Fashion designer and photographer Hedi Slimane

I was reading an interview with Hedi Slimane (who used to be the designer for Dior Homme and who pretty much made the skinny pant trendy for men) and he got me thinking about the current fashion industry and the number of colelctions produced annually.

Here’s a blurb from the Style.com interview:

Style.com: Between menswear and womenswear, resort, pre-fall, and ready-to-wear, some designers are designing eight or more collections a year. Is it possible for a designer to be creative under those circumstances?

Hedi Slimane: Designers end up needing a full-blast studio for this sort of thing, which is totally absurd. I also don’t understand what the hell people do with all those clothes. Less would be better, and shorter collections.

I have to agree with him, the fashion market is saturated, and there are so many of us that have way too many clothes, and still desire more. I recently read about a very interesting initiative called The Great American Apparel Diet, which is described on their website as “We are a group of women and two men who have decided to go on a diet of sorts. A fast really. We are completely eliminating “new apparel” from our diets for one year.” I read through this and started to think whether I could do something like that…

I don’t plan on it, simply because my blog would probably turn into some sort of depressing rant about my lack of new clothes, but I have toyed with the idea of limiting myself to a very strict fashion budget for one year, as an experiment, and an opportunity to save some money to buy a house in Lions Bay with an infinity pool. But that is something I can decide after I have done my (shopping) trip to London in March.

Dame Vivienne Westwood

And even if I don’t decide to give myself a “fashion budget,” I am definitely making an effort to to buy less, and focus on really good things. Despite a few things I may not quite like about Vivienne Westwood, one thing I respect her for is her campaign to encourage people to buy less clothing (which is quite brave, considering her business depends on people buying more clothes…) Just a few weeks ago she was quoted again, this time in The Times, telling people to buy less. “I’m saying to people as well, buy less clothes. Only buy things when you really need them and really like them. Wear them and wear them.”

I got thinking about my “dream shoe” or the “must have bag” or all the fashion items I covet, and then I asked myself, what is my perfect outfit? To have a perfect outfit, I would need a perfect scenario in which to wear it. And then I realised, it was all about the circumstances. My perfect outfit involves a pair of cut off jeans, a tank top, a big pair of sunglasses, and a comfy pair of cowboy boots. Preferably worn with a bikini underneath. Because when I think about myself being really happy, I imagine myself lying in a hammock, in my backyard, with the hot sun shining in my face, great classic rock on the radio, dogs and maybe kids running around, the husband cooking on the BBQ, and a ‘69 Ford Mustang parked in the garage. I am relaxed, it is warm, and I am not busy.

The coveted Chanel 2.55 bag, named after the date of its creation, February 1955.

Don’t worry, I am not suddenly going to stop coveting beautiful new clothes, and talking about the brands I love (and loathe) but it is good sometimes to reflect on the real picture. Will the Chanel handbag make our lives better? Or is it the circumstances we would be in, when we can afford that Chanel bag? I don’t think it is fashion brands or products that play with our emotions, rather the perception of what they will give us, or the circumstances surrounding them. So next time I think about when I am going to get my first Hermes bag, I am going to tell myself that I don’t need to run out and buy one to achieve perfect happiness. I should focus on the other things in my life that make me happy, and remain secure in the knowledge that eventually my Mom will get bored of hers and give it to me. Ok, just kidding (well Mom, actually I’m not kidding, I WANT THAT BAG) but seriously, I’m prioritising a happy life over a fantastic closet.

Zac Posen Fall Winter 2010

The Fall Winter 2010 catwalks have featured a lot of fur so far, and I am sure there is more to come from Milan and Paris. I feel I need to address the issue of fur, since it is a controversial one and I am a fur lover. I don’t wish to offend any anti-fur readers, so I’d like to explain my reasons for loving fur (aside from the fact that it is very soft) and how I feel about its role in the industry.

I know it is bad to kill animals. I love animals, and my husband and I are counting down the days before we can get a dog (or three.) I am not a big fur consumer, but I do have some which I have bought both new and second hand. I can’t afford a lot of fur as it is very pricey, and the anti-fur campaigners have made it pretty uncomfortable to wear fur on the streets. I am afraid someone might spit or damage my fur. But I love it, and I love the few fur coats, jackets, shoes, and accessories I have.

Matthew Williamson Fall Winter 2010

There are many arguments for and against fur consumption. Fur is considered to be the “greener” option, but the tanning products can also be very bad for the environment. When it is a by-product of something we eat, can be considered more acceptable? There are “humane” ways of killing fur, but I also know how badly most of the animals killed for fur are treated, and how horrific their deaths are. But is it any worse than the way we kill them for food? Or the way our polluted environments affect animal’s habitats?

Peta, the animal rights campaigners, have a lot of resources and a lot of money, and sometimes I wonder if some of that money would be better spent fighting poverty in the US, or helping people in the third world countries. I know that someone needs to look out for the animals, but I resent how Peta has managed to brand themselves as a glamorous charity that recruits celebrities and gets a lot of publicity. I feel they have an unfair advantage, and I feel that those resources could be dedicated to fighting more serious causes.

Michael Kors Fall Winter 2010

I love natural fibres, not only do I think they feel good but there is something about having a natural fibre against your skin, that is incomparable to synthetics. Cotton, linen, silk, wool, cashmere, and fur are beautiful materials, that feel good and have been proven, for centuries, to be excellent fabrics.

My problem with the anti-fur brigade is this: I don’t feel the fur industry deserves such hateful campaign against them, when they account for such a tiny part of the fashion industry. It is bad, and I completely respect people’s choices not to wear or buy fur. But my mother says you have to “choose your battles” and the tiny fur industry is not one I feel merits the attention that it gets.

Oscar de la Renta Fall Winter 2010

I tried to get some statistics about the fur and fashion industry, and here is what I found: according to Man in Nature, worldwide fur sales in 2005 accounted for 12.8 billion US dollars. The fashion and apparel industry accounted for 182.306 billion US dollars in 2005. That means the fur industry represents less than one percent of the total clothing industry.

If you buy a fur coat, it will last you many years, or decades. It keeps you warm. You pass it on to your children, and grandchildren. You don’t buy a new fur coat every season.

I believe that the environmental damage caused by synthetic fabric manufacturing is far more damaging to the environment and its inhabitants than the fur industry. l I decided to do some research in order to validate my argument, and I found these facts, from this very interesting website.

“Most synthetic fabrics, from towels to dress shirts to bed linens, are treated with chemicals during and after processing. These chemicals not only leach into the environment, leaving an impact on groundwater, wildlife, air and soil, but they also may be absorbed or inhaled directly.”

“Petrochemical dyes, which pollute waterways, are used for color.
The chemicals used in synthetic clothing have been linked to health problems including cancer, immune system damage, behavioral problems and hormone disruption.”

I try and avoid synthetic fibres as much as possible, I know they are bad for the environment, the chemicals used in production can be extremely hazardous, and I simply prefer natural fibres. (I’ll take this moment to say that I am completely aware of the environmental damage that cotton production causes.) If the fur industry accounts for less than one percent of the industry, does it deserve the attention it gets? I don’t feel it does.

Antonio Berardi Fall Winter 2010

Regardless of your side of the argument, there is no doubt that buying less, higher quality clothing will not only minimize the number of animals being killed, but will also reduce the environmental impact of the fashion supply chain. For me, fur is a beautiful luxury, and I don’t think the global demand will weaken. I know that I won’t stop loving it. I hope we can find more humane and ethically correct ways of sourcing fur, which help to appease the anti-fur campaigners, and give us fur lovers a better option to buy from.

All images from Style.com.

Fall Winter 2010: A very thin model at Hervé Léger.

A few days into New York fashion week, and the models are looking scarily thin. I always felt that this was something we saw more of in New York, and so I really hope there will be some meatier flesh in London, Milan, and Paris. Model’s weight has been a major discussion point recently, and I am pretty torn on the subject. Although I feel that the whole size zero debate is blown out of proportion, and that the media should focus more on obesity, there are clearly some very scarily thin girls on the catwalks.

There’s been some really interesting points made in the press recently, starting with this quote featured in a VERY interesting The Daily Beast article about models and size. A former successful model was quoted as saying:

“Sure, we had to be skinny. I lived on Diet Coke and apples for two years. For the couture, we had to get up at 4 am to be sewn into the clothes and there was huge pressure to be thin. But I made a million dollars by the time I was 20, I bought a town house in Manhattan and put myself through Columbia. Does that make me a victim?”

This was a really interesting quote, putting a totally new perspective on starving models.

According to Fashionologie, Australian model Abbie Lee Kershaw “seems to feel similarly when asked what she thinks about the pressure to be ultra-thin: ‘That’s like asking a bodybuilder how they feel about the pressures to be incredibly muscly. An elite performer is always put under some sort of extreme pressure that the rest of society can argue, might not quite understand.’”

Fall Winter 2010: another very thin model at Victoria Beckham.

So after considering these two interesting quotes, how important do you think the size zero issue is? Are models to blame, or is Hollywood worse? I feel that celebrities have much more of an impact on young people than models do, as they tend to be much more in the public eye. Later on in the Daily Beast article, they explain that according to “Clinical Knowledge Summaries 2009, the statistics department of the British National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, says that 19 out of one million women are diagnosed as anorexic, as opposed to 240,000 per million for obesity.” That statistic really confirmed my thoughts that under-eating is much smaller a problem than over-eating.

On the other hand, there was a really upsetting article in Page Six Magazine about Gemma Ward, another Australian model, who has recently put on 30 pounds and has been shunned by the industry. Apparently there are many teenage models, who are discarded once they experience the natural weight gain women go through when they grow breasts and hips.

Gemma Ward at the height of her fame.

I really don’t know where I stand on this subject. I do know that when I worked in Paris, samples sizes were in 4 and 6, never size 0. But I also worked with a lot of the Brazilian models, who were very curvy. I always thought a curvy size 4 model looks better than a stick thin size zero. I feel it is sad that some models feel such a pressure to stay thin, but at the same time, I believe it is part of the job. I was watching a program about skiers competing in moguls this weekend, and apparently their quads are four times the size of a normal person, and the damage they do to their knees is irreversible. They are guaranteed serious problems later in life, so how is that any different from starving yourself for a few years to make some money?

A more recent photo of Gemma Ward.

Forbes has a list of the top fifteen highest earning models, and many of them are curvy lingerie models (Gisele Bundchen, Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio are all Victoria’s Secret models, and they make up the top five with Kate Moss and Heidi Klum.) It goes to show that a hot, healthy body is going to earn you more millions than protruding hip bones.

One thing I would like to see is more models and celebrities endorsing fitness, which is beneficial for both the underweights and the overweights. I’d also like to see less deathly thin models on the catwalk, and more Gisele types. And, how about the media reduces their attacks on famous women for being too thin or too fat. That would be a good start.

Gemma Ward images source. Catwalk images from Style.com.

I was absolutely shocked to read this article in the New York Times about the fact that H&M throws away tons of old stock that hasn’t sold. Not only do they throw them away, but they also cut them up, so they are sure that the clothing cannot be worn. Apparently Walmart does the same thing. The article goes into full detail about this, and apparently they contacted H&M eleven times for comment, but no one has responded.

I guess its not unusual that companies get rid of their stock this way, but its upsetting. We all know that there are tons of people who would be desperate for this clothing. I was pretty shocked that H&M were doing this, more so than Walmart. Although H&M is a very big company, they are Swedish and as a brand, they tend to have a generally good reputation. It was very unwise of H&M not to comment on the situation, as requested by the New York Times. In a situation like that I feel it is much better to fess up and announce that you are changing your strategy, rather than avoid saying anythingt, which generally means you are guilty of something.

H&M: Not as cool as we thought.

This brings me to a subject that has been on many people’s minds in recent years: the subject of ethics and sustainability. I would not consider myself to be as ethically-conscious as I should be, aside from food and beauty products, but that is for more selfish reasons. However, I have changed my ways significantly in recent years, and I imagine many people have too. I have always been very against wasting food, but now I am even more careful about wasting anything, and I try and buy fairtrade and organic where possible. The problem of course is transparency, how do you know which brands are genuinely good, labelling is often complicated, sometimes you don’t know what is good and what isn’t.

I am certainly not a model citizen when it comes to buying ethical, eco-friendly, or sustainable goods, but I do support and applaud a few brands that I know are doing some good things. Here is a short list, I am very open to recommendations if you have any other great brands to suggest.

American Apparel: A lot of people don’t like American Apparel, and I can’t understand why. Yes, I know their founder is a bit of a pervert, and his advertising is often pretty controversial, but let’s look at the facts. They do fantastic basics that can be transformed into whatever look or style that suits you, they have a huge selection, and everything is made in the US. They are one of the only companies that actually gives their factory workers healthcare and paid holidays. What’s not to like?

Dr Haushka: Aside from my hair products (see below) I am pretty much loyal to Dr Hauschka. Their holistic products are amazing, its not over priced, and I love the company.

I swear by this stuff.

Barefoot Botanicals: This British company makes the best shampoo and conditioner for problem scalp, as part of their aptly named SOS range.

Marks and Spencer: Marks and Spencer is setting the standard for high street retailers by earmarking 200 million pounds to their Plan A program (Maybe H&M and should read through it…) “We launched Plan A in January 2007, setting out 100 commitments to achieve in 5 years. Through Plan A we are working with our customers and our suppliers to combat climate change, reduce waste, use sustainable raw materials, trade ethically, and help our customers to lead healthier lifestyles.” It’s very long and detailed, but basically they are opening sustainable factories in the Far East, charging for plastic bags, not putting any crap into their food, and generally doing a lot of good things. Plus they do amazing hosiery, great basic lingerie, and I have a crush on the chief executive, Stuart Rose. He is SO charming.

Noir: Not your typical eco fashion brand.

Noir: I have yet to buy anything from the Danish brand Noir, since it is pretty hard to get ahold of, but I like them because they have been doing “ethical” fashion long before it was cool, and they make “ethical” fashion look cool. From their website: “The mission is to provide fashionable apparel that is created based upon Corporate Social Responsibility principles in all links of the supply chain that are meant to, at a minimum, do no harm, and, at a maximum, do good in the communities, cultures, societies and environments in which the companies operate.” Sounds good to me.

Osklen: Osklen is this amazing Brazillian brand that for some reason is barely known outside of Brazil (I am DYING to go to Brazil!) “The brand represents the lifestyle of contemporary women and men in a world where urban and nature, global and local, organic and technological live together. It is precisely this perception of the integrated nature, culture and society, with refined aesthetics, that makes Osklen to be considered one the the ten most influential and inspiring brands in the world by WGSN.”

—-UPDATE—-
Thursday January 6th at 2pm

H&M has finally responded to the New York Times article, and is now saying it will no longer destroy unworn garments. It is explained in this follow-up article, which basically says that H&M claims it was their policy to donate the unwanted clothing, and that they didn’t know why they were being thrown out. I’m still pretty upset that this happened in the first place…and I don’t believe it wasn’t orders from head office. They say they will now donate the old clothing. I really hope they enforce this, and other retailers follow suit.