posted by margaret

May 31, 2007 11:40AM

I haven't bought a copy of Vogue in years. I do look at the fashion shows on style.com though.

My biggest influences are the street and The Sartorialist blog.

posted by sophie

May 31, 2007 11:55AM

you had to look up oligarchy? didn't you receive some form of education?

posted by MH

May 31, 2007 12:07PM

I agree with Horyn--the modern marketing machine right now commidifies individual fashion in the worst way. There used to be a divide between street style and Vogue, which allowed for the average consumer to have something to wear and something to aspire too. But now, the moment a Leigh Lezark makes a splash in the public consciousness, she's snapped up and embraced by the mainstream, and her style is commodified in its own way.

It's the same issue as the TONY Hipster cover story--trendsetters don't seem stylish for the sake of being stylish, they're stylish for the sake of getting others to notice, to get the Sartorialist to stop and take their picture or Faran to look in their bag.

In a way its all an outgrowth of celebrity-worshipping syndrome--now not only do we get to watch their every move and dress like them, but if we inspire other people the way they do, maybe we'll become one of them! It's enough to make a thinking woman want to pull a Vera Wang and wear black leggings and white shirts every day.

And yes, Sophie, Faran went to Duke. But obviously she was not a history major. Or else skipped fifth grade on her way there.

posted by Faran

May 31, 2007 12:16PM

Actually, I've just gotten to the point where I admit when I don't know something, regardless of how it's perceived. I think only the best kind of educations can teach you that.

posted by guest

May 31, 2007 12:54PM

I speak for myself, I do buy Vogues because I like the spreads but It's been a long time since I took any idea from it. This magazines lately just seem like an official confirmation of what people on the street already knew.
All the best fashion ideas I took from blogs and the street, the question is who's the major power influencing everyone? well it's a circle and probably will never know. But fashion lately has been more democratic, the Chanel bag per se will not make you fashionable,, the "elite" is not something to aspire to anymore. Seems like the Oligarchs already understood that, probably that's why the divide between Vogue and the street is dying.

posted by db

May 31, 2007 1:02PM

I must disagree with Faran's interpretation of Ms. Horyn's comments. I think the cheap-n-chic stores are offering more to customers shopping at low price points than ever before. Remember when the only items available at that price point came from Old Navy, Walmart or thrift shops? The lack of choice kept most 'bargain' shoppers looking uniform. Today, there is much more choice for that shopper.
I do agree with Ms. Horyn's opinions on high-fashion. There are a select few brands (many of which are also the biggest advertisers) that enjoy press mention after press mention. These power-brands go beyond the advertising dollars--they treat key editors to many perks such as business (ha-ha!) getaways, tickets to galas, etc... How are the small brands expected to keep up with such bribery?
Much of Horyn’s criticism surrounded the fashion industry's ideals becoming uniforms--Emaciated 14 year olds wearing one season's trend after another. Skinny suits one season, voluminous dresses the next...
This is why most of the 'industry' mocks anything that is truly ground-breaking. For example, we laugh at London Fashion week, particularly the edgy upstarts.
This 'machine' is what prevents true innovators from financially succeeding in this industry. While I was visiting the Poirot exhibit, I concluded that his out-of-the box thinking would never have lasted for more than a season in today's world. Perhaps not if he was dating somebody from Miramax...

posted by sll

May 31, 2007 1:03PM

This supposed divide btw. couture and street is not suddenly dying. Humans have been mixing high/low since the dawn of design - we just have more access to documentation these days. And it didn't start in the pages of Vogue.

posted by Streetheart

May 31, 2007 1:09PM

DB, that's exactly what Faran was saying !

posted by db

May 31, 2007 1:16PM

Streetheart, I am disagreeing with the hi vs low theory. My long-winded point is that the 'bargain' shoppers are the ones with more diverse choices today versus the luxury shopping voguebots.

posted by Faran

May 31, 2007 1:22PM

DB, I think that's a very interesting point, though I often curse that if I had a wider budget, I could triple my personal style choices.

Streetheart, I'm furious we didn't think to name our street style posts "Streetheart" and I demand you begin your own blog immediately.

posted by Kris

May 31, 2007 1:57PM

Haha. You didn't really have to look up oligarchy, did you? Really?

I think Cathy has a good point. As much as fashion is inspired by the street kids (that article you posted last week), it doesn't become "fashion" until the industry picks up on the styles. The industry is run by a small group of elite, and they tell America what do wear in two ways: 1. magazines. 2. When the commercial brands pick up on the styles a season or two later and mass produce/market them. I really think most of America wears what they are told to, not what they choose.

posted by Miss Jeffrey

May 31, 2007 2:05PM

I have to agree with the post about high v low fashion being done for a while now. What really bought the concept into the mainstream was when Sharon Stone wore a GAP tshirt and ball skirt to the Oscars or was it the Golden Globes, I can't remember.

However in today's fashion, US/NYC 'fashion' is more about manufacturing an idea rather than producing actual fashion. London is laughed at, but yet all the smart editors & stylists run there for ideas and inspiration. (Let's not forget 2 Brtisish boys that designe(d) for major French fashion houses.)

Most good personal style ideas come from the street and a bit of the high-end aspirations. Everybody has couture dreams, but most live on pret a porter budgets.

Today it's about picking bits an pieces of what 's you can afford that's high end, mixing it with low end, and saying "BAG OFF' to WHAT NOT TO WEAR, the TODAY SHOW, etc. If you're reading a blog to get style cues, you're already lost and should hire a personal shopper at Barney's.

Oh yeah, Leigh Lezark and the Misshapes style is so old n tired I can't believe they still get mentions. But leave it too VOGUE to think it's 'cool.'

posted by Stephanie

May 31, 2007 2:34PM

This is very much a 'chicken or the egg' issue. Influence is fluid, we all steal ideas, whether conciously or not, and these various permutations of style begin, flourish, and die like anything else that exists mainly in the public's collective conscious.

That being said, I thought it was huge when Nicolas Ghesquiere said his main influence for the fall 07 collection was 'the girl on the street, with her jacket and scarf'. Style is creating something interesting and beautiful with what you have, in real-life. Vogue mag is a collection of intimidating advertisements designed to stimulate desire in its readers. It's beautiful, and occasionally inspiring, but will always lack the spontaneity and creativity of some random girl walking around with a great outfit she made up herself.

Also, the idea of AW's far-reaching and unerring influence is getting tres boring, in my opinion.

posted by sean

May 31, 2007 2:38PM

does it matter if she had to look up the word oligarchy??
who uses that word anyway?
do YOU use that word??

didn't think so!

posted by Ilene

May 31, 2007 2:51PM

Re: fashion rules
I actually completely disagree with the opinion that fashion has suddenly "changed" overnight into an industry with set rules and guidelines.

I was recently talking to my mother, who grew up in the 50s, and she said that now more than ever is there a sense of "anything goes". When she was growing up, if you didn't adhere to the current trend you were an outcast and setting yourself apart from what everyone else was doing... and this was in NYC.

Nowadays you can wear whatever you want, mix and match and more or less dress from any decade that you choose. Pulling it off is a different story altogether and certainly requires a certain amount of confidence on your part. Nevertheless, we still continue to celebrate those who push fashion forward and go above and beyond what "everyone else is doing" (think Bjork, Gwen Stefani, dare I even say Kate Moss since she creates most of these trends?).

re: budget dressing
I have a lot of friends who manage to pull off some pretty cool outfits without buying anything over $100. It's all about having "the eye".

re: leigh lezark
I'm not sure where this one popped up, but honestly, does she even have "style"? I have never seen her in anything except black.

posted by sll

May 31, 2007 2:57PM

Of course someone who grew up in America the effin' '50s is going to say that! Conformity ruled the day back then.

posted by ae

May 31, 2007 3:51PM

So, while I think its great you've come to a point where you can be upfront when you don't understand something, I think the fact that you had to look up oligarchy (and I believe the Gawker write up pegged you as a college grad) speaks volumes about the poor quality of education in the United States. That it is possible for someone to get through middle school and/or high school without learning about the different forms of government is so friggin sad I am finding it hard to find the words to express how I feel.

People often ask me why I have given up on politics, and I think this is a great example of why. When we're rapidly devolving into a society of people who can do well on standardized tests but lack an understanding of the world (because even with a basic Latin course you should be able to figure out what oligarchy means; and if not Latin studying romance languages would clue you in to the stem "olig" meaning a few; or even a class on world history would alight one to the term; perhaps even reading something other than fashion magazines in which one would see words like "oligopoly" and "theocracy"), what the hell is the point of caring which dummy stands up as the leader of this supposed great nation.

Anyway, rant over. I realize the target audience here likely could give a crap.

I am so moving to France after business school...

posted by snowballa

May 31, 2007 4:07PM

i love your comments ae. i agree totally. i am always fantasizing of opening up my own school: from pre-K to 12th grade and reteaching a lot of the shit we learn in schools. why should kids wait until college to know the true story about christopher columbus (HE DID NOT DISCOVER AMERICA!) or that racism didn't end after the 1960s.

anyway, i love this blog.

posted by Courtney

May 31, 2007 4:07PM

Criticizing someone for not remembering what "oligarchy" means is like criticizing someone for not knowing what a delta epsilon equation is. Everyone I know could solve those when we were in college, but since very few people use them outside of the academic world, there's no real point in holding on to it. The academic snobbery rampant here is more disturbing to me than the fact that Faran (and I'm sure a the vast majority of college educated people) doesn't know what one word means.

posted by Cerulean

May 31, 2007 4:12PM

isn't that part of the point? that the underpinnings of fashion are corseted by its own institutional memory?

we can look to the streets or to Old Navy or to thrift stores – but aren't we still in "their thrall?" the thrall of the few who approved fashions before they were thrifted, before they were watered down for the cheap chains?

and aren't the merchants of cool ultimately in their thrall as they analyze images of street visionaries and early adopters who spread the gospel of fashion reinvention from the streets to the catwalk to the masses and back?

it's fitting, though, that the question is posed on the last day of the month in which we lost Isabella Blow –

the ranks of the fashion oligarchs have shrunk by a measure of one – one visionary, one early adopter – without whom, we may unknowingly wear robes of mourning until the next generation of art and style comes of age and awakens us to the energy of the new-new look

some have written, "fashion has a rotten heart"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article1782128.ece

but I believe its soul is transcendent...

then again, I also read Vogue & shop in Target & my mom's closet & ignore "style rules" & (shhh) even eat food, so my opinions are probably just blood sugar skewed dreck :)

posted by Cerulean

May 31, 2007 4:20PM

all that obnoxious typing but I still can't figure out what to wear tonight?! nice.

posted by tesstricks

May 31, 2007 7:26PM

Haha, Cerulean. :)

Nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something. Everyone doesn't know something, but not everyone goes out and tries to learn. Thanks for looking it up, Faran, so I didn't have to. :P

ae - What do you mean by giving up politics? What makes a democratic government work is the people's involvement. Having that power forcibly taken away is one thing, but individuals voluntarily eschewing that power--through not voting, not knowing what's going on in the world, or by "giving up politics"--only ends up biting them in the asses at the end, and I would agree with you that this kind of attitude is rampant in America, more so than in France.

Yum, off-topic!

posted by Bonnie Lass

May 31, 2007 8:00PM

SANCTIMONIOUS:
adj : excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile" [syn: holier-than-thou, pietistic, pietistical, pharisaic, pharisaical, self-righteous]

posted by es

May 31, 2007 11:17PM

quit being bitches about faran looking into something. in my line of work, the best thing to do when you aren't 100% sure is to say, "i need to get back to you on that" rather than make an ass out of yourself.

posted by astrid

Jun 01, 2007 1:32AM

faran didn't have to admit to looking it up; she could have easily let you do it yourself. i sincerely hope your self-righteousness on the internet has lessened the irritation of those who have to deal with you jerks in real life.

people considering themselves too cool for vogue are laughable. magazines aren't blogs or wikipedia entries or whatever -- they are dated, both literally and figuratively, the moment they come out. i've read vogue my entire life and never has it led me to believe that it begins and ends each trend. it simply documents them.

as far as fashion as oligarchy goes: once a designer co-opts a street style, the hipsters have moved on, which keeps things nice and democratic. the only reason to cry foul is if you're snobby enough to get bent out of shape about paying more for the same basic thing as someone you deem less deserving of its awesomeness.

posted by a

Jun 01, 2007 9:15AM

I'm a little concerned with the valorization of Target and Old Navy (even Bitten) here without consideration of the way the clothes are made, likely in sweatshops in China. If anybody has followed the fashion commentary in the British press (The Guardian and Times in particular), there's been a lot of criticism about this really cheap clothing (sub-High Street pricing) and the politics of its production and the ecological issues of throw away fashion (which gets us back to the Anya Hindmarsh bag discussions). Also, it's worth noting that the low end of the market is as oligarchical and corporatized as any designer label. I hardly think Old Navy etc. represents freedom or, in my limited opinion, style either--the options at this end of the market are very restricted. And let's be honest, as Faran was, money does buy more options. While I know the topic here was primarily how fashion comes about through use rather than from above, I remember using vintage in the 1980s and 1990s mixed and matched with newer items. I had no money then and likely a less trained eye, but recycling seemed more prominent back then. Of course, we may have recycled ourselves out of vintage (and I don't mean the vintage worn at Oscars but from grandmother's closets and cheap vintage clothing stores etc.).

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the historical premise of the post--as one poster noted, the 1950s were more codified and rule-bound and even the 1970s and 1990s had rules that weren't as flexible (e.g. on the width of pants, waist heights, etc,). I don't think we can make a single grand statement on how this has progressed/regressed.

Personally, I think that there have been more options made available from above (stores, magazines, fashion shows, etc.) since the 1990s and a certain dimunition of street trends--think of the sometimes ugly but fascinating creativity of the 1970s-early 1990s, with the fomulation of subcultures that were then reappropriated by fashion houses (punk, goth, grunge, New Romatics, hip hop, etc.). While blogs democratize, they don't have the same visibility or readership as magazines. Maybe the illusion of choice from corporate sources makes us think we don't have to try to create and do our own thing, or maybe most people are busy/don't care.

In some ways, I think what we're discussing is more style vs fashion (although I think the dichotomy here is often false). And oligarchy too in that the bottom and top end of the markets have been colonized by capital. But in the end, there are always going to be people who are creative and do their own thing, and other people who aren't interested in clothes. I'd imagine many more people would fit into the latter end of this equation and have their own interests and tastes aside from clothing.

posted by Jael

Jun 01, 2007 2:50PM

Faran, good for you for looking it up. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know everything in our information soaked age. I would, however, like to point out that oligarchies have to do with government and oligopolies have to do with markets.

posted by Jen

Jun 01, 2007 3:20PM

"Anyway, rant over. I realize the target audience here likely could give a crap."

ae -- you mean couldn't give a crap. Those in glass houses...

posted by The Fashion Informer

Jun 01, 2007 3:43PM

Thank you Astrid, for the much-needed laugh. This line::

"I sincerely hope your self-righteousness on the internet has lessened the irritation of those who have to deal with you jerks in real life."

...made me laugh so hard I almost spit out my sandwich. Sing it, sister!

(And Faran, there is NEVER any shame in admitting you don't know something. Don't let these puff-chested finger-waggers make you think otherwise.)

posted by guest

Jun 01, 2007 3:54PM

i think its a good idea for you to move to france ae!

posted by The Spartanette

Jun 01, 2007 8:28PM

I do think we still have freedom with our clothing choices, that it's not a total "oligarchy," but I agree with whoever pointed out that the lower ends of the market (Old Navy, etc.) are often just ripping off more expensive versions. So maybe that means we just have the freedom to be fashionable. As "Adventures in Copyright Infringement" has shown us, you can easily find designer looks at Forever 21. So bargain shoppers can still rock runway-inspired things (but didn't we learn that on "The Look for Less" circa 2002??) Does that make you stylish? I mean, maybe. "Stylish." Or maybe just "keeping with current fashions." I don't think most major trends right now (and what you're going to find in stores) would exist if it weren't for fashion magazines, runways, editors, etc. so in that sense, maybe someone else picked out what we're wearing each day months ago.

Anyway, I just moved to NYC to intern at a fashion magazine and so I'm obsessed with street style and the style I see at work every day. And the people I work with--the top of the oligarchy (and about its definition...seriously, are we debating Latin root words on a FASHION BLOG?) I suppose--wear H & M dresses with Prada heels. (And both H & M and Prada can produce things that are beautiful and things that really suck.) I've also noticed lately it's considered absolutely acceptable and even praised to wear clothes from Forever 21 and Target and call it "high-low" but I doubt anyone would go around patting you on the back if you admitted your shoes were from JC Penny.

But...the right it bag isn't going to make you automatically look good any more than JC Penny shoes are going to automatically make you look bad. And every time I've gotten a compliment on something I wear to my internship, it's hasn't cost more than $20, because I am a poor college student/unpaid intern, so my whole look is pretty much "low-low." I'd have MORE clothes if I had an unlimited budget, but I wouldn't necessarily look better.