Have you seen this woman?

You might be talking about the owner of the then Iron Horse Pub.

YES! I've often wondered about her myself. The outfit is almost certainly hand-sewn and does resemble a burlap sack in some ways. Yet it also always looks clean and new, oddly; she must have a closet full of identical getups (?).

I've seen her many, many times in the Center Slope. She frequently walks a medium-sized dark mutt.

Would love to know her story. The backstory I like to imagine: She sews her own clothes as a reaction to a world she sees as overly focused on image. She sews them as primitively as possible, and uses the most utilitarian fabric and drab colors, as part of her protest.

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: I'd much rather know who this woman is in the green dress in the American Apparel ad.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

that's what i'm talkin 'bout.

Is it sad that our materialistic, image obsessed culture is shocked by one non-flamboyant individual who does not flaunt the latest fashion, flash an ipod, or drive a hot car?

Maybe we're the ones -- assuming we all bought new clothes and fresh Starbucks cups within the last 12 months -- who should be examined under the microscope.

She's at Stabucks in the early mornings on the weekends and usually sits at the table in the window by the entrance next to the bodega.

rtraindweller wrote: i think you're taking the comments regarding the american apparel ad a bit too seriously.

No, not really. I'm just bemused because the first time I saw that ad, I thought it was horrible:

1. The dress is 1982 Mandee's markdown rack, as mentioned above, all the way from the too-small, unflattering, one-size-fits-all spandex, to the puzzling turtleneck, to the color

2. The model looks greasy and stoned

3. The combination of the stoned expression of the model and the mugshot-style flash photography combine to make an ad that looks like it was pulled at random from some corn-belt suburbanite's MySpace page party snapshots

...Yet I keep reading guys commenting on the HAWTNESS of the model and the dress. I have to assume that it's because of factors 1-3 above, not in spite of them.

It's true... sometimes men are as mysterious to women as women are to men.

But I have to add: Kudos for the AA art director and creative team for understanding their target market and designing an ad that really works for that demographic. Who cares if I think it's ugly? I don't buy AA stuff anyway.

Brooke Lynn Knight wrote:

2. The model looks greasy and stoned

3. The combination of the stoned expression of the model and the mugshot-style flash photography combine to make an ad that looks like it was pulled at random from some corn-belt suburbanite's MySpace page party snapshots

Just to play devil's advocate, but your avitar is playing on some of these same "attractive" attributes.

The mouth half-open, leaning forward like you (just assuming its you) could be crawling toward someone in bed, the hair a little messy and tossed across your face...

All kinda the same to me minus the dress. :P :P

PLEASE, though, I use all those things at various times in my self-portraits. I am just questioning your critical view in comparison to the picture you use on here to represent "you". Just pointing this out without any malice, as you do seem like a genuinely cool person

Brooke Lynn Knight wrote: LOL, caahyoko! That had never occurred to me.

Honestly, IMO my avatar is the furthest thing from "hot," let alone HAWT. It's a random picture I took a couple years ago while trying out my new Mac laptop -- it came with a camera and a program called "PhotoBooth" that allows you to take instant low-res pics of whatever's in front of the screen and apply weird filters to them, like the faux-Warhol thing you see in my avatar.

I chose it because it gives a vague idea of what I look like, but not so much you'd recognize me on the street.

But hey, if someone finds it hot, that's okay... I guess. Just remember I'm happily married with a kid. But then, who knows -- maybe the AA model is too! 8)

Yeah, I think photobooth has some magic powered juice in there that makes people look hotter than they are trying to look. Gotta love the photobooth.

That would be the ultimate irony of all this hullabaloo if that girl is actually walking around the slope right now looking like any other young, disheveled mom.

Maybe she's even wearing baggy homemade pants! :shock:

caaahyoko wrote: Yeah, I think photobooth has some magic powered juice in there that makes people look hotter than they are trying to look. Gotta love the photobooth.

Mac users are just sexier

A minimalist, non-consumer who is at Starbucks every morning, got it.

Yes, I've seen her around for years. If she's a minimalist maybe she should be living in a tent in the park or living in Amish country.

OMG, this thread is hilarious! I always wondered about this woman. I moved out of Brooklyn a year ago and would love to unravel the mystery behind sack skirt lady.

The lady in question is a human being with her own right to live life as she pleases and not be subject of analysis, speculation etc.

OK - so, now we can't talk about any people? Wow. How fun.

So, um, does anyone like crackers?

So what are the rules . . . we can't talk about someone else without their knowledge at all? What are we doing here that interfere's with this woman's "right to live"???

I don't even know who the heck this person is, but if I see some unusual character walking down the sidewalk (which is fairly common, to the point that frankly I hardly remember five seconds later) I don't consider it a violation of their "right to live" to mention it to someone . . . nor would I feel it to be an encroachment of my "right to live" if someone somewhere happened to discuss me without my knowledge.

Has society become THAT sensitive, serious, stale and sober that the appearance of an unusual or different person should not be mentioned that it might be a violation of the codes of human deceny or a violation of a persons civil rights? Is it so tasteless and officious to comment on a woman that wears a black burlap-bag dress everyday as some kind of avant garde personal statement?

Should I try to control my thoughts so that I am never curious or so that I never wonder about a person's motivations for making an unconventional fashion choice? Or should I simply just not talk about it?

Please clarify . . .

Thanks

A good rule of thumb on these boards (or even talking to a friend at a party) is to ask yourself if you would be willing to type or say the same things if the person was standing there with you.

Haha . . . really? Are you speaking as moderator?

Maybe I require clarification, but I thought the whole point of these boards and being "internet anonymous" is that you could express yourself in ways that you wouldn't in "polite society". Well, not the WHOLE point, but certainly preserving a certain level of anonymity allows one to be honest (or dishonest) or express oneself with a degree of freedom one wouldn't necessary feel in a face-to-face situation.

When I stepped in human poo in the subway, I didn't actually even tell my friends I was so embarrassed. But here? Who cares? Noone knows me . . . so I don't care.

And . . ."KREEPY"??? - posting the word "creepy" in all caps starting with a K . . . what's that all about??? Are we supposed to feel even more like weirdos and perverts cause someone called us out by capitalizing it and starting it with a K?

The whole idea that we should "edit our thoughts" . . . how patronizing. Sounds like an over-inflated sense of self-importance; because one works in the rag trade one is an expert on eccentric people's needs to not be talked about? Isn't the whole fashion industry based on pointless speculation about who's wearing what?

Anyway, give us credit to know the difference between inappropriate personal attacks and harmless speculation about why some woman would wear a bag everyday . . .