Is the Fashion Oligarchy Losing Relevance in the New Era?
from Alexsandro Palombo's upcoming book of illustrations, 'Vanitas, Inshallah'
Robin Givhan’s latest article for the Washington Post zeros in on what everyone knows but that no one of any importance dare to speak of, lest they be ignored and excluded by the same inner circle they seek to critique:
There is an assumed degree of extreme intimacy, among those who are in the business of making and marketing expensive clothes, that sometimes borders on incestuous.
One of the most recent examples of how the various strands of the fashion industry are interwoven — or more aptly, tied into a tight, complicated little knot — comes in the form of a Prada project called “The Iconoclasts.” The Italian design house announced that four well-known fashion editors will each window-dress one of its flagship stores. The guest merchandisers’ work is organized to coincide with Fashion Week in each of the four cities.
…The point, however, is whether they should be doing it at all. In a business where conflicts of interest occur every day, this is a step too far and poorly timed. Fashion does not need such a public blow to its credibility during an economic crisis that has it quite literally — and at times, unfairly — having to justify its existence.
Yes, that’s right, magazine editors are not offering us an objective, unbiased view of fashion designers offerings, and show favor to their advertisers. This situation is already so taken for granted that it only serves as the background context for Ugly Betty episodes rather than a full plot line. So why does Givhan now see this as such an issue, worthy of risking exclusion from the relevant insider parties? The Washington Post is making serious budget cuts, so could be there’s a ‘nothing left to lose since they won’t pay for me to fly to Milan anyway’ undercurrent, but Givhan expresses concern that given the current about face in consumer spending, this now undermines their credibility:
…the Paris store will be merchandised by the editor in chief of French Vogue, Carine Roitfeld — which would seem to be a bit like the editor of Sports Illustrated calling the plays at a football game and then writing about how brilliant the coaching was.
…Magazines have never pretended to be objective observers of fashion. They have always seen their role as that of cheerleader and champion. They celebrate the most talented designers and the most beautiful clothes and simply ignore the rest. They give special attention to advertisers. And so it’s often hard to know whether the best truly is any good at all. Maybe the only reason that a collection gets press is because the designer just happens to be a good schmoozer with the right connections or a compelling story.
Yah think? Again, this is not an earth shattering revelation. So why is it now such a big problem?
At a time when the industry needs all the credibility it can muster, Prada is bragging about its coziness with editors. With so many folks scratching each other’s back, why should any reader put stock in a story about clothes that supposedly have lasting value?
No kidding. It’s the same extreme trend over the top flashy excess that last year was sold as a ’splurge’ but now is spun with the new buzzword, ‘investment.’
Why should anyone believe magazines, designers or anyone in this industry? No wonder so many consumers believe the fashion business is just one giant conspiracy out to dupe women. It’s just what the paranoid always thought: They are all in this together.
Perhaps it was less of a problem when there was an ever increasing supply of cash flow into the industry fueled largely by the arms race between aspirational desperate housewives convinced that buying ‘It Bags’ on credit was necessary and innocuous.
The fashion industry painted itself into this corner over the long haul. It doesn’t see itself as a conglomeration of businesses that are interdependent and yet provide each other with checks and balances. Instead, the industry would best be described as an unruly family filled with enablers who encourage behavior that weakens consumer trust.
This sudden new reverse status of thrift and restraint combined with how excessive displays of consumption and lavish lifestyles have become unfashionable (in case you haven’t heard, bankers and by association the arm candy they used to finance are way unpopular symbols right about now) have left this insider clique looking, dare I say, out of date. And scurrying to regain their relevance in a way that seems to echo Wall Street’s denial that the way of life they’d become accustomed to isn’t going to ‘return to normal.’ Ever.
Hopefully these cracks in the establishment will provide opportunities for genuine innovation and relevant collections from heretofore excluded designers.
No comments:
Post a Comment