The Swelle Life

Finally, someone of influence said it. Thank you, Miuccia

I've never understood the pants-peeing anticipation and fight-to-the-death hysteria around procuring a piece from a highstreet-designer collaboration. When the latest head-scratcher of an announcement hits the media - Comme des Garcon, Alexander McQueen, Rodarte - I ask the world in general, "Why do you want a poorly made dress/jacket/top/ in fabric that looks and feels cheap and is a watered down version of fashion that truly thrills you?" That H&M tag may say Lanvin (I still cannot get my head around that one), but is it really? How is it different - the actual physical piece in your hands - how is it different from the knock-off from Primark next door? What makes it special, covetable, worth the time and energy spent online and in manic store queues, and possibly big money on Ebay a few days into the launch, trying to get it? (By the way - have you seen how many no longer loved items from past collabs are listed on Ebay, some of them key pieces from the collections, with no takers? As is the nature of thrills, they don't endure.)

I can understand losing your mind over it once; the prospect of having something beyond sunglasses and lipsticks - actual clothes! - you can afford from your favourite luxury brand is the stuff dreams are made of. But it's not them we're getting. I could go on about 'what is them', but then I'd be off on a tangent and the point of this post is to quote Miuccia Prada - probably the most critically acclaimed and revered person working in fashion today - on the issue from the second part of her recent interview with WWD. I've maintained that if Prada or Chanel ever did the dirty deed that luxury fashion would in essence be over. Can you imagine? Then again, Rei did it. (There's wiggle room there, however; although exalted, she represents something altogether different.) And this also gets covered in the interview. Whereas Karl Lagerfeld's thing is giving us our WTF? quote of the week (for which we are eternally grateful), Miuccia offers astute and honest analyses of an issue changing the face of fashion.

Before we FINALLY get to it: If you're happy with something you got, great. Happy is happy and that's the point of all it all for us, the consumer. So please don't yell at me about how awesome your Viktor & Rolf heart jumper is, you're allowed to enjoy it! Despite my rant which I've been dying to get off my chest, the issue is really about the proliferation of the fast-fashion concept.

From WWD's interview with Miuccia Prada in Beijing:

What she thinks of the 'fast fashion boom': "I have never even considered it. It’s because I don’t like the idea of a bad copy of what one does for the main brand. If I had an ingenious idea to do fashion that costs less but that wasn’t a bad copy of something else, with completely different criteria and ways of doing things, I would do it. For now, what I see more or less is the bad copy. Also with clothes that cost little, you need to ask why they cost so little. Because no one ever asks themselves that."

WWD mentions Rei Kawakubo, Miuccia asks what the thinks of this and is told that with regards to her H&M collaboration, "in the end she discovered that the worlds were too different from one another and she doesn’t think she’ll do something like that again." To which Miuccia responds: "It’s what everyone wants and I resist it because I want to be relevant in my own way.…I try to simplify my ideas and make them more simple but beyond a certain point, the simplification is not a positive thing.…So extracting the essence of a brand so that a brand is just a bow, the brand is just a heart, the brand is just black…everyone would want that. Even the customers would want that. The majority of people want to just sell and probably [Kawakubo] would have found this aspect negative. Because in the end she didn’t want to banalize what she does and almost become a caricature of herself."

Don't make it for the sake of it: "It’s clear that Chanel is known for the little jacket and Vuitton for the LV and us? Nobody really knows what we are, which is fortunate. Because I try to resist making a banal product. It’s clear that, as the world continues to get bigger, a bit of simplification is necessary but not to the point where it becomes totally useless or uninteresting."

She doesn't get it, either. And don't be a hypocrite! "I would hope that those chains would create a young fashion that’s fresh, autonomous with new ideas…and that they would do fewer bad copies. There are already bad copies around. What I don’t understand is all the admiration for this [imitation]. What’s more, the same people in the luxury industry defend the market of the things that cost little. When things cost very little, you need to ask yourself how and where they were made."

Totally.

Portrait of Miuccia Prada by Guido Harari

I'm Glad Summer's Nearly Over for I Cannot Bear These...

Is it just me who really, really hates this style of sandal/thong/flipflop where the ankle is cuffed in extraneous suede or leather while the piggies go bare? It must be, because I've seen them EVERYWHERE this summer. Here in England, back in Toronto. On teens, mature women, children! The thing that I can't get my head around is that this style came out of nowhere overnight - I mean this very specific flat sandal/thong style - and so many immediately said 'Yes! Let's do this!' There was no easing into it; out of the blue we all felt our ankles needed to be adorned and padded and that it was ok that the rest of the shoe remained skeletal. Maybe that's what irks me so, the unbalanced-ness of them.

I debated whether to post this, I didn't want to make anyone feel bad because by my calculations, based on anecdotal evidence, about half of you reading this are likely to have a pair in your closet. And I don't like making people feel bad. If you love them and feel good wearing them, good for you. And who knows, in time I may even come around. (I'm just saying that to be nice.)

Wait - are these ones actually lined in faux fur? While the poor little piggies, and the heel, have nothing! See what I mean? Madness!!!

The Delicious Miss Dahl: Melancholy and Bitchery

The people are divided over The Delicious Miss Dahl. Criticism of its lovely host, Sophie Dahl, her show, and the BBC is being served in a merciless manner as is the British way (which can produce the most hilariously cutting jabs but in this case I'm highly sympathetic to the receiver). Foodies are slamming her methods and her recipes and the BBC's decision to focus on an ex-model amateur cook - she doesn't claim to be a skilled cook and in this week's episode even admits "I won't win any Michelin stars"- while others are accusing her of trying to outdo Nigella. Why? Because they're both hot and apparently that's not allowed to happen twice. Funny though, while she's being accused of using her siren ways the same people are blasting her for taking dainty bites of her cooked food and not going to town on a spoonful of rice pudding. Can you imagine what that would look like and the outrage that would ensue if she did? She's wise to avoid Nigella territory - there's room for only one lady TV chef who makes mouth whoopee to a spoonful of lemon curd.

But the most childish reaction was the sour grapes tantrum from Giles Coren, food critic and presenter of BBC2's The Supersizers Go (never seen it. He looks extremely constipated in the photo I saw so he might want to start adding prunes to his recipes for a good week and not make any plans to leave the house.)

According to the Daily Mail, in addition to calling the show "a sickening sham" among other expletive-laced insults, he spewed on Twitter: "She leans in takes one WEENY bite with her finger cocked in the air, and then you just KNOW she gobs it out off camera." Dude, did you really publicly accuse her of having an eating disorder? Beyond that, she's clearly expressed on the show and in her book how important food, cooking, and in her own words 'eating it' are to her and the ritual family meal times played in her childhood. To boldly imply that she can't manage to swallow even a bite of food she's prepared from her own recipe you've completely and utterly undermined her character as a person. You may think you know food, Mr. Coren, but as a man you are truly without taste. 

And the rest of the brouhaha surrounds the revelation that the house, the kitchen where she cooks, is not hers. What? It's not? But I swore I saw Jamie Cullum's underpants tossed over that Cath Kidston upholstered chair! I always assume it's a set because where I'm from, across the pond, everything is contrived for effect. Okay, we all wanted it to be hers, how lovely would that be? And that's why it looked that way, because it's a set. It's a photographer's house that is rented out for shows and shoots. So those charming little recipe boxes with the handwritten titles aren't hers, nor are those perfectly propped counters, tops of cupboards (come on, dead giveway, who does that) and side tables. That romantic and dreamy garden out back? In our dreams indeed. But to become hostile over this point is just stupid and embarrassing.

And as for the popular assessment that Sophie Dahl is 'smug'? I don't read that at all. I think she's happy.

Here's the link to this week's episode 'Melancholy' which included two nice soup recipes: soul soothing chicken soup and Tom Kha (below):

Bjork Wore a Lot of Alexander McQueen, Pays Tribute

I visit Bjork's website every now and then, she's had a great online presence for many years, was innovating in binary before other artists, and now a blog takes centre stage (naturally) with all the other bits off to the side, in pretty much the same look and format as when she started. (But I find it laughable or infuriating, depending on my mood, that HER videos listed in her video gallery are blocked from broadcast as they originated from YouTube because it 'contains content from WMG who has blocked it on copyright grounds'. That's Warner Music Group. But the publisher is credited as Universal so I don't know what WMG has to do with it but I really hate it when the record companies block videos or disable embedding. Insert whatever swears you think are nastiest *here*. I go to her videos for inspiration (Bachelorette is the best), daydreaming, and to sing at the top of my lungs along with her if no one is home. So I wasn't best pleased when I discovered I could no longer see the videos I was watching for years. HOWEVER, there is a download button that will play an M4V of the videos in iTunes and the picture is huge and much more effective anyway. Sorry, but I had to rant.)

Getting back on track...Last month she paid tribute to her long-time friend and collaborator, Lee Alexander McQueen. In her very Bjork-like tribute, she said she was 'grateful' to have the chance to work with him and his team and that it was 'vital' to her development. No doubt. You can read it all here.

I recently contributed some thoughts on McQueen's passing and his career to a collaborative article by Alexis J. at iamonlinemag.com, and the day after he died I wrote a piece for Models and Moguls which you can read here. It still stings and I think it will for a long time.

Here are some of the stunningly beautiful dresses worn by Bjork throughout her career which are undeniably quintessential McQueen:

M·A·C Give Me Liberty or Give Me, Um...Liberty Will Do!

The first photos from MAC's latest collection come courtesy of Temptalia, a collaboration with Liberty of London who have been partnering with all kinds of like-minded giants, and this one is a total treat for the eyeballs. I don't even care so much about the makeup, I just love looking at the mixed Liberty prints of pretty pastel ditsy florals and bold graphics. And the packaging! I'm not sure that what's in those tubs and pans could possibly live up to what their beautifully adorned cases promise but who cares, really. Who doesn't need another pink gloss or purple eyeshadow anyway? 

I was invited to Cacharel's showroom in Paris last spring and saw their entire Liberty collection, a revival based on their first youthful, printed cotton floral pieces from the 70s. Cacharel say they created the Liberty print in the 70s. Yet Liberty fabrics are considered to be quintessentially English. Liberty of London sells Liberty prints and they seem to be an English institution of sorts, fashion-wise. I don't see how they could be two different things considering the look of each is unequivocal and each is called The Liberty Print. Did the French give the English a gift? The Statue of Liberty went to the United States and the Liberty print fabric was maybe a 'hey, you're cool, too' present to the English? Anyone care to explain?

Back to the make-up - the look is inspired by the quintessential London girl and is described as 'cool Britannia.' Oh, the tired buzz phrases PRs are forced to use. I'm a bit crabby. Immigration problems that are no fault of ours and my laptop is burning up my nether regions and it's not a great feeling.

Okay! Let's look at the pretty pictures! And by the way, the collection will be available first in the US on March 11 and internationally April 2010. And it will also include a scarf and a make-up bag. And more cosmetics. That hat is neat-o.

High Price Tags Explained: Why a Hen in an Egg Necklace Costs Nearly 10 Grand

You can never be too educated about any one thing, and fashion is no exception. We should know something about how the goods we're buying are made and why they cost what they do. Prices can range from a £1 t-shirt from Primark (there's only one way those can be produced so cheaply, people!) to thousands of whatever currency you use to max out your plastic. The value of high fashion is largely subjective; for some the label alone is worth the cost and for others there must something special - even irreplaceable - about the piece to justify the spend, like haute couture for example. Or an expertly crafted piece of fine jewelry with a surprise inside.

And that takes us to Wendy Brandes, whose recent post, Get Smart (About Manufacturing) prompted this one. I featured Wendy last spring but if you're not yet one of her adoring fans and need a quick introduction, Wendy is a New York-based fine jewelry designer who tells a story with each of her wearable art pieces - usually a tale of a naughty, pious or tragic royal woman from the more fascinating and freaky eras in world history.

Wendy has, a few times now, written about how she prices her jewelry as she does, which is something that anyone who charges high-end prices for exquisite things should do - it lends legitimacy to the work and ultimately, fosters appreciation. Oddly, it's not the most common of practices and also, buyers don't always ask the questions; we can be a bit complacent when it comes to justifying our big buck spending (that's how the tightwads are balanced, I guess).

In some cases I think it's a lack of marketing savvy that causes a talented designer to undersell herself when her own enterprise is the point of sale. But usually it's a shop selling a range of designers, whether it be online or brick and mortar, that fails in its responsibility - I think it's a responsibility - to demonstrate why something is special, whether it be a great fit; a premium fabric; a story about what inspired the designer or a particular technique that was used to make this thing you're considering spending the rent on. We want to be convinced, yet so few actually play ball. Dumbasses. Let us assume then there is nothing special (which unfortunately is the case sometimes) and go to someone who has something to share with us.

So that's my thinking on the issue and it's no secret if you read this blog that I feel very passionately about contextual objects that are created with such love, knowledge, the benefit of a discerning eye and exceptional skill that they become art, and garnering support for the people - the independents who do it all themselves - who bring us these things (it figures into a project I'm launching in the spring).

Therefore I urge you to read Wendy's post and all of its links if you have the time, which explains in detail - you'll get an education - why her gold, silver and gem jewelry costs what it does. Once you understand how manufacturing works you can see how the processes and intricacies apply to just about anything with a price tag. And that's good information to have at the top of your brain whenever you've got your wallet in hand. And let's not forget the fun of learning why the golden egg that opens to reveal a diamond-eyed silver hen that sits on a nest with three golden eggs is worth $9,500. I certainly think it is.

You can browse Wendy's entire collection at WendyBrandes.com and be sure to read the descriptions of each piece for a tasty tidbit of delicious history.

  

 

Mini Fashion Icons: Have We Lost Our Minds?

Here's my latest article for Models and Moguls. I chose not to show many photos of the kids as they aren't old enough to consent and I find it creepy that there are so many available to browse in the first place. I don't think fashion is an excuse to ogle other people's children.

Suri Cruise is one of the most photographed celebrities at the moment and is considered a fashion icon. She is three years old. The toddler daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes even boasts a signature style – she loves to wear kitten heels, which have become a point of controversy considering a child who is barely out of diapers should probably not have to worry about getting a podiatrist on Mommy’s speed dial. Holmes defends her decision to allow her daughter to wear the shoes, telling US Weekly, "They are actually ballroom dancing shoes for kids. I found them and she loves them." Alright, then. If it’s for ballroom dancing the heels make perfect sense. How else would she execute a respectable progressive sidestep while performing the tango?

Baby Cruise is reported to have a designer wardrobe worth $3 million, although, while her fancy clobber is surely worth its weight in gold binkies, one might suspect that figure has been slightly exaggerated. And boy, do we hope so. Almost exclusively appearing in adorable dresses in her relentlessly documented outings - why her parents allow this is a bit of a mind bender, though I suspect in father Tom’s eyes it’s the greatest distraction/PR tactic a volatile celebrity desperately clinging to relevance could dream of - Suri style has become a fascination for mothers around the world who want their daughters to create the same kind of frenzied raucous when they walk down the street picking their noses. So don’t be surprised if when your neighbourhood daycare lets out you're presented with a parade of slightly elevated kiddy fashionistas prancing to their Land Rovers. Logical thinking would tell us, however, that if you’re small enough to need a car seat, you’re not old enough to hip-wiggle when you walk.

And there are lists. Because we, the public, loves lists. Who’s the “most”, the “best”, who’s on top, who didn’t make it on. And celeb children under the age of eight are no exception. In fact, they are hot these days. So much so that they are being ranked according to who has the better style, by adults who should have better things to do. And so far, Suri is the undisputed princess of the fashionable tots and that’s how her parents seem to like it. There are also blogs galore dedicated to celeb baby bumps and kids. Come on guys, get a life. It's not cute, it's creepy. And so are you.

Once up, the only place to go is down, and the angel-faced brunette has competition. It seems Jessica Alba, who is notorious for Medusa-facing the paparazzi’s cameras when she is snapped getting a coffee or walking to her car, has just recently curbed the venom-spewing in favour of playing with her daughter in full view of the lenses. Two year-old Honor (look out Suri, she’s got the youth advantage) is getting double-page spreads in glossy weeklies detailing where the pieces in her outfit are from. But are we fascinated? Someone wants us to be.

Then we have Shiloh Pitt-Jolie. Many say the three year-old is the most generously DNA-endowed celebrity child we’ve seen yet. But mom takes the tomboy approach and kits out her girls mostly in loose pants in dark colours, usually black. Aside from matching white leather Valentino handbags – one for mom, one for older adopted daughter Zahara, as papped two years ago – Jolie hasn’t given the public what it wants as far as her children are concerned – gorgeous faces matched by equally gorgeous clothes and plenty of photo ops. And therefore Shiloh barely makes the Most Stylish Child lists but has to be there because, well, she’s Shiloh Pitt-Jolie.

Let’s not forget the boys. The Beckham clan – Cruz, Brooklyn and Romeo – are dressed by their mother Victoria Beckham, now a successful fashion designer, who wears tight pencil skirts and five inch stilettos for a transatlantic flight and loves for you to know it. Naturally she is concerned with showing the same commitment in how her boys are presented – have you seen some of the getups she’s convinced husband David to wear?  Imagine if Posh had even one girl? One could easily predict the fierce rivalry that would emerge with her friends, the Cruises. Tom and Victoria battling it out like two divas for who’s precious angel gets the most column inches. Now that I’d love to see, but it’s children we’re talking about here – and I don’t mean the parents.

And then we have Kingston Rossdale, another lucky kid in the gorgeous parents club. Gwen Stefani is one of the most stylish celebrities, period. And little Kingston with his big brown eyes and mischievous smile looks just like his dad, Bush front man Gavin (though what he’s up to these days beyond cheering on Roger Federer at Grand Slam events is a mystery to me). His wardrobe, like the Beckham boys’, is impeccable yet still suggests he’s not afraid to get into things as only a boy would. It seems Gwen calmed down with the over-the-top designer flaunting she was known for when Kingston was an infant –she was regularly seen toting him around in a Gucci logo-print Baby Bjorn-like carrier. I’d feel better knowing Daddy took issue with that; there was just something not quite right about a baby who poops his pants while clad in Italian designer accessories.

So what’s this all about? Surely parents with the means and the profile are going to want their enchanted offspring to represent in a way that’s befitting of their pedigree. And any stylish parent, including us civilians, knows that it’s fun to dress your kid up all smart and indulge in the fabulous fashion available for tots these days, both bank-breaking and cheap. But the regular parading of them in front of the paparazzi’s cameras – the paps go where they are wanted, more so than most realize – and the arranging of covers and features in the weekly glossies, reflects more on the attention mongering and ego-feeding tendencies of these parents  than their taste in ruffle dresses and mini handbags. If that assertion seems harsh, take Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis. The very few photos of their son Jack and daughter Lily Rose – who are, as you can imagine, sublimely gorgeous with the cheekbones of their parents, the most finely chiselled couple around – are privacy-invading ambush snaps. Depp and Paradis are extremely careful in guarding access to their children and have never offered up a photo op.

Imagine, gorgeous celeb kids who are allowed to be kids, with parents who not only resist the urge to flaunt them but are fiercely opposed to the idea. Novel concept, eh?

Deciphering Fashion’s Infatuation with Lindsay Lohan

 

Lindsay Lohan looking as 'radiant' and fresh as the McDonald's hamburger pickle that fell into our kitchen vent and my brother ate when he found it six months later. When he was little. Not last year.

I wrote this article for Models and Moguls last week and decided to share it here as well. I want to be clear that this isn’t a mean-spirited attack of a young woman who, denial aside, is a mess. Rather, I see a girl who is dying – emotionally, from a string of failed relationships and a lack of meaningful family support (I'm being exceptionally easy with that description); and physically from drug and alcohol abuse which one can only assume is an ongoing problem simply by looking at her otherwise inexplicably ravaged face. It’s the overlooking of these questions by those who hire her for image enhancing purposes that I take issue with. I just don't get it, but here I tried to figure it out.

Also, since I wrote this, Ungaro CEO Mounir Moufarrige has resigned while Lohan is to stay on for another season, at least. My head just exploded.

This week we’ve been treated to, or visually assaulted by – depending on which way you lean – a photo spread in Italian magazine Muse, featuring a raunchy Lindsay Lohan. According to photographer Yu Tsai the struggling actress – her latest film Labor Pains went straight to cable – was channelling Kate Moss in a threesome scenario with a Johnny Depp look-a-like – Moss and Depp had a turbulent, four-year relationship in the late 1990s – and another woman. Tsu said of Lohan’s performance for the camera: “She is stunning and radiates in the pictures. Lindsay is incredibly focused where it comes to her career and fashion is her passion. It’s raw, it’s exposed, this is her at her best.”

Fashion may very well be Lohan’s passion, but stunning and radiant? Really? Are we looking at the same pictures? Because what I see – and according to a blitz of blog articles and commenters I’m not the only one – is an under-fed, hard-faced, inflated-lipped girl who looks at least a decade older than her 23 years. Further, what we’ve observed of Lohan’s behavior beyond this photospread – arrests for DUIs and cocaine possession; three stints in rehab; being photographed sans underwear; receiving a public spanking via open letter by her Georgia Rule director in 2007 for “discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional” behavior on set; public rows with her on-off girlfriend; rambling Twitter messages about her on-off girlfriend; theft; and showing up 12 hours late for an Elle UK cover shoot this year – resembles nothing that could even loosely indicate a “focused” career woman. It makes one wonder if Tsai had any knowledge at all of Lohan before they met for the shoot. (Then again, fashion is about being in the moment and one can't take responsibility for an opinion they expressed five minutes ago, can they?)

The editorial spread and subsequent risqué video of the shoot follows the astonishing appointment of Lohan as “artistic advisor” of French fashion house Ungaro, a heritage brand that has been struggling since the house’s founder Emanuel Ungaro retired in 2004. Lohan was the shocking choice to oversee the work of creative director Estrella Archs, the replacement for Esteban Cortazar who left the brand in protest of the tabloid fixture’s hiring. At the time, Lohan’s fashion experience was limited to a line of leggings that included a style called the Mr. President – complete with quilted leather knee pads – and spray tan.

The idea to hire the controversial actress and sometime pop singer came from Ungaro CEO Mounir Moufarrige who was keen to revive the label with a celebrity face. Despite the fashion editors’ punishing reviews of Lohan and Archs’ debut collection for spring 2010 – WWD called it an “embarrassment” – Moufarrige stood by his choice to keep Lohan on his team, saying “There are some girls out there that whenever they move, whatever they wear, they attract attention, even if they make mistakes. It’s all publicity.” Now she knows what to put on her CV.

Aside from a guest-star spot on Ugly Betty last year and a role in Robert Rodriquez’s upcoming film Machete – far from a full schedule for a once promising actress – it would appear that her future lies in fashion. And it seems most likely to flourish in Europe and the UK, as the general perspective of her image abroad is far more favourable than it is at home where she’s become somewhat of a joke, thanks to her inability to stay out of trouble and her attention-whoring parents. Before her appointment at Ungaro, the youthful Italian luxury brand and little sister to Prada, Miu Miu, hired her to front their spring/summer 2007 ad campaign, and this year she’s the face of another Italian clothing brand, Fornarina. She donned black leather thigh-high boots for the sexy cover and editorial spread for Elle UK’s September fashion issue, shot by British photographer Rankin. And to be fair, she doesn’t do a bad job moving like a model. Rankin even compared her to Gisele and Angela Lindvall, saying “she works it.”

As Americans seem to have a thing for Europeans, so do Europeans sometimes find fascination with Americans, especially young actresses, and they are far less critical of personal troubles and love a bit of edge – Kate Moss, anyone? So maybe Lohan is a natural fit with their “let’s go with it” attitude (though their more astute fashion observers have made it explicitly clear they’re not buying what she’s selling). But can we, who know all of the dirt, separate fact from fiction and find inspiration in the hard-faced fantasy presented to us?

Lohan told Tsai on the Muse shoot “I want it to be iconic.” And maybe that’s what her fashion bosses are hoping for when they take her on. I’m hoping one day she’ll instead give us “ironic” and deliver the opposite of what we’ve come to expect – that focused, radiant young woman we’ve been promised. Because until then, I don’t think I can take anymore.

Vagaries of Fashion: Harmless Fun or...Gasp!

Okay. This controversial editorial from Vogue Italia seems to have been getting a bit of attention in the past few months. A link to a site talking about The Vagaries of Fashion editorial, shot by Miles Aldridge, was recently sent to me by Other Half who is always trying to help with a blog idea when he can (thanks, Sweet) and I recognised it immediately. It's from the September 2007 issue of Vogue Italia and I know that because I was in Torino at the time and brought a copy home with me.

I liked the editorial a lot because of the aesthetics. Never mind the glamorous dresses and how great Anja Rubik looks; there's just something about that opulent hotel suite and its yellowed decor that could really use an update. I'm not exactly joyous when I see an image of a mother smoking and drinking around her children; in fact I see mothers and fathers smoking around their children every day where I live in England and I want to put those fags out on their foreheads. But then do we look to fashion for social discourse? Should fashion be taken so seriously and does it wield any real power? (That sound you hear is a can of worms opening. See here.) However, I must admit that as a mother I feel my tear ducts erupt when I see this:

 

I mean you just want to pick up that baby and cuddle it and love it. Neglect is the most disturbing idea for me when it comes to the imagery with the children. But still it's fashion, and an editorial spread wasn't going to keep me up at night. The reality is this is staged.

But not so fast. Look at this:

This one doesn't slide off the brain so easily. Because oppression and racism are more serious issues than child welfare? No, each are equally critical. The comments sections of the originating post was filled with outraged readers who raised all kinds of concerns about the content of the photo. But for me, it goes back to the staging of this shoot.

It's a compelling shot, visually. The focal point is the black maid whose dark skin is starkly contrasted by the nearly translucent white baby she's holding. Anja almost blends into the wallpaper with her gaudy-bodiced dress. Strong compositional elements aside, the immediate perception is that this is wrong. The white mother takes a domineering pose over the maid who looks on for approval/next order, etc. So back to the staging of this shoot, I feel for the woman who is playing the maid. How must she have felt being dressed up this way to convey this type of image? I know that if I were asked to be the subserviant secretary sitting at a desk looking up admiringly at my smug and vacant male boss standing over me my first reaction would be "Screw you, Bud-day." We've come too far and we've still got a long way to go.

Those are my thoughts (condensed - otherwise this could go off on tangents for an eternity.) So, what do you think of these pictures?

 

 

 

Is the rich mommy not such a bad mommy after all? Was it just a misunderstanding?

Thanks for the scans

Rossy de Palma and the All-American Girl

Last night I was reading a post by Wendy Brandes on her new blog collaboration with designer Christian Francis Roth (get to know it!). It started out as a show-and-tell of her cute-as-a-Wendy undone bow-tie dress from Francis and finished with a mention of Spanish actress Rossy de Palma - the connection being the title of the post Tie Me Up, Tie Me down is also the name of a Pedro Almodovar film, and the filmmaker happens to be responsible for launching the acting career of de Palma by casting her in his films in the 1980s.

This mention of the extraordinary looking de Palma unlocked a memory from 1992. I was sitting in my bedroom flipping through the latest US Vogue and found myself fascinated by an editorial called Gypsy Soul that featured Claudia Mason, the guys from Extreme (yes, as in More than Words - I apologise if you spend the next two days with that song playing in your head) and this strangely exotic creature, the likes of whom I had never seen before. She had the most unusual nose, and it was played up in profile shots like that above where she's kissing the donkey head. This was my introduction to Rossy de Palma.

 

I stared. And I stared. I had never seen anyone like this in Vogue before or any other fashion magazine for that matter (not hard to believe as I was also still reading YM and Seventeen) and to be honest, I was confused. How was I supposed to feel about her inclusion alongside Claudia Mason and the other models with perfect profiles - was Vogue playing a trick on me? Before you yell at your monitor 'What the heck was the matter with you?' let me remind or describe what 'diversity' meant back then. 

'Diversity' was Cindy Crawford. No, I haven't forgotten Iman or Yasmeen Ghauri or any of the other richly-featured beauties who broke the mould. But they didn't have commercial success back then, and unless you were able - or allowed as it were - to transform your name and image into a brand you were essentially a non-entity at the end of the day.

 

Cindy Crawford has brown eyes and brown hair. And a mole. She arrived on the scene at the tail end of an era that still considered Christie Brinkley, Kim Alexis and Cheryl Tiegs to be the epitome of American beauty - all blonde, blue-eyed with the kind of Stepford Wife smile any star quarterback would be proud to bring home to mom. I have brown hair and brown eyes. While I never disliked what I was born with, I was aware it was not the popular 'ideal' and had wished I'd gotten my dad's hazel green eyes instead as my brown held no cache. Case in point - who was prettier in Charlie's Angels? Farrah Fawcett or Jacklyn Smith? Jacklyn Smith of course. But who was the nation going mental over? Farrah. Not that she didn't deserve it but she had more competition than was ever acknowledged. And this continued until America was ready to accept a Cindy as their girl (after a few years of airbrushing out the mole).

Poor Kate Jackson, she wasn't even allowed to have cleavage

As with all cultural transitions, there can be bumps. Some people take a while to get up to speed. One day I found myself having lunch with a guy and a girl at my new high school (I left my old high school in the last year to attend a more artsy school - without uniforms - to get the credits I needed for university, and I was tired of getting detention at 18 years old for having a tiny part of my shirt not tucked into my scratchy kilt). They were a couple and although it was a bit awkward to be invited to eat with a couple I didn't know I appreciated the welcoming gesture and put the idea that they might be pervs out of my head. Turns out they weren't pervs but one of them, the girl, was a real jerk. Somehow the topic of Cindy Crawford came up and the girl - a blue-eyed blonde - exclaimed loudly 'How comes she's so popular? She has BROWN EYES AND BROWN HAIR!" And her face was so contorted with disgust it was as if someone had just farted in her face (if only). The boyfriend quietly chastised her for being so insensitive which I appreciated, but I did wonder if he agreed with the sentiment.

Just a note, I'm not forgetting Janice Dickinson, the first model to call herself the first supermodel. (Hee.) Yes, she was a good model and a big model and she shared the spotlight with dark beauty Gia Carrangi. But did she have commercial success? Did the corporations want her face to represent them in big campaigns? No, their money was on the blue-eyed blondes. Like Jerry Hall.

 

So, coming back to Rossy de Palma - seeing her non-perfectness celebrated in Vogue all those years ago was a real awakening for me. It went against everything I'd been told about what was beautiful (except for my parents who thought I was the greatest. And of course they were right). It may still be an extreme exception to the 'perfection' rule society is now rigidly adhering to (and ironically so in light of the latest phenomenon - the 'pillow face' which is hardly perfection unless you think alcohol bloat is sublime), but just when we think the world is completely ass-backwards, we can look to the rare beauty of Rossy de Palma.

Thanks to Ready Set Fashion for archiving all of these old issues, I can't believe I found that editorial.

Will the Design Piracy Prohibition Act Kill Fashion?

What a thing to wake up to. Apparently the Design Piracy Prohibition Act is getting closer to being passed by United States Congress. The Act would extend protection to "the appearance as a whole of an article of apparel, including its ornamentation." It was introduced in 2006, kind of disappeared and now it's back and it looks as if it will become law. In effect, this will result in dire consequences for all independent fashion designers.

Miss Jess, an American independent designer tells Boing Boing that "Under this legislation designers will need to consult with a lawyer throughout the design process to ensure that every new design created could not subjectively be found at a later date to be 'closely and substantially similar' to one protected in the Copyright registry. Further, young, up-and-coming designers would be susceptible to legal intimidation from designing anything new at all, as they would likely not have the resources to fight a legal challenge in court."

And so it would become a part of the cost of doing business - in essence a killer of anyone trying to make it on their own.

Kathleen Fasanella of Fashion Incubator offers this plausible scenario:

Your name is getting out there, picking up more orders everyday and your accounts love you. Now that your fabric samples have arrived, you’re inspired and happily sketching your new styles. This is sure to be your best collection ever! So then you reach for the phone to schedule a slot to have your patterns and samples made. But on the other end, the pattern maker or sewing contractor refuses to work with you. Your heart sinks through the floor, why? You’ve got an established relationship, you’re a great customer with regular work and steady pay but still, no one will take your contracts. In fact, they’re shutting down themselves.

You can read the rest of Fasanella's article if you still need convincing that this is a bad thing.

I don't know exactly who is behind this, but common sense and a healthy dose of cynicism tells me that some of the most powerful American designers have clandestinely banded together and used their influence (ie. loud talking wallets) to convince Congress to pass a bill that in effect benefits them and prevents independent designers from being able to create freely. I can't imagine every big American designer is backing this but I don't hear any of them opposing it, either. Do you? I may have missed something. I hope I did.

What twists the knife deeper is how it's these very people who are ripping off the independents in the first place - if anyone needs protection from having their work stolen outright it's the little guys. Diane von Furstenberg, anyone? And shockingly she happens to be one of the most vocal supporters of the bill. Sorry, Diane, you were a favourite of mine but you have no place on this blog anymore

Update #1:I  was fired up when I wrote this and am now reconsidering. Not because she compensated the designer and admitted fault - this didn't matter to me at the time I wrote this; it is what should be done when you steal another's design. But I'll reserve judgement regarding the inclusion of certain designers on this blog pending how the outcome - should the bill pass - actually plays out.

You can petition U.S. congress here to stop H.R. 2196 from passing into law, created by Fashion-Incubator.com and written by Kathleen Fasanella.

As an end note, what passes as law in the U.S. tends to have global repercussions, so it's up to us supporters of independent fashion to watch what's happening in our respective countries and act accordingly should we notice the introduction of talk around similar, one-sided legislation threatening our vulnerable design talent. See the interview with Xuan-Thu Nguyen below - would we want to lose someone like her?

Update #1 continued (I know, this is getting confusing): A reader by the name of Ms. Shoo - an independent fashion designer - submitted a comment that presents the other side of the argument, which I'm glad for as I'm not a fashion designer and this surely isn't a one-sided issue. Please see her thoughtfully expressed argument and links below.

When composing this post earlier today I couldn't see anything in the writing of the act that appears to blatantly discriminate against independent fashion designers. However, I was heavily influenced by the interpretation of some who strongly feel that it does present serious  implications for independent designers, as referenced above. They are angry, frustrated and frightened and surely they're not simply winding themselves up for kicks. But maybe their concerns are a hypothetical scenario rather than an absolute doomsday?

So now the question seems to be, is it possible that the original work of a designer can be protected by a law such as this without compromising the creative freedom of others?

Update #2: Kathleen Fasanella of Fashion Incubator responded to the comment that subdued me after my rant, and I feel a bit like a ping pong ball batted back and forth with great ferocity. I'm again thinking this is very, very bad, her arguments are too compelling to ignore. And I'd rather it not be true but I am soured on DvF. (Nevermind that she lost all credibility when she signed up for The City! Yeah, okay, I'll watch it I admit, but I can't believe she needs to do a show for cheap publicity or pick on the independents. Like The Fonz when he could no longer start a jukebox with a swift side-punch to the glass, she's lost her 'cool.')

In Defence of The Fashion Freaks

Other Half is getting really good at the gift selection. For Valentine's - (totally unnecessary but very sweet) he got me STREET, The Nylon Book of Global Style which looks at street style in the six cities they deemed in 2006 (when the book was published) to be on the cutting edge of fashion: New York, London, Paris, Copenhagen, Berlin, Tokyo and Melbourne.

It's a fascinating look into the unique energy of a city as it filters through its people and manifests in the way they dress (who mostly happen to be within a certain age group, 18 - 30). Each subject came with a blurb describing what they're wearing, who their icons are, what they love most about their city. (A then unknown Rob Pattinson got snapped for London, this was before Twilight, of course. He looked not unlike a vagrant. And still he got into the book.)

Some people (just a mere few really) made a point of telling the world that they don't follow the runways like those "fashion freaks" and that they are "untouched by the evil hand of fashion." There's a great divide between those with 'real style' (as they see it) and those 'runway watching', 'Vogue reading' types. But are they - we - really that different? And it is that black and white? (I'm not including the WAGs here, though I'd be very interested to hear their response. Wait - no I wouldn't.)

Here's my retort: What I see on the runways and in magazine editorial inspires me. ALOT. I find it exhilarating. So much that I spend precious hours from my day looking, learning, absorbing it and writing about it. I love the colours, the textures, the cuts, the new ways of mixing and matching and pushing the boundaries of what we consider appropriate for ourselves. References to history, reflecting the 'now', predicting the future. Recycling, reinventing, reinvigorating. It pushes us to explore aspects of our personality and we can pick and choose what we want to take from it. We can be whoever we want to be.

So I'm not going to apologise for this or feel like some kind of blank slate who stupidly follows what's being "dictated" to me because I LOOK and I LIKE. I'm also influenced by art, my childhood, film, my friends, music, sunsets, midcentury modern, the sea, photography, children's stories, the Victorians, Marie Antoinette and the gals from the 20s to the 50s. And as if I have the money to buy head-to-toe looks from the collections anyway!

The street feeds fashion and designers are looking to the pavement, and the blogs (Susie Bubble, to name one of the major forces who brilliantly combines fashion from all available sources to create her style and can even discuss it intelligently) to find out what's happening out there, to take inspiration for their collections. And if one recalls Miranda Priestley's monologue to the style indifferent Andrea in The Devil Wears Prada about how the fashion Powers That Be do in fact influence the choices of what a person who 'doesn't care about fashion' wears, the lesson is that no one is immune to the power of the runways. It's just simply where our clothes come from, directly or by way of the high street or the vintage shop. And it gets fed back.

Can't we all just get dressed and get along?

The World's First Digital Clutch (so they say)

Aw, marketing. Taking something and making it appear much more than it is, when sometimes what it is is good enough.

As is the case with the new HP Mini Vivienne Tam Edition - what is being called "the world's first-ever digital clutch." I first saw it today in the February issue of British Vogue (that's right, I was oblivious when it went down the runway at New York fashion week in September) and thought "Really? It's a wireless and you can carry your stuff in it? And it looks like that? Brilliant!"

Not so fast. Yes, it's a computer, and yes, it's gorgeous - a glossy red case adorned with a pink and lilac peony design from Tam's "China Chic" style. But the 'clutch' part simply refers to the fact that you can carry it in your hand, rather than a clutch bag which is what one is immediately lead to believe - especially when reading about it in Vogue! And here I was thinking you could lift up the flap and have some kind of iPhone/Blackberry-type capability built in.

In that case, I have the real "world's first-ever digital clutch" - my tiny Asus Eee PC Series that weighs the same as the Viv at 1.02 kg. The only real difference is how it looks. But it is marketed for its portable functionality rather than as a stylish, high-tech accessory to be publicly displayed instead of thrown into your bag (although it comes in great colours and has been since updated to look quite sleek), so there are no fancy campaigns claiming such a status.

If you're seriously looking for a portable mini PC, do your homework. All the manufacturers are in the game now and when not paying for a designer collaboration you can get double the gigs at half the price or less. If you go for Tam's, just know you're paying double for the beauty of it. And that I'm jealous.

Runway photo: AP Photo by Stuart Ramson

Flowers, Oysters, Whatever - I Like It

I decided a cuff was missing from my accessories collection so I set out to find one with my Christmas money earlier this week. I was at Holt Renfrew in Toronto where the bangle/cuff offerings were plentiful, but that "I'll know it when I see it moment" was proving elusive - until I rounded the corner and saw the Kara Ross petal collection, one of which looked a bit more like an oyster than a flower as my good friend and shopping partner-in-crime Tammy pointed out. Nonetheless, we both agreed they were beautiful and unique pieces, whether sea or garden-inspired. And each was slightly different and therefore one-of-a-kind. C'est bon.

I chose the striking ivory and black combo with the smooth and shiny gunmetal finish, rock crystal and python petals - Kara Ross often works with exotic skins - and also considered the matching ring (to be worn on separate occasions, of course). The cuff was a done deal, but while mulling over the ring we wandered over to the sale table, which again, as it is, is a sight that should not be seen in Holt Renfrew. Why? Begin rant: Once deemed luxury goods at full price and given their rightful place in the locked, glass, display cabinet, these same items get marked down and tossed on what essentially becomes a crap table, carelessly pawed at and just so sad looking. Among the cast-offs were the matching petal earrings, the pairs separated and strewn about, which just soured me on the ring and also on the cuff, somewhat.

Unlike stray animals roaming the streets or peering out desperately from rescue shelter cages, clothes, jewelry and bags looking pathetic on a sale table do not pull at our heart strings and prompt us to bring them home. Rather, it makes us question the real value and reflects very poorly on the store. I think it's safe to assume the design houses behind the goods would hardly approve of this haphazard approach to 'merchandising', never mind how disheartening it would be to the small, independent designers who take a hand-on, personal approach to their creations.

Imagine if say, Net-a-porter delivered sale items to us with a sleeve hanging out of the box and seams coming apart (I saw that at HR as well and the staff didn't pull them after noticing). Instead, the only difference between the sale items and their presentation from NET's regular priced ones is the cost. And that's how it should be. Sure, brick and mortar versus online certainly has its challenges, but certainly it's not too much to ask that $3500 handbags not be chucked onto a table in a big pile, only to have their delicate embellishments left hanging by threads, tagged with the BARGAIN price of $2500. Taking a little care makes all the difference. And when they do, we feel good about our purchase rather than wondering if we've been duped into wanting these things in the first place.

Rant over. In the end, I do love my beautiful cuff, especially after seeing more of Kara Ross' work on her website, there are some bold and pretty pieces. And most of her petal collection does actually look like flowers rather than oysters (I think it was the colour combo of mine that resembled a tasty mollusk).

I also like this gunmetal and hematite cuff and these petal necklaces - a lot. And they're on sale. (But instead of being thrown onto crap tables they are pretty pictures on your monitor and will arrive at your door looking just the same.)

Christopher Bailey's Motto: If it Ain't Broke Don't Fix It

 

Burberry Prorsum's Pre-Fall 09 collection looks a lot like spring 09, which looked a lot like fall 09, and so on. The formula: lots of gloomy shades, trenches and coats, flirty-skirted dresses, dark hats, and big statement necklaces worn over everything.

But it works. Christopher Bailey is keen to maintain the Burberry trench as the mainstay of the brand and every season he finds ways to reinvent it. How he's not mad from doing that for seven years is a mystery to me. When I was about 12 years old, I did a project on dinosaurs and I became so immersed in them for several days that I had those dreams that are like nightmares because they just loop and loop, and then I threw up. He must really love those coats.

Allow me to take this opportunity to air a beef I have with Burberry. I bought my daughter a Burberry winter coat in Turin, Italy last September. (Family takes care of the rest of her wardrobe when we visit so I take the opportunity to splash out on a special coat every year.) It was a white quilted style and the stitching started coming away in several spots immediately. Then a pocket got half ripped off from what was a relatively mild tugging. So, not being able to return to the shop where I bought it, I emailed Burberry and explained, provided the style number etc. and the other details that showed it was genuine, and didn't ask for anything except for a response. And nothing. I guess they have better things to do then worry about a children's coat. And who cares about that kind of small potatoes customer anyway, right? It's not like I'd bought a £6,000 trench that I planned to wear to a film premiere. So no big loss, then? The worst part was, a teacher at my daughter's school responded when I showed up and discovered the front pocket hanging off "You should buy her coats from Tesco. They're only £15 and they last for years." Oh, the sting. I couldn't even argue, I just shrugged and laughed.

I'm sour about it but Christopher Bailey's not to blame for Burberry's hideous customer service, so here are my favourites from the collection. Like Zhu Lin for Rachel Roy, British model Eden Clark presents the clothes in a way that stands out from many of the other off-runway shows. And those are some killer shoe boots.

 

This 'Gingerism' Thing Is Not Funny and it Needs to Go

We're all well aware of the ugliness of racism, ageism, sexism and homophobia, but did you know that so-called 'gingers' - people with red, orange, or strawberry blond hair, are victims of 'gingerism' and being targeted by bullies for something so benign as their hair colour?

Likely all of us have heard the jokes at one time or another, it's the one 'ism' that seems to be widely accepted as okay to indulge in, as if those with flame-tinted hair are somehow intrinsically different and therefore deficient and deserving of ridicule. But lately things have taken a more grievous turn: Facebook groups initiated and joined by thousands of mouth-breathers and booger-eaters (it's a good guess) organised 'Kick a Ginger Day', which attracted police attention and as Canada's The Globe and Mail reported, resulted in one child being kicked 18 times at school before being allowed to go home, and terrified some red-haired children who had stumbled upon the groups on the social networking site so much they were afraid to go to school. No doubt, especially if they were already being bullied.

Even New York magazine is guilty of perpetuating the stereotype that redheads are in some way 'bad' or even evil. Shockingly, they ran a cover story for their February 10th issue entitled Why Children Lie and used three red-haired children (out of four), photographed looking shameful, as the face of the naughty, deceitful child:

And in the UK it's okay for major television networks to promote the hatred of gingers. Not surprising as the historically self-loathing Britain is home to what must be the densest population of redheads in the world. Here 'PC' still mostly means personal computer. (No offense is meant toward my British friends who are decent, evolved human beings, as this is a generalised cultural truth, as compared to more progressive countries, who in fairness may not be as reformed as we'd thought). I caught a show on SKY called Biggest Celebrity Mingers (minger is Brit slang for an ugly person) and the number one spot went to Prince Harry. The no-name commentator's face contorted into a hideous, gargoylesque mask rendering him worthy of the show's title (if he weren't some anonymous wastrel) when he gave the reason, spitting:  'WELL, HE'S GINGER!!'

Just recently Prince Harry was quoted as saying "I'm not ginger. I'm auburn, that's what I've been told." Don't be such a wuss, Harry, OWN IT! Stand up for yourself and your fellow gingers, or auburns or whatever, and be proud! Honestly. If a prince who has fought on the front lines can't handle it, imagine how an eight year-old kid in Flin Flon, Manitoba feels. Geez.

And for the record, Prince Harry seems to be widely viewed as the more attractive prince stateside (sorry Wills) and is considered to be one of the hottest men in the world by some very popular gossip bloggers (both male and female).

Renowned fashion photographer Tim Walker (my favourite) regularly demonstrates a clear preference for redheads in his choice of models. Hopefully little girls who think they might be at a disadvantage will see themselves in these breathtakingly beautiful shots:

Lily Cole


Sophie Drake

Karen Elson (first photo) is also a favourite of Tim Walker's, as well as other photogs and can boast a rare, enduring modelling career thanks to her unique looks. And his Irish colouring has only added to the endearing charm of one of the funniest men we have today, Conan O'Brien:

Note to the bullies, young and old alike: It's just a hair colour. GET OVER IT.

Oscar Winner Cotillard to Become a Bag Lady

One of France's lovely gifts to the rest of the world, actress Marion Cotillard, is in talks with Dior to be the face for the Lady Dior bag campaign. The bag has been around since 1995 and was made famous when Princess Diana carried it on a day out. (Wouldn't we kill to know what was in it. Do you think there just might have been a half-unwrapped hard candy stuck to the lining?).

I tend to cringe when I see actresses and singers doing clothing and cosmetics ads, but this aversion doesn't apply to those from France. These goddesses are from a different world and flutter high above their stateside counterparts. In my humble opinion. Except for Maggie Gyllenhaal. Her doing Miu Miu made sense. Eva Longoria - I don't need to see her anymore in anything relating to fashion or beauty. She's even on TV here in the UK doing adverts.

What it is funny, though, is that here the advertising standards are far stricter than North America with regards to claims. So when we see the Desperate Housewife in a L'Oreal mascara commercial with lashes that look as if two hedgehogs have rested on her eyelids, there's a statement along the bottom of the screen - that is actually large enough to be legible - admitting that there has been some post-production enhancement. We all know this of course, but it sure is nice to be let in on the 'secret'.

Tate Merchandise: Is Rothko Rolling in His Grave?

Before Mark Rothko offed himself in a hideous way in 1970, he made it clear to gallery curators that a particular collection of his iconic "pictures" as he called them, were to be displayed with specific parameters in mind: he wanted the gallery walls to be painted "off-white with umber and warmed by a little red", hung "as close to the floor as possible, ideally no more than six inches above it", in a room with ordinary daylight, since it was in daylight that they were painted. And don't even entertain the notion of framing any of them.

If you have an appreciation for Rothko and have seen his pictures in person (the only way you really can appreciate him), you will understand why his requests were non-negotiable - standing before one of Rothko's huge, dramatic canvases can be an intense and emotional experience. (Dark sunglasses and a wig might be a good idea if you're not keen on being seen weeping in public.)

So, when I saw Tate Modern's Rothko merchandise collection, produced to coincide with their current exhibition of the artist's work (I'm guessing, as I haven't seen most of this stuff outside of the books, etc. before), my immediate reaction was "How could they? Don't they know better?" Well, they do. Their 'Rothko room' followed his exhibit guidelines to the last detail, after all. Considering how the collection arrived there in the first place, surely he would loathe the replication of his iconic elements to make bags, t-shirts, scarves, mugs and coasters? I feel awkward and guilty having a framed poster on my wall, but if I can't have an original....

Rest in peace, Mark Rothko, I wouldn't be caught dead with one of those bags.

Daphne Guinness Sets Couture on Fire

Journalist, film producer, designer, model, actress, philanthropist and the fashion icon with a killer haute couture collection, Daphne Guinness (not simply, and insultingly through omission "the socialite and heiress to the Guinness family" as per at least four blogs, never mind the cringe-worthy comparison to Paris Hilton on all, thanks to rampant plagiarism. Argh.) Um, anyway, phew! Sorry.....Right, Steven Klein shot a provocative editorial spread and cover for Vogue Italia's September issue supplement titled Future Couture, starring Ms. Guinness.

She proves to be a compelling model in this high fashion shoot which should come as no surprise; Daphne Guinness is fashion. See for yourself (and I wonder how many of these stunning creations went home with her for proper appreciation):

These Models are No Tyra Meal Ticket

VogueTV brings us Models.Live, a broadband video series following three IMG models as they work toward a hopeful debut at New York Fashion Week. Cato from Amsterdam, Madeline from North Carolina and Austria from Dominican Republic provide a most welcomed departure from the wannabe posers of reality TV. Sure, ANTM and the other shows can be good, harmless fun (for the viewer, anyway), but we all know that the most these poor girls can hope for is an exploitive guest spot on Tyra's nauseating talk show. (Honestly, I can consume a lot of crap TV, but I cannot handle that show. Even alone, in secret, it makes me want to vomit with rage.)

There's not much else to say about Models.Live. The reality of modelling isn't all that interesting (of what they can show us, anyway), but if you're keen on the fashion world, which you likely are if you're reading this, then take a peak at the first three. Episodes are short. That happens when you don't stage panty tickle fights and screaming matches over stolen Red Bulls.

For the dirt on modelling and how the fashion industry really works, read Fashion Babylon by Imogen Edwards-Jones. Afterward, you will forbid your daughters to ever become models!

Vogue India Photos Insensitive or Beautiful (or Both)?

One year-old Vogue India has found itself the subject of controversy, according to The New York Times, due to an editorial photo spread in the August issue featuring the country's poor accessorised in luxury brand items such as Hermes Birkins and Fendi baby bibs.

The bold juxtaposition of rags and riches is being condemned by Indian citizens who object to the use of India's poor as the magazine's models. "Vulgar, tacky and distasteful" is how Kanika Gahlaut, a columnist for the Indian daily newspaper Mail Today describes the photos. "There are farmer suicides here, for God’s sake," she says.

But Vogue India editor Priya Tanna isn't bothered by the criticism and says people need to "lighten up", that "fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful." Right, but she's showing $10,000+ Birkins here. Too bad very, very, few of us will ever get the chance to prove her right!

I haven't seen this 16 page spread. But based on these two photos and the NY Times' description of others, there is an obvious, (nevermind the historical) disconnect between those who live in this luxury world (which no doubt includes those who produce the magazine) and those whose aspirations are to get their family through another year. Imagine flipping through American Vogue and finding a single mom and her five kids prancing around their trailer home in dirty t-shirts with Chanel necklaces and Prada sunglasses? Take away the vibrant, traditional clothing of these Indian 'models' and their comparatively exotic surroundings and it's the same thing. Isn't it? What do you think?

Thanks to Katherine

Forget the 'It' Bag, Find Yourself a 'Me' Bag

 

Despite all the bags I have (several, but not a freakish amount, and they still all get used), there was one key style I was missing. I needed a practical bag that looked good, something that fit my bulky camera, wallet, make-up bag (must always have concealer and lip gloss), notebook (yes, the paper kind) and possibly my little ASUS Eee PC. Without looking ridiculous or weighing me down. And it had to go with everything.

While in Toronto I kept my eye out but didn't think I could justify buying yet another bag. And seeing as I'm doing clutches for fall that wasn't going to cut it. As luck would have it, a very generous family member suggested I buy a bag as a birthday gift and my heart nearly exploded with glee. Out of curiosity, I strolled into Holt Renfew, past the odd, cheerful fellow at the doors, looking to browse the end-of-season sale. I go off on a rant now about what I saw on the sale table so if you want to read it click here.

I just happened to find one the one bag, from MARC by MARC JACOBS, (I'm so loving this line this year) that ticked all the boxes and was a (relatively) good price. At least it wasn't $2500 on sale and damaged in horrific ways (see rant). Anyway, turns out my Groovee doctor's bag (did my mother name this one?) is awesome, it fits everything with lots of space to spare and is constructed to look good while hauling a load (comes with a detachable thick strap if you're really weighed down). Mine is black (they only had black but it works) and it comes in purple as seen above, plus a putty shade. My one 'must' for spending large amounts of cash on fashion is that I use or wear the item for years to justify the cost, and usually I do. I think we'll be friends for a long time.

You can find the bag and other pieces from the new Fall 2008 collection at Net-a-Porter.com by clicking Marc by Marc Jacobs. And while I'm on about the brand, isn't this a wonderfully fresh take on the ruffle front top with its zip and asymmetry (loooove it):

'What's Hot and What's Not' is NOT HOT!

Do you sometimes find yourself flipping happily through your favourite fashion glossy, only to turn the page and have the What's Hot and What's Not or In or Out? or Up or Down (okay you get it) list ambush you with its fickle dictation of what is fabulous and what is downright pitiful? Have you been left in a state of confusion and insecurity, thinking 'I was the sh*t a month ago and apparently today I can't be trusted to walk down the street thanks to my absence of telepathy with the style gods who would have told me that BIG floral patterns are passe and it's now the TINY buds that are in?

You know what I'm talking about, right? And then, let me guess - you exclaim with just a little venom, 'OH, GIVE. ME. A. BREAK!!' I have, many many times. In a small way I feel that I'm asserting my option to stand alone and stand strong and firmly resist the push to immediately set fire to my closet full of clothes that I love, that are me, and cost a bit of hard-earned coin for a reason, thank you very much!

Granted, if you bought those pants with the crotch that hangs down to your knees you may feel a bit sheepish when you see them in the Oh no you didn't! list, but the real frustration is this: I guarantee on any Hot or Not list you will find at least one of the 'Nots' featured somewhere in the magazine's editorial. For instance, big clutches are in. They have been since autumn 2006 (or spring if you count the previews which tell us what we must like in 6 months. And how nice of the fashion powers-that-be to give us a heads-up, ample time to say goodbye to our tried and true yet living-on-a-prayer fashion faves). And in these pages you will witness much praise of the oversize clutch (which I've grown rather fond of over time, they are easier to carry than you'd think), likely accompanied by an outright condemnation of those good-for-nothing cute little ones (OMG! How sub-moronic were we all to they were so adorable and pretty? We must be hopeless!). Then you turn the page and there is a model on the catwalk for a show from a major fashion house, carrying an adorable and pretty LITTLE clutch. WHAT. THE. LAGERFELD.

You can't win. It's fashion. It's in its nature to mess with you. Understand that there is no phrase more grating than 'on trend'. Because all that means is that to maintain that status you must abandon that very outfit and all its trimmings before the quick-dry varnish on your nails sets, for the next big thing.

On the UK version of Project Runway, our Project Catwalk, the farewell catchphrase to see off the failed contestant is 'Fashion has no mercy'. True in some ways but really, when you think about it, would Kelly Osbourne have been chosen to host if it didn't?