Taking some time off from the blog-o-sphere. Happy Spring everyone!
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Vogue and Real Life
Beware...a rant is coming!
It started with Crystal Hammon of the wonderful "Dressed Her Days Vintage" blog and her provocative post of April 19th regarding the fashion industry's view of women over 50. It continued when I scanned the latest issue of Vogue magazine. (For Crystal's post click on her blog title on the right.)
In her post, Crystal brought up some very interesting statistics vis-à-vis the financial power of the 50+ female in the United States and wondered...given this financial base...why the fashion industry catered almost exclusively to the under 40 women of America, totally ignoring those of us who are quaintly referred to as 'women of a certain age'.
Then came the May issue of Vogue!
I loved Vogue years ago, especially when it was under the editorial direction of Diana Vreeland, but hadn't read it regularly in over twenty years. (Reasons below.) Now, undoubtedly Vreeland had her share of outlandish ideas ...an example from her "Why Don't We...?" column was turning one's old ermine coat into a lining for one's bathrobe! But, she also published beautiful clothes on beautiful women in beautiful settings.
Of course, the magazine was a fantasy. I could no more afford those clothes than the next woman. But it was possible to imagine myself in them. I studied the makeup, hairstyles and clothes like a student prepping for an exam so that when I went to Macy's or Bloomingdale's or wherever, I could take those fabulous images and translate them into something a young woman of little means could achieve. And millions of women did, knowing we were in style and looked (dare I say it?) attractive.
What happened to Vogue between then and now? And Harper's Bazaar? And the rest? When did fashion editors decide that showing very expensive, outlandish clothes on teen-age models doing ridiculous things in grubby settings would incite the average reader to run out and buy those clothes? Wear those hair styles? Wander around in sub-basements and abandoned factories?
The current May issue of Vogue is 318 pages thick. The first 243 pages are devoted to a dozen or so articles the urban-based editors deemed would (should?) interest those of us in the hinterland sprinkled amid pages devoted to advertising the newest/latest/get it while it's hot lines of designer clothes, accessories and makeup. And there are, as usual, several thick inserts of new perfumes, including a fragrance by Jimmy Choo of the shoe empire. (And who would know more about perfume than a shoe designer?)
However, the main feature doesn't begin until page 243 and runs to page 276. The first ten pages contain pictures of the very beautiful Carey Mulligan wearing haute couture evening attire inspired by her current film "The Great Gatsby", but the pages also include a lengthy interview with Ms. Mulligan. This feature is followed by ten pages showing model Carolyn Murphy in some rather nice sporty clothes doing rather ordinary things like walking, standing and posing. In one she is shown wearing a punkish leather peplum jacket ($1,250) to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's current exhibit: "Punk: Chaos to Couture".
The fashion feature inspired by the Met exhibit is a real dozy. Photographed by Steven Meisel (who is never at a loss for showing models in ugly surroundings exhibiting latent homicidal tendencies), the models are smeared with makeup, their hair teased and sprayed to painful conditions. And the clothes? Something out of a Tim Burton nightmare. That the punk and grunge look shown on New York, Paris and Milan runways recently was inspired by street kids as an anti-fashion statement is funny...in a grim "How low does fashion sink?" sort of way. (And given the influence of Vogue editor Anna Wintour vis-à-vis the Met, is it any wonder they deemed Punk fashion worthy of a special exhibition?) The article by Jonathan Van Meter accompanying these ludicrous clothes is fatuous as Mr. Meter seeks to explain punk's relevancy. A quote from the article: "I shaved the left side of my head and shoved a safety pin through my ear." Relevant? To whom? Those who have shaved their heads and wear metal in their bodies? And just how many of them actually read Vogue?
Is it any wonder that Vogue and Harper's are clinging on tooth and nail to an ever-narrowing readership? Judging from this issue...which is, as usual, heavy with features Manhattan/urban centric, as though nothing worthwhile exits beyond the Hudson River...those readers will be ultimately reduced to the people on the magazines' staff and those poor souls working in a fashion industry that is losing its relevancy to real women leading real lives in real towns and cities beyond New York.
A recent Wall Street Journal column by fashion editor Christina Binkley concerning 2013 fashion had this to say: Another surprise awaits designer clients: They should brace for fashion's hit to their bank accounts. After several years of downward pressure, prices of luxury fashions are steeply on the rise. "When did the price of pants [rise to] $1,000?" Nancy Pearlstein, owner of Georgetown's Relish boutique, asked after touring Paris showrooms this week. "Just a couple of years ago, the high was $795."
Who pays $1,000 for a pair of pants? And just how many of us were spending $795? There are millions of American women, but only a few thousand or so who could (and would) spend $1,000 on a pair of pants. Are these few enough to bolster the fashion industry? Get real Seventh Avenue...and Vogue!
It started with Crystal Hammon of the wonderful "Dressed Her Days Vintage" blog and her provocative post of April 19th regarding the fashion industry's view of women over 50. It continued when I scanned the latest issue of Vogue magazine. (For Crystal's post click on her blog title on the right.)
In her post, Crystal brought up some very interesting statistics vis-à-vis the financial power of the 50+ female in the United States and wondered...given this financial base...why the fashion industry catered almost exclusively to the under 40 women of America, totally ignoring those of us who are quaintly referred to as 'women of a certain age'.
Then came the May issue of Vogue!
I loved Vogue years ago, especially when it was under the editorial direction of Diana Vreeland, but hadn't read it regularly in over twenty years. (Reasons below.) Now, undoubtedly Vreeland had her share of outlandish ideas ...an example from her "Why Don't We...?" column was turning one's old ermine coat into a lining for one's bathrobe! But, she also published beautiful clothes on beautiful women in beautiful settings.
Of course, the magazine was a fantasy. I could no more afford those clothes than the next woman. But it was possible to imagine myself in them. I studied the makeup, hairstyles and clothes like a student prepping for an exam so that when I went to Macy's or Bloomingdale's or wherever, I could take those fabulous images and translate them into something a young woman of little means could achieve. And millions of women did, knowing we were in style and looked (dare I say it?) attractive.
What happened to Vogue between then and now? And Harper's Bazaar? And the rest? When did fashion editors decide that showing very expensive, outlandish clothes on teen-age models doing ridiculous things in grubby settings would incite the average reader to run out and buy those clothes? Wear those hair styles? Wander around in sub-basements and abandoned factories?
The current May issue of Vogue is 318 pages thick. The first 243 pages are devoted to a dozen or so articles the urban-based editors deemed would (should?) interest those of us in the hinterland sprinkled amid pages devoted to advertising the newest/latest/get it while it's hot lines of designer clothes, accessories and makeup. And there are, as usual, several thick inserts of new perfumes, including a fragrance by Jimmy Choo of the shoe empire. (And who would know more about perfume than a shoe designer?)
However, the main feature doesn't begin until page 243 and runs to page 276. The first ten pages contain pictures of the very beautiful Carey Mulligan wearing haute couture evening attire inspired by her current film "The Great Gatsby", but the pages also include a lengthy interview with Ms. Mulligan. This feature is followed by ten pages showing model Carolyn Murphy in some rather nice sporty clothes doing rather ordinary things like walking, standing and posing. In one she is shown wearing a punkish leather peplum jacket ($1,250) to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's current exhibit: "Punk: Chaos to Couture".
The fashion feature inspired by the Met exhibit is a real dozy. Photographed by Steven Meisel (who is never at a loss for showing models in ugly surroundings exhibiting latent homicidal tendencies), the models are smeared with makeup, their hair teased and sprayed to painful conditions. And the clothes? Something out of a Tim Burton nightmare. That the punk and grunge look shown on New York, Paris and Milan runways recently was inspired by street kids as an anti-fashion statement is funny...in a grim "How low does fashion sink?" sort of way. (And given the influence of Vogue editor Anna Wintour vis-à-vis the Met, is it any wonder they deemed Punk fashion worthy of a special exhibition?) The article by Jonathan Van Meter accompanying these ludicrous clothes is fatuous as Mr. Meter seeks to explain punk's relevancy. A quote from the article: "I shaved the left side of my head and shoved a safety pin through my ear." Relevant? To whom? Those who have shaved their heads and wear metal in their bodies? And just how many of them actually read Vogue?
Is it any wonder that Vogue and Harper's are clinging on tooth and nail to an ever-narrowing readership? Judging from this issue...which is, as usual, heavy with features Manhattan/urban centric, as though nothing worthwhile exits beyond the Hudson River...those readers will be ultimately reduced to the people on the magazines' staff and those poor souls working in a fashion industry that is losing its relevancy to real women leading real lives in real towns and cities beyond New York.
A recent Wall Street Journal column by fashion editor Christina Binkley concerning 2013 fashion had this to say: Another surprise awaits designer clients: They should brace for fashion's hit to their bank accounts. After several years of downward pressure, prices of luxury fashions are steeply on the rise. "When did the price of pants [rise to] $1,000?" Nancy Pearlstein, owner of Georgetown's Relish boutique, asked after touring Paris showrooms this week. "Just a couple of years ago, the high was $795."
Who pays $1,000 for a pair of pants? And just how many of us were spending $795? There are millions of American women, but only a few thousand or so who could (and would) spend $1,000 on a pair of pants. Are these few enough to bolster the fashion industry? Get real Seventh Avenue...and Vogue!
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)