Kelly Wearstler CBS Sunday Morning

Kelly Wearstler segment on CBS Sunday Morning - aired 09.26.10

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Kelly
• Wearstler
• CBS
• Sunday
• Morning

[onedollarhairstylist]

Kelly make my video public pls! :)

[acqofanaesthete]

i just met her! she is grand! v nice too!

CC

[ytorrejone]

Frank aint going......big deal.

[impulsive2urge]

@EbunnyEthereal On the brighter side, I think Kelly revolutionize interior design by her Viceroy hotel thing, it might be overboard but it ended up very strong and so there's justice in it. It's also very original and so it'll be really hard for future designers to remake that aesthetic. What I'm saying is that some of her designs are looking like derivatives that there's still a point for it to improve by some editing. I'm a fan of kelly, especially her crazy outfits she just needs to edit.

[impulsive2urge]

@EbunnyEthereal ------ Here's the thing, if some new artist in the future considered "remaking" some of Kelly's "weaker" designs(yeah we know it's innovative but unpolished because it's overboard and so it's weak), And so if the new artist tried to remake it in a well edited form, then chances are kelly's design might be forgotten into nothingness because there was this person who really refine the concept and make it palatable to people that it's not already perceived as overboard.

[impulsive2urge]

@EbunnyEthereal About the history books thing, Kelly

might have set new trends and be remembered by it because of it's novelty, but some of her new trends are still looking unpolished overboard that still needs some editing and toning down. -----

[impulsive2urge]

@EbunnyEthereal Going back to Kelly's design. I'm not saying she must not break rules, in fact i love her breaking rules, it's just that if the end result of a design concept is not so strong, in other words if the design is weak, then there's no point breaking rules for it because it's not justifiable to risk rules for a weak design.

But if you have a concrete strong design then it's justifiable to break rules. In other words, it takes a revolutionary new rule to break an already known rule.

[impulsive2urge]

@EbunnyEthereal I know what you're trying to say that in order to innovate you need to break rules, but there's a limit in it. Compare it to a punk rockstar, a punk rockstar could do every outrageous act in the stage to show the audience how far he can go and still he'll still be loved because of it. But you know, there's always a limit, he can't eat a live person on stage because that just like over-the-top outrageous obnoxious that it breaks the rules to the point that it's already WRONG.

[EbunnyEthereal]

@impulsive2urge as a side note, though, consider this: the people who set trends are never those who conform to predetermined rules. when a designer resigns him/herself to doing only what is within the "safe zone," he/she is writing themselves into the history books as one of the followers. you can never create a new style by strictly following the design rules that are prevalent in your era, and you certainly will not be remembered if that is your approach.

[EbunnyEthereal]

@impulsive2urge i beg to differ. i have a book full of her designs ("Modern Glamour" i think) and in the entire book there was never an image that fell short of well done. she has a distinctive style, as i've gotten to the point where i can look at a room and tell it's hers, whether i've seen the room before or not. if you think she's too much, u have a right to that opinion, but there are many people who think that her designs are some of the hottest out there, and i'm one of those people.