British Vogue's September 2010 issue. Bryanboy says "I look at that cover and there's no WOW factor."

I follow Bryanboy’s blog, I like that he is always so thankful about the nice things that happen to him (like getting invited to the Chanel Haute Couture show) and that he rarely posts any negative criticism. So this recent post definitely caught my eye, he has posted an image of the cover of British Vogue’s September issue, and criticized that it was Kate Moss’ 30th UK Vogue cover, and her 6th September issue cover (the September issue is the biggest, most important magazine issue of the year.)

More Kate Moss: British Vogue September 2009

I am not surprised that Kate Moss is one the cover of British Vogue…again. It takes a lot to surprise me these days, when it comes to glossy fashion magazines. There is no thrill, excitement, or joy involved in reading these magazines, they are purely work for me. But when Bryanboy wrote “I just think it’s sad that we have to look elsewhere to get what we want from the magazines that we love…” I remembered that there was a time, a long time ago, when I actually took great pleasure in reading fashion magazines.

The reason why I got into fashion in the first place, was thanks to my mother’s copies of Vogue and French Elle. (One day I’ll post some of the fashion illustrations I did when I was 9 years old. Very slutty dresses.) When I started my career in fashion, in the late 90’s, I loved fashion magazines, even US Vogue was exciting. Nowadays, I read them purely for the information I need to know: who is one the cover, what brands they are featuring, what pieces they are featuring, and who is on the masthead. They are business, not pleasure.

Kate Moss on the cover of British Vogue April 2010

It is rare that I open a fashion magazine and stare in awe at the images, or devour the articles. What’s happened to magazine publishing? I guess difficult economic climate, and the pressure to retain or increase advertising revenues means that magazines can’t just post beautiful images and stuff they love. Maybe we have reached a new era of publishing, and magazines will no longer be our source of inspiration, because of the control the advertisers have. Maybe we need to look elsewhere (online?) to find inspiration.

I couldn’t agree more that Kate Moss is an extremely tedious choice of a cover model for British Vogue’s September issue. It is like choosing the most boring, most safe option. Kate is fabulous, and a true icon, but I really feel her days are over, for now. She needs to take a break for a few years, so that she can “come back” and be exciting again. British Vogue could have been safe and still somewhat interesting by putting Lara Stone, or Doutzen Kroes on the cover. Someone that reflects the season, which is all about curves, not waifs.

British Vogue, October 2008. Kate Moss, again.

Am I being overly critical? Or ridiculously nostalgic? I really feel that magazines these days have become catalogues of the season, rather than thoughtful, insightful publications. Since I’m being nostalgic, here are some beautiful UK Vogue covers…from back in the day.

An early Kate Moss cover: January 1995. Very cool.

Amazing colour on British Vogue's September 1991 cover.

Sun Style Shape on British Vogue's May 1983 cover.

British Vogue May 1966: a beautiful play on colour and shape.

Once the September issues have all come out, I’ll do a Love and Loathe on the covers…let’s hope there are some good ones.

All images from Vogue.co.uk.

Linda Grant’s The Thoughtful Dresser (my favourite non-fiction fashion novel of all time) introduced me to James Laver, an art historian and writer known for his work in the field fashion history.

Laver’s Law (from his book Taste and Fashion, chapter 18, (London, 1937)) attempted to shed light on the theory of cycles in fashion and fashion trends. Here is Laver’s Law about an item of clothing or a trend:

Shall we test it? Let’s try Christian Dior’s New Look as an example, as it seems to be in fashion for next season. The New Look was launched in 1947, but since it wasn’t considered “current fashion” until a bit later, I’ll place it the year before, when it was “daring.”

10 years before its time: Indecent

1937: Indecent? Perhaps not… but certainly desperately out of fashion during the 30’s when everyone was wearing long, lean bias cut silhouettes.

5 years before its time: Shameless

1942: War time, it certainly would have been shameless to wear new clothing in this style, when everyone was “making do and mending”, not wearing skirts made out of 20 metres of fabric.

1 year before its time: Outré (Daring)

1947: The launch of The New Look by Christian Dior took the world by shock. I've put it as a year before its time, because all designers are ahead of their time. By 1948, it was "Current Fashion."

Current Fashion: Smart (1948)

1 year after its time: Dowdy

1949: Well, according to this image, the skirt certainly slimmed down a lot.

10 years after its time: Hideous

1958: Would the New Look have been hideous? Probably, as the silhouette had changed dramatically.

20 years after its time: Ridiculous

1968: The New Look would have definitely looked ridiculous in the Swinging Sixties.

30 years after its time: Amusing

1978: During the late 70's, a full skirt and nipped in waist would certainly have been amusing.

50 years after its time: Quaint

1998: Quaint is a great word to sum up how we would have felt about the New Look as we neared the turn of the millenium. Nostalgia would have kicked in too.

We haven’t quite gotten to 70 years after its time (charming), 100 years after its time (romantic), or 150 years after its time (Beautiful.) But I can certainly tell you that 60 years after its time, right now, we are certainly back on track to wearing the New Look.

Louis Vuitton Fall 2010, a modern New Look.

Prada Fall 2010, nipped waist and full skirt.

Although I wouldn’t say the timeline is completely accurate, Laver’s Law definitely makes sense. I looked at leggings, and they made fit in with Laver’s Law, although I’d hate to think leggings will be considered beautiful in 150 years.

1998: 10 years before their time, leggings are certainly indecent.

2003: 5 years before their time, were leggings shameless? I guess so, although we were heading towards them as the skinny jeans trend started to kick in.

2007: 1 year before their time, I would definitely say leggings  as pants were daring, before them became an acceptable fashion.

2008:  Leggings are current fashion.

2009: 1 year after their time, leggings are starting to look a bit dowdy (although Lindsay Lohan is still wearing them.)

Images
1937 fashion image source.
1942 fashion image source.
1949 fashion image source
1958 fashion image source
1968 fashion image source.
1978 fashion image source.
1998 fashion image source.
Lindsay Lohan image source.

Unpublished Gucci Spring Summer 2004 campaign image. Photographed by Mario Testino, and styled by Carine Roitfeld.

I recently heard about a new school that opened up in London, called The London College of Style, which offers a fashion styling course. I remember several years ago, when “styling” became a recognized job in the fashion industry, my friends and I always used to be shocked that there were courses about styling. “How can you teach styling?” was the question we would ask. It is like trying to teach someone style. Has any of the well-known stylists, taken a course in styling? I don’t think so.

Today, a lot of fashion students want to be stylists (maybe they are starting to get turned off being a buyer, because you have to have math skills), but I am not sure an education in styling alone is going to get you anywhere. Sure, you could learn how to call in clothes, organize a photoshoot, how a fashion show works, etc…, but can you teach someone the ability to put a look together, beautifully? That involved creativity and taste, which aren’t usually on the agenda at a styling school.

Vogue Italia shoot by Steven Meisel, styled by Edward Enninful, one of the top fashion stylists of our day.

I’ve worked with a lot of crappy stylists in my time, and a few very good ones. In my opinion, being a good photo stylist involves the ability to understand the purpose of the shoot (are we selling clothes, are we making pretty pictures, are we previewing the fall collections, are we trying to sell the collection to US buyers?) and come up with a creative concept that results in beautiful images that fulfill the purpose. So it requires a bit of marketing savvy and a lot of creativity, which is why it is usually people trained in fashion design end up being stylists. That’s not to say you need to have a degree in fashion design to be a stylists, but some creative training will help. Like design, coming up with a styling concept requires research and development (yes, newsflash people, fashion designers do not just have “ideas in their head”) and it helps to a creative background.

My concern about all of these styling courses (aside from the fact that the London College of Style doesn’t have enough well-recognized people on their team, compared to the short styling courses at Central Saint Martins) is that there aren’t really very many styling jobs. Thanks to Rachel Zoe and Patricia Field, the job has been glamorized, but really it isn’t all that. Sure, it can be great, if you are excellent at what you can do. But it takes a lot to get there, and part 1 involves working for free. For a very long time.

My friend Julia (Von Boehm) is a fairly successful stylist, working between Paris and New York, mostly for Vogue Paris, Teen Vogue, Vogue Nippon, and Vogue China. She studied fashion design at school, and was offered an internship with a well-known stylist at the time, Carine Roitfeld. Here is where luck came into play, Julia had an apartment in Paris that her parents owned, so she didn’t have to pay rent, she had enough money to work for free for 2 years, and it was pure luck that the first assistant was also German. Two years later, and she landed a job at Vogue Paris (when Carine became editor), and ten years later, she is doing very well, working for a lot of the great brands and publications. Had she not had the means to work for free for two years, she would have had to work much harder to get where she is (that’s not to say she isn’t a great stylist, that helped too.)

Demi Moore on the cover of Vogue Paris

So all of you aspiring stylists out there, think twice before you assume it is all about buying clothes for Carrie Bradshaw or dressing Demi Moore for the cover of Vogue. And if you are determined, my best suggestion is to get some unpaid assisting work with a great stylist so you have on-the-job experience, rather than attending a styling school.

Julia, if you are reading this, have a fantastic wedding this weekend and I am sorry I can’t be in Germany to share this special day with you.

And sorry for the repeat of content, but for those of you who didn’t read my A Fashionable Attitude post last week:

I am considering putting together a little guide for students, prospective students, and anyone trying to get into the fashion industry. It will include some of the following sections:

• A couple of rules and tips about behaviour (like the above, but in more detail)
• Tips on fashion portfolios and the type of experience fashion employers are looking for
• A directory of some fashion schools in Europe and North America
• A directory of most key fashion brands and other fashion-related businesses
• A list of the brands that offer good graduate training programs
• How to prepare and behave during an internship or first fashion job
• Recruitment agencies and where to find good fashion job listings
• Tips from industry insiders

I’d like to hear from my readers whether this is something you’d be interested in, and whether you’d be willing to pay $10-$15 USD for this, as an ebook. Also, if you have any other suggestions for the ebook, feel free to send them over.

If you think you are interested, and want to be on the mailing list for updates about the ebook (that’s it, you won’t be on any other mailing lists), then send me an email to searching4style@gmail.com with the subject line “interested.” If you have any feedback, leave it as a comment or email it to me.

Gucci campaign image from The Fashion Spot.
Vogue Italia image source.

Anna Wintour: would you turn up late if you were working at Vogue?

I have been teaching fashion related subjects for several years now, and I have come across some very interesting students. I have also managed to gain a reputation of being a scary teacher, or a bitch, or other nasty things, but most of the time, the students end up appreciating my no-bullshit methods. I’ve debated whether my expectations are too high, but I don’t think they are.

Here is what I expect of my students:

• Turn up to class on time, looking awake
• Behave professionally in class (no cell phones, no sleeping)
• Do your homework
• Read the blogs I tell you to read
• Take an interest in fashion

I understand that some new fashion students don’t know who Martin Margiela is (although you bloody well should) or Carine Roitfeld (seriously, you should know her), or what a pop up store is. These are things I can teach you, but I can’t teach you to act like an adult. And it never ceases to amaze me how many students think they can rock in to class late, with a snobby attitude, and expect to get somewhere. Would you do the same thing if you were working at Vogue? No.

(On that note, I must say that I have also encountered some fantastic students in my time, and there is nothing more satisfying to see them go on to wonderful things, like a great job.)

Carine Roitfeld, the editor at French Vogue (in case you didn't know.) She doesn't allow Uggs in the office. Good for her.

Anyway, I have written this little post for Handbag Heaven with some tips on how to get into the fashion industry. This applies to fashion students, or anyone considering a career in the fashion. But I’d like to add a few tips on attitude, because some students do not seem to understand the importance of a good attitude. What do you think is really the most important thing when in a job? Your skills are important, yes, but if you are miserable, late, and whiny, you won’t keep your job, no matter what your skills. So here are a few tips on attitude in the classroom and workplace.

• Turn up on time. Seriously. EVERY SINGLE DAY.
• Ask questions, contribute thoughts, and participate. But not every three seconds, because then you are a teacher’s pet and/or a show off.
• Learn your pronunciations of the major designers, brands, and poeple. Every time I hear Givenchy pronounced Give-enn-chee and not zhee-vah(n)-shee, it is like being stabbed in the heart
• Dress properly. This is a tough one…there are no rules in fashion. Jeans are fine, but if they are ripped to shreds and worn with flip flops, then that is a no-go at a luxury brand. Slutty clothes are bad news, especially super short mini skirts with super high heels. Wear that when you’re going to a night club. No athletic wear please (unless you are designing sportswear.) Don’t think job-interview-formal, think stylish-and-appropriate.
• Look awake. I don’t care if you are daydreaming about doughnuts, if you look bored in front of me, I am not impressed.
• Do as you are told. And don’t expect to be treated any differently than your fellow students. I can’t stand when someone thinks they should be granted exceptions for no other reason than the fact that they are whiny and think they deserve it.
• Be resourceful. If someone asks you to do something, and you aren’t sure how to do it, try and figure it out first. If you need to research something, and it isn’t the first entry on the Google search, try a few other techniques before you ask questions (try opening a book, for example.)
• And listen. LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN. If I’ve told someone to do something a particular way, and they don’t do it that way, I get crazy annoyed when they complain about a bad mark. If your boss asks you to do something, you do it, right? Act like that in school.

None of the above things are complicated or difficult to do, and I don’t think I am expecting too much. Remember, there are thousands of people trying to get into the industry, you have to work hard to stand out.

I am considering putting together a little guide for students, prospective students, and anyone trying to get into the fashion industry. It will include some of the following sections:

• A couple of rules and tips about behaviour (like the above, but in more detail)
• Tips on fashion portfolios and the type of experience fashion employers are looking for
• A directory of some fashion schools in Europe and North America
• A directory of most key fashion brands and other fashion-related businesses
• A list of the brands that offer good graduate training programs
• How to prepare and behave during an internship or first fashion job
• Recruitment agencies and where to find good fashion job listings
• Tips from industry insiders

I’d like to hear from my readers whether this is something you’d be interested in, and whether you’d be willing to pay $10-$15 USD for this, as an ebook. Also, if you have any other suggestions for the ebook, feel free to send them over.

If you think you are interested, and want to be on the mailing list for updates about the ebook (that’s it, you won’t be on any other mailing lists), then send me an email to searching4style@gmail.com with the subject line “interested.” If you have any feedback, leave it as a comment or email it to me.

Anna Wintour image source.
Carine Roitfeld image source.

This Fashion 101 is going to explain a bit about how the fashion supply chain works, and why it is so difficult and complicated to produce truly “eco” or “ethical” fashion. If you’d like some background reading on the subject of eco or ethical fashion, I’d suggest you read this interesting article from Business of Fashion, which looks at the “What it means to be green” and “Does sustainability sell?”

Spring Summer 2010 by Noir Illuminati, a Danish brand and possibly the coolest "eco" fashion brand in the world.

In my opinion, one of the important aspects of eco and ethical fashion is transparency, and transparency involves knowing and understand the process and materials involved in making a garment, and making sure that this is done with the least damage to the environment and ensuring good working conditions for the people involved. The problem with fashion is that it is close to impossible to know every aspect of this process and all of the materials involved. I’ll start with a comparison. Organic and fairtrade food is has become hugely popular in the past few years, to the point where most groceries stores carry a selection of organic and/or fairtrade products. Let’s compare food and fashion.

My aunt and cousins run an organic vegetable and fruit farm, and their main business is organic raspberries (I stuffed my face full of them picked straight off the plant this weekend when I went to visit them. Delicious.) The raspberries are grown locally, here in the Fraser Valley. The raspberries are then packaged into boxes, which are made locally. Nearly all of their customers are based within driving distance of the farm, and my cousin makes the deliveries in person. So the supply chain is very simple, the raspberries are grown in British Columbia, they are consumed in British Columbia, and the packaging comes is made in British Columbia. Yes, there are a few variables, such as the source of the paper used to make the boxes, the tractors on the farm, etc… but on the most part, we know who and what was involved in getting that raspberry to the consumer.

A diagram of the fashion supply chain from Fibre2Fashion.

When it comes to fashion, things are far more complicated. Let’s imagine a typical pair of jeans. I’ve done a bit of research about the materials involved in making a pair of jeans, and although this doesn’t represent one particular brand’s supply chain, it certainly gives you an opportunity to get an idea of the supply chain.

The scenario is a (fictional) Australian denim brand selling jeans in Europe and North America. Let’s imagine the cotton comes from India. Indigo dye can also come from India, so the cotton and dye get shipped to Pakistan, where it is woven into a fabric and dyed. The denim fabric then gets shipped to China, where the jeans are made. The metal buttons and studs are made from a copper alloy, which is mined in Chile, which are then turned into trendy looking studs and buttons in Japan. They are also shipped to China. I won’t go into detail with the other components, but there are zippers (made from metal, and generally a synthetic fibre for the ribbon), a printed leather tag on the back, labels on the outside and inside of the jeans which need to be printed and embroidered, a hand tag, the string, pin, or plastic used to attach the handtag to the jeans, etc… Then the jeans need to be shipped to a warehouse in Australia, and then distribute to their stockists in Europe and North America.

Gap jeans.

So our pair of jeans has in some way passed through the hands of many people and traveled many miles. How on earth can a fashion company know and monitor every single step of the supply chain? How can they know that every single material has all been sourced sustainably? Or that all of the workers were paid fair wages? They rarely can. Which is why eco and ethical fashion does not have nearly as much diversity in its product ranges as ‘normal” fashion. If you are interested in some further reading, here is a very interesting article about Gap’s supply chain, which is very informative and demonstrates the complexity of their supply chain.

The role of the supply chain manager is to minimize this complexity, and try to make the supply chain as efficient as possible. For example, if you were a European brand, making clothes in China and selling a lot in Japan, you certainly wouldn’t have your Japan order shipped from to a warehouse in France, then back to Japan. Instead, you would open a distribution warehouse somewhere in Asia. But all of this is very, very complicated, and just writing this article makes me feel so happy that I don’t work in supply chain management.

If some of you are asking yourselves what is the point in buying eco or ethical clothing, when there are so many unknown variables? I know it is complicated, but investing in a brand that is eco or ethical in some aspects is better than one that does nothing at all. I personally try and make “smart” choices, but that doesn’t mean I need to buy from a brand that has some sort of official certification. I know that American Apparel produces in LA, and Hermes does a lot of production in France, and both operate good working conditions for their staff. I know that Dr Hauschka has a lot of initiatives that encourage biodynamic farming and economic self-sufficiency in the developing world (and they make the best skin care products ever.) And I know that when I buy from a local brand like Obakki, I am supporting a company that employs Canadians and manufactures in Vancouver. Small differences definitely contribute to helping the big picture.

Images
Noir Illuminati
Fashion supply chain diagram
Gap Jeans
Dr. Haushcka cream

I wrote about the fur industry a few months ago in this blog post, but I’ve recently done some more in-depth research into the Canadian fur industry. Thanks to the Fur Council of Canada, I have learnt a lot about how the fur trade works in Canada, and the impact it has on Canadian business.

Now, I am sure some of my readers don’t like fur. In fact, many people find the idea of wearing fur clothing repulsive. I understand that there are many people who choose not to consume animal products, and if that is your choice, I respect it. But I also feel that the fur industry has a very bad rep, much worse than it deserves. I think organizations like PETA, who have a lot of money and celebrities on side, have disproportionally victimized the fur industry.

Workers in the fur industry. Photo by Claire Beaugrand-Champagne.

I’ve compiled a few statistics about the fur industry in Canada, to help you all understand a bit more about what it is about. Remember that the fur industry in Canada is just that, in Canada, so I’m not telling you about what happens in the fur farming industry in China, or any other country. I think the fur industry in Canada is important, our country was founded on it, and I think it needs to have a stronger voice. So here are a few reasons why we should support, or at least respect, the fur industry in Canada.

1. (Ok, I’m starting with one global statistic, to set the tone…) The fur industry represents less than one quarter of 1 percent of animals killed for human consumption. That’s very little. The meat and leather industries represent many, many more animals: some 200 million cows and several BILLION chickens plus millions of pigs, sheep, goats, etc., in North America alone — compared with about 6 million farmed and wild fur animals.) So it is strange that the fur industry seems to get so much criticism, when it is such a small business.
2. Even though it is small, the fur industry is a business that accounts for some $800 million dollars a year in Canada (including more than $350 million in exports) . That is money earned by thousands of aboriginal and other trappers living in some of the most remote regions of the country, by fur farming families, living in rural areas where employment opportunities are limited, and by processors and artisans working in small companies and family businesses, almost all of them in companies employing less than 20 people. These are not mega-corporations like meat and dairy, they are individuals who would be out of a job if we were to stop buying fur. Everyone seems to want to buy locally these days, and what is more local than buying a fur coat made from a wild animal caught in Canada, whose fur was prepared in Canada, and that was crafted, by hand, by a Canadian in Canada?
3. One third of fur in Canada comes from wild animals. The trapping skills used are regulated from the government, and are as humane as possible. That means that a good percentage of Canadian furs come from animals who have lived happy and free in the wild. (The ultimate in “free-range” and “organic” clothing!)
   

   Beavers are one of the most common animals used for fur in Canada. Photo by Luc Farrell.

4. The fur industry helps regulate the populations of wild animals. Beavers and muskrat are the main wild animals caught for fur in Canada, accounting for more than one-half the total. Beavers are animals that can cause a lot of destruction in the wild; due to the way they build their dams and forage for food. Beavers also reproduce very quickly, and when populations become too big, the beavers can seriously damage the environment, putting other wildlife at risk. If it weren’t for the fur industry, that provides an financial incentive for trappers to take a regulated number of beavers every year, the Canadian and provincial governments would have to have the animals culled in order to protect roads, fields, private property and vital wildlife habitat. (By the way, there are just as many beavers in the wild as there were 400 years ago. And no endangered or at risk animals may be killed for fur.)
5. The business generated by the fur industry in Canada helps to ensure that the natural habitats where the animals are caught are protected. A lot of the land where the trapping takes place would be more vulnerable to “development” (shopping centres, housing tracts, etc), were it not that the land produces revenue from hunters, trappers and others. If we didn’t have a profitable fur industry, a lot of this natural habitat could be lost to agriculture or other industries.
6. Animals farmed for fur are not treated any worse than animals farmed for meat. In fact, in some ways they are better off. Farmed mink need excellent nutrition and care or their fur will not be good enough for the very competitive international market. (Anyone with a dog or cat knows that a sick or unhappy animal has dull, unhealthy fur.) Another advantage is that, because they are not raised to feed humans, they can be euthanized quickly, in the same barn where they are raised. Food animals must be herded into trucks and transported long distances – which is even more stressful that the actual slaughtering. Hopefully I’ll have more to say on this subject when I get the chance to visit a local mink farm, sometime in the next few months.
   

   Muskrat, also frequently used in the fur industry in Canada. Photo by Luc Farrell.

7. Fur is biodegradable, long lasting, and handmade. You can’t make a fur coat in a giant production line. Each fur coat is individually handcrafted, using special skills and techniques that have been handed down from generation to generation. A fur coat lasts much longer than a synthetic coat (or most other clothing) and can be recycled to make a new fur coat. After many years of service, fur will eventually biodegrade, unlike petroleum-based synthetic fabrics. (Have you seen the mounds of textile waste we have in landfills? Some synthetic fabrics will take thousands of years to decompose.) And a fur coat lasts a long time. It is rare that a consumer will buy a new fur coat every season. They buy one, which will last a very long time, and it will often get handed down.
8. Nothing is wasted. Some people think that it is ok to kill a cow because we eat the meat and use the leather, but the fur industry is no different. In the fur industry, once the fur is taken, the meat of wild fur animals (like beaver and muskrat) is eaten by humans (in fact, they provide food in remote aboriginal communities where store bought food is extremely expensive to import), or returned to the wild to feed other wild animals during the cold months of winter. There are also other by-products, such as mink oil used for skin care products and professional leather care, organic fertilizers, beaver “castors” (scent glands) for use in perfumes, etc…
9. It’s a business with a lot of tradition. Canada was founded on the fur industry. The skills are generally passed down from generation to generation, and many communities still depend on the fur industry for food and income. Eliminating this would not only end this important part of our heritage, but also destroy a large number of jobs. And why, since fur is a natural product that is produced sustainably and responsibly?

Fur homewares. I'd love these in front of my fireplace. Photo by Bill Abercrombie.

I’ve always been a big fan of fur, it is warm, beautiful to the touch, and natural. And it is a great relief to learn that the fur industry is far from evil and exploitative. I explained all of the above to my friend Maria, who dislikes fur and rarely eats meat, and she agreed that the above arguments have certainly swayed her perception of the fur industry. But her argument was “I don’t want this to mean that suddenly everyone thinks it is ok to cage animals in horrible conditions and kill them for their pelts.” I agree with her completely, and I believe that the approach consumers take to the fur industry needs to be the same as the approach they take to buying meat, chocolate, coffee, etc… I won’t buy a battery chicken, I’ll only buy fairtrade coffee, and I won’t buy fur farmed in countries where there is no regulation or standards for the treatment of animals. But that doesn’t mean I won’t buy any more chicken, coffee or fur; I am simply learning to be smarter about my decisions. I hope some of the above facts will help you to make smarter decisions too.

All images, unless otherwise noted, are courtesy of the Fur Council of Canada.

Some resort 2011 shoes I didn't review: Erdem's beautiful printed dresses.

I have finished my Resort 2011 fashion show coverage. I think they are done, and even if they aren’t, I can’t do anymore. Covering fashion shows is exhausting, even if I am not attending them (it is even worse if you are attending.)

I started my resort coverage with Dior and Chanel, thinking there would be 6 or 10 resort shows in total. That was not the case, at all. It seems like nearly all the big brands (and many smaller ones) have done a resort show. There’s been so much press recently about how designers are complaining that there are too many collections to do, too much work to do, etc…, but now they still continue to add to their workload by doing another fashion show.

Reed Krakoff Resort 2011: a perfectly simple white dress.

Rumour has it that Anna Wintour is the reason why everyone is doing resort shows. The Wall Street Journal’s Christina Binkley tweeted: “Wondered why ‘resort’ is a big runway show season this year. Just heard Anna Wintour asked for them. Great for everyone but designers” and this was confirmed to me by another industry insider this week. I heard that Anna is trying to hype up New York City, and by forcing everyone to show resort there, it elevates the city’s fashion status.

Cathy Horyn likes the resort shows, claiming there’s a smaller audience, food and drink served, and more wearbale clothes “depending on your perspective, resort collections can have either things you’re bored seeing or gems you can’t seem to find anymore because everybody’s become such big shots that they can’t do straightforward things.” She also quotes Micheal Kors, who puts some sense into the resort collections: “It’s the longest-selling period at full price.”

Richard Nicoll resort 2011: a perfectly balanced silhouette.

What’s the problem here? Firstly, if there weren’t SO many collections, and SO much stock on the shop floor, maybe clothing could be sold at full price for longer. Secondly, the problem is that Anna Wintour can convince designers to spend huge budgets on an additional fashion shows (usually across the Atlantic from their headquarters) just because she wants New York City to move up the fashion food chain. All these expenses are only going to add to the cost of the clothes. I’d like a designer to say, “I am only doing a look book. I am spending a minimal amount on marketing. I am not flying my entire team to NYC to put on a show in June. And my clothes are going to be 20% cheaper.” Just on principal, I would run out and buy this person’s collection.

The next problem is the continuous increase of responsibilities that a fashion company has. What happened to two seasons a year, two shows a year, and a lot of time to reflect, inspire, and design collections in between. This is gone, and now fashion is on a treadmill 52 weeks a year. I’d like someone to start a slow fashion movement, and only show twice a year. They can deliver the collections slowly, so it looks like there’s new stuff in store every few weeks, but really, its the same big collection, arriving bit by bit. There is too much going on, too many collections, and too much to see. It is just wrong.

3.1 Phillip Lim resort 2011: sexy retro looks.

What we need is less collections, and more imaginative ways to keep the customer interested. I agree you don’t want to walk into a store in September, October, November, December, and January, and see the same thing over and over again. But more strategic delivery dates, drops, or the delivery of one extra mini-collections a season (not a FULL resort collection, just a very small capsule collection) would make a lot more sense.

Anyway, I can complain about this until I am blue in the face, but it is only when the designers get together and decide they aren’t going to succumb to the pressure of Anna Wintour, and that two major fashion shows a year is enough, that we are going to see some changes. I am bored of all this fashion, and would like to go back to the days where each fashion week only had 30 or 40 shows, and designers could still sell their collections even if they didn’t have $100K to put on a fashion show twice a year. They were judged on their designs, and not their shows, celebrity support, and whether they had posed nude in an perfume advertising campaign.

Thakoon resort 2011: pleating genius.

Read all my resort 2011 show reviews here.

All images from Style.com.

This comes up when I google "business casual." Possibly the worst words in the fashion language (along with Crocs and Uggs.)

I have a problem with dress codes (and I am probably shooting myself in the foot by writing this in case my employers are reading) but I have a part time job that has a business casual dress code. The words business casual send shivers down my spine. And unfortunately, the dress code involves a long list of do’s and don’ts’. I have broken the dress code several times, and no one has said anything, but I think the purpose of it is so that they have leverage if someone dresses like a freak.

For example, one of the dress code rules states “No leggings.” Well, I have worn leggings several times to work, but always under a dress or skirt. I think what they mean is “No leggings as pants” (and this is an essential rule in Vancouver where everyone seems to be under the impression that leggings are pants. They are not.) So if someone comes in wearing leggings as pants, then they can ask her/him (I think the words is “meggings” if it is a guy) to dress more appropriately. So even though I hate the concept of the dress code, I can see, particularly since we are in Vancouver, that it is good to have some regulations that you can throw at someone should they decide that leggings and a baseball cap are appropriate work attire. (This is only appropriate attire if you are at the gym, on the way to the gym, or work in a gym. Other than that, it is NEVER appropriate.)

And I respect that a company should be allowed to have a dress code, providing it is clear and applies to everyone. S0 I don’t know why everyone is getting in such a huff about the American Apparel dress code. If they want young, skinny, natural beauties working in their store, then that is up to them. Personally, I find the American Apparel staff usually pretty annoying, since they tend to be busy chatting rather than helping me. I spend at least $500 a year there, and I’d like to request the staff spend more time “serving” than mincing around the shop in hot pants. Anyway….

An American Apparel ad. The model is not anorexically thin, she's not photoshopped, not a fake boob in site, and she's not wearing makeup. Shouldn't we be PRAISING this type of fashion imagery?

I think a company should be allowed to decide what they want their staff to look like, as long as they can prove it is an important part of their image. No one goes around criticizing Vogue for not having any obese, unattractive, unfashionable women on staff, do they? And, on further investigation into the American Apparel dress code (thanks to The Cut, who posted it on their blog), I think there are some very valid points on it…let’s have a look.

Women’s dress code:
a) Makeup is to be kept to a minimal- please take this very seriously. Liquid eyeliner, pencil eyeliner and eyeshadow are advised against; mascara must look very natural (ie. should not be clumpy or a color that does not compliment your skin and haircolor). Blush must not be overdone- should not have glitter or sparkles. Liquid foundation is prohibited (undereye concealer is understandable if it looks natural- ie. not clumpy or caked on, must match your skin tone). Please do not use a shiny gloss on your lips; any lipcolor must be subtle.

I guess this is their way of saying “If you can’t look good au naturel” you can’t work here. That alienates a lot of people, and I am sure this is their intent.

Dyeing eyebrows? There are cases where it SHOULD be done. And this is a good reason to stick to your natural hair colour.

b) Eyebrows must not be overplucked. Full eyebrows are very much encouraged. Please do not dye your eyebrows a different color.

Who the hell dyes their eyebrows a different colour?? Is this referring to blue/green/pink eybrows? Or bad dye jobs to try and match your fake blond hair. Both should be banned outright, not just at American Apparel stores.

c) We encourage long, healthy, natural hair, so please be advised of the following:
-Hair must be kept your natural color.
-Blow-drying hair excessively could cause heat damage, so this is advised against.
-”Bangs” or “fringe” are advised against. It is not part of the direction we’re moving in.

I’ll have to disagree somewhat here, since short hair on girls can often look quite cool. But healthy is good, and bangs are not.

Another good-looking, un-photoshooped, American Apparel girl. This girl looks amazing!

For the men:
a) Hair should look natural. Excessive product to the extent of creating stiffness and an unnatural or greasy appearance to your hair is advised against.

Greasy hair = gross. We don’t need a dress code to tell us that.

b) Eyebrows should be natural. Please do not dye your eyebrows a different color or overpluck them.

It is acceptable for a discreet clean up of the brows on a man, but overplucked? No! See my comments above on “dyeing your eyebrows a different colour.”

c) Males should not wear makeup.

A rule that should be followed by all men, gay or straight. Makeup is not cool on a guy.

This guy can't work at American Apparel. He has terrible "contemporary" facial hair, a disgusting gauge earring, and I am not even going to comment on the monstrosity on his neck.

d) Facial hair needs to be kept clean and well groomed. Any mustache or goatee of a contemporary style are advised against.

Well, my husband has a beard, but he sports that Scandinavian viking look, and it looks pretty cool. However, mustaches are dodgy territory. Terry Richardson’s one is cool (it is not “contemporary”), but most are not. I agree that goatees should be “advised against.” All men should be “advised against” goatees.

e) No gauges allowed whatsoever.

Hallelujah! Those thing are disgusting.

The Cut also explained that “employees must obey the rules, which include a ban on … Uggs, Vans, Chucks, moccasins, dirty Keds … ”

Some readers will know my opinion on Uggs, but I’d like to take this moment to reiterate that banning Uggs from the earth can only be a good thing.

Here’s another great quote about Dov Charney, American Apparel’s CEO, defending the company’s dress code, from The Cut “he suggested we dress up like Kiss and try applying for retail jobs and see how far we get in the hiring process.” Point taken. Personally, I’d love to go to a clothing store where all the staff were dressed like Kiss, but I don’t think they’d be very effective wearing those crazy platforms, and the studs might snag the clothes.

Kiss outfits: a good retail uniform?

As a little experiment of investigative journalism, I am toying with the idea of sending my photo through to American Apparel to try and get a job. I have heard that they ask for a photo before they even look at your resume…could I be an American Apparel girl? It would be fun to try. Watch this space.

A model knitting while she gets her hair done.

I should have posted this sooner, but it is not too late if you are reading this on Friday!

Sugar Studios is hosting their first seminar on Saturday June 12th, which is the opportunity to be a ‘Fly on the Wall’ during a fashion shoot.

“…watch fashion photographer DEXTER QUINTO and stylist LEILA BANI as they shoot the feature spread for TLC magazine’s September 2010 issue. Dexter, Leila, and TLC have teamed up with one of Vancouver’s premier boutiques, BACCI’S, in celebration of their 25-year history of fashion. The shoot will feature pieces from BACCI’S 25-year archive, which include the likes of JEAN PAUL GAULTIER, ALEXANDER MCQUEEN, CHLOE, MOSCHINO, DRIES VAN NOTEN, and JUNYA WATANABE, to name a few.”

If you are a fashion student, or an aspiring photographer or stylist, it could be a great way to see what happens during a photoshoot. (And the clothes will be fantastic, since they come from Bacci’s.) I don’t know Dexter, but I know that Leila is a fantastic stylist, one of Vancouver’s best, and even I’d like to see her in action. However, it is a long and boring day (photoshoots always are) and what I can’t understand is the price of this “seminar.” THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS. So, no, I guess it is not aimed at fashion students, or anyone who has less money than sense.

Model looking bored and getting her hair done. Photo by Tommy Ton from Jak and Jil.

So for those of you wanting to understand a bit about what goes on “behind the scenes” during a photoshoot, I’d like to suggest the following. If you are a student, contact some local stylists and try and get some work assisting. If you are nice, intelligent, and have some basic fashion knowledge, it won’t be hard. Then you get to be PART of the behind the scenes and it won’t cost you a thing. In fact, you’ll probably get a free lunch. For the rest of you, I will kindly give you a detailed run down of a typical photoshoot, at the bargain price of zero dollars (that is 300 dollars cheaper than tomorrow’s seminar, and you can still enjoy a day out in the sun.)

Call time: 8am

8am: Hair stylists, makeup artists, stylist, photographers, assistants arrive at studio

8:15am: Model calls to say she is running late. Photographer starts setting up, discussing shots with stylist. Clothes are ironed. Hair and makeup set up their equipment.

8:30: Still no model. Hair and makeup are sitting there, bored.

9am: Model arrives, panting. Team wants to yell at her for being late, but it is a bad idea to yell at a model, because she might be in a bad mood for the rest of the day, and that means bad photos.

9am-10am: Model gets hair done. Photograph finishes preparing first set up, stylist is ready to go.

10am-11am: Model gets makeup done. Photographer and stylist are sitting around, bored.

11am: First shot. Realize hair is wrong. Hair takes another 30 minutes to sort out it out.

Model being dressed and looking bored.

11:30am: More attempts at getting first shot. Model isn’t getting “into the mood.” The photos look crap. Panic that everyone has been there for almost four hours and nothing has been accomplished yet.

12 noon: First photo looks good. Model changes into second look. Hair and makeup doing minor touch-ups, bit otherwise bored.

1pm: Second look gets shot.

2pm -3pm: Lunch. Model gets new hair and makeup, photographer sets up new lighting for next photos. Atmosphere is tense as the shoot has been going on for 6 hours, and there are only two photos taken so far. Only 3 more hours before models starts charging obscene overtime fee, and studio wants to closes.

3pm-6pm: Miraculously six more shots get taken in the last three hours. For some reason, it takes four hours to get the first shots right at a photoshoot, but the rest come easily. Hair and makeup bored, until they decide to start packing up at 5pm.

Model looking bored. Photo by Tommy Ton of Jak and Jil.

Hours spent sitting around doing nothing: LOTS. Moments where things are exciting, MAYBE 2 hours. The rest is boring. Why do you think we always see photos of models sitting around reading books or knitting? It is because they spend a lot of time being bored. One photoshoot with a team of people, and you tend to know them better than most of your friends, since you’ve managed to tell them your life stories five times over. And that’s just while the model is getting her hair done.

So that’s it folks. If you still feel the urge to see the photoshoot live tomorrow, I am sure there are tickets left. If not, rest assured you aren’t missing out on anything that exciting, it is a long day.

(I have to say, I am quite shocked at the ridiculous price tag involved with this seminar. They have 40 seats, at 300 dollars a head? That means they are expecting to make over $10K in profit, from letting people watch them work? It is ridiculous.)

Contact details for the tickets:

Contact studio manager CHRISTINA CULVER at 604.879.1635 or sugar@sugarstudios.com.

Model knitting.

Images, from top to bottom.

Model knitting.

Model bored by Tommy Ton.

Model bored 1.

Model bored by Tommy Ton.

Model knitting.

I watched this very interesting TED talk last week, it is Johanna Blakley talking about “copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and (how) fashion benefits in both innovation and sales.” The video is 15 minutes long, but defintiely worth watching, and it also raises some intersting points about copyright protection in the fashion industry.

The video looks at how the fashion industry had fewer regulations than other creative industries, and how fashion ideas are very difficult to protect. The first example she discusses is that of Miuccia Prada, when out shopping, buys a vintage Balenciaga jacket, in order to copy the idea and put it into her own collection. My readers in the fashion industry will be aware of this type of activity, it is called research. Essentially, part of the process of finding ideas for a collection is to take other designer’s clothing, and translate it for your own collection. As the TED talk points out, in some industries this might be considered copyright infringement. In the case of fashion, it is just how we get our ideas.

Left, Steve Madden shoe, right, Balenciaga shoe.

Is this wrong? Sometimes, yes. It is wrong when Steve Madden takes Balenciaga’s shoe design,  makes a few minor changes to it, and sells it as his own. It is wrong when Topshop copies Chloé’s dress design (and they had to destroy over a 1000 dresses when Chloé protested over the design.) But top designers don’t do that, they are much smarter and much more imaginative. And they don’t want to copy other designer’s work, they just want to be inspired by it.

Left, See by Chloé dress, right, Topshop dress.

The design research process involves many sources of inspiration, including travel abroad, books, artwork, and culture. Designers also buy clothing for inspiration, which can include very vintage pieces, old costumes, traditional dress found on their trips around the world, and other pieces of old clothing. Sometimes they take inspiration from other designer’s work, usually old work, but sometimes newer work, although it is almost never direct copies of recent designer’s work. I am sure Miuccia would take the aforementioned vintage Balenciaga jacket, and transform it into her own design, making serious modifications ot the original piece.

When I was at Sonia Rykiel, we used to have a guy, (who had the best job in the entire world) whose role it was to travel to flea markets around the world, and buy items of clothing and accessories that he felt we could use as inspiration for our collections. (Don’t ask me how to get into this line of work, if I knew, that is what I would be doing.) One season he brought us a whole bunch of bags, which I assumed were all vintage pieces. At the end of the season, we got rid of the ones that hadn’t been used, so I was allowed to take two home.

A few weeks later, I discovered that one of the bags was sold in a Paris shop, located quite close to our design studios. I also realized that the bag was a design from a new brand, and was being sold as part of the current season. Soon after, I noticed that the second bag was also from a young designer’s current collection. Basically, the items we were using for ideas for our future collection were not only old vintage pieces, but also the work of unknown young designers trying to break into the industry.

At the time, it came as a surprise to me. Then I learnt that this was commonplace in the industry. The young designers were coming up with great ideas, and we were considering stealing them. Those two particular bags never influenced our collections, although I am sure that we had at some point copied other designer’s work.

Left, Marc by Marc Jacobs, right, Wallis.

There are few laws that really protect garment designs, but the ones that exist are set up to protect large companies, and rarely small designers. When Steve Madden copied Alexander McQueen’s boot, they sued him. But when a small designer gets copied by a larger brand, there isn’t much that they can do. Big brands like Louis Vuitton and Gucci have to deal with thousands of counterfeits, therefore they need to rely on the strength of their brands and the quality of their product, to convince customers that the cheap knockoff at a fraction of the price is not worth buying. But small companies, who don’t have powerful brand identities and legal teams, struggle to protect their designs and brand identities.

Left, Alexander McQueen, right, Steve Madden.

What can we do about this? Nothing really. It is the reality of the industry, which is cut throat for nearly everyone in it. Not all big brands copy from young designers, but many do. Fast fashion brands often steal ideas from designer brands, and they are rarely caught out, because copyright laws make it very difficult for designers to protect their ideas.

Sucks, doesn’t it? If you are a small brand, and patenting, trademarking, and even registering design ideas is too expensive for you, there are a few ways you can protect yourself. Keep records of everything you do. If your design is copied, you can use items like press clippings, documents from factories/printers/photographers, etc… as evidence that you designed the idea before the other company. The old fashioned way of sending yourself a copy of all your designs, before they go out into the public domain, can also help. A postdated, stamped, sealed envelope can be used as evidence in court, just make sure not to open the envelope!

Read other Fashion 101 posts:

Fashion 101: How Magazines Cover Trends

Fashion 101: Where do Fashion Trends Come From?

Fashion 101: Designers with Two Jobs

Fashion 101: How Haute Couture Works

Fashion 101: Magazines and their Advertisers

Image sources:
Alexander McQueen and Steve Madden shoe.
Chloé and Topshop yellow dresses.
Steve Madden and Balenciaga lego shoes.
Marc by Marc Jacobs and Wallis floral dresses.

If you want to see more, Fashionista’s Adventures in Copyrights posts a lot of the high street copies.