One of the common critiques I’ve been reading on other fashion blogs involves matching the shoes to the purse. If the match is too on, it is called out as too “matchy matchy.” This criticism is usually lobbed at celebrities, who are of course under constant scrutiny. And while I think it’s one more way you just can’t win if you’re famous, female, and/or a fashionista (Britney’s got a point in You Want a Piece of Me)  it brings out an interesting aesthetic to consider: what exactly is too matchy-matchy, and why does it matter from an artistic point of view?

I recall about five years ago it was quite the journey for a woman to match her purse to her shoes - if the funds weren’t there to buy the matching leathers what have you outright, then there was a voyage undertaken that involved bargain bins, elbows, color memory and finessing of sales associates. To come out under budget with a perfect match entitled the wearer to bragging rights for weeks afterwards - sometimes months, if it involved Italian design.

So this new trend of not being too matchy feels a little bit more arbitrary than most. I can buy not wearing brown socks with black shoes because I can see it - the mismatched color wavelengths report the full issue to my eyes. But how “off” is too “off” when deliberately avoiding an overt match? Are we just talking about light brown leather with dark brown leather, or bright red Chuck Taylors with a pink purse?

Or is this some fashionista situation where you wear a monochrome look and then take it in a different direction with shoes and purse?

I understand that this is one of those subtle tests of a true fashionista: to pull together seemingly conflicting pieces in a coherent look. But sometimes we need a little more in the way of guidelines, y’know?