Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts

Eat Less, Lie More?

by savannah | tags: , , | 0 comments

Urban Outfitters Shirt, Bush
Recently, former WB star Sophia Bush has taken great issue with a new garment from trendy brand Urban Outfitters that says "Eat Less" on the front. While I generally disagree with the shameless promotion of the whole “eat less, feel and look better by proxy albeit for shallow reasons” idea (although I tend to think that a good percentage of Americans could serve to benefit by only doling out only one scoop of ice cream after dinner as opposed to four), I have to wonder what Urban Outfitters has really done besides taking the veritable mantra of the fashion industry and ironing it on to a shirt. 
I open up fashion magazines like Vogue and Elle, both of which have as much substance as swill (in my opinion, at least), and am immediately inundated with advertisements featuring waifs and meth-addict look-a-likes who are both, given their makeup and location in  magazines that promote beauty and style, allegedly the epitome of the female form. Obviously having a BMI that matches the age of Justin Bieber isn’t healthy, but that’s what the industry, not just UO, promotes in a supposedly subtle way. Why the outrage, then, when yet another fashion big brand simply isn’t as cryptic? Isn’t it really just because as both women and people, while we appreciate truth, we prefer it diluted? As far as I’m concerned, we’re all still drinking the same kool-aid, at least now the ingredients are more apparent.
If we want to change this, it’s not going to happen by getting pissed about a stupid t-shirt (which I doubt will sell much anyway, it’s ugly and overpriced) and refusing to go a single store, it’s by taking down the faceless behemoths that are behind the ad campaigns of every big fashion label out there. Granted, that’s hard to do, so naturally it makes sense to pick on something smaller, although also something that, regardless of how you feel about it, at least comes by its warped views honestly. Yes, as Sophia Bush stated, it could promote anorexia. It could promote a lot of things, actually; just like anything can. But since when is fashion family, and since when does it have to come with a warning label?  
Tacky? Definitely. Irresponsible given UO’s demographic? Sure. But any different than anything else we see with other trendy brands? Absolutely not.

Commentary: Fashion, Blood, and Tears

by savannah | tags: , , | 1 comments
People often tell me that fashion is perhaps the most vacuous of all art forms. And, despite the "here and now" garb I may occasionally don, I would agree. Even at its most haute and avant garde, its general purpose is to aesthetically please a specific and often shallow audience. Granted, there are certain designers who have changed the way we look at things, be it Coco Chanel's innovative, "less frills, more form" take on femininity, Christian Dior's indulgent and extravagant gowns giving hope and excitement to the many humdrum women post World War II, or even American Apparel's efforts to make social and environmental responsibility chic and fashion forward.

But to me, the reason why fashion is something we should respect and acknowledge is, well, an obvious one. Simply put, it is one of the most tangible vestiges of a generation and its ideals. To study fashion and its form is to study history and a particular culture at a given point in time. That's why when the recent Helmut Lang display was taken down from the windows at Barney's New York, I was quite displeased.

A brief history on Helmut Lang (ie a brief synopsis on what I google-gleaned): the brand itself is a creation of the Austrian designer of the same name in the 1980's. His whole style is (or was, he no longer designs) a streamlined and minimalistic take on suits for men and women. Personally, I find his approach a bit too stark and androgynous (as I write this I am wearing a pleated paisley skirt and ballet flats), but an interesting thing about him is that he doesn't have a menswear fashion show, or a womens fashion show, but rather a singular show that features both mens' and womens' garments. That is becoming a more common practice, but it was a novelty in the 90's when the brand was at its peak. That ideal, that men and women can essentially wear the same thing and be both beautiful and handsome is much more innovative and progressive than even the most deconstructed and sleek pantsuit.

So, while other designers worked hard on making women more feminine, more sexually pleasing, more dainty and submissive, and making men more, well, virile, Lang was bridging the gap between the two. And recently, the gap was made so small that it made quite a few fashion savvy individuals nervous.

In Lang's new campaign, so aptly called "Dressed to Kill," the window displays at Barney's featured several broken down female mannequins in long black dresses practicing self defense. The line of good taste was apparently drawn with the inclusion of imitation blood and weaponry, and the violent display was stripped from the windows in a few hours.

Now, I understand that violence is not something you promote or condone in any form, especially in the form of something that is to be sold. I understand that Barney's didn't want to be known for promoting any semblance of bloodshed, I really do. However, it seems to me a bit odd that many risque and promiscuous displays, some showcasing women in veritable negligees under the guise of evening gowns, have been deemed quite apropos throughout the years.

Why is it wrong, then, that a modern and strong woman protects herself against an assailant, yet a scantily clad strumpet arching her back to look like a sleek feline creature is OK? Shouldn't the the act of taking down the display be more disturbing than the display itself?

Taken as a work of art, it is important to note the mannequin's shape and form. The head to toe black connotes power, although the raised foot and haggard arms and back indicate some form of struggle, which gives the black a new meaning: mourning. The display itself is brilliant, then, for it is the manifestation of a modern woman's struggle finding power and defending herself (albeit unsuccessfully) against the many neasayers who try to usurp said power from her. And only to perpetuate this dark and woven social commentary, fashion bigwigs decided to remove this display from the eyes of the general public in fear of lower net sales.

Today is July 23, 2009, and currently Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, is engaged in a South Asian tour, and Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House. Women are in the workforce now more than ever, and, like Helmut Lang suggests, we wear pants. Why is it, then, that a plastic woman in a window is still not allowed to play the role of "fighter?"
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)