I don’t loathe the fact that this is a garbage bag turned into designer handbag, these days $2000 for a designer Louis Vuitton trash bag is not that big a deal, considering the inflated prices on some luxury products. It’s ridiculous, yes, but so are $2700 shoes and $43,000 suits. What I loathe is the fact that the design isn’t that great. It doesn’t look good, at all.

P.S. I dare you all to take a garbage bag, attach an old leather belt as a strap, and paint interlocking C’s on it. Just for fun…Le Sac Poubelle Chanel.

P.P.S. Louis Vuitton are bloody smart. I doubt they expect to sell many of these, but the amount of press they’ve gotten on them is worth way more than the profit they’ll have on the bags. I am sure store traffic will increase with one of these things in the window. Damn they’re good!

The new Alice in Wonderland movie directed by Tim Burton is bound to be a visual feast. It will come out on March 5th, and the stars include Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Anne Hathaway. I looked up some of the visuals on the movie’s website, and they look amazing.

Now, with that in mind, maybe someone can explain this disastrous Alice in Wonderland themed window at Printemps.

A bit of background, Printemps is a big luxury department store in Paris. Powerful retailers, such as Printemps, sometimes ask brands to create special pieces for them, which can be exclusive limited edition collections or special display items, which will help the store to sell the brands.

Just looking at this photo reminds me of how much I miss shopping in Europe...

So, Printemps has asked designers like Ann Demeulemeester, Alexander McQueen, Christopher Kane, Chloé, Charles Anastase, and Haider Ackermann to design special pieces for their Alice in Wonderland-themed window displays. These are all designers that I respect and like, so I really cannot understand why the resulting window displays do not look very Alice in Wonderland, or fairy tale, or interesting at all. It basically looks like the designers, aside from Maison Martin Margiela and Nicholas Kirkwood, couldn’t be bothered to actually make something for the window, so they took an old piece from an old collection and made up an Alice “story” to go along with it.

Seriously, how is any of this related to Alice in Wonderland? (By the way, the images and quotes below come from an article on Style.com, you can read more about it here.)

Chloe says: "“Running around careless and free in a romantic dress, falling down the rabbit hole, chasing time in a dreamlike state of mind, meeting unexpected characters with many tales to tell—sounds like many a girl’s night out!” I say: boring navy blue dress worn best on a "fat day."

Charles Anastase says: "“I went to John Tenniel’s original illustration of Alice for inspiration. She’s seated at a table having tea, and her dress looks much more asymmetrical and theatrical than that boring Walt Disney version.” I say: A white and blue pouffy dress does not equal Alice in Wonderland.

Haider Ackermann says: "“My favorite character is the Duchess, who at first seems nearly as unpleasant as the Queen of Hearts. When I was designing this piece, I was seeing Alice running, escaping through the forest destroying her shiny dress." I say: This dress looks nothing like Alice in Wonderland, or the Duchess. In fact, that horrible rounded slit on the front makes the dress go from "interesting" to "scary."

Here are some of the better pieces.

Nicholas Kirkwood says: "“I think my favorite Alice character is the March Hare. You can see I’ve made his watch rather prominent. ...this time, I figured, why not just pile as much as I can on top?” I say: Nicholas Kirkwood has one shoe shape he has redone a million times, and its starting to get boring, but at least that one shoe is pretty cool. Especially with all that stuff piled onto it.

Maison Martin Margiela says: "“Alice’s silhouette is a blue upside-down dress with cage sleeve, as if she walked through the mirror and her dress completely reversed.” I say: This dress is beautiful, combining the fantasy of the fairy tale and the innovation of Maison Martin Margiela, and the colour is exactly the right shade of Alice blue.

Cartoon Alice image source.

I don’t discuss denim much on this blog, although, like most people I’m sure, it plays a very important part in my wardrobe. I don’t really do designer denim, I have yet to understand why one needs to spend $300 on a pair of jeans, when you can get a perfectly good pair for $50 or $100. I have a couple pairs of Lee Jeans I really like, and the last pair I bought was from Uniqlo, which are great, and very cheap. I will definitely be spending some time at Uniqlo when I am in London in March.

There’s been a couple of announcements of denim collaborations in recent weeks, including Vivienne Westwood with Lee, and Henry Holland with Levi’s.

Some of my Vivienne Westwood jewelry.

I had a very, very bad experience in the Vivienne Westwood store in London a few years ago, which resulted in me writing a nasty letter to them highlighting the fact that their customer service sucks, and the response from their retail manager was basically “tough shit.” So I will never shop at Vivienne Westwood again, even though I have tons of the jewelry, which I still wear, and have recently been given some more of the jewelry as a gift, which I also love. (I do think her collections are a bit boring, she did a whole bunch of cool things a long time ago, the pirate boot, the platform shoe, the corset, the big pouffy satin ballgown, and the amazing tailored suit, and she hasn’t really evolved since then. Her fashion shows almost all look the same.)

Vivienne Westwood catwalk looks. From left to right: Spring Summer 2006, Autumn Winter 2007, and Autumn Winter 2008. They all look the same. Images from Style.com

Vivienne Westwood Anglomania brand is collaborating with Lee jeans, and according to WWD, “the debut collection for fall will launch to buyers next month, and will include styles such as superskinny jeans and microshorts for women, along with bondage jeans and skinny jeans for men. Washes will run from indigo denim to metallic gold- and copper-colored denim to denim printed with a trompe l’oeil lace design.” If the collaboration is half as good as her ongoing Melissa shoes collaboration, then I am sure we can expect great things. But I won’t be buying it.

Amazing rubber shoes. Vivienne Westwood Anglomania for Melissa. Images from Melissaplasticdreams.com

The other denim project announced was Henry Holland’s collection for Levi’s. I have never met someone working in the fashion industry in London that didn’t think Henry Holland’s collections were a complete joke. His original slogan t-shirts were cool and catchy, but his attempt to turn them into a full on fashion collection were a complete and utter failure, which only captured media attention because Agyness Deyn was his very close friend and used to model his shows. One day when I write a post about models, perhaps I will be able to express my disdain for Agyness Deyn, the one-trick-pony model with terrible poses and who never closes her mouth. But today is about jeans.

The slogan tees were a bit tacky too, but they have their place in fashion history.

I think Sarah Mower summed up Henry Holland’s last catwalk collection quite well on Style.com, by describing it as “a presentation with very little substance and plenty of ironically tacky clothes that are actually genuinely tacky, too (how else to describe tangerine lace?)… he’s a one-man self-marketing wiz who instinctively knows how to brand himself (the quiff, the glasses, the Agy, the cheeky northern wit) and is now using his runway chiefly to display his collaborations with other companies.”

Why did Levi's have to hire Henry Holland to make these jeans look ugly?

Well, his collection for Levi’s is no better. In fact, I think it looks tacky like the rest of his stuff. You can tell he is not a designer.  I’m very bored of Henry Holland, and I wish he would go away.

More ways to ruin a perfectly good Levi's jean jacket, by Henry Holland.

Levi’s by Henry Holland images source.

Here’s an example of a fashion video that looks hot without making an attempt at being controversial, philosophical, or pornographic (unlike the YSL video by Bruce Weber that I recently trashed.) It just looks hot, its only 30 seconds long, and it helps that we all love Lara Stone.

<

Last night I went to the opening of the James Nizam show at Gallery Jones on 3rd. As expected, crowd was interesting and well-dressed (unlike most fashion events in Vancouver.)

James’ work is really interesting, and once I looked into his older work, I’ve realised that this recent collection is much more to my taste than his older work. It is photography of sculpture and installation, and its amazing. He told us a bit about the process, and it was really interesting, but rather than try and recap it all, I’ve included a blurb from the invitation on the bottom of this post.

Images from the Gallery Jones website.

Here I am with a very old friend, Jessica Clark, from Quince Fine Flowers. I’m wearing Atelier 1 coat, Uniqlo Jeans, vintage handbag, Hermes necklace, and Finsk shoes.

I had to show you all a few more photos of my shoes, which got many compliments. I have yet to unleash my entire Finsk collection on Vancouver, but I can tell you there are many more amazing pairs that need christening.

The giant zipper pull looks amazing when it sings back and forth when you walk.

The pleated leather is divine.

More on James Nizam’s work, from the exhibition invitation.

“On the occasion of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Gallery Jones is pleased to announce James Nizam’s exhibition, Memorandoms which continues Nizam’s use of vacated domestic interiors as the backbone of his photography, the provisional location of his studio, and the source of materials. In this case the site is the former Little Mountain housing project on 33rd to 37th Avenues, between Ontario and Main Street, what was the oldest public housing development in Vancouver, recently demolished to make way for a higher density combination of market condominiums and social housing. At one time these low rise buildings situated around grassy common areas across the street from Queen Elizabeth Park would have been attractive housing. Large windows threw light onto hardwood floors of square well built rooms, but that was decades ago. One year ago Nizam was granted access to the slated complex where he assumed residence to an empty third floor apartment. There he set up a camera, and over the course of several months, documented a series of ephemeral sculptures that he constructed from accumulations of remnants such as doors, drawers, shelves, and various other standardized architectural furnishings. Similar to each of Nizam’s previous photographic series two dominant and constant ideas persist with this new body of work: the lost or abandoned domicile, and that the personal is political. In Memorandoms, though the type of the home used has shifted towards the social, Nizam’s work in them continues to move towards greater refinement and sophistication.”

Spanx has just announced a range for men, described as a “A true cotton compression undershirt that will forever change the way you look and feel in your clothes.” More on this on their website, where they are taking pre-orders.

I somehow doubt this guy needs Spanx for men.

Although I admit that Spanx has its uses, it’s uncomfortable, causes bulges, and I had a traumatizing experience with a shop assistant who tried to get me to wear Spanx crotchless bicycle shorts on my wedding day (I avoided this, thankfully) so the brand sort of scares me. I really hope my husband never gets to the stage where he needs Spanx for men.

Clueless was on TV this weekend (actually, its been on TV quite a lot lately.) Sometimes people give me a funny face when they ask me about my favorite film, and I say Clueless. (I’m too embarrassed to say Lord of the Rings. But really, its a tie between the two.) Since I know all the words to the movie, and can recite Cher’s speeches by heart, when I see the film now, I tend to focus on the outfits. The outfits are simply amazing, and, its been long enough now that they are actually back in fashion. Here’s a couple of great outfits from the movie, and some quotes. I know most of these off by heart, but I also found this very handy website of great Clueless quotes.

I love Amber's outfits, she was definitely one of the best-dressed characters in the film.

Amber: “Was I the only one listening?I thought it reeked.”

Cher: “No I believe that’s your designer imposter perfume.”

I love Dionne's sweater with the oversized cuff and collars sticking out.

Josh: “Ooh, getting Marky Mark to take time out of his busy pants-dropping schedule to plant trees.”

The movie was filmed at the same high school as the original Beverly Hills 90210 was filmed.

Cher: “I’m surfing the crimson wave, I had to haul ass to the ladies.”

Mini skirts galore!

Dionne’s boyfriend, describing gays: “Disco-dancing, Oscar-Wilde reading, Streisand-ticket-holding, friend of Dorothy.”

I love that Dionne coordinates her hats to her outfits.

Heather: It’s just like Hamlet said, “To thine own self be true.”
Cher: Hamlet didn’t say that.
Heather: I think I remember Hamlet accurately.
Cher: Well, I remember Mel Gibson accurately, and he didn’t say that. That Polonius guy did.

The famous Alaia dress that got ruined when Cher was mugged. Thanks to Clueless I discovered Alaia.

Josh: You look like Pippi Longstocking.
Cher: Well you look like Forrest Gump. Who’s Pippi Longstocking?
Josh: Someone Mel Gibson never played.

I love the mini-skirts suits with tees and cardigans.

Cher: Do you prefer “fashion victim” or “ensembly challenged”?

The best-dressed gym class EVER.

Amber: Ms. Stoeger, my plastic surgeon doesn’t want me doing any activity where balls fly at my nose.
Dionne: Well, there goes your social life.

Cher's "prim" look.

Dionne: Hello? There was a stop sign.
Cher: I totally paused.

I used to have a fluffy pen like that too. Inspired by Cher, of course.

Josh: You know maybe Marky Mark wants to use his popularity for a good cause, make a contribution. In case you’ve never heard of that, a contribution is…
Cher: Excuse me, but I have donated many expensive Italian outfits to Lucy, and as soon I get my license, I fully intend to brake for animals, and I have contributed many hours to helping two lonely teachers find romance.
Josh: Which I’ll bet serves your interests more than theirs. You know, If I ever saw you do anything that wasn’t ninety percent selfish, I’d die of shock.
Cher: Oh, that’d be reason enough for me.

Who wouldn't kill for her closet?

Cher: Let’s do a lap before we commit to a location.

If Clueless had been released in this day and age, the costume director or stylist would probably have become a celebrity too.

There’s been a lot in the press and blogosphere about the attention bloggers are getting, and whether bloggers have the right to be sitting front row at fashion shows and being recipients of free stuff.

It started off with an article in The Independent entitled “Fluff flies as fashion writers pick a cat fight with bloggers” which talked about the fact that many people in the industry can’t believe that bloggers are getting showered with free gifts, and that blogs “have turned into little more than mouthpieces for fashion brands, which are increasingly using bloggers to regurgitate their press releases.” (Read Kanye West’s hilarious and absolutely idiotic rant against bloggers here.)

Tavi’s hat that blocked everyone’s view. Image source.

Business of Fashion then wrote a good article about how the Independent interviewed many bloggers for the article, but failed to use any quotes from them and therefore the article was quite one-sided. There was also some other really good points made (as usual) by Imran Amed, editor of Business of Fashion, so I’d suggest you read both articles if you are at all interested in the subject. (Links here and here.) They also link to Grazia magazine’s outburst at Tavi, and her response. I don’t want to spend too much time on this but I’d like to have my say, so, here are some of my points.

Yes, there are bloggers that are not always professional and maybe they don’t all deserve the spotlight they have, but if the public support them by reading their blogs, whose exactly is judging that they “don’t deserve?” Also, there are many very interesting, intelligent, or beautiful blogs out there, and they DO deserve the attention they are getting.

Susie Bubble from Style Bubble, a well-respected fashion blog. Image source.

How can magazine criticize bloggers for getting free stuff? The whole concept of a magazine is based on advertisers, if you can’t afford to advertise on their expensive glossy pages, they won’t talk about you. 90% of Vogue’s content is covering advertisers’ product, so those are the brands that can afford $25K per page. And I can guarantee you, the magazine staff gets TONS of free stuff, it’s disgusting how much. Magazine staff generally gets paid quite poorly, but the perks are well worth the low salaries. So if editors are allowed free stuff, why aren’t bloggers?

Plum Sykes, another Vogue-employed boring socialite. Image source.

But the main point I’d like to make is that the fashion industry is extremely critical, brutally unethical, and totally elitist. And the way that people make it to the top is highly unfair. Will someone find me a major fashion industry player who WAS NOT born into a rich family, or has famous parents? Because seriously, nearly everyone (aside from designers) in the industry comes from money and fame, and that’s how they get their break. I like that bloggers don’t have to be socialites or from a rich family to get their voice out into the industry.

There are some exceptions of course, and particularly in Britain, you can come from nothing and make it as a designer, but if you look at who is making it big in the fashion industry, most of them come from money or fame.

Lou Doillon. Image source.

Take Lou Doillon as an example. Famous mom (Jane Birkin) meant she got the chance to be famous herself. I worked on one of the Sonia Rykiel shows that was her first catwalk show, and I had to teach the girl how to walk! She had no clue what the hell she as doing, but everyone loved her because her mom was famous. She is pretty, but I’m sorry to say it, never was model material. But who cares, famous mom = you are famous too.

How about Stella McCartney, Jade Jagger, Leah Wood. The Rolling Stones and The Beatles offspring make up a fair percentage of famous people at the moment.

Carine Roitfeld, editor of French Vogue may have started as a model, but let’s not deny the fact that she is bourgeois through and through.

Tamara Mellon, CEO of Jimmy Choo, whom I respect, would have never gotten anywhere without Daddy’s£150K “loan” to start up a little company with her friend Jimmy Choo.

Nearly all the girls at Vogue have come from money, and you’re seriously looked down on if you aren’t.

I’m just flipping through January’s issue of US Vogue, and who is mentioned in the magazine? Sofia Coppola, talented, but would not have stood a chance without her last name. Vanessa Traina: famous for nothing except having Danielle Steel as a mother.

Check out Vogue’s masthead:

Anna Wintour: father was a newspaper editor, and rich.

Alexandra Kotur: grew up in a rich family and mother worked as an illustrator for Vogue.

Plum Sykes: came from a rich family in England.

Rosamond Bernier: Was friends with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse when she grew up.

Marina Rust: great great granddaughter of Chicago department store magnate Marshall Field.

Tonne Goodman: husband is a Gimbel of the Gimbel’s department story family and the stepson of director Sydney Lumet.

The list could go on…and it’s the same at nearly all of the major glossy magazines. They are almost all socialites or from money.

Now, you don’t go into the fashion industry because you think it will be ethical and fair and nice. I am used to it, and I’ve learned to accept I’ll never be an editor of Vogue because my Dad isn’t famous and my mother is not a socialite, and I wasn’t a model when I was growing up. But the thing that ANNOYS the hell out of me is that all of these elitist journalists are getting in a huff because there are bloggers that aren’t socialites from wealthy families are getting attention and free stuff. Well, if the growth and popularity of the fashion bloggers means that the socialites are going to get less front-row seats at shows, and less free stuff, I am all for it.

I LOVE the idea of public opinion and readership numbers being the reason why someone gets attention, not because they’re rich so they got a job at Vogue.

(One day I’ll tell you the story about a Vogue-ette I know who used to be completely normal and then suddenly developed a pout and a posh accent when she started working for Vogue. There are probably many stories like that…)

Yesterday we looked at one of the most influential shoe designers of the 20th century, and today I am going to introduce you to another shoe master. I am obsessed with shoes, and Roger Vivier is definitely one of my favourite footwear brands. He started off as a shoe designer in the 30’s, worked for Christian Dior in the 1950’s, and his signature shoe was a pump with a buckle on the front, called the Pilgrim. Roger Vivier is thought to have been the inventor of the stiletto, so ladies (and men, let’s face it, who doesn’t benefit from the stiletto,) lets take a moment to honour this VERY important man.

A signature Roger Vivier Pilgrim buckle shoe.

These are some more fabulous Roger Vivier for Christian Dior shoes from the 50s and 60s.

Image source.

When I was planning my wedding outfit, there was no question in my mind that the shoe was going to be the most important part of the outfit. I knew I was going to be wearing Valentino, because it was sort of a childhood dream, and it was the last season of ready-to-wear that Valentino was actually designing, so the collection had significance. (I wore a short, “Valentino red” knit dress, which was possibly the easiest shopping experience in my life. We happened to be in Sloane Street area, and I went into the Valentino store with my friend Nora, we tried on three red dresses, two made me look fat, so I bought the third. SO easy.)

Anyway, back to the shoe. The brand was just as important as the shoe itself, because I had to buy a fabulous shoe brand, not a WAG brand (Jimmy Choo or Christian Louboutin), not a predictable brand (Manolo Blahnik), and not just any clothing brand’s shoe (YSL or Chanel.) Pierre Hardy would have been an acceptable brand, but his stuff was too chunky.

I was training staff at Harrods about fashion trends one day (which is really good money, but pointless if you spend four times your wage as you walk through the footwear department on the way to your room) and I found these Roger Vivier shoes. Roger Vivier had recently been relaunched, with Bruno Frisoni as creative director, and it was the perfect footwear brand: luxury, respectable, a wonderful history, French, not over-exposed, and beautiful. Plus, these shoes were exclusive to Harrods, so there were a very limited number of pairs made. And, they were rock’n'roll.

It was love at first sight.

(I’ve condensed this into a collage for the benefit of my readers…but I could easily write about 15 blog posts about my wedding shoes and their significance, and my love for them and blah blah blah, but I’m afraid I might lose most of my readership. And don’t ask me about the story behind the D&G shoes, that’s another hour long tale of search, desperation, hunting, luck, and glory.)

So, the reason why this post came to be is because, after searching high and low, I finally managed to find a fairly complete selection of photos from the Roger Vivier Spring Summer 2010 Couture Collection. Here’s a blurb and some of the photos that I found from this article on Telegraph.co.uk.

“…brace yourself for fashion’s latest excess – the £30,000 pair of Roger Vivier heels.”

“They feature an assortment of life’s little luxuries such as 24 ct gold-coated mesh, semi-precious stones, jet, satin ribbons, silk chiffon, diamanté and crocodile skin fashioned into dainty rosettes.”

“The “Dovima”, an 11cm, spike-heeled confection of gilded silk mesh and jewels, is embellished with a pair of rose pink-dyed, taxidermy birds with gold and crystal heads.”

“The collection is called “One is Too”, for each pair can be inserted into and buckled onto matching crocodile or snakeskin protective “platforms”, based on the “pattens” of the Middle Ages. They add height and save the expensive, fragile works-of-art for the feet from actually making contact with anything as rugged, commonplace and downright dirty as the pavement.”

Read the rest of the article here. And the article tells you where to buy them, if you’re interested in remortgaging your house. These shoes certainly make yesterday’s $2700 pair a bargain.

Today and tomorrow will have a lot of shoe porn, which is probably my favourite after tropical-holiday-villa porn. Tomorrow we are going to learn a bit about the inventor of the stiletto, but today, I want to talk about the most important shoe designer of the 20th century, Salvatore Ferragamo.

An amazing Ferragamo wedge shoe.

Here is a great biography of Ferragamo, from the Museo Ferragamo website, but I’ll give you a summary.

Salvatore Ferragamo apprenticed as a shoe maker in his home country of Italy, before moving to the US to join his brother, who was working in the footwear industry there. While he was “shoemaker to the stars”, he studied human anatomy, in order to fully understand the human foot and how to make the perfect shoe. After the depression he moved back to Italy and opend his own studio. There, he began to experiment with new materials, because economic sanctions agains Italy during Mussolini’s rule meant that some materials were scarce. That was when Ferragamo made shoes from cork, metal wire, raffia, wood, and synthetic resin. The Ferragamo company turned in a fashion empire, and he died in 1960, but his wife continues to run his company. Oh yeah, and the man was a total genius.

He invented the platform shoe.

This Ferragamo shoe has interchangeable socks so you can match your shoe to your outfit.

More amazing Ferragamo shoes. He was SO ahead of his time.

This brass cage heel sandal was made in 1955.

Ferragamo invented the "invisible" shoe, using clear plastic.

A 1930 patchwork shoe.

A 1967 raffia sandal.

So, the reason why we are talking about Ferragamo is because a few years ago they launched a range called Creations, which was a re-release on many of Ferragamo’s classic shoes. The collection was originally exclusive to the Florence flagship, and in Dover Street Market (London.) I am not a huge fan of Ferragamo, aside from the classic shoes, because I have a handbag from there that fell apart after six months, and the evil shop assistant tried to make me pay for a repair. I shouted at her that if I had wanted a bag that was going to fall apart after six months, I would have bought a fake. Thankfully there was someone in the store buying a very similar bag to my broken one, so the shop lady smartened up and fixed mine for free, before I made more of a fuss in front of potential customers.

Anyway, when I heard about the Creations collection a few years ago, I ran to Dover Street Market on the first day of the launch, hoping to find a very particular shoe, which unfortunately was not in the collection. But here are a few of the ones they had:

The America Sandal, with Ferragamo's patented F-Shaped heel, originally launched in 1947.

The Carmen sandal, originally made for Carmen Miranda.

The Norma shoe, created for Marilyn Monroe.

Patchwork wedge shoe, created in 1942.

I found out yesterday that the Creations collection is available in the Ferragamo store on Robson street for the Olympics. I took a chance and called them, to see if they had my “dream shoe” in stock. It was good news, and bad news. The good news was they had it. The bad news was it was $2700. The good news was, I didn’t have to drain my life savings, since they only had two pairs, and neither was in my size. The bad news was, they said they might be able to order it. This shoe is the ultimate shoe, designed for Judy Garland in 1938. 1938!!!!!!!!! Ferragamo was so ahead of his time. I would cry if I could own this shoe, but I am afraid to go in, in case they CAN get me a pair in my size, and then what? Can I spend $2700 on a pair of shoes? Maybe, for these ones. I’m dubbing them The Most Incredible Shoe. Here they are:

Made in 1938!!!!

I think I might pop into the store just to caress them. They are truly incredible.

All images from the Salvatore Ferragamo website and the Museo Salvatore Ferragamo website.