Color debate: nude or flesh?

By Laurent Leprivier in Anywhere  |  2 years ago  |  0 comments

Fashion people and designers describe what "nude" and "flesh" means to them.

NEW YORK— When you hear the word "nude," what do you picture?

In fashion, it's a common description of the shade a little darker than champagne, lighter than sand and perhaps with a hint of blush or peach.

But when Michelle Obama wore, in the words of designer Naeem Khan, a "sterling-silver sequin, abstract floral, nude strapless gown" to a state dinner at the White House _ and it was reported as such _ that sparked questions about the definition of nude and its relation, if any, to the wearer's skin color.

The Associated Press called Mrs. Obama's dress color "flesh" and got immediate retorts: "Whose flesh?" one newspaper editor asked. "Not hers." The description was revised to "champagne."[...]

Nude as a term is too generic at this point, says Epstein. "When you find the right color name, it means more to the customer. It's more literal."[...]

The woman who wears nude is suggesting what might be underneath, expressing "her most basic self," Zyla says. And perhaps that's why changing the name or using many makes sense.

via rr.com