Hair Styles - Short hair styles are the new look for 2010
Short hair styles are not just the 'new' look. They represent a broad variety of choices and how a particular style will look on you isn't always easy to know. A good place to start is our gallery, where we have over 150 photos of models featuring short hairstyles. Once you've found a few styles you like, you can give yourself a virtual makeover to be sure you've found the right one for you.
Do you remember last year when the women at Wimbledon were given center court based on their appearance? The Williams sisters, despite being the top tennis players in the world at the time, didn’t make the cut. Some (including me) speculated that the Williams sisters lacked the blonde hair and blue eyes of some of the other players and that both misogyny and racism were at play.
As I recall, the men at center court were not selected by their appearance, which is unsurprising considering the double-standard in appearance standards in sports, especially in tennis.
Now, Venus Williams is playing in the French Open time again and I have to wonder if she is thumbing her nose at the entire attitude towards women in tennis in general with her choice of clothing- she wore a new outfit to the tournament which Lindy West of the Stranger is pretty accurately describing as a “slutty tutu”.
Reactions to her outfit are mixed- it is after all France and the French did give her whistles for her bold choice in lingerie and hopefully applause for her win in the first round of the tournament. Americans polled by the clearly unscientific USA Today poll of the day, however, thought that Ms. Williams should have been asked to change her clothes into more conservative attire. Based on the results from the informal poll, I doubt that Ms. Williams would have gotten away with wearing her new outfit at the Davis Cup or US Open, but I am glad she did.
A majority of the the USA Today comments reflect the attitude that she is, “taking away from the sport”. Considering the fact that the Williams sisters have dominated the sport for several years and the fact that one of the biggest tournaments was undermined last year by the choice for the “best looking female athletes” at center court as opposed to the best athletes, there’s really no basis for a statement like this.
What do you think? Should Venus Williams be able to wear whatever she chooses for her tennis matches or should she have to conform to an out-dated idea of a woman wearing a white tennis dress? Do you think that wearing a so-called “slutty tutu” really undermines the sport any less than Andre Agassi’s drug use and mullet did in the 90’s?
How would you feel about facing a mannequinn who is an exact replica of you?
An episode of "Seinfeld" features Elaine confronting a mannequin who looks exactly like she does. At first, she is really excited by the overwhelming resemblance and makes a list of possible artists who could have possibly created such a masterpiece. That doesn't last long. When the over-bearing sales clerk takes revenge on Elaine by putting the Mannequin an sexually compromising position, Elaine is less than thrilled.
Today, I came across an article in the NYT about women and our relationships to the Mannequins we see in store windows. The writer believes that the looks of the Mannequins often affect our own self-perceptions and give us hints about what kind of bodies are most attractive.
What's in Vogue for Mannequin models these days doesn't actually reflect what's in Vogue for real women. In the interest of saving money and being as PC as possible, the mannequins preferred by most window dressers are either headless or featureless, with the faces as vaguely defined as possible. The body shapes tend to be smaller than the average size women- usually around a sized 2 or sized 4. Even Beyonce's mannequin (which was commissioned by her mother) had 4 inches taken off her hips, which are 42-inches in real life. (According to the insider quoted by the Times, most images we see of the singer are actually stretched.)
If you take the time to contast that to most current fashion runway models, you will notice quite a big difference- exotic features, ultra-enhanced make-up, and wild hair are definitely more prevalant for the models on the runways of New York, London and Milan than bland-looking models. And, of course, even the fashion industry would more than likely blink twice at a headless model walking the catwalk.
However, "realistics" (what the fashion industry calls more life-like models) are re-gaining popularity. The writer of the article suggests that possibly a tattoed mannequin model with some oomph might make a come-back. It's a nice thought, but it has yet to come to fruition.
I'm wondering whether or not a headless or faceless mannequin with a small size but somewhat larger breasts really give women (and men) an idea of an ideal size or type to strive for? An educated guess is that the reason for the small sizes is to show off the clothing, but wouldn't that change if the clothing was made for different shapes and sizes in the first place? While attractive body shapes might get the women in the dressing room to try on the clothes in the first place, couldn't it also backfire by making the women feel that the clothes look worse on them?
Shrek and his animated compadres are getting racier by the minute; the characters will be shown in a sexy “photo shoot” in an upcoming issue of VMan fashion magazine. Dreamworks is having second thoughts about the photo shoot because of the semi-explicit nature in which the characters are portrayed.
Dreamworks publicly stated that they failed to anticipate exactly how photographer Ellen von Unwerth would portray the characters and that they were less than thrilled with the results. The studio was not the only one to criticize the magazine’s spread; NY post film critic wrote that he didn’t, “think Walt Disney would have allowed Snow White and Cinderella to appear in a magazine spread that made it look like they were in a menage a trois.”
He further went on to criticize the studio for such a cheap publicity stunt to get attention for the next Shrek film, which will open at Tribeca. In reality, however, Shrek is such a huge movie franchise that I doubt this will really help the merchandising or box office sales of the film at all. The benefit of the photographs will pretty much be limited to the photographer, Ellen von Unwerth who is sure to gain some national attention for this work, and to the magazine, whose online hits should soar as a result.
As for whether or not this was a bad move by Dreamworks, I tend to agree with the fans who said that given the facts of what today’s children are exposed to, the VMan photo spread probably will do little to corrupt the youth of America. I am also highly doubtful that the reputation of Donkey, Shrek, or any of the rest of the cast and crew at all will be affected negatively.
At the very worst, Lou Dobson will condemn the movie, the characters, the photo shoot, and probably the entire Motion Picture industry of America, just because he has the platform and is in serious need of attention. Perhaps he will try to enrage the citizens in the middle of the country who are already angry about the loss of family values in the United States.
All in all, though, I would have to say that I like the pictures, appreciate their bawdiness, and don’t think that many children will be reading VMan either on the net or offline.
A few months ago, I wrote about the up and coming Project Runway game for the Wii, and for those of you who were eagerly anticipating the release and the chance to see an avatar of Heidi Klum herself, wait no more- Project Runway for the Wii has arrived.
The game is pretty much made for girls aged 6-12 and the NY Times writer (who may be slightly older and therefore more discerning than the target crowd) was not all that impressed with the game. In fact, I believe the exact words she used were, “It was Godawful”, which was not the opinion of Heidi Klum herself who is reported to have been pleased with her avatar.
How does the Wii version of Project Runway work exactly?
Individual competitions are introduced by Peter Gunn with specific instructions, then the “designers” must click and drag the proper clothing, apply make-up, fix up the model's hair dos and switch to the model role where they can “walk the catwalk” to show off their “designs”. The best part of the show is that the contestants are actually judged, which I actually think would be a little fun because the comments are reportedly a little sarcastic- just like on the show. As the NYTimes writer saw it, the contestants are harshly judged for originality, which is the opposite of the original show.
The NY Times T-Magazine featured a photography shoot by photographer Greg Kessler of some of the Fashion Week Models. What made this pictoral special was the interactive feature allowing the viewer to move a bar to see the before and after make-up transformations.
Unlike a Covergirl makeover before-and-after spread that you might find in the covers of a glossy magazine, the models looked far better without their heavy make-up than with.
Sigrid Agren, the first model featured on the pages, looks like she has two black eyes with her make-up on, which is more than likely a result of the trend of applying thick red and blue eye shadow two inches beneath the eyes. (due to the interactive feature, she is not pictured here.)As one commenter put it,
Without make-up, seems like an intelligent young woman who it might be nice to have a chat with. With make-up, some scuzzy Lady Gaga follower with Tic Tacs for brains.
You have to give the make-up artist some credit for having the ability to make a truly naturally beautiful woman look ugly.
For this particular feature, all but two of the article's commenters agreed that the woman looked better prior to the ridiculously heavy eye shadow being applied; the only dissenter was a plastic surgeon so I won’t give his/opinion that much credibility.
Sigrid Agren wasn’t the only one during Fashion Week to be over-loaded with make-up; according to this article in the NYT smoky eyes (as pictured above) are “in”. While I don’t have a “before” picture for this model, I can almost guarantee you that she did not look like a garish Zombie before her run down the catwalk.
Are we really supposed to believe that making the eye shadow and mascara the highlight of the face rather than the woman will really bring out her beauty? Those of us in our 30’s and above try to hide our “dark circles” that sometimes pop up in the morning or late at night- now it seems as if we can accentuate them in a ridiculous manner and the younger women can “mock” us in a way by hiding their natural beauty with too much eyeshadow..
I understand that runway models are dressed elaborately, and that their make-up is not necessarily there to highlight their beauty, but the fact of the matter is that women and the fashion magazines follow the examples of fashion week as exemplified by the popularity of “smoky eyes”.
If this is not your style, and you are more into a traditional mermaid costume (ie. more skin showing), try something along the lines of Darryl Hannah's mermaid outfit from way back in the day. Just remember that it is difficult to walk with full fins.
I do not recommend going, however, going the route of Cher in "Mermaids" as the tackiness factor would defintely outweigh the charm of the traditional mermaid costume.
With a little DIY sweat and some creativity, you can certainly make your costume a success—and help your guests with theirs, too. The first step is determining whether or not you want a formal costume or a character costume.
If you’re planning on attending your party in style, as a Hollywood starlet in attendance perhaps, your first stop may want to be the local thrift store. There you might find a few diamonds in the rough, including satin gloves, Prom dresses, and other formalwear. You may, however, not have to go any further than your own closet. If you’ve got a little black dress, tuxedo, or other formal outfit from a previous occasion, that will work well. And if you’re concerned about wearing the same thing twice (a Hollywood scandal!), just swap with a friend who wears a similar size. If you want to splurge, get your hair done at a salon—but a simple up do will suffice. Remember Amy Adams’ hair at the Golden Globes? Simple can be very effective. Remember what mother always said—less is more!
As far as accessories go, definitely check with a friend or relative before buying something pricey (unless it’s something you received for Valentine’s Day). You can swap for the night or simply borrow a pair of earrings or a simple necklace to accent your outfit.
If you’re going to attend dressed as a movie character, you’re in even more luck. The only thing you’ll be pressed for is time, since you have to wait until the nominations are announced. (Nominations will be announced on Tuesday, February 2—check here for details; you can also sign up for mobile alerts.)
How easy would it be to find a Julia Childs getup, or paint yourself blue as an Avatar creature? Between your own closet, the thrift store, and the local party supply, you’ll probably find what you need. Have a friend help with your makeup if you need it—or better yet, see if the local theater department would like to “practice” on you. Many Avatar accessories could be made out of simple felt or other fabric on the cheap, too.
Now, if you’re going for an “outrageous” look to simply make waves or have fun, try adding on (or removing!) parts of some formalwear you’ve got around the house. Some saucy fishnets, leather straps, chains, or paint could make your most elegant ensemble racier than ever!
This story is all over the net and for a very good reason- the NYT is pretty much calling hot actresses across the globe (Golden Globe pun definitely intended) fat........say what?
Maybe it’s just me, but I could have sworn that some of the ladies who showed up at the Golden Globes on Sunday had put on a little weight. It’s almost criminal to name names, because the very actresses whose body-mass indexes have been the subject of endless tabloid speculation are the very ones now sporting sexier curves. You could definitely see the difference if you concentrated solely on the upper arms. Instead of a Barbie-doll circumference, there was suddenly, amazingly, a womanly roundness to their frames. More Marilyn than Twiggy, that’s for sure.
Thank you, NYT for making me feel even better about myself than I did before. Excuse me, but is there anything wrong with the way any of these women look? On a hotness scale, they are pretty much still at the top, imaginary bingo wings and all.
The media’s focus on celebrity weight gains has got to stop- not everyone wants to look like an emaciated rag doll and I think that’s a good thing. Can’t we start focusing more on the actual acting or is that only possible in the case of Meryl Streep? Are we now giving awards for the best bodies at the awards shows, too?
Also, according to the Stranger, a pic of Christina Hendrinks was accidentally “altered” somehow. The NYT is claiming that this was done unintentionally- wow, it’s amazing how Photoshop and/or uploading photos to the net can shave off the pounds so quickly. Check out this link to see the side by side comparison and let me know what you think. The crazy thing about it is that she is ridiculously hot in either picture.
I’m thinking that I could use the NYT photoshopping services on my Christmas cards next year- seriously, it’s a much better way to “lose weight” than a belly or fanny tuck and considerably cheaper.
The support of online bloggers for the “large actresses” on this one is great and I am in full agreement that none of the women pictured here is large. That doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t get in shape; I’m just saying that perhaps we have a little more important things to focus on than the “bingo wings” of someone who is still underweight by most BMI standards.
