Pink Rock Candy – Top fashion trends, news and shopping of 2010

Left to right: Gina Garrubbo, Mary Scherpe, Carl Hoyt, Jessica Schroeder, Imram Amed, and Diane Pernet

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. Continue Reading ‘What Are Blogging Ethics?’

Blake Lively and Elettra Wiedemann front row at DVF’s S/S 2010 show.

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

On Friday, there was a article published on The Guardian entitled, “Why I hate fashion,” in which the writer, Tanya Gold, speaks about her journey from being fashionably absorbed to leading a fashion-free existence.

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?

Photo Credit: V Magazine & Models.com

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.