Oddly, in fashion, these truths are terribly kept secrets, like Uncle Jim-Bob’s problem with the bottle (no, I don’t have an Uncle Jim-Bob).

Those in high-fashion, who consider themselves “style crusaders” will denounce the word trends and say they are true to themselves, only wearing classic pieces. However, the $300 leather leggings they’re sporting say otherwise. Magazine editors will gasp at the notion that their editorial integrity is even slightly compromised by the magazine’s advertising profits, but we all know the truth. However, the dirtiest secret of all is the most obvious— celebrities rule.

There was recently an article on NY Magazine’s Cut Blog— Has Reality TV Made Rachel Zoe More High-Fashion?— detailing Rachel Zoe’s ability to walk the line between elitist high-fashion and celeb-centric low-brow duds, but in this day and age, if you can’t balance the high and low brow, you’ll get nowhere.

Fifty years ago, celebrities were intangible. They were the epitome of class and maybe even decadence. They were high-fashion in every sense of the word. Today, celebrities are accessible. They strive to seem like your best friend. They have to make you feel as if you can relate, or we, the general public, bitch and tear them apart for being secretive and snooty.

What does this have to do with fashion?

I was once told by an internship employer, “We don’t do celebrities. They have nothing to do with fashion,” but through the years, I’ve realized how incorrect that statement was, or at least, the last half of it.

Without a famous name or a famous face to wear the clothes and company will go under. Publicists fight to get their clients clothes on the backs of celebrities whether for the cover of Vogue, a scene in a mildly successful TV series, or pairing with Ugg boots while grocery shopping. If Whitney Port didn’t “work” at Diane von Furstenberg, non-fashion-obsessed, fourteen-year-old girls wouldn’t be half as intrigued and obsessed with the woman and her work as they are. If Michael Kors wasn’t a judge on Project Runway, making him a celebrity in his own right, he would just be another label in these same girl’s mother’s closets. And, if Rachel Zoe hadn’t been involved in an early-millennial scandal with Lindsey Lohan and Nicole Richie she wouldn’t be half as notable as she is now.

Of course, there is the argument many trends are being started by bloggers and street style websites, but these people are being idolized like celebrities creating a sub-genre of sorts.

“All too often, pure fashion is high-brow, and celebrity fashion is low-brow. It seems the more exposure fashion personalities like Zoe get, the more they’re likely to gravitate toward the more commercial and celebrity veins of work…But Zoe seems to be moving seamlessly between the world of high fashion, mass fashion, and celebrity… So Zoe is in a rare position, but one that is fascinating to watch, where elitist and mass fashion exist in harmony,” writes Amy Odell, but what is that saying about the fashion industry? Is it moving towards a lower standard of artistic expression— the public’s interest in procuring couture is almost nonexistent, and ready-to-wear has become more like wear-it-now with the influx of mass market knockoffs— or will we start to see more of what I call, the Wang-effect (i.e. $300 stretched out tank tops like those from Alexander Wang’s T collection)?

I’m not particularly a fan of the institution of fame. I believe that idolizing a person for their closet is pointless because I live a make due kind of life. Idolizing a person for their talent and passion is a completely different situation and a different subject all together. I feel the most exhausted by the clout of the famous and infamous around fashion week. I’ve ranted about the excessive amounts they are allegedly paid to sit front row at shows and constantly scoff at their attempts to create fashion lines, but I also understand their strange necessity. I don’t have answers to any of the questions, but I do know that celebrities will have a giant influence in the future of the industry, whether we like it or not.

There are a lot of things I struggle with in life, one of which is so-called personal style. I’ve gone back and forth with myself and you lovely readers about the topic.

I initially believed I was in the process of finding my style, like it was some mythical beast hidden in the far realms of boutiques, vintage stores, and shopping malls. I like many monarchs in search of riches from the new world, dedicated much money to this quest, only to be left with mountains of clothes I don’t particularly want to wear.

Then, I focused my search by constantly looking at street style blogs. I wanted to know how these admirable people would wear the same type of items I already own. I quickly lost interest after realizing: I will never be the girl who can wear layers like the homeless, monster platform shoes are not for me, and my idea of a short skirt is cut an inch or two above my knees.

My inherent sartorial sense has yet to reveal itself like a phoenix rising from the ashes, so instead of wasting more money on needless clothes and more time scouring street style websites, I’ve decided to work off of intuition.

I’ve been told I’m quite perceptive when it comes to people making me a good judge of character, so why can the same insight work with my clothing choices. I’m challenging myself to face the seedy, seductive world of clothing racks, jewelry counters, and shelves of shoes with blinders on, only wearing what makes me feel the best and not caring who’s wearing what or how much it costs.

I’m officially kicking my obsessive search for style to the curb and am just going to wear what feels right.

“To rebel is to home in on who you are… Few people can do it in a constructive way.…All of today’s fashion icons were once rule breakers,” cites WWD of Nina Garcia’s speech at FIT’s graduation.

Rebel…Rebel? How is it possible to rebel when fashion is at a point when forecasters have chalked trends up to “anything goes.” Is it still possible to rebel when gone are the days of underground fashion zines, replaced by blogs written by anyone with the ability to string words together? Everyone is in their own meta-rebellion, so how can any one person truly do anything inventive?

Designers try to create their own sartorial aesthetic, but 3 months later the same look is splayed across the backs of millions of teenage girls with an expendable budget and a penchant for fast fashion. Is originality dead/dying?

A renaissance can only come about after a revolution— hence the meaning of the word, “rebirth” in French.

It seems to me, after a lifetime of regurgitated trends and celeb-driven culture, the fashion industry needs a bit of a renaissance. Who will lead it and what it will look like is beyond me, but I’m ready. It’s high time Generation Y make it’s mark on fashion, and not simply for being the generation who revamped trends from almost every decade in the 20th century.

It may also be time for a mini-media revolution. Of course, traditional media is already having trouble with the onset of digital media, but digital media needs to ruffle some feathers in it’s own hen house as well. There isn’t one formula or optimum number of readers to create a successful blog. The only thing I, and most readers, ask for is the truth.

By truth, I don’t simply mean accuracy, though that is important, but also your raw, unadulterated opinion. If something you tried ruined your life, let us know, and if it was the best product you’ve ever used, we want to hear that too. Realize, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs regurgitating the same story. If you must write about the same thing everyone else is writing about, make it your own, show us your voice. The ability to write in a biased fashion is the beauty and curse of digital media, but if done well, the world will be your oyster.

Though Garcia’s words may seem futile, her call to arms is a necessary one, and hopefully, a fashion rebellion will be seen in the near future. The uprising begins with us!

“We need fashion shows, but that’s industry, it’s not for the general public. All the communication has to stop. It doesn’t go out on the wire, it doesn’t go out on the Internet, it doesn’t get out for the manufacturers to copy the designs. I mean, we’re killing our own industry… There’s too much information going out there. We have to learn the word restriction,” said Karan via Fashionologie.

As a fashion blogger, I can’t honestly recommend a complete internet blackout or blacklist. However, during the last fashion season, I found myself feeling overly inundated with fashion events. Countless designers chose to livestream their fashion shows while photographs of most of the other shows were available for all to see on various websites soon after the shows finished.

“There is no excitement about anything anymore as everything is available immediately and all the time— you don’t have to wait for anything… I think it’s too fast and too fake,” said Isabel Marant in an interview with Grazia UK.

Though the idea of democratizing fashion seems wonderful, fashion is anything but a democracy, and as an industry, it has thrived this way for many years.

Livestreaming Fashion Shows

This season, anyone who was willing, could watch livestreams of fashion shows from design houses big and small. During New York Fashion Week alone, some of the shows whose invites are most sought after, were shown online while happening simultaneously in some hip NYC location.

For lesser known labels or brands who tend to have a mass appeal and price point, making the streaming the fashion shows live online is a wonderful way to garner publicity and potentially reach a new consumer. However, in my opinion, there is a time and a place for incorporating such digital media tactics in a pr plan, and with some brands, the access doesn’t work with it’s mission statement and that inclusiveness shouldn’t be forced simply because everyone else is doing it.

The image of many luxury brands is built on exclusivity. By using such tactics as livestreaming, it seems like a contradiction in values when the fashion show is available to anyone who is willing to watch at the same time as the invited fashion elite.

That being said, I’m not yet part of said fashion elite, and the first time I was able to stream a fashion show online, I was elated.

Post-show Internet Coverage

Though, I’m not yet convinced of the merits of livestreaming for all brands, I do believe on having websites and/or blogs cover a fashion show after the event— this coverage can be from someone who has attended the show or simply seen photos or edited videos used for review/commentary purposes.

Having images of fashion shows online soon after the show occurs does make it possible fast-fashion retailers to copy designs, but being completely exclusionary toward a newer form of media and those consumers who are interested in digitally following the work of their favorite designers and brands could prove detrimental to an industry already struggling because of a weak economy.

Also, for fashion pr, embracing social media aids in the evaluation of fashion show post coverage. Fashion week is something that unites all fashion blogs and simply going through a brands fashion week online press hits will help pr practitioners find new sources interested in their client’s brand while making it easy to evaluate the credibility, based on fashion knowledge and willingness to gain such knowledge, of a blog. Without some access, this post-show coverage wouldn’t be possible.

Like most things, accessibility is a double-edged sword, but will this newfound inclusiveness in fashion be its ruin? Only time will tell, but perhaps fashion, for once, should follow Aristotle’s Golden Mean and live between the extremes. Everything doesn’t always have to be all or nothing.

Talk Back: What are your ideas of including the public while maintaining a sense of exclusivity and prestige within the industry?

Today, I wore one of my new Twinkle by Wenlan Spring 2010 pieces. I tweeted about it, but the picture was , in my very self-critical opinion, horrendous.

I’ve loved the ‘Oil and Water’ print since I saw it being made— a lot of Wenlan’s prints are created by the design team and then sent to a fabric manufacturer. There’s something about the busy nature of the print that easily gets me through a gray day like today.

You can’t see the back, but it’s made of black and white striped fine gauge knit, adding an extra bit of pizazz without needing sequins, studs, chains, grommets, or any other glimmering details. It is the lack of necessity for such pieces of flare that make me love Twinkle as much as I do.

On a completely different but strangely connected note, there was an article on Fashionista about telling the world you’re wearing a sample.

“I’ve spotted at least three people proudly sporting their ‘Sample’ label. At ThreeAsFour’s show at Milk, a man took off his jacket to reveal a sample label pinned inside; a model threw a tantrum in sample-stamped shoes, and while waiting in line for Hakaan I noticed ‘Sample’ written across the back of of a woman’s army jacket in Sharpie,” writes Britt Aboutaleb.

It’s a known fact in the fashion industry many people wear loaned samples. It is also known that just  as many people, including models and interns, get “paid” in samples instead of cold hard cash. I’m not exempt from this process. While working at Twinkle, I had a clothing allowance and was able to convert my hundreds of labored hours into something similar to Twinkle Bucks to purchase samples or order pieces from the new season. This tunic is one of the many pieces I ordered using my allowance from Twinkle.

The question on Fashionista was whether it is “cool” to publicize that you’re wearing a sample?

In my opinion, there is no need to do so. It isn’t as if you’re sharing a great sale tip with a friend. I don’t think it’s a gold star on my shopping record to say I’m wearing a sample. I’d also like to note, I only used my allowance on items I would have actually purchased, not simply because I was jonesing for a Twinkle sample.

Samples are everywhere, and you aren’t in an exclusive club or making a unique sartorial statement simply because you’re wearing one. Think about it, a sample sale is called a SAMPLE sale for a reason, and there are hundreds of them each season. Not to mention, those hundreds of sample sales are attended by hundreds of people. I see no novelty in said situation.

That being said, I, obviously, have nothing against samples and will continue to wear them and trade labor for them as I see fit, but I won’t be leaving the sample tag in, sorry!

What’s your take on showing the world you’re wearing a sample?

p.s. Follow me on Twitter

Ethics…

I had a philosophy class about ethics, once, and my professor was promptly fired for calling another professor a douchebag and telling him to do Oedipal things to his mother. Needless, to say that class was more interesting than helpful. The next couple of years, ethics in terms of Journalism and Public Relations had been beaten into my brain, however the “Navigating Ethics Pane” at the Independent Fashion Bloggers Evolving Influence conference I attended on February 15, left me struggling internally.

“To be a good PR professional, you have to, first, be a good journalist,” is the mantra of my many public relations professors.

“Never, NEVER accept gifts from people or brands you are writing about. A journalist is supposed to remain unbiased,” tout my journalism professors all having either worked at Newsday, The New York Times or both.

“Getting free stuff for writing a blog post is like the barter system,” exclaims a semi-scandalous blogger at the IFB conference. What can only be described as a rant by said blogger, went downhill fast after making slightly anti-Semitic generalizations about the Jewish people (read about it here).

None of this information is helpful in the blogging ethics situation.

Even the discussion had between the panelist of the “Navigating Ethics Panel” at the blogging conference— The New York Times‘ Carl Hoyt (also, a Pultizer Prize winning journalist), What I Wore‘s Jessica Schroeder, BlogHer‘s Gina Garrubbo, The Business of Fashion‘s Imram Amed, A Shaded View of Fashion‘s Diane Pernet, Still in Berlin‘s Mary Scherpe, and jewelery designer/blogger Wendy Brandes as moderator— left things quite unresolved.

Carl Hoyt takes the stance of The New York Times and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) about accepting gifts.

“Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity,” states the SPJ Code of Ethics.

Many will argue, bloggers aren’t journalists, and to be quite honest, when it comes to writing for Pink Rock Candy, I do not consider it journalistic writing. I consider writing on PRC more personal commentary, though I don’t believe this gives me leave to act unethically when it comes to honest content. So, why should I have different ethical standards in terms of gifts?

Others will remark, fashion editors are regularly gifted items, a notion Diane Pernet, who is also the co-Editor-in-Chief of Zoo Magazine, will not contest, however she does say these gifts are nice but never does she feel forced to write about said gift. Does accepting, but using personal judgment to remain unbiased make accepting gifts ethical? Is this practice too trusting of a blogger’s personal judgment?

I’m not regularly offered free goods for blogging, and if I am, either the offer seems like a bribe and I decline or the offer comes after I’ve already written a post and rarely do I ever write about a brand more than once.

If I am offered and do accept a gift after writing a post, do I have to go back and write an update saying I’ve received said item after this feature from the brand?

Also, I intern regularly, and have received items as trade/pay for my hard work. Is it unethical to omit that I did not buy said item with cold hard cash but a clothing allowance? (As a side note, I always admit if the brand I’m speaking about is a brand I’ve worked with.)

In terms of the larger blogging community, and not simply my little self-obsessed universe, would it be helpful to create some sort of blogging code of ethics? There may be no true way of enforcing it, but simply having said code written out and online so bloggers can refer to it if ever they have an ethical dilemma may be helpful. There is the FCC FTC regulation (Thanks, Wendy B. I must have PR class on the brain), but that doesn’t touch on ethics just disclosure two similar but very different things.

It’s obvious a longer discussion needs to be held about blogger ethics.

Were any of you at the panel or watching it online? What did you think? Also, what do you think should be done about the unwritten rules about gifts, disclosure, and blogger ethics in general?

Celebrities are like evil step-children to the fashion industry. You deal with them for the sake of your spouse— the public, in fashion’s case—but you generally wish they would simply go away. I’ve met and been around my fair share of “listed” people, from A-list to D-list, but seeing and meeting them is very underwhelming to me, and compared to meeting designers or editors, the excitement is negligible. So, when I read “How Much Fashion Brands Pay For Celebrities to Sit in Their Front Rows” on Fashionista.com, the outrage at the rates paid to celebs for sitting front row almost outweighed the bemusement of the post.

Here, on Pink Rock Candy, my celeb name dropping is few and far between. There are a few starlets whom I believe actually love and appreciate fashion the way industry insiders and even us bloggers do, and I respect them for that. The males of the celeb-world are a different story complete, but suffice it to say, they are generally chalked up to eye candy.

Being informed that some celebs are getting paid almost six figures to sit their meticulously toned tushes in a front row seat many people, fashion lovers and socialites alike, would give anything to fill, kills me.

I know public relations enough to know celebrities are a necessary evil, but charging a fashion brand to enjoy it’s latest work in one of the best seats in the house is a bit excessive. To me, that process is almost as ignorant as it would have been to charge Michelangelo to create a sculpture for you, as if it was an honor for him.

This may come as a surprise to many celebrities, but their presence at fashion events though often, and unfortunately, is a necessity to gain public notoriety, is anything but an honor.

As my little brother once said of homework, “It’s a have to do, not a want to do.”

What do you think of celebrities charging fashion brands to grace the front rows with their presence?

Photo Credit: Style.com

As I read the article I could hear Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly spit, “This… stuff?” before she launches into her rant about Andy Sachs’ “lumpy blue sweater.”

It wasn’t the linking of a sixteen-year-old girl’s unfortunate death to her high heels or Gold’s insinuation that the industry I love is oppressive that infuriated me. It was her reasoning for escaping what she remarks is “one of the ultimate evils in the universe.”

“The oddest thing rescued me from fashion. It was that I got fat,” says Gold.

Not only, is there an entire article bashing an industry that is inescapable to those who choose to live in modern society— Mark Twain once said, “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society”— but she insinuated that those who aren’t skinny and are in turn, “fat,” cannot participate in “fashion,” or more precisely, be fashionable.

Are there as many high fashion designers who cater to the size-10-and-up crowd as there are who cater to their smaller counter parts? Most definitely, not. That, however, doesn’t mean larger women, and men, for that matter, are completely excluded from the cycle and can’t be fashionable. Quite frankly, I think the argument that her weight played a part in her escape from this strange meta-world called Fashion is idiotic, even knowing how high fashion designers cater to the lithe. If you truly think about it, there are more people in the world who can’t afford to purchase from high fashion designers than there are people who are “fat,” and when it comes to mass retailers and fast fashion, the scales are infinitely more balanced (no pun intended).

So, Miss Gold, I must channel Miranda Priestly again when I say, though you may view yourself as “fat,” you, I’m assuming, have yet to joined a nudist community and still wear and buy, from time to time, clothes/beauty products/home goods— all things that are influenced by fashion trends— making it “sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry.”

People— editors, bloggers, and I— have talking a lot about quality over quantity when it comes to purchasing new clothes. Miss Elle from Broke & Beautiful even wrote a wonderful list of quality necessities every girl needs in their wardrobe. This, however, has made me think a lot about the word quality.

Quality (noun) – qual·i·ty: a) degree of excellence [grade];  b) superiority in kind [merchandise of quality] Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Of course there is a technical definition of quality, but quality truly means a plethora of different things to different people, especially when it comes to clothing and accessories.

Is a quality pair of shoes only a pair of shoes handmade using Italian leather, or is it just a pair of leather shoes? Do quality shoes actually have to be leather or made of natural fabrics? Can they be made of synthetic fabrics? How much should a pair of quality shoes cost? What brands are quality? What if the shoes are technically “trendy” and won’t be worn within the next year but are handmade Italian leather shoes from a luxury brand?

There are so many questions only answerable by the individual.

Many people think the more expensive the item, the better the quality, but is it smarter to pay $90 for a T by Alexander Wang shirt than $25 for a similar shirt from American Apparel?

After having worked in the fashion industry, I’ve learned not to base the grade of an item on cost. I’ve seen people throw away almost $600 in less than 30 minutes at sample sales because the low prices lead them to overindulge. Depending on the sample sale, $600 can equate two or 20+ garments — the sample sale I’m speaking of was similar to the latter. Though, yes, the clothes were extremely marked down, and, yes, they were well-made, silk, designer garments, I highly doubt most of the clothes purchased would be worn often, if at all.

Does quality also include wearability? Does an item’s novelty decrease it’s qualitative worth?

What about quality between different designers, or well-known designers vs. unknown designers? New vs. vintage?

There are so many variables hindering me from figuring out my definition, as of yet. I want to say that not only do quality garments have to be well-made and preferably made of natural fiber fabrics, but also they should be timeless silhouetted items I would be able to wear for years to come, barring any weight fluctuations. I don’t particularly subscribe to one or a group of supreme designer(s), but if I had the choice between to similar garments equally priced but one was a brand I had heard of and another an unknown brand, I would choose the former— better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. All that being said, I know my definition of quality probably changes on a case-to-case basis, especially when price comes into play.

So, what is quality to you?

In fashion, there will always be a newer, hotter trend, designer, or style icon, but it’s the controversies that really get people buzzing. First it was all about the lack of diversity in the fashion industry, but it seems plus size is the new black for 2010.

The lines are drawn, skinny vs. curvy, but I’m not sure which side to take. V Magazine is playing the part of Vogue Italia with their Size Issue which hits newsstands January 14th, 2010. The images from the Terry Richardson shot “One Size Fits All” photoshoot pits Jacquelyn Jablonski against Crystal Renn in a zero vs. not zero, no-holds-barred, pose-off designer duds, in an attempt to prove designer clothes will look good on anyone— who can afford them, that is.

Now, they’ve just released a second photoshoot entitled “Curves Ahead,” and it wasn’t the pictures many of the models wearing next to nothing and looking fierce as all hell that piqued my interest. It was the comments I read on OhNoTheyDidn’t, the first of which was “gross” followed by a “mte” (my thoughts exactly), that made made me stop and think.

Since when was it not okay to have a full figure and be proud to show it off? Isn’t confidence supposed to be sexy?

To be honest, I know what designers mean when they say clothes hang better on tiny, tall girls, but I also realize it’s unhealthy and sometimes down-right impossible for most girls to be a double-zero. I’m not saying I’m about to buy my official team curvy girl “Booty is Beauty” t-shirt because, let’s face it, I’m not really all that curvy, but I do think women can be beautiful no matter their jean size.

The most disheartening comment was written by someone who claimed to also be plus size, “as a plus sized person…this array makes me want to go puke up my coffee and crisps.” A comment that led some to express shock, while the commentor went on to say, “yes well i have lots of hate for my own body. seeing it in picture form only makes me feel worse…i’m munching on new years candies and silently berating myself while enjoying and loathing every bite!”

It scares me that western culture’s ideal of beauty has become so skewed women not only loathe their own curves, but other’s because of what it represents to them. Part of me feels as if V Magazine is only giving this size debate lip service to cash in on a new trendy controversy, but another part of me hopes this makes some small impact not only on the fashion industry but on all of western society.

I’ve given them a chance, months of a chance actually, but their appeal is still lost on me. I understand that having a mean looking gorilla splayed across your body is rebellious and a bit hardcore, but seriously, WHY?

The gorilla looks like some kid has been banging on the glass at the zoo or some wildlife filmmaker just look a silver back in the eye. Angry animals are never beseeching to me. I prefer the docile, or at least, even-tempered.

Not only is the gorilla more awkward that appealing, the whole concept seems like something Animal Planet would sell to promote their show Untamed and Uncut— not that I’m knocking Animal Planet, it’s one of my favorite channels.

I’m sure this tee is a simple misunderstanding between me and Christopher Kane’s creative mind, because I generally like his designs. So, I leave it to you dear readers, please EXPLAIN! ]]> http://pinkrockcandy.net/fashion/2009/07/24/why-the-snarl/feed/ 5 http://pinkrockcandy.net/fashion/2009/06/13/who-wants-to-be-a-size-zero-anyway/ http://pinkrockcandy.net/fashion/2009/06/13/who-wants-to-be-a-size-zero-anyway/#comments Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:40:17 +0000 Chelsea Rae Simmons http://pinkrockcandy.net/fashion/?p=1103 Socks & The City from Battlefronters on Vimeo.

Rachel Phipps from Lipstick Royalty Magazine created a campaign on Battlefront called ‘Who Wants To Be A Size Zero Anyway’. For the campaign she created a cheeky video called Socks and the City that made me seriously laugh.

Two things came to mind when I watched the video. The first was wondering which sock was Carrie, and the second was the knowledge that depriving oneself of life’s little luxuries, like a doughnut, is not worth being a size zero.

If you agree make sure to click through and join the campaign!

It is no secret that weight is an ever present issue in the fashion industry not to mention life. For years, the industry has been criticized for promoting and/or ignoring the issue of the ever-diminishing waistline on the runways and between magazine covers, but it seems the Voguettes are fighting back with vengeance.

Not only can Vogue editrix Anna Wintour be seen, in an outtake from her 60 Minutes interview, likening people she saw in Minnesota to “little houses” while referencing the stereotypical obesity said to be an epidemic in middle America— sort of cliché Winnie— but Teen Vogue’s Editor-In-Chief, Amy Astley also comments on the skewed commentary on weight issues in the June 2009 Editor’s Letter:

“Teen Vogue, like many fashion magazines, takes heat for photographing thin models. Guilty as charged— professional models are nothing if not tall and absurdly lanky… I am not the only person in the fashion industry who thinks these girls would be even more beautiful with a few additional pounds on their bodies. But outrage over even the boniest of celebrities and mannequins seems to obfuscate the more urgent and widespread story about Americans and weight. Only 1 percent of women in this country are anorexic…[while] one in three U.S. children and adolescents are either overweight or obese.”

Am I saying that Wintour and Astley are right and we’re concentrating on the wrong issue? Absolutely not. We’re complex beings, and I’m sure we can take down two issues at the same time. Furthermore, I question the credibility of the info given by Astley. The statistics may be correct, but you have to look at exactly what she’s comparing. She says, “only 1 percent of women in this country are anorexic.” What about other eating disorders, and what about men and children. Also, she says, “one in three U.S. children and adolescents are either overweight or obese,” but what about the obesity rate in adults?

I’m not trying to under mind her initiative, but I’d simply like all the information because I personally go back and forth with the weight issue. On one hand I can see how lithe models can give us normal folk a skewed perception of what a “normal” body looks like and what is beauty, but at the same time I can’t help but wonder if pandering to the anti-size-zero-models crowd is taking the focus off the fact that we live in a would-you-like-fries-with-that world and nine times out of ten the answer is, “Hell yes! But, give me a diet soda, I’m watching my weight.”

Excuse my naivety, but I have no true idea what equates a “contemporary line.” I could take a stab at the definition, assume it has something to do with clothing being “of the times” but more sophisticated, trendy yet chic, but what in the world makes Forever 21 think that coming out with a “contemporary line” would be any different from the same crap— I use that term with love— they always make.

First of all, the new line is called Love 21, only one word off of a failed accessories collection they had about a year ago called For Love 21— original, no? Not only that, but from what I can tell, the clothes in their new “contemporary line” don’t look any different than the disposable bull they already sell which we consume more often than we’d like to acknowledge.

A wrap dress and annoying ruffle details do not sophistication make.

Perhaps the photos are deceptive, and the clothes are of better quality, the shirt coral top to the left is 100% silk, but I’d like to remind those worker bees behind the big chain name: You already have two other lines Heritage 1981 and Twelve by Twelve— my personal favorite. So, why in the name of whatever deity you pray to, do you believe you need another line. If you had simply thrown the Love 21 items in with the rest of the new stuff regularly stocked, you wouldn’t have had to spend the energy coming up with a terribly uncreative name for your mediocre escape attempt from  junior’s clothing store label.

Just accept your fate.

The only advantage to this situation is Forever 21 will now have who knows how many people and blogs talking about how underwhelmed they are by this new line, leading the listeners/readers to wonder curiously to the F21 website in hopes of being able to add their two cents to the next Love 21 discussion. I guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

You’re welcome Forevs, and I’ll see you next week for my bi-weekly excursion to a store near me.

Yesterday, I found myself vainly saying, “I’m glad I can fit into these small sample sizes.” I wasn’t being a “skinny bitch” or even intentionally demeaning to girls who aren’t zeros or twos, it was simply a passing thought as I received a pre-fashion week incentive piece of clothing from my internship. I honestly didn’t think anything of the thought until I saw Beth Ditto’s cover of the first issue of LOVE magazine today.

It made me feel really terrible because I didn’t realize how shallow I can actually be. There are so many super fashionable people that aren’t size 2 or 4 or even 12 or 14. At 5’4″ with curves of my own, by no means am I a lithe model, but somehow I don’t tell myself and others that fashion isn’t just for the girls modeling the clothes in magazines or the styled celebrities, but it’s for everyone. Short or tall, big or small, normal or abnormal, fashion consumes you, even if you don’t mean for it to.

So here’s to all those women/men who make us swoon over their style no matter what. Thanks, Beth Ditto, for not trying to be an Olsen— not to say they aren’t stylish in their own right.

Photo Credit: Love Blog