, bravo, to your elegant article. I have never been so touched by an article, especially one that rung out, the truth. You know what Mr. Adams, I am so inspired by our first lady, not so much that she keeps it real, and thats true also but that this woman knows who she is, it shows. I think Michelle is well aware how some are suffering right now, but she is also showing the american women that you can look good in a 500dollor dress and represent in leadership, would I say Michelle remind me of Mrs. Kennedy, no, both these ladies were and are different, what they did and do have in common is class. Mrs. Roosevelt wasn't what one might say or call beauty but what does define beauty, she was a difference maker. Thank You for the article.
It's very kind of you to say so, thank you. Eleanor Roosevelt overcame a great deal to dedicate her life to trying to make a difference. So many people won't even do what they easily might to improve the world. She did and so is Michelle Obama
"Eleanor Roosevelt overcame a great deal to dedicate her life to trying to make a difference."
and Michelle planted a garden.
Sir! inasmuch as we are permitted to post what we wish at the HP, I don't feel obligated to employ any ruse, clever or otherwise. I cited Eleanor Roosevelt for two reasons mostly. Firstly , I wished to disagree strongly with a reader who asserted of that great lady, "I doubt she cared who designed her clothes." As noted, Mrs. Roosevelt, most First Ladies, most people---all care about how we look and hence about our clothes. As Mrs. Obama has ample means and because of how she 'represents the nation', she's incline to wear mostly , designer duds, mostly devised by Americans. This is generally true of First Ladies. However much such luxury-wear might separate them from most citizens, as MO and ER have shown, it needn't preclude effective service to others.
My second and related point is while with that rare exception that proves the rule, no First Lady is going to buy exclusively off the rack. As you rightly note, even what ready-made apparel they buy will hardly be likely to be cheap by most of our standards. Yet it will be cheaper than selections from designers like Mr. de la Renta or Ms Wang. This is the almost wholly symbolic, middle road that Michelle Obama has chosen. And yes, now and then, more than once, it would be nice if a black designer could figure in this highly political mix. They could hardly make anything as unfortunate as some selections.
Sir, I appreciate your obviously well informed article and fashion sense. One small quibble. Just because someone learns from a "great figure" doesn't mean that she IS a great figure. To date, she is 70 days into a term as First Lady. The accomplishment of getting elected belongs to her husband. She undoubtedly played a role, but it likely falls behind that of Mssrs. Plouffe and Axelrod, to name just a few. Let's lay off the hossannahs and hyperbole for a little while and let's see how great a figure she might become. Thanks.
Everything she has done to date, particularly sustaining her husband in his mission, even related to her courage and one must assume, commitment to seeing the President bring about change for the better, despite risk of harm to any presidential family, all the more so for one that's black, convinces me of Michelle Obama's "greatness". While I respectfully take your point, that my contention largely remains to be proven, I nonetheless have no doubt of both Obamas being successful in much of what they've set out to do.
What I like about our First Lady is the fact that she is an example that young girls (all women, really) can follow. She's well dressed- she doesn't show a lot of skin, but she's not frumpy, either (and despite having the money to wear nothing but designer, the woman also shops at Target and J.Crew); she exercises regularly and eats fairly healthy, without being an almost unattainable size zero; she's intelligent and successful on her own merit; and most of all, she's comfortable in her own skin.
Now, I know the woman is far from perfect, but it would behoove young girls and women to aspire to these qualities rather than what they see in Hollywood and on reality t.v. shows.
An exceptional example indeed!
Brilliant—A Woman of Elegance & Substance:
No wonder why some in the fashion kingdom are little perturbed by some of her choices. As we know, free thinkers don’t make good models (at least that the stereotype of the fashion industry). Michelle hasn't of yet become the clothes or consumed by what others think-- however the clothes are an outward reflection of who she is.
Keep it up Mrs. Obama.
To be fair, it's fairly certain that over the next four years she'll get around to lots more designers and a good share of style-surprises too!
A cleverly done excuse to get an article posted --- but a real stretch in the comparison to ER, who was from a 19th century blueblood family, married a distant relative of great wealth and power, and was far less than pretty. MO is pretty and self-created.
Sorry, but I find it fatuous to compliment her Chinese made J Crew outfits (which are not cheap, very far above the average woman's range), and ignore that the Thakoons, etc are in the price range of the NY designers mentioned (although the prices are not obvious to the public.) Michelle's greatest touch is to wear more inexpensive things with the kids, then bridge upward as appropriate.
MY TAKE on why she has stuck to "her style" --- she is busy, busy, uses what she and her advisors know, and spends her time on other pursuits. She also has a tall, African-American body -- more Venus Williams than Vanessa, and would look awful in tiny, fussy Cindy McCain's clothes.
One day, after her kids finish the school term, the garden is grown, etc, and she needs to be in NYC for another purpose, I expect she will stop in and see the designers. But, as I read it, you would have her pass De La Renta, etc, on her way to promote African American designers: that really does not sound fair.
PS-- I think she looks AWFUL in the lace dress on the People cover, and doubt she would ever wear it
"She also has a tall, African-American body "
So what are you saying? African Americans have one type of body? Interesting.
"She has a tall, African-American body" does not mean African-Americans have one type of body. "She has a tall African-American body" would have that meaning. The former has two adjectives. the latter only one. Like "the short, white man" is not the same as "the short white man."
Huh. I thought the pink lace dress was great. Feminine without being cloying.
She looked charming!
Mr. Kellerman, you are entitile to your opinion, but never in my yrs of voting have I seen so many people, watching what a first lady wears. So, Michelle is very intresting to most people including one's that didn't vote for her husband. Let me state this to you, I did some research and I found out that Mrs. Bush, did not buy one dress made by an African American, now how fair was that. She chose her designers and did not think one time about what she was doing. She had a choice,so does Michelle, and I want state one other thing to you, that you failed to state, the designer that made Michelle's dress for her husbands inauguration was not black, neither was the second dress made by a black designer, you see when you throw stuff out there back it up with a fact. Most black people that I know that voted for President Obama, did'nt care who made Michelle's dress you know how I know I got on the phone and asked 10 of my friends and co-workers. Also in the good old USA, their are great hispanacs, chinese, indians, germans, vietnamese,koreans etc... designer I proud of her for recognizing that. It is what it is.
I think the problem is that she projects an ideal that grace, beauty, and charm come from intellect and a pleasant and warm demeanor and not from a label, exactly the opposite of what the fashion industry would like us to believe. Put her in a potato sack and watch her still light up a room.
Exactamundo!
Right on the money. Her beauty comes from the inside.
Even 'inner beauty' can be seen to advantage in someone who bothers to look as good as they can , as she always does.
What a magnificent article... It is great to see the Huffington Post dedicating this section to your amazing writing... Something tells me this will become a destination of fashionistas, historians and cultural devotees all over the world. Bravo Mr. Adams for another piece well done.
Thank you and please pass the word, I'm aspiring to the 2,000+ comments that pieces about Mrs. Obama's eyelashes get.
Ha!
An engrossing and helpful history and a basis for an enlarged perspective, concerning the position of fashion in our current political concerns. Political philosophy and scholarship are not usually addressed under the topic of style . . . I admire the breadth of the article.
Great piece Mr. Adams. Taking it from a historical angle was nice.
...as Malcolm X said, "Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research..."
Real talk, brotha...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
