From time to time we at Styledash will cover items and topics that seem only tangentially related to fashion -- from a schlumpy anti-fashion celebrity to kitchen supplies, and it might be cause for confusion -- why spend the space on a fashion blog to talk about seemingly non-fashion things?

We understand how this is perplexing because not only is this blog called "Styledash", which implies a commitment to fashion coverage and therefore unsurprising dealings in fashion commentary, but the idea of a "fashion thing" vs. a non-"fashion thing" is peculiar. We're not sure that there's a dichotomy at all, really -- in fact we are pretty certain that every thing, to an extent, is a fashion thing.


The way we see it, as Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly so eloquently illustrates, every consumable, usable, wearable object you own says something about the person who bought it. Even if it's that you don't care how you look, the paradox of that is the choice to "not care" says you've given thought to it. Even though out parents wear pleated khakis (despite our protests) and shop at Goodwill for fun (again, despite our protests), they own the entire set of red KitchenAid gadgets. They may not have stepped off the runway, but that's their style. Their can opener may be more couture than what they actually wear, but their life choices are still partially governed by fashion.

Every thing is a fashion thing -- every tangible thing in the world has been designed for function if not for form, and design is a product of technology and time, as is fashion. Even when someone decides his or her lifestyle and clothing choices aren't going to be dictated by the mainstream (and in fact, might be purposely lackadaisical about matching, cleanliness or complimentary colors), that choice is based in fashion- how else would we know what looks right except to learn what doesn't?

Being apathetic about fashion is a fashion thing. Dismissing it as a frivolous pursuit is an act that defines personal style.