——YSL’S STEFANO PILATI EXPLAINS WHY FASHION MAY NEVER BE FASHIONABLE AGAIN

Photos by Carlotta Manaigo

It’s not hyperbole to say that Yves Saint Laurent is the greatest, most evocative name in the history of fashion. Stefano Pilati has been the company’s creative director for the past decade, defining yet another era with his analytic eye for design and plainspoken opinions about fashion’s place in modern culture. Before taking the helm at YSL, Stefano worked closely with Tom Ford and Miuccia Prada, perhaps the most innovative figures in Italian fashion of the past 20 years.

While Stefano was the most suitable candidate to take over the billion-dollar fashion house after Tom Ford’s departure, that doesn’t mean he didn’t piss off a lot of people in the process. And while writing about and interviewing those in the fashion industry can very quickly veer into pretentious nonsense, to be honest, for people who– like me – live fashion the same way others live music or art, Stefano’s as real as it gets. So far he’s managed to keep YSL economically viable while flying the banner of elegance and weirdness first raised by his mentor and master, Yves – a psychotic genius whose madness created a new way of communication. But things are changing for designers; times are tough and battles must be picked carefully. As Kim Jong-il used to say, “He who is afraid of a challenge will never be a good revolutionary.” Stefano is undoubtedly a revolutionary figure, and he’s not afraid of provocation – whether that means serving up controversy or sitting back while fashion bloggers bitch about him.

I conducted the following interview with Stefano via Skype. He was sitting in his office in Paris, dressed to the nines, while I wasted away on my bed like a Nan Goldin photograph.

VICE: The vision you brought to Yves Saint Laurent is much different – and some would say more daring and perverse – than your predecessor, Tom Ford. Were there people in the fashion industry who weren’t happy with your ideas and whose opposition you had to overcome?

Stefano Pilati: Of course! I came across many difficulties, and at times still do. Mine has been a serious, respectful, professional path, based on the fundamental idea of elegance at YSL. Some of the choices I make in my collections, however, are ultimately due to business, but I think they can still be seen as glamorous choices nevertheless. Some of this has to do with the fact that when I started, the company was losing a lot of money – 75 million euros a year. I didn’t start from scratch, I started at negative 75 million. I had to strike a balance. I was asked to be innovative while respecting the tradition of the maison, but I also had to be commercial and salable. People were expecting fireworks, but I never gave them any. I had to lay the foundation first.

Would it be fair to say that your influence was subtle but significant?

Yeah, I created a new silhouette. In 2004, everybody was hanging around with low-waisted pants and skirts. It was disgusting! You’d walk down the streets and see fat asses in low-cut jeans. So I said to myself, “Maybe we don’t have to keep on seeing that.” That’s when I raised the waistline and tightened it up with belts and stuff. It’s a silhouette that’s still the basis for many things today; it’s still working. And in fact, despite the initial criticisms, I was given the credit for it.

What kind of difficulties did you have to go through when you joined YSL?

You know, YSL – unfortunately for me – is already strongly defined in people’s imaginations. Pretty much everyone has an opinion about it. You make flounced skirts, they ask for capes; you do capes, they ask for tuxedos; you do the tuxedo, they want it more 1970s; if you go 1960s, no, you should have gone to the 1980s. My hardest challenge was putting all this bullshit aside. When I create a piece of clothing, I think of today’s life—dynamism, the role of women in society, and her behavior in given situations. I’m speaking of women who play leading roles in our society, not just the big-spender wife or lover who spends her days being fucked by her rich boyfriend. I try to include all of society in my creations. That’s the most challenging thing. Saint Laurent is maybe the most complex brand in the fashion system, because you have to face people’s imagination, which is infinite, just as infinite as Yves’s work was. He was maybe the most prolific designer in the history of fashion. From the 1960s to the 80s – I’m talking about the birth of prêt-à-porter – that’s when he was most active, and it’s also when the fashion industry reached the next level.

Perhaps the epitome of women and glamour, at least in mainstream culture, is the red-carpet outfit –women in LA, wearing long gowns at 4 PM, all made up as if they were an anchorwoman on a newscast, with 1930s hairdos. It’s one of the most inelegant things imaginable. We have no icons of elegance; we don’t have a Grace Kelly. Are there any contemporary women whom you would consider exemplars of elegance?

Generally speaking, or referring specifically to Yves Saint Laurent?

In general.

My idea of elegance – and this refers to women as well as men – is that someone is elegant when he or she shows a good knowledge of what fits them, where you can find naturalness and self-esteem. Not showing off. Elegance is the idea of showing an optimistic depiction of oneself, and to lose oneself in the frivolity of style and fashion. Nowadays nobody gives a shit about being elegant, or chic. If you’re doing it, you’re doing it for yourself, because it’s your way of being. When you’re not thinking, “This is fashion,” and you’re not buying clothes to create statements, you’re on the right path. If fashion goes low waisted and you’re fat bottomed, well, forget it; don’t put slim-fitting jeans on. They’re going to look awful on you. You should dress in black; it would be better.

But seriously, it’s not easy to find elegant women. There are a few, the majority of whom are old – and there are one or maybe two in the world who created a new style when they were young. Today when I go to New York and survey art and fashion, I see smart women and the level is high. But there’s a difference between this and saying a woman is elegant.

Some of the artwork that Stefano surrounds himself with, which, he assures us, he draws almost no inspiration from.

Are there any particular artists or other creative people from whom you draw inspiration?

I’m not like that. My culture is self-taught and based on curiosity. I grew up in the 1980s and my iconic artists are Cy Twombly, Hermann Nitsch, and… there are a whole bunch of them. But I’ve never found myself leafing through the pages of an art book and thinking, “Now let’s do a collection inspired by Rothko.” Maybe architecture. For my next collection I showed my assistants some of Gio Ponti’s interiors in the University of Padova. They have a strict, linear form combined with traces of originality. Sometimes I take the cue from some master who inscribed in his work a general aesthetic sense that inspires me. You have to remember that I work in a highly inspirational environment. Our archives are insane. Yves created a lot of different work. He made Mondrian dresses, Picasso jackets, etc.

Is the idea of fashion as part of contemporary culture – alongside music and art – still valid? Or has the market transformed the reality and perception of what is fashionable into some sort of abstraction?

Fashion is not fashion anymore. I am sure of this, but nobody realises this because the world is full of romantics like me – people who continue to believe in it. Now “fashionable” can mean anything. Everything is fashion. Anything can become fashion. A while ago, things were more elitist, and this allowed it to be more aspirational and directional, and this would inspire others. It might have even – to use a horrible term – “taught” others. Nowadays, what can you teach? I might make a collection in flannel, and then the next guy makes a collection using technical see-through nets. If somebody doesn’t know much about fashion, what can he draw from this? What can he learn? It makes no sense! He can’t use fashion as a road map, he’s lost. Nowadays, it’s all business.

The other problem is that fashion, as a system, is very insular and introverted. We constantly recycle the same concepts and express them through the same modes of representation. The moment you start making videos or move off the catwalk, most journalists will have no fucking clue what you’re doing because they don’t have the time, willingness, or culture to really understand something new. You’ll be misunderstood, and you’ll have no choice but to return to doing the things that follow the language everyone understands.

Yves Saint Laurent brought street fashion to the catwalk with his Beat collections in the 1960s, and then he created prêt-à-porter. Over the past 20 or so years, I can’t think of many designers who crystallised youth culture in their work like he did. Maybe Raf Simons or Junya Watanabe. Is high fashion’s relationship with streetwear officially over?

The real question is: What can you take out of streetwear? Girls are all wearing miniskirts and leggings and leather jackets. We’ve already seen all of this. Streetwear never taught me anything. Consider this: Yves Saint Laurent was one of the first designers to revisit vintage. If you read his biography, you’ll see it. He used to go to London to the first secondhand markets and find clothes from the 30s. That’s how he invented the tuxedo. He bought a man’s smoking jacket and put it on one of his muses. That’s how most of his innovations began. Today you can do that type of research, but it’s hard to create a story like that, because too many have already been told about almost everything. Personally, I view my work like that of an artisan. I am very egocentric in this sense. I work in fashion to express my own self, because it’s the only way I know how.

Do you think fashion is misunderstood because the people who create it speak a different creative language from those who consume and analyse it?

When people enter our store they imagine cashmeres, silk cravats, shirts in crepe de chine, crocodile shoes. Obviously, we make them, but it’s like hitting myself in the balls. I have 800 cashmere coats and 900 silk cravats. My point is, your work can’t just be a selfish journey. You’re working for a brand, not your brand. You have to adapt. I like to let myself go with some ideas, but you have to have the rest of the company on board with you and deal with those dickheads who are only businessmen – the ones who ruined fashion, people who move from Danone to YSL like it’s the most natural transition in the world.

In the 1970s, at his peak, Saint Laurent lived a very exciting life, or at least it seemed this way from the outside: drugs, rent boys, etc. Do you think a contemporary designer in today’s fashion landscape could ever get away with behaving like that?

I don’t think you can, because today it’s a real office job that goes beyond any normal conception of what time one should devote to work. I work 24 hours a day, essentially. I have to make a collection every two months. You have to be in shape; you have to be more athlete than rock star. The real problem is that fashion isolates you. When you go outside that world and meet the 90 percent of society who have no clue what you’re doing, you end up choosing to go back home with your friends. Or maybe you run away for ten days and party like an animal, and then it takes you ten days to recover and you hope nobody noticed. Today, excess has to be kept within the private sphere. But you know about my past and that I used to get high. When I used to really use, at Prada, a guy found out, and he told me, “Well, David Bowie made his best records when he was using.” That was maybe the last time I felt that there was a slight acceptance of what I was doing. Today that kind of stuff is just impossible. Without getting right into the dirt of it, John [Galliano] really kind of put an end to that sort of option.

His behavior may have seemed inexcusable at the time, but I’m still shocked that Galliano was expelled from Dior.His couture shows were among the best and most incisive I’ve ever seen.

Absolutely.

What do you think of that whole mess?

I think it was a tragic situation, both for him and for the maison. The truth is, going back to what we said before, about excess: Let’s not forget that we aren’t pure creators with rich boyfriends who fund our work and take our hands to lead us along while we do whatever we want. We work for corporations, with hundreds of people who go home at 2 AM on the subway, not with drivers. There are whole factories full of people who create our stuff, and in a way there is a public media system that puts us at the center of it all, a system for which we are the face of an entire corporation. You have to come to terms with your responsibility and choices. If you’re a guy who has his own little things going, you can do that, but then you can’t expect to stand next to Charlize Theron in front of millions of people. If you stand on that stage next to Charlize Theron, you have to be able to stand up and talk coherently. Shit, if you can’t even talk normally, and you arrive two hours late fucked out of your mind just to leave after ten minutes after two glasses of wine, well, it might be best if you just stayed home.

We have to understand that people are there for us. Our creations have a power, and we have a power, which we transmit to others. People want to give you that power, and in the moment that they give it to you they expect to see a person standing in front of them who can at least appreciate it. In a way, it makes me think about how you make your own bed. You can do what you want, at home. But when you go out, keep it together. Look, it was a tragic situation, and I’m not justifying anybody’s actions. If I must choose sides, I might justify him, but I do so with sadness. It’s just sad. I don’t feel bad for him, though.

Would you consider yourself more of a Scott Walker or a Truman Capote type, with respect to social life?

I don’t like flattery. I don’t care about it at all. I think I might be so extremely egocentric that I just don’t care what others think. If I do something I like, I think it’s valid. The first few years I was in this position, I have to admit, when I found myself in an elevator with Kathryn Bigelow and Richard Gere riding up to Mick Jagger’s flat, I mean, when I got home I used to slap my own face just to confirm that I was really me. Of course I am fascinated by that kind of social life, but I prefer staying home, relaxing, watching television, or spending time with my partner. But consider that I work like a dog, and most of the time when I get home I am so beat I can barely do anything at all. Right now I just go to my own openings, and I might go out for a pizza with friends on a Sunday. The bare minimum of what’s expected to function as a social being. And then it all becomes work, work, work. You go to these things because they ask you to, because you have to – it’s part of the job. I don’t have a great relationship with high society and social types. But I love this experience, and I love my job. I’m more grateful for the lifestyle this job has bought me than for the fame or the recognition. If I walk the streets and somebody recognises me and asks for my autograph... well, it stuns me. I ask myself, “What did I do?” I mean, are you sure you want my autograph? Because, if we lived in Picasso’s time, what would this person do if they met Picasso? Would they ask him to kill them? I’m a designer. But then again, I understand – you’re somebody who feeds people’s dreams, you live surrounded by beauty, and you’re seen in that context, as a privileged person. Unfortunately the figure of the “designer” continues to be deified.

By Costantino Della Gherardesca

昂山素姬

      素姬為了緬甸人民付出極其重大的代價。楊紫瓊演絕食抗議瘦得嚇人，出了很大的力用心去演。當中與丈夫分離的痛苦，描寫得很細膩。被抓的學生被殘酷對待，很驚嚇……這一切都令人感觸流淚，尤其因為想念曾經對我非常好的緬甸人。

　　曾受過善良的緬甸人民極大的恩惠：在仰光、Pyin Oo Lwin的Chanmyay 、 Panditarama及Shwe Oo Min靜修中心，我得到法師指導，修習內觀及慈心禪。熱心的義工天天為我們奔走辦簽証、買東西、煮飯、洗碗。他們很明白心的運作，致力對付自己的貪嗔，也盡心盡力慈母一樣照顧屬靈上像嬰兒一樣的初學者：種種要求、諸多不滿、動作粗魯……問他們那兒來的耐心？有一位義工慈祥地回答：「你們遠離了自己的國家，老遠的來到這兒學習，修行一點也不容易，理應好好照顧你們。」我的心十分十分感動。每次離開，感激之情躍然，只好看著眼淚流下來。《昂山素姬》上畫了，當然要入電影院。看到緬甸的土地、天空、大金塔，稍解對緬甸朋友的思念。

昂山素姬說：「不是權力令人腐化，而是恐懼。」

  　一次，一位緬甸義工駕車載我和另外幾位來自世界各地的朋友去一個地方，經過素姬的住所，茂密的樹葉重重圍住，上面有民主聯盟的紅色橫額及旗幟。義工朋友說：「Panditarama Sayadaw 教過昂山素姬禪修，所以軍政府也不喜歡禪師，多方留難。」我就知道，素姬一定有很好的修行。幾個月前接待Daw Than Myint，她提到過素姬一被軟禁，Chanmyay Sayadaw 即到她家裏探望並指導她修行。及後軍政府進一步禁止Sayadaw的到訪。

　　可惜電影中沒有素姬打坐或行禪的鏡頭。 一位記者曾問素姬：「為甚麼你和別人交談時總是多次談論信仰？」她回答：「因為政治是關於人的，我不能將人和他的精神價值分離開來。」在1991年諾貝爾和平獎頒獎禮上，兒子亞歷山大代表母親領獎致辭時強調了素姬的精神目標：「儘管我母親常常被描繪成一位用和平手段爭取民主的政治異見者，但我們也要記住，她的追求在本質上是精神性的。」 閱讀Freedom from Fear and Other Writings這本收錄有關素姬演說、書信和訪問的文集，在“My Country and My People”一文中，她講述了緬甸的風貌、歷史及從佛教衍生出來的節日。她結合了緬甸古王朝的興替，扼要地講述佛教流派的演變、歷史及佛陀的教法，包括八正道、持戒及對解脫的追求，充份顯示出她對佛法的熟悉及熱愛。在〈超越恐懼的自由〉(“Freedom from Fear”) 一文中，她對人心有很仔細的分析：「不是權力令人腐化，而是恐懼。掌權者恐懼失去權力。貪徒權力的人恐懼腐敗政權所帶來的災害。大多數緬甸人都明白有四種腐食心靈的元素。貪欲：被所愛的牽動，離開正道；偏狹：選擇不正確的方法對抗得罪自己的人；愚痴：導致扭曲；以及恐懼。而最可怕的可算是恐懼，因為它會慢慢蠶食所有對善與惡的概念，恐懼出現得是這麼的頻繁，是另外三種腐敗的根本。」

楊紫瓊飾演昂山素姬，非常神似。

  　她能夠說得出這番話，肯定對心的運作曾有密切觀察。她也能體驗無我，被釋放時對囚禁她的人沒有怨恨，只說：「沒有壞人，只是有人做了不好的事。」她離開被軟禁的住所後，在的士，在別人的家中，在公眾場所，常常見到自己的肖像。她嚇了一跳，沒有黏著被崇拜的快感，反而是感到不自然，她謙虛地說：「對民主的追求，不在於一個小女子的個人表演。」可見她的自我是多麼多麼的小；平實、謙和，這是多年以來修行的結果。她獲釋後大方地出席官方為他父親舉辦的紀念活動，甚至表示可動用她在國際的影響力，幫助緬甸政府免於外國的經濟制裁。 　她能結出美好的果子，這是可以預期的，因為她有修行，故此她能穿透心中的恐懼。她不是孤單的，因為她有整個豐富的佛教的傳統支持著她、有修行的僧團支持著她。不同宗教、種族、膚色的人，都愛憐她、祝福她。她心靈上，有兩個偉大的人物作嚮導：一個是她父親，引領緬甸人民脫離英、日統治的昂山將軍，另一個是甘地。電影中多次出現昂山將軍的肖像，另外女主角及女學生都看甘地的書。他們的精神內涵是共通的；二者都有勝過恐懼的自由。

因為她有修行，故此她能穿透心中的恐懼。圖為電影中的一幕。

  　其實昂山將軍死時，素姬很小，只有兩歲。她對父親的認識主要來自當外交官的母親，以及她搜集的有關父親的文章；她發現與父親有相同的理念，建立了強而有力的心靈上的連繫與承傳。昂山將軍曾鼓勵國人不要借用他人的勇氣，自己要敢於成為偉大的人。甘地能鼓動印度人勇敢地面對虐打而不反抗，堅決地保持心中的平和，以達到外在世界的和平。這樣的修行需以紀律不斷地維持。素姬是一個很有紀律的人；她去年更曾透過視像對話勉勵港大學生要有紀律。她軟禁在家的日子一定繼續修行，每個動作都盡量保持正念，包括她常要進行的電器維修。可惜電影未到這個深度。女主角流露的哀痛、倔強及憤怒，可能略為多了。當然素姬也會痛苦，一定也會哭，可是她也更可能是以內觀觀照著心，不會抑壓，也不會牽扯得太久。因為她體驗過任何情緒都是無常的。故此她能說：「無畏也許是一種天賦，但更可貴的是通過後天努力而獲得的勇氣──那種抗拒個人行為被掌控的習慣而獲得的勇氣。」

電影中很細膩地描寫出昂山素姬與丈夫分離的痛苦

   　能靜靜地坐下來45分鐘保持靜止和專注，自能體驗對身體僵麻的恐懼、對內心深處不安的恐懼；以及慣性對恐懼的逃避、抗拒或嗔恨。然而，禪修者就是這麼堅定不移地坐著，坦然地覺知這一切。漸漸，會發然一種新的可能性，以好奇心、感恩、信心、慈愛磨練出以平靜面對恐懼。表面雖然動也不動，卻是一直地往內心旅行、探溯、反思及學習。真正的自信是這樣磨練出來的。 　不過，內觀是可以很乾澀的，有時可轉做一下慈心禪。Chanmyay　 Sayadaw形容，好比一個在烈日下行走很久的旅人，在樹蔭下稍稍歇息。慈心禪是重複簡短的祝福的句子，訓練心專注在善念上，培育慈愛的品德。我肯定素姬有修習慈心禪。1988年8月26日，她在仰光大金塔首次向大批群眾發表演說，是這樣收結的：「願所有人都有紀律、團結。願我們常常持守正確的原則行事。願大家脫離所有災害。」

昂山素姬軟禁在家的日子一定繼續修行，保持正念，可惜電影未到這個深度。圖為電影中的一幕。

　　 她對香港大學的學生說過這樣的話：「學習最高的形式是能為世人付出關愛、擔負責任；並獲得知識，能把關愛化為具體行動。」對於這些，她在佛法的教育中，在父親身上，在聖雄甘地身上都一一獲得了。我在很多很多美麗的緬甸人民身上也看到了。

    　願素姬平安。緬甸人民平安。願眾生平安。

文章转载于第272期《明覺》 文：心田 

在眼下这个商品社会里，被人承认和尊重往往是通过消费表现出来。进什么场所买什么价钱、什么品牌的东西等等，好像都是身份的一种证明。穿体面的服装，开体面的轿车，住在体面时尚的生活小区，这一切似乎都在向别人宣布：瞧！我是个成功者！其实，这是一种很肤浅的人生价值观。

当然，人有钱总比无钱要好，前提是来路正当。无钱或少钱的人，不必嫉妒和排斥富人。富人也不必因为有钱就觉得高人一等。再说，有钱只能算是“富”，却不见得就是“贵”。

富与贵是两种不同维度的生活状态：富是物质生活过剩的状态，贵是精神生活超越的状态。对于人的生存而言，富体现生活的数量和铺排，贵体现生命品质和精神的升华。富是对物质的占有，而贵则是精神的满足；富不等于贵，因为富不包括爱；贵则超越了富，因为贵包含着爱。

印度加尔各答有一座修道院，高高的院墙把修道院与周围混乱贫困的生活隔开，院墙里面有盛开着鲜花的花园和设施齐备的楼房，住在里面的修女，过着一种差不多是贵族式的舒适安宁的生活。但是让人料想不到的是，一个名叫特丽莎的修女，有一天从修道院里走了出去，到贫民区去服侍那些最贫穷的人。她先在贫民区办了一所学校，后来又创办了专门安置穷人和垂死者的仁爱修会。她在加尔各答遍寻病弱和垂死者，把他们带回来，给他们衣食，为他们治疗，握着临终者的手，安慰他们，按照他们的信仰和习俗为他们办理丧事。其中有个人临终时说：“过去我在街上活得像头畜生，如今我却像天使般死去。”就这样年复一年，她救助了4万多名被遗弃在街头的人，她的慈善事业在壮大，她创建的组织已经拥有了4亿多资产。1979年，她获得了诺贝尔和平奖，但是她依然过着极其简朴的生活，直至她去世前，已逾80高龄的她仍与其他修女一起睡在地板上，只有两套换洗的衣服。

 读到这个故事的时候，我觉得自己的心突然被一盏灯照亮。真正的高贵不是色彩缤纷花样不断翻新的时装，不是富丽堂皇的花园洋房，不是街上疾驰而过的高级轿车，不是总统套房，不是金钱，不是美食，而是富有同情和慈爱的心灵。

其实，一个人的生存所需非常有限，市场上琳琅满目、品种繁多、花样翻新的商品，你不可能全部拥有，这就像挑选鞋子，合脚就行。贪婪过多的物质，就像买回一双过大的鞋子，累赘无用。金钱、洋房、名车以及名气、权势，这一切只能带给我们短暂的满足，就像风吹着一块云彩飘过我们的眼前。唯有高贵的气质、宽厚的爱心、悲悯的情怀、清洁的精神、敢于担当的勇气以及坚韧的生命力、人格的尊严、人性的良知、不媚、不骄、不乞、不怜，始终恪守“美德和荣誉高于一切”的原则，才是赋予我们生活意义的阳光。

      以前我的房间之所以凌乱不堪，最主要的原因是没时间收拾。衬衣直接扔地上要比叠好收起来省事，所以我就扔地上了。只要在房门和床之间还能走动，我就会得过且过，对房间的凌乱听之任之。然而，我越来越觉得乱放东西耗掉了我大量的时间，我得花更多的宝贵时间寻找某样需要的东西。而如果摆放东西的地方有序可循，加上抽出少量时间整理整理，这一切原本可以轻而易举地避免。”家住椒江经济开发区下马新村的许女士和我们分享了房间整理经验：“为了使房间变得更有条理，尤其是为了让我的个人空间变得更有秩序，我发明了好几招。一般采取这些办法，即使是最忙的人也能在几分钟之内使一切变得井然有序，或至少开始有个头绪。只需花刷牙或检查邮箱的时间，我就能把生活中的一些杂物摆放得更有条理。”下面来看看这位达人是如何整理房间的：

    一箱定乾坤

    “我需要整理的东西相当凌乱：架子、书桌、抽屉、角角落落，到处都是。可以试着用‘一箱定乾坤法’搞定。”找出一只尽可能大的箱子，把所有需要收拾的东西都装进去，尽可能清理掉要处理的那些杂物，那么忍住——只要先收进箱子就行。以后坐下来处理箱子里的杂物要比眼下立马处理容易得多。“我把这种箱子称为‘百纳箱’，它能使地方显得更整洁，让相关的物品更容易处理。对吃不准的东西，先收进箱子里再说。”许女士说。

    分区而治

    在房间里任意挑一个区域：堆满脏衣服的书桌、书架、或椅子，然后开始收拾，直到其非常整洁为止。确保所挑的是个很小的区域，因为你准备整理的时间很短，却还想有所收获。大多数小的区域需要处理的东西都不会太多，整理起来又容易又能见效，因为，到目前为止，你脏乱的地盘上至少有一小块看起来很整洁。

    垃圾大处理

    把你的地盘或者是任何你打算整理的地方全部清理一遍，但不要动任何需要单独处理的东西。在五分钟时间里，你需要处理的是要扔掉不需要的东西。拿一个大垃圾袋，巡视自己的地盘，大肆往袋里塞不需要的东西。“这样你会发现自己房间里的杂物有很大一部分是早该扔掉，但出于某种原因却没扔的东西。只要花五分钟时间，你就能收拾出一整袋该扔的杂物，而你清理的地方看起来会清爽很多。”许女士接着说，这样的整理方法使你有一个大概整理房间的计划，而且很节省时间，只要巧妙地利用你的零碎时间即可。

    从地面开始整理

    大多数时候，房间显得杂乱无章最主要是因为地面脏。干净的地面对人的心理大有裨益，如果地面本就干净，那么保持其干净就会容易得多。可以试着光收拾地面——没接触到地面的东西先不要管。“比如说我房间的地上主要是衣物、鞋子以及其它我习惯带进房间一扔的东西。”如果地面干净整洁了，你的地盘看起来会舒服很多，你的感觉会更好，而且你对整理的畏难情绪也可能大大降低。

    专物专地

    你的地盘凌乱不堪的另一个因素是东西没有固定的地方，最简单的解决办法是设置一个固定的地方。先为某类东西安排一个固定的地方，如CD，一旦找好放CD的地方，就可以到处找找CD并放在这儿。只需几分钟，找齐所有CD，放在属于它们的地方，这件事就算搞定。只要有了专门的、固定的地方，CD或其它任何东西整理起来就会容易得多。

隨靈魂扭動的肢體，舞出燦爛人生。

Photographs Colleena Shakti