Is It A Man? Is It A Woman?

Is it a tumour?! Today's rant comes from my reading this month and the A/S seasonal i-D and Pop magazines last night. I know I've had a go at fashion magazines in the past but of late they have been getting better. In fact I loved the editorial in Pop and I don't usually read editorials. But back to the point, it wasn't the way the mags were written, it was some of the fashion included inside.

I'm not one to judge on appearance but some of the "fashion" I saw was just silly. To start with let's take a look at i-D. P.56, the title is 'Shape and Form: Build, make destroy. Taking a look at the two pictures below the heading it is clear to see that the two designers have clearly thought about doing all three and ended up only the latter. Giles and Junya Watanabe are the convicts up for trial. Starting with Giles.

i-D described his season's work as "sexy michelin men". I'm quite sure that that is an oxymoron. To be fair it looked like someone had given the model a dress made out of an air bed and then blown it up. I wish we were in the days when fashion all about looking a billion dollars. Not like an oversized blueberry. If I could find you a photo of it I would happily pop it down. Instead I'll move onto Junya's work before I annoy someone.

Now it was her work that got on my nerves the most. I can easily relate her work to conceptual art. Now I'm not one to be biased either but personally I find Stuckism a LOT better than the YBA's. I've drifted off subject again. In short I am not a fan of conceptual rubbish. Therefore when I saw a woman wearing what appeared to be a pair of tights over multiple tumour like growths coming out of the top of her head needless to say I wasn't very impressed. I-D described it as "sculptural face covering turbans." To me it looked like something out of Resident Evil. Utter rubbish. I mean how can you say "Oh yeah I totally get what she is getting at," because what she is getting at is NOTHING. If the film Idiocracy was real this is what fashion would be like.

On the other hand I found Pop's mixture of cheese and jewellery very refreshing. I always like their Juxtapositioning of strange items. Although some of the time it makes little sense it always makes me chuckle. Oh and i-D is worth reading. I just found a couple of articles exceptionally goriffic. I loved their interview with Stella McCartney.

Rant Over.

Mr. Green, meet Mr. Vuitton

For this to make ANY SENSE read the post below first.

After that little number I think it's time for a rant about how eco fashion needs to get its ass in gear. It's all very well giving the workers the amount of money they deserve and 'keeping it real' but when the idea of real attracts around 0.1% of the world's population, you can't help but think that if they really wanted to make money and change the fashion world then they would aim their stuff at the mass market.

Levis have the right idea. So do H&M (even though they make rubbish clothes). Levis have released an organic cotton range. I'm not sure whether it's fair trade too. But it's a start. H&M have done the same thing but I have a sneaking suspicion that their clothes are made in grotty places.

I think it's time to name and shame some BAD COMPANIES. PRIMARK=EVIL. The only reason you can buy your clothes so cheaply is because they get them made for nout. Less than nout. Tescos is worse. They have around three times as much money as any other high street chain the last time I checked. They destroy boutiques and make it hard for new designers who want to show their individuality. And their clothes are RANK.

On the other glove, American Apparel are extremely good. They make their clothes in house in LA(X) and still keep their prices relatively low. Junky Styling. JUNKY STYLING. Genius. They take old garms and make them into new babies of loveliness. MMMMM. Nice.

This connects to my previous post, in I was reading how they took an old Louis Vuitton bag and made it into a new piece of originality. Clever stuff.

Well that's enough I think. Although the post went nowhere. I need to make a criteria next time.
Au revoir

Mr Vuitton, meet Mr. Green

I was looking over my previous posts and had the realisation that I haven't actually written about serious fashion. So it's time to combine. Louis Vuitton meets ECO FASH. Nice huh? Although I'm going to spread it over two posts. The first is on the problem with over priced fashion.

So there I was, wandering down 5th Avenue in New York when on the other side of the road I spotted a man. It wasn't the man that attracted my attentipon but his bag. Upon arriving home I searched and searched for it and finally found what I had been looking for. The Louis Vuitton Damier Geant, Citadin NM bag. It was a plain-ish black canvas satchel and I loved it. My eyes strayed to the top and I saw the price. 425 English Pounds. It still surpasses me as to how a plain-ish canvas bag can cost SO much.


It certainly is a nice bag. And I think that Louis Vuitton make certain items that are certainly original and VERY nice. Yet somehow it seems empty. Like the bag has no love. It could have been made by an oil baron or a love puppet, for me it makes no difference. The price just takes the edge off it. I know why they do it: to keep their wares indivdual and so that only a select few have them. But still...

It's the same story with so many brands too. They make their clothes and accesories for tuppance by some poor laborer in some forsaken sweat shop and then sell their clothes for 5000% of the price. It disgusts me. But we cannot just stop buying their wares. This would be even more detremntal. No instead we should introduce Fairtrade Laws.