Don't you own an iron?

 

Vogue's photo not mine

Oh c'mon, this is VOGUE for goshsakes

https://somethingdelightful.com/v1789

I promised myself I would not do this again, but I have been seeing more and more of this 'handy hands at home' finishing on pattern photos, and WHY

WHY do you think this is going to sell your pattern to me?

If YOU can't finish it nicely, WHO can?

Misses' pants, high waisted, very loose-fitting through hip, have waist facings with boning, pleats, side seam pockets, invisible back zipper. B: hem band.

I have never pretended to be any more than handy homemades. I tend to rush at the end and skip nice finishing, at least for myself. I can do a super nice job if someone hands me money.

For myself, not so much.

This does not make me think I am going to be able to get better results than they did. Or if that hem and the stuff going on at the top of the waistband is intentional, well... that's a choice.

Profounder reasons

The title of this post is a quote from this review.
https://nyti.ms/2UMoIod
Am I incorrect in thinking it should be "more profound reasons"?

from the NYT website

Jason Farago, our NYT reviewer,  has a problem.
He sorta reviews this show, but mostly, he wants you to know that Mrs Rivera is not his idea of an artist, nor is this a show he thinks matters.

"Love for her style has inflated the standing of her art all out of proportion, and in recent decades it’s become an article of faith that Kahlo was a more important painter than her acclaimed husband, indeed one of the indisputable greats. This is — well, not true, sorry! In Brooklyn you’ll find some engrossing self-portraits, including MoMA’s severe “Self-Portrait With Cropped Hair,” but Kahlo also painted half-competent still lifes, gross Stalinist agitprop, and ghastly New Age kitsch — including this show’s “The Love Embrace of the Universe ...,” a world-spiritualist tableau featuring a lactating Mother Earth that would make Deepak Chopra blanch. I’d name many other Mexicans, men and women, who drew more productively on surrealist, folk and indigenous vocabularies to force a new art after the revolution, including Rivera, the wily modernist Dr. Atl, the Mexico-based Englishwoman Leonora Carrington and the ripe-for-rediscovery Alice Rahon."

You can choose to agree or disagree with that assessment, but I'm not sure it needed to be said about the contents of the famously sealed and recently opened closet of the Casa Azul.

https://www.museofridakahlo.org.mx/en/the-blue-house/

Certainly, it is incorrect to tag an artist with a slag term from 40 years after their passing. The reviewer is called to review the contents of the show in front of them, not the one they would like to review.

Sadly, our boy is stuck reviewing this show. The one with clothes.

"Do her outfits have the weight of art, or are they just so much biographical flimflam? My mileage varied from gallery to gallery, but it's worth considering, given her admirers' intense love for her persona, how much can be displaced onto skirts and shawls.

"Kahlo’s clothes are the prime draw here, though their splendor is dulled when seen in mirror-backed glass vitrines; in places they look like so many dusty Macy’s mannequins. (Where the V&A show went for visual splash, the Brooklyn version is highly subdued.)

from the NYT website

"Countless visitors, perhaps already following her on an Instagram account with nearly a million subscribers, will come to this show because of self-portraits like this one. I hope they also spend time with the even more powerful artworks in the same room: a dozen retablos, or votive paintings on metal by anonymous Mexicans, similar to hundreds of paintings Kahlo lived with in the Casa Azul. These artists knew, and Kahlo and Rivera knew when they collected them, that art has a much higher vocation than myth or merchandise."

Go look at the link at the top. Lotsa photos. Great photos.