One afternoon last week I saw something on the subway I’d never seen before, a woman in a burqa, a full body robe, and a niqab, a face veil that leaves only the eyes uncovered.  Her robes were a heavy black cotton but her veil was a silver-grey chiffon, so that you could see the shape of her nose and her long, dark hair underneath.  It was a young woman, I think, maybe a college student.  She paired her robes with sensible leather boots and a knee-length parka, and carried a canvas tote bag full of books.  After taking a seat she pulled a galley out of her bag and began to read.

Of course the whole purpose of the burqa is to dampen a woman’s physical allure, but I couldn’t keep my eyes off this woman.  I wanted to know who she was, where she was going, and what she was reading.   Nicolas Szarkosy, famously and controversially, made it illegal for women to wear the burqa in France earlier this year, saying that it concealed their identities and threatened national security.  The move was interpreted as both colonialist and feminist.  One positive thing about the ban, I think, is that it encourages women from immigrant communities to participate in civic culture.  There was nothing suspicious, or even conspicuous, about the woman I saw on the subway.  Surrounded by high school students and construction workers on their way home, she attracted little attention from anyone besides me.  But even the most cursory online search for burqa pulls up images of women in garments that resemble Klansmen’s robes, and that leave them faceless and voiceless.  Maybe it’s a decision best left to each woman.

I watched last night’s television documentary about the transsexual tennis pro Renee Richards, “Renee,” with real interest.  I grew up in the 70’s with a tennis-mad father who tried, with absolutely no success, to teach me the game.  And I remember the heroes of that era, who played with small rackets and small bodies, vividly.  The movie was a powerful, personal portrait of Richards, giving a sense of her desires and her regrets.  But what brought the whole milieu alive for me was the archival footage of her and her competitors running around in their Teddy Tinling dresses.

Tinling was a big, bald, smiling Englishman who made dresses for all the great ladies on the tour, including Martina, Chrissie and Billie Jean.  Tinling dresses were, for the most part, simple, sleeveless sheaths fancified with cut-outs, ruffles, appliques and trim.  They were seriously dressy, like gowns for the tennis court.  I got to see the Tinling-designed dress Tracy Austin wore to win the US Open in 1979, a red gingham number with white lace trim, on display at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport.  It was tiny, like a doll’s dress, and stitched from woven cotton gingham, not the super-stretchy, sweat-wicking synthetics tennis dresses are made of now.  At a time when womens roles were changing, and when it was hard to know what a woman was, Tinling insisted that they dress like ladies.

Last week I finally made it to “Savage Beauty,” the Alexander McQueen show at the Met, which is just as sensational as everyone says it is.  I’ve seen other great fashion exhibits, like the Met’s AngloMania in 2006, which featured several McQueen ensembles, and this year’s Balenciaga retrospective at the Spanish Institute, but I’ve never been moved the way I was by this one.  McQueen’s clothes are very literally fantastic; they evoke fear, pride, lust, violence, amazement and, because of his death last year, incredible sadness.

To see McQueen’s clothes in person is something different than seeing them in photos and videos from runway presentations.  His shows were so deeply theatrical (with inventive makeup, styling, lighting, choreography and narratives) that the dazzling technical virtuosity and dreamy baroque sensuality of the garments weren’t easily apparent.  Even when his work moved far from what high fashion is (and what clothing is), as with his punkish “tribal” collections, it possessed an astonishing precision in both image and execution.  He wasn’t flailing around or experimenting.  He was pulling visions out from the air and into the world.

Michelle Obama made waves this week wearing a floor-length white column gown by Naeem Khan to a state dinner for Germany.  She looked almost as spectacular as she did in the shimmering gold strapless Naeem Khan gown she wore to a state dinner for India last fall, which remains her finest fashion moment.  Khan has established himself as a master of special event dressing.  (Surprisingly, Annette Bening was the only lady who wore Khan to the Oscars this year.)  His gowns have Halston-like sophistication and Bob Mackie-like exuberance.  They’re appropriate and also over-the-top.

What Khan does best is dresses.  He does them knee-length, cocktail length and ankle length, and he does them fitted to the body, draped asymmetrically like saris, and flowing like kaftans.  He keeps the silhouettes simple and then drenches them in intense, all-over embellishments.  It’s in these embellishments (threadwork, ostrich feathers, metallic filligree, beading, gilding, embroidery) that he excels.  Restraint is not an option; the ornament is essential to the garment.