Is Paris Hilton the modern day flapper?

[Laura Chase]

The title of this thread is intended to be a little provocative, but feel free to replace Paris Hilton's name with which ever fashionista today. My intention with this thread is to have a discussion and perhaps also challenge the hostility towards modern fashions that is sometimes expressed here on the forum. We have so many great threads about clothing, shoes, makeup and so forth, and I thought we could take little cultural-historical look at our interest in the fashions of the past.

The fashions we admire, and the flapper in particular, were all modern fashions at their own time. The women we admire wore the modern fashion of their time and expressed a revolutionary spirit. In particularly the flapper is the epitome of everything modern and new: she has her hair bobbed in the most modern and shocking fashion, her behavior is socially unacceptable, she smokes, drinks, goes to wild parties, a real society girl.

Think about the two sisters from The House of Eliott - they also represented two different views on fashion: the conservative and the progressive, the reactionary and the revolutionary.

Looked at it from this optic, the real epitome of the values of the flapper is a modern figure like Paris Hilton. Compared to her, our interest in the fashions of times past can be viewed as conservative. We are constantly looking back, while she is modern, looking forward, wearing the newest fashions and setting the newest trends - just like the flapper in the 20's. And not to mention, the shocking behaviour, wild parties...

Kiki de Montparnasse:

Louise Brooks:

Paris Hilton:

 

[Mojito]

A good point and, I hate to say it, but yes! She is. Queen Bee, Valley Girl, Prom Queen...they exist in every era. They're regarded as provocative, shallow, facile, glib. They will be condemned for their faddishness, admired by a young generation for their style. They may break down some barriers and reinforce others. More refined stylistas are disparaging when they mention them - I guarantee that no follower of high Parisian fashion in the 1920s would have thanked you for suggesting she had "flapper style". They are of the moment, and nothing seems more passe when the moment passes.

A social historian once mentioned to me, with a roll of the eye, that the Fitzgeralds were the Brangelina of their day - a young, attractive celebrity couple, with some undoubted talent, but who no doubt aggravated some of their colleagues with their exploits (in may ways, Brad and Angelina would be more restrained!).

How will Paris be regarded in 80 years time? Can you imagine the academic discourses that will form around her media persona? And the scant few alive who remember how she was regarded at the time muttering "well, we didn't think too much of Paris back in 2009...she didn't epitomise *my* sense of style..."

 

[BeBopBaby]

I see her more as a modern day Zsa Zsa Gabor. Famous for being a wealthy vaccous socialite, not from actually having talent or wit or intellegence.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One thing that often gets overlooked is that the flapper movement was as much about independent *thinking* as it was about fashion -- one writer whose name escapes me once described the typical flapper as a twenty-year-old girl with bare knees, unbuckled galoshes, and a copy of the American Mercury tucked under her arm.

I don't think Paris Hilton has ever had a thought in her life, much less an independent one. And I doubt she'd ever be seen with the American Mercury under her arm.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

This does not describe a flapper as I understand it.

 

[Lillemor]

There were probably people back then who didn't think and just followed but I really don't think there's any statement behind what Paris is wearing. I think the majority of modern "style icons" are completely vaccuous (sp?) and if they aren't, then they have a serious image problem. I don't consider it a savvy business mind who needs to resort to such desperate measures to get publicity and I do believe there's such a thing as bad publicity but I'm a proud and self proclaimed prude.lol

I just read back on the other posts. I can see I'm not the only one who thinks vaccuos when thinking of modern day fashionistas.

Maybe we could tolerate a few but there are so many of them today and they've spawn a whole vaccuous culture which is being embraced not only by impressionable youth but also by people who ought to know better and it's that more that these vaccuous individuals that I dislike.

I don't deeply dislike any celebrities. They just don't matter enough for deeper thoughts on most days.

Some styles might've been a shallow invention in their times but I think what matters more for us vintage ladies is that we must've done some thinking before choosing to wear and learn about styles that are so different from what's common, readily available and probably also easier to wear today or at least we do part of the time.

 

[ShrinkingViolet]

I think Paris Hilton is extremely clever at acting as if she's stupid!
I'm also wondering what 'true' rebellion or 'independent thinking' would imply today, could anyone come up with some examples? It seems to me that a so-called rebellious lifestyle is bound to end up as farcical reenactment of previous rebellious event, such as the 1920s or the - in some parts of the vintage community - so frowned-upon 1960s.

 

[Paisley]

I think Hilton is famous because she's highly photogenic, fashionable, and provides a lot of photo ops. And she gets into mischief that causes most people to look down on her behavior at the same time (rightly so, IMO). It's a comedy where someone rich, beautiful, and unlikeable stumbles.

 

[donCarlos]

I think Paris Hilton is extremely clever at acting as if she's stupid!

That´s the uttermost phase of stupidity - when other people can´t believe that anyone can be so stupid and start to think you´re just pretending.

 

[Foofoogal]

I'm also wondering what 'true' rebellion or 'independent thinking' would imply today, could anyone come up with some examples?

seriously, how does anyone tell anymore? :eusa_clap

 

[Paisley]

Paris Hilton as a secret genius? Hmmm. Columbo did it.

 

[Paisley]

I'm also wondering what 'true' rebellion or 'independent thinking' would imply today, could anyone come up with some examples? It seems to me that a so-called rebellious lifestyle is bound to end up as farcical reenactment of previous rebellious event, such as the 1920s or the - in some parts of the vintage community - so frowned-upon 1960s.

Housewives and stay-at-home moms say they take a lot of flak; probably a lot of other traditional people do too.

If you're a young adult, I can't see that drinking or running wild is all that rebellious anymore. It's almost expected.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think, for whatever it's worth, that the closest heirs to the flappers would be the modern "indie kids." The flapper culture wasn't as closely defined by music as the modern sub-cultures seem to be, but there was, in the beginning at least, the same note of intellectual curiosity. It wasn't for nothing that flappers were sometimes called "bright young things." And the "indie kids" i've known -- my niece, for one -- seem to be much more interested in making a difference in the world around them than in getting smashed and smoking dope. They tend, in fact, to take a pretty dim view of "stoners."

 

[MissAmelina]

I think Paris Hilton is extremely clever at acting as if she's stupid!
I'm also wondering what 'true' rebellion or 'independent thinking' would imply today, could anyone come up with some examples? It seems to me that a so-called rebellious lifestyle is bound to end up as farcical reenactment of previous rebellious event, such as the 1920s or the - in some parts of the vintage community - so frowned-upon 1960s.

Just my thoughts and I have not had my coffee yet :

History repeats itself, for sure. But I would say there are still independent thinkers that refuse to go along with up the norm. For instance, people who refuse to get corporate jobs and choose to live out their lives as travelers or artists....I have some friends who have done this and sacrificed relationships with their families and communites by doing so.
Also...The whole notion of gay union being biologically acceptable is coming around again, and we all know that has been a touchy subject. I'd say that has been fairly radical...they are a huge community, at least here in Seattle.

If we are talking about celebrities thinking outside the box, the first people who come to mind are Bono (refusing to pay Irish taxes so he can throw most of his money into the African effort...this is a controversial subject, to be sure) and Angelina Jolie as a UN Ambassador carrying out all of her humantarian efforts, while playing the Hollywood machine. In her earlier heyday she was a wild child fashionista too...but now she presents herself as classy and extremely well read.

As far as Hilton hiding her intellect behind a mask of "duh" I have seen too many interviews with her that say otherwise, in my opinion...if she was that good of an actress, her films would have done better and she would been cast in Streep-esque roles.

Fashionwise? Yes, I could see her as setting fashion trends, but she does not have the education or class that my grandmother did in the 20's.

 

[MissAmelina]

I think, for whatever it's worth, that the closest heirs to the flappers would be the modern "indie kids." The flapper culture wasn't as closely defined by music as the modern sub-cultures seem to be, but there was, in the beginning at least, the same note of intellectual curiosity. It wasn't for nothing that flappers were sometimes called "bright young things." And the "indie kids" i've known -- my niece, for one -- seem to be much more interested in making a difference in the world around them than in getting smashed and smoking dope. They tend, in fact, to take a pretty dim view of "stoners."

totally agree....my niece is an "Anime" and is very into Japanese pop culture...there is a whole movement, apparently (I am offiicially in a different generation now...wild!) and they are all sober, bright, readers and artists. Kinda cool.

Lizzie Maine...I just love reading your posts...you always sound so well informed and thoughtful.

 

[cherry lips]

This thread made me think of how the beauty ideals have not only changed, but are the direct opposite today compared to the 20s:

Then
Clara Bow etc
soft pale flesh
short feminine women
big eyes, small mouth
dark hair, often wavy with a curl on either cheek
mischievious facial expressions, sparkling eyes
glamour!

Now
Paris Hilton etc
tanned bony body
tall androgynous women
small eyes, big mouth
bleached hair, often flat-ironed
apathetic facial expressions, empty eyes
trash!

 

[Laura Chase]

cherry lips, it really depends on who from the 20's you compare it with - and who today. But I see how your dichotomy fits when you compare Paris Hilton with Clara Bow.

Other than that, I don't really think it holds up. Only some points, and even then, only somewhat. I know I'm being very postmodern here, but this type of dichotomizing easily distresses me.

A good point and, I hate to say it, but yes! She is. Queen Bee, Valley Girl, Prom Queen...they exist in every era. They're regarded as provocative, shallow, facile, glib. They will be condemned for their faddishness, admired by a young generation for their style. They may break down some barriers and reinforce others. More refined stylistas are disparaging when they mention them - I guarantee that no follower of high Parisian fashion in the 1920s would have thanked you for suggesting she had "flapper style". They are of the moment, and nothing seems more passe when the moment passes.

A social historian once mentioned to me, with a roll of the eye, that the Fitzgeralds were the Brangelina of their day - a young, attractive celebrity couple, with some undoubted talent, but who no doubt aggravated some of their colleagues with their exploits (in may ways, Brad and Angelina would be more restrained!).

How will Paris be regarded in 80 years time? Can you imagine the academic discourses that will form around her media persona? And the scant few alive who remember how she was regarded at the time muttering "well, we didn't think too much of Paris back in 2009...she didn't epitomise *my* sense of style..."

What a great reply! I admit that I don't know much about the flapper, and that is why I started this thread, as a thought I had and wanted to hear your opinions on. I love your take on it, and the relaxed attitude you have towards it.

I sense a lot of Paris-hate here. Come on, she's just a young girl having fun + she is actually working hard at branding herself and keeping up her image. She's intelligent, not a second of doubt about that. In that regard, I can comfortably say that Paris' American Mercury is her expensive designer bag.

But Paris in particular wasn't really my topic here, but just the idea of her compared to the idea of the flapper. But please, everyone, keep posting, it's really interesting! And I will keep reading and commenting.

 

[Paisley]

History repeats itself, for sure. But I would say there are still independent thinkers that refuse to go along with up the norm. For instance, people who refuse to get corporate jobs and choose to live out their lives as travelers or artists....I have some friends who have done this and sacrificed relationships with their families and communites by doing so.

A potential pitfall of rejecting traditional thinking (as opposed to whatever happens to be popular) is shallowness. To use one example, many people loudly reject Christianity, yet they're quick to say "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Ask them what Jesus said to the woman after the men left, though, and you get a blank stare. Their criticisms show that they lack a basic knowledge of what they're criticising. This is obviously much different from criticising something based on a great deal of knowledge of it. That, I can respect.

Likewise, there's a difference between serious artists (many of whom get a job to support their art) and "artists" who really just don't want to get up and go to work every morning.

 

[skyvue]

This thread made me think of how the beauty ideals have not only changed, but are the direct opposite today compared to the 20s:

Then
Clara Bow etc
soft pale flesh
short feminine women
big eyes, small mouth
dark hair, often wavy with a curl on either cheek
mischievious facial expressions, sparkling eyes
glamour!

Now
Paris Hilton etc
tanned bony body
tall androgynous women
small eyes, big mouth
bleached hair, often flat-ironed
apathetic facial expressions, empty eyes
trash!

Clara Bow wasn't considered glamorous or classy -- she was hot stuff, with the same kind of scandal often surrounding her that surrounds PH.

And the preferred body type for flappers wasn't short and fleshy -- thin and boyish was considered the ideal.

 

[skyvue]

o use one example, many people loudly reject Christianity, yet they're quick to say "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Ask them what Jesus said to the woman after the men left, though, and you get a blank stare. Their criticisms show that they lack a basic knowledge of what they're criticising.

That goes both ways. A great many Christians who loudly tout their faith also seem to lack a basic knowledge of the teachings they're claiming to follow. They pick their few favorite parables, stories and verses and ignore the others.