Is this going to involve implants?

People often take up careers they shouldn’t. Heidi Montag, for instance, probably shouldn’t have tried her hand at singing, and Lindsay Lohan would have been better off focusing on maintaining her sanity rather than designing a line of leggings.

In the same way that these two women should have stuck to what they know, Kim Kardashian should stick to… having a really nice ass? I’m not really sure what her “career” is, but I am quite certain that it’s never going to be dressing me. This ad popped up on a blog I was reading the other day:

First: NO. I would not like to “get styled” by Kim Kardashian. Pretty sure all she does when choosing an outfit is call up Herve Leger and get them to send her their latest bandage creation, grab one of the six thousand pairs of Jimmy Choos in her closet, and then head out the door. No disrespect to Herve or Tamara Mellon, I’m just getting at the fact that there isn’t a whole lot of depth to Kim’s style.

Even the picture they chose highlights her lack of fashion sense. It’s all about her boobs and her long shiny hair. I mean, the most interesting thing about that black dress is the neckline, and you can barely hear it over how loud her boobs are screaming for your attention.

Then there’s the copy. I’ve addressed the whole getting styled part, but bringing high fashion to the masses? Is she trying to be charitable? Once again, you don’t need to be wearing what was just on the Dior runway to look good. It’s about cultivating a sense of style, taking inspiration from those around you, and piecing items together in a unique way that reflects who you are.

Basically, the day I let Kim Kardashian take me shopping is the day I start wearing jumpsuits to work. Actually, those two events might be simultaneous.

No room for guessing

I moved to the big, bad city of Toronto about a month ago, and if anything, it’s provided me with a lot to look at. I live in the gay village, fondly known as the gaybourhood, so I see a lot of really well-dressed men who don’t give a rat’s assless chaps that I think they look good… I’ve also seen a lot of assless chaps.

When I do leave the gaybourhood, it’s generally to go to work, and that takes place in the financial district where the suits are expensive and stress levels are high. Toronto has never been a city that made me think of style. I knew there were a lot of wealthy Torontonians with cash to blow on what Vogue tells them to, but Montreal or Vancouver always seemed to be far more sartorially-aware.

While I do see a lot of stylish people, Toronto reminds me on a pretty regular basis that money does not buy you taste or style. I see women with massive Coach bags that are basically turning them into walking advertisements; these kinds of branded bags are status symbols. But when you’re pairing your bag with sweats and sneakers and completely relying on said bag to achieve some sense of style, there’s a serious disconnect. That cool thousand bucks you put on your credit card could have been put to much better use.

Anyway, that rant has a point. In the same way that Coach reminds me that money does not equate to style, GUESS continues to remind me that just because a retailer wants to charge you 300 dollars for a micro mini, it doesn’t make it classy or stylish. GUESS is a brand that has always bothered me. Now, their price points aren’t quite as high as Coach’s, but they’re toting the same stuff that Dynamite shoves down the throats of 16-year-olds, with the big, main, in-your-face difference: it’s got that GUESS label slapped on it, in and out of sight.

And their ad campaigns are SEXY. Did you notice? Did you know that women with their boobs falling out of their bustiers and pouty lips and big hair are sexy? Also, did you know that Barack Obama is the first black American president and that peanut butter is made with peanuts? It’s pretty blatant, is what I’m getting at. See the picture below of a window ad from the GUESS in Manhattan:

Alright, here we have a typical image that GUESS uses to convince you that it’s time to purchase something that is going to Vastly Improve your life, and you’ve come to the right place.

Everyone is pretty aware that the world is steeped in phallic symbols. Everything from a hot dog to a skyscraper evokes male genitalia, and whether you write that off as misogyny or smart architecture, it’s all around you. However, I’ve never really thought binoculars were particularly penis-like… until GUESS made them that way. And, to top it all off, there are two cylindrical protrusions! Perfect. I guess whatever bird or whale or drowning child that lifeguard dude is neglecting must be pretty exciting to make her mouth hang open like that. Again, perfect.

There is a better image from GUESS' spring 2011 campaign that I can't seem to find. It's pretty similar to this one, except only her face is in the shot and he is holding the binoculars a lot closer... I'll find it eventually and put it up.

Anyway, it's just a little frustrating that advertisers feel the need to resort to such blatant sexuality to appeal to consumers. You don't have to make me understand that sex sells; I have the Internet, and I went to high school. But it's pretty clear that GUESS' words are speaking a lot louder than their actions, because I bet the majority of the population would rather have GUESS billboards on their walls than GUESS clothing on their backs. The ads are cheap, distasteful, and are clearly trying hard to make up for what the brand's apparel lacks.

Rant OVER :) It's been bothering me since I left New York in April, and the flame of discomfort was reignited when I arrived in Toronto.

Side note: Yes, there is a rather large gap between this post and the last, but it's summer now! Things will change! I'm visiting Montreal a lot!

Paris is pissed

Hollywood people are always really nice to look at. That’s a given. But sometimes, someone comes out of the woodwork who is just so insanely good looking, it freaks you out.

Such is the case with Blake Lively, or Boobs Legsly, as the girls of Go Fug Yourself endearingly refer to her. And Blake is just that. She has legs for days, and boobs that a team of plastic surgeons couldn’t have planned better. The fact that the girl can’t act is beside the point; throwing her in one of your movies or on your TV show is foolproof because, regardless of gender or sexual preference, no one can resist her.

Of course, she has the kind of beauty that muses are made of. Karl Lagerfeld seems to think so, at least. He made Blake the new face of Chanel last month, and she looks quite lovely in the campaign.

See?

And here’s a video of those ads being made, with some pretty cool glimpses of Lagerfeld photographing Blake.

http://chanel-news.chanel.com/en/making-the-ad/video-the-mademoiselle-campaign-with-blake-lively/

Despite her beauty, apparently Blake has been getting the cold shoulder from the rest of the Chanel team. They don’t think she fits the brand, and they do not support Lagerfeld’s decision to employ her.

I can see that. When I think of Blake Lively’s style, I think of short dresses that serve the sole purpose of putting her assets on display. I think of bright colours and bold patterns. None of these things are Chanel. Chanel is classic and conservative and timeless. Tweeds are their trademark, and neutral shades are what they come in. It’s beautiful and undeniable, and it has worked for the fashion house for over a hundred years.

Now, Lagerfeld may be looking to change the face of Chanel, and give it a more youthful edge. But as they say, don’t fix what ain’t broke, and Chanel is definitely not broken. I can’t imagine a day when I open the pages of Vogue and can’t identify exactly what is a Chanel piece, why it is beautiful, and why I want to make sweet, sweet love to it.

Perhaps Lagerfeld’s minions are right. The ads do look great, but I really don’t think Blake was the appropriate choice to represent the brand. She’s the girl next door who wears fun cocktail dresses, not the lady up the street who has fifty little black dresses for every occasion. Blake wore Marchesa to an event she recently attended, and I think that says a lot. Their dresses are bold and far better suited to a woman like Blake. To be honest, the Chanel ad campaign featuring her almost feels like a mistake.

Moral of the story: beauty isn’t everything, and there will always be someone who is looking past it to see what is truly going on inside. Either that or Lagerfeld’s team is a bunch of bitchy skinny chicks who are jealous and upset that he didn’t listen to their pitch instead of taking your gorgeous bod on board.

Isn’t it cool that you can learn something like that from Chanel? The first part, not that people can be bitchy. That’s a lesson you can learn at Walmart.

Rape is fun when you're wearing Italian couture

Coco Chanel once said, “Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”

Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with Coco, and I absolutely think fashion is a beautiful and creative way to express oneself. Not everyone has a similar opinion, and the fashion industry is often labeled as the catalyst for poor body image, a shameless promoter of consumerism, and anti-feminism.

And when I turn the page to an ad like the one below, it’s not hard to see why. Four dudes greased up and in the process of what one can only assume is gang rape doesn’t really make me look at the clothing in this ad so much as wonder if it comes with pepper spray. 

 

Dolce & Gabbana, being an Italian fashion house, always runs provocative ads that are usually quite beautiful. Take the one below, for example.

The detail in the white dresses draws your eye immediately to it, and the contrast between the stern model in black, and the hysterical models in white makes you stop and wonder what’s going on and why women dressed so beautifully can’t chill out and get along.

You could say this is a fairly uncharacteristic Dolce & Gabbana ad campaign, especially in comparison to the one I posted above it. It’s not hard to see why people criticize the fashion industry when it’s churning out images like the former. This could easily be written off to the fact that this, like the clothes, is a product of Italy, a place where no one thinks twice about nudity in the pages of their Vogue Italia. But can we not put cultural relativism aside and agree that there is a clear representation of sexual male dominance in this image, and that several men forcing a woman to have sex with them is wrong?

Uh, yeah, we can.

I love Dolce & Gabbana’s fall/winter 2011 collection, which is the collection the second ad displays. But there are ways to create a sexy ad that doesn’t make me want to call the cops on the male models. Hopefully Dolce & Gabbana figures this out soon so that their incredible work isn’t overshadowed by a perpetuation of the evils people associate with fashion.

Marc Jacobs, you are usually my sunshine

Last Christmas, I was reading Tavi Gevinson’s blog, and coveting her request for Juergen Teller’s book of Marc Jacobs ad photography. The book is stunning, but unfortunately, so is the price, so I didn’t even bother putting it on my list… a decision I regret big time. 

The ads that Teller has photographed for Marc Jacobs over the past decade are incredible and ground-breaking. They blur gender, put celebrities in interesting positions, and sometimes cause a little discomfort.

The book, called Juergen Teller: Marc Jacobs Advertising 1998-2009, is a compilation of these ads, and like everything with the Marc Jacobs name on it, I love it. I can’t get enough of the images, and as soon as amazon.ca decides they want to sell it to me or I find it in whatever city I move to next year, I WILL own it.

With these ads being as fabulous as they are, and spring-summer 2011 collections debuting, I figured some kind of equally excellent Marc Jacobs ad campaign was surfacing. So I did some research, and found this:

Disappointing, no? This is awfully drab, considering it is for a spring-summer collection, and Marc Jacobs. Granted, it is the Marc by Marc Jacobs line, but that is no excuse to skimp. The dress on the right is gorgeous, and if I were taller, I’d start selling my soul for it now. And I like the contrast of the outfit on the right with the one on the left. But the atmosphere is all wrong. It’s what I imagine a backyard in a crappy LA suburb looks like. It makes me miss the monochromatic backgrounds of the old campaigns, a method that displayed Jacobs’ pieces beautifully.

Ah well, my February subscriptions should be rolling through the door any day now, and perhaps some redemption in the form of improved Marc Jacobs ad campaigns will arrive with them.

Enjoy The Show

Alber Elbaz of Lanvin is the latest to join the likes of Jimmy Choo and Comme des Garçons as a guest designer for H&M. The collection launched on November 4th of this year, and was available in stores on the 20th. I am one of the unfortunate humans who does not have regular access to an H&M (nearest one is two hours away), so I was not afforded the pleasure of waiting in a five block line and fighting with other fashion-hungry tiny people for the last extra small Lanvin for H&M frock. 


While I am currently unable to figure out which Canadian H&M stores were graced with the presence of this collection, it doesn't really matter; from what I've heard, it sold out everywhere as soon as it hit the racks. Ah well, time to hit up eBay...

Anyway, this film, called "The Show", has since hit the internet:

Interesting, right?

This is apparently meant to reflect a typical dream had by a designer. Hence the sketches and the surrealism of the whole thing. In a behind-the-scenes discussion of this promo video, Elbaz himself explains that he wanted to portray the demographic Lanvin caters to, which is both mother and daughter; the older woman is wearing the same asymmetrical yellow dress as the younger woman. Everything in this video comes in pairs, it seems, as the mistress meets the girlfriend, and the two women on their phones meet in the hallway. This is different from the usual image of uniqueness fashion labels like to uphold, but it does make me feel like even the most unfortunate of incidents can be overcome with a mutual love for a little black dress.

The most important thing here is that the dresses, which seem to be the base for the collection, are shown off. Every piece is seen from many angles, how it moves, what to pair it with, and even how to cover up a stain with a handy Lanvin for H&M necklace. 


The main problem that I noticed in terms of the actual modelling of the pieces was that the only "average" sized woman in the entire video was... on a treadmill. Now, I do not know what was behind that decision, but I am surely not the only one who had to go back and check that out again. If you're going to cater to an atypical demographic spanning across generations, let's try not to discriminate based on weight, yes? 


There are certain stigmas within the fashion world, especially when it comes to the size of models. It's sad when an industry that produces such beauty and facilitates amazing creativity is blamed for the poor body image that many of us have, and throwing the only normal-sized woman in your video on an exercise machine does nothing but pad that argument. I love you, Lanvin, but seriously, you know better.

Apart from that slight misstep, the film is beautifully shot and definitely approaches the noisy world of fashion advertising in a unique way. I have yet to see a magazine ad for Lanvin's new collection, and I have yet to see a similar viral video approach to raising awareness of a fashion line. While I do appreciate the fresh approach, I still see this film as a supplement to the guaranteed success of all H&M collaborators: accessible designer clothing that flies off racks faster than you can say, "holy crap, that's Lanvin and it's only a hundred bucks?!" Which I can say pretty fast.

A brief introduction

There is a newspaper that runs my life, and while it may be a small publication, it has a stronghold on me. Once the semester starts back up again, my life will more than likely be consumed by it. In the meantime, it is Christmas break, and I have lots of wisdom teeth-removal recovery time and avoiding-applications time to devote to things pertaining to what I love: fashion. Be it the tiny town I live in, which is filled with a surprisingly vast array of stylish people to judge and admire, or the pages of the Vogue Best Dressed I recently bought, I believe in fashion’s ability to make my world and yours a better place… or at least better to look at.


While many of us have given up our magazine subscriptions for the more economical e-fashion world, there is still the occasional impulse purchase at the checkout counter (especially when it’s Blake Lively in a gold Reed Krakoff number). No doubt, you have noticed that the first, oh, ninety pages of every magazine are devoted to advertising space. This is something I understand. I understand that print media is soon to be extinct, and that revenue has to come from somewhere. And I understand that fashion retailers and designers have to make readers aware of their offerings. Which is why I am going to put this under the microscope.


Advertisements, either in print or onscreen, can be beautiful. Recall the stunning mini-movies directed by Baz Luhrmann for Chanel, and the quirky monochrome ads photographed by Juergen Teller for Marc Jacobs. They’re perfectly styled, and showcase the designers’ fare for those of us who can’t make it to New York Fashion Week. In the same way, ads can be oversexed, underwhelming, and a waste of a glossy page.


So this will be my general focus, save for the occasional rant about panty lines and Ugg boots in the dead of slushy Canadian winter. Enjoy!