― brg30 (brg30), Thursday, 9 January 2003 00:20 (twenty-two years ago)
― louise, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:01 (twenty-two years ago)
Hat hair, however, is a major dud.
― kate, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― di smith (lucylurex), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― Melissa W (Melissa W), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)
― kate, Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:12 (twenty-two years ago)
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 11 January 2003 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/aretha-franklins-hat/raving_over_arethas_hat
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 21 January 2009 20:00 (sixteen years ago)
http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/16/MPW-8334
― Aimless, Wednesday, 21 January 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)
Aretha's hat has reminded me of something that bothers me for no good reason: use of the kinda branded term "bedazzled" to refer to whatever the proper term for that sort of thing is. (Applique, I guess?)
I don't think it's because I want to preserve some snobby distinction between a "proper" applique and "tacky" home-Bedazzler action (though that might account for some of the weirdness when it comes to a televised inauguration-hat) -- I think it's more that I'm surprised that a brand hardly anyone likes or uses (Bedazzler) can still use TV to get so far into everyone's consciousness that its name takes over the whole idea of putting appliques on things.
― nabisco, Wednesday, 21 January 2009 20:20 (sixteen years ago)
Oh wait, sorry, maybe I'm wrong here -- applique isn't quite the most specific word for it, is it . . . I guess the absence of a common word for it is why "bedazzled" gets to sneak in. But as a thing to do to clothing it's surely a hell of a lot older than the brand!
― nabisco, Wednesday, 21 January 2009 20:22 (sixteen years ago)