Fashion Police: The Skinny On Copy-Cats

While searching the blogosphere this week I found two diverse problems that are plaguing the world of fashion at this moment. Karen Kay from London’s Dailymail tackles the first problem with the question, “Are size zero models too thin for the catwalk?” This controversy has sparked debate on whether or not models should have to meet a certain BMI (body mass index) to be able to partake in fashion shows. It is hoped that this minimum weight requirement for models will help combat eating disorders such as anorexia in young women. The second blog by Amy Duvall, an Associate Editor for the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Blog was, “Stricter Copyright Rules for Fashion: A Faux Pas.” She discussed why high-end designers feel they need to be able copyright their clothing designs to combat lower-end retailers knocking off cheap versions of designer clothing.

Comment:

Your question, how thin is too thin? is good in theory, but has fatal flaws (no pun intended). If we start instituting minimum BMI’s for thin models, are we then going to require a maximum BMI for plus size models? Being overweight has as many health risks as being too thin. As the world population gets heavier and heavier, do overweight models send the message that it is ok to be obese? Dove brand products are using “natural” models. Most have body mass indexes that would worry their doctor. The real problem is the fashion industry is looking for a rare specimen for models. The average runway model today is 5” 11 and weighs 118 lbs. The age limit for models has dropped so low that runway shows include 13 years models. These girls are naturally very thin because they are pubescent. Race is another consideration. The model Chanel Iman who is half-black and half-Korean appears anorexic. When you consider her Asian genetic background, her small lithe body appears to have more to do with natural body type. If models weight is going to be regulated, should we consider gymnasts, ballerinas, ice skaters and wrestlers in need of regulating? All of these aforementioned sports place heavy emphasis on calorie reduction in children so they stay low in body weight or size. Although setting minimum body mass standard for models appears worthwhile, it would be difficult to implement fairly.

Comment:

The topic as you presented had many interesting points and was well thought and written. However, I do not believe that clothing should be copyrighted for a couple of reasons. Our court system is already overburdened with legal matters. The cost of a lawsuit, regardless of whether it’s legitimate or not, is so expensive it would put new designers out of business. To avoid competition, wealthy houses would just keep upstart design houses in the court system. The second problem I see is there would then be a need to copyright fabrics. Fabric houses sell the same patterns to many designers and the designer doesn’t necessarily own the fabric. This is the reason the two dresses in your blog look identical. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in the article, “Check out the new threads,” Italian manufactures have solved this copycat syndrome by commissioning small runs of high-tech new fabrics. These fabrics are too expensive and exclusive for cheap retailers to knock off. In addition to coming up with exclusive designs, there are new blends of synthetic fabrics that contain rubber and nylon with natural fibers. The new fiber combinations drape differently allowing new shapes in clothing that are difficult to replicate. In response to the designer complaint regarding lost sale due to cheap replicas, honestly a Forever 21(dress on the right) customer is not going to buy a Diane Von Furstenberg dress (dress on the left) anyway. High-end designer clothing is about creativity and new design. Let’s find creative ways to solve this problem and stay out of the legal system.

GEN-XS: Designer Kids

US Weekly ran a recent photograph of Angelina Jolie and her daughter Zahara toting mommy and me matching Valentino handbags (image to the right). Although this is sweetly reminiscent of Laura Ashley or Lily Pulitzer mother-daughter matching dress ensembles, something is awry. If this is not absurd enough in and of itself, what exactly does a three-year-old toddler tote inside of an eleven hundred dollar handbag? A credit card or cell phone seems unlikely, although a diaper seems plausible. We have a child who may not even be potty-trained carrying a bag most adults cannot afford. This trend has attracted many high-end labels including Missoni, Little Marc for Marc Jacobs, Chloe, Alberta Ferreti, D&G and Burberry. Marketers and designers hope they are gaining a young and lifelong loyal customer. While the idea may be profitable and cute, are designers doing youth a favor or causing long-term damage?

Both W magazine and Wall Street Journal have had recent articles about the social repercussions of children wearing designer duds. Dorothy Espelage, a psychologist and professor at the University of Illinois, states having access to designer clothing affords some kids, "the opportunity to become popular and that protects you and gives you social power and leverage over others.” This statement may have some truth, but it also can cause children to lack social skills and lean on fashion as a crutch. It creates a false sense of self-worth based on “what I wear defines who I am.” Related to this are the potential problems of an impressionable psyche. Alexandra Barzvi, a clinical psychologist at NYU points out that, “A girl who starts in a regularly partaking of idea of expensive creations, even on a loan basis, might emerge into adulthood with warped idea of value….The more you're exposed to something, the more accustomed you become to it, the more desensitized to it you become." Children lack the appreciation for the cost of the things they own. As adults we know financial security is not foolproof and we all realize it is easier to upgrade than downgrade. Supplying kids with belongings they may or not be able to afford for a lifetime is setting them up for disappointment. Part of this social repercussion has been titled “the mean girl effect” from Lindsay Lohan’s famous movie Mean Girls about catty high school students. The Wall Street Journal reported, “In one study, more than one-third of middle-school students responded “yes” when asked whether they are bullied because of the clothes they wear.” Kids who should be learning social skills are learning that it is essential to have a closet full of the “right” or designer clothing to be popular. This idea is further being perpetuated by magazines such as Teen Vogue who regularly photograph clothing from designers such as Roberto Cavalli, Dsquared and Marc Jacobs. These labels are intended to be worn by adult’s not middle-school age children.

There are other issues. Children and teens that wear adult clothing are denied a rite of passage to adulthood that comes from reaching physical maturity. Wearing designer clothes at 13 destroys the mystique very early on, so by 35 there is little thrill left. What can be left to look forward to? High-end clothing is a status symbol that implies the adult has earned the means to buy the clothing. It is a reward of sort. Children cannot appreciate the cost of the clothing and or what it really represents although they will get the underlying lesson, entitlement. Children’s clothing should be designed for children because they spill, get grass stains, stomp in puddles, lose things (even purses) and grow. Yes, they are literally your darling spitting image, so they need to be dressed accordingly in something absorbent and washable. There are reasons that cashmere, silk and tight tailoring is not found in children’s clothing. These fabrics cannot handle the stains or wear and tear children inevitably produce and tailoring just plain makes summersaults uncomfortable.

Vanessa Lawrence of W magazine ran a piece, “Underage Fashion,” on young Hollywood starlets and their access to high-end label clothing. The article mentions up and coming stars Emma Watson, age fourteen and sixteen year old Emma Roberts who cite Chanel as their favorite brand. After the article ran, Emma Watson (image to the right) was tapped as the new face of Chanel. Lawrence thinks, “ This might seem ironic to some considering that the label is based on an image and price tags that seem notably aspirational and unreachable to women.” Fashion houses are trying a new tactic that might need rethinking. They are building relationships with young starlets with superstar potential hoping that the loyal star will wear their clothing to premieres and galas throughout their career. While this is good in theory, the problem is wealthy and sophisticated Chanel wearers no more want to see a 14 year wear the label, than a teenager wants to see her mother in low slung jeans and a T-shirt. These young women look their age and appear to be playing dress-up in their mother’s clothes. It’s sad they are missing the clothing choices advisable only during adolescence in favor of dressing as a sophisticated older woman. High-end designer clothing for children or young teens is the most in-your-face form of consumerism. With 14 year olds in Chanel and $250 jeans on five year olds, GenX, will soon be followed by Generation XS (excess).

Cheap And Chic: Fashion's New Direction

A recent review of the new spring collections by San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Christine Suppes read like the 7 personalities of Sybil. She reported John Galliano was showing ultra romantic chiffon dresses with swingy beaded jackets with 30's "buzz," Lanvin had knee length modern dresses with cascading ruffles, and Jean Paul Gaultier designed Pirates of the Caribbean themed clothes like jodhpurs and billowing blouses and wide (image to the right), wide belts. Is fashion spiraling towards so much individual design freedom that anarchy reigns? It is s obvious the top designers lack consensus. If this isn’t enough, fashion magazines seasonally have a “what’s in, what’s out” section. Fashion cycles have been getting shorter and shorter recently reaching a micro-mini lifespan. The dress you bought last month, so last month. Today’s lack of unity in fashion direction and short life cycle is caused interesting repercussions.

The absence of style coherency and shortened fashion cycles is causing consumer trepidation. It is also changing shopping habits. The good news is consumers have many choices of clothing and can find something flattering, but the bad news is its fashion lifespan might not beat the Visa bill getting paid. The idea that you can be a pirate in the morning and a 30’s movie siren in the evening is part of the fun of fashion, but sky-high prices and limited clothing lifespan are serious drawbacks. Capricious fashion trends are causing a backlash that is allowing discounters like Target and Kohl’s to make out like bandits. They have hired high-end designers, such as Isaac Mizrahi, Alice Temperley, and celebrities like Madonna and Kate Moss to design clothing lines. Both Madonna and Kate Moss designed successful clothing lines for H&M and Topshop. According to the Daily Mail from the UK, Madonna’s collection “M” was so successful product sold out and sales surged 17 percent the month the clothing was released. Kate Moss’s collection for Topshop sold out in 3 minutes at its London store and nearly sold out in 19 different countries, prompting the UK Company to consider opening U.S. retailers. Clothing is seen as more and more disposable.
Our current fashion schizophrenia will certainly challenge future art historians who have always used clothing style as a reliable dating technique for paintings. Looking at a painting, even a fuzzy pointillism painting like Georges-Pierre Seurat’s, Sunday Afternoon at Island La Grand Jatte (image to the left), it is obvious that fashionable women wore floor length dresses with bustles, small hats perched on coiffed hair, and the important accessory was a parasol. Today’s artwork will cause future art historians major migraines.

The magazine Harper’s Bazaar has a regular article called, “What to buy, keep, store”. The column is designed to tell the reader what they must buy, what can be stored for future recycling and clothing that never must see the light of day again. Here lies the crux of the problem. This week’s treasure is next week’s trash. Who can keep up? Designers are missing out because there are few people with limitless budgets. For example, Harper’s Bazaar’s must have dress this month is a modern frock from Calvin Klein. It is fuchsia and white and comes with a price tag of $2,900. Steep prices have never prohibited the purchase of designer clothes like this, but now with such a minuscule lifespan, even deep-pocketed celebrities are rethinking designer clothing and are instead investing in outrageously expensive accessories that have longer life cycles than designer apparel. The actress Sienna Miller is a perfect example of someone who mixes high and low priced items. Although she could arguably afford any dress she wants, Sienna has been seen out wearing a $30 H&M dress paired with seventeen hundred dollar shoes.

High fashion designers have been forming collaboration collections with lower-end retailers. The benefit to designers is name recognition, and drummed up sales and profit. Truthfully why pay a fortune for a designer dress when you can get a Roberto Cavalli designed dress for $99 dollars at H&M (image to the right). With blink of the eye life spans, it’s the perfect price for a dress that can be fun to wear but not cause guilt as it hangs unworn in the closet. Granted the quality and material are not the same as the designer ready-to-wear pieces, but the general idea is similar. This idea works well and benefits people who appreciate fashion and design but can’t afford to purchase high-end clothing.

Isaac Mizhrahi paved the way for this trend-setting change. When his fashion house fell victim to bankruptcy and collapsed, he was hired by Target to design its first designer collaboration fashion line. It was a hit. Target’s GO International theme rotates designers every 90 days. Everyone from Karl Lagerfeld to Stella McCartney has designed an inexpensive line with great success. Proenza Schouler, Alice Temperely and Erin Fetherston are up and coming designers. Their collaboration with Target has increased their name recognition. Mass merchandisers also give designers profit with little risk. The downside is these high-end designers have seen their high-end buyers wearing their mass-produced lines, meaning loss of high-end sales. If high-end designers want to continue to produce high-end clothing, they must rethink their strategies and agree on unified, lasting fashion and trends, so consumers won’t mind spending the dough. If this free-for-all trend continues, the biggest fashion victim may be fashion itself. In the meantime, while the cat is distracted and confused, the mice will play (in beautiful, but cheap designer duds).

Mass Luxury: The Holly Golightly Effect

The high fashion industry has found that too much of a good thing can be bad for business. Over the top success can be damaging in maintaining a brand image that symbolizes prestige, wealth and exclusivity. Outrageous popularity also prompts knock-offs, thereby reducing profit and eroding selectiveness. Big house labels are in a Catch-22 dilemma. Tiffany's, Dior, and Louis Vuitton have had to realign strategies to maintain their cachet. Sometimes, this has meant walking away from profitable business. Their issue is lower price items attract youth and youthful appeal, giving designer’s street credibility. The Catch-22 is when too much youth appeal backfires, causing wealthy and older clientele to no longer desire the brand. So how does a luxury business profit and grow when there is a limited wealthy clientele known for being fickle? The fashion houses found that they must inch along a particularly unsteady tight rope to avoid cheapening the brand’s image. Robert Frank from the “Wall Street Journal” sums up this predicament, in a recently published article about the problem of mass marketing luxury goods. He states, “The past few years have seen several upscale brands sacrificed on the altar of so-called mass luxury. To my mind, there is no such thing as mass luxury. You can be mass. You can be luxury. You can’t be both.”

Tiffany’s may have been one of the first houses to suffer this Catch-22. They can blame it on Holly Golightly. The character from Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Holly was in love with Tiffany’s. It was the happy place she went when she was sad, even though she could not afford the valuable gems inside. She wanted to own part of Tiffany’s allure, so ultimately, she purchased a Tiffany’s engraving and hallmark stamp on a Cracker Jack’s ring. Tiffany’s didn’t wake up and realize the potential of selling its prestigious brand name to the masses until the 1990’s. They began selling sterling silver jewelry, at relatively reasonable prices to attract young clientele. It may have worked too well. Tourists and young customers flocked to Tiffany’s to buy lower end jewelry rather than luxury jewels. The result was highly profitable, but tarnished Tiffany’s image. Concerned that their name was no longer synonymous with luxury, the company tried to re-establish its name by scaling back or eliminating many entry-level products. This process angered Wall Street and shareholders as revenues fell.

Christian Dior has found themselves in a very similar situation. Their dilemma, as Christina Passariello stated in the article, “Dior’s Latest Makeover Focuses on Grown ups,” reads, “Dior was struggling against one of the biggest challenges facing high-end fashion -- maintaining both a youthful buzz and exclusivity.” In our culture today, we are obsessed with youth, and companies want young consumers’ approval, because it creates a desirable label that leads to profit. The problem is one of statistics; few people buying $5,000 jackets are in their twenties or thirties. It is a very grown up crowd that has the financial ability to spend enormous sums on clothing. Realizing its blunder Dior has back peddled some, trying to limit youthful appeal and design for a more polished grown-up image.

Dior’s CEO Sidney Toledano has found that price affects younger teen shoppers. They will flip flop brands and bypass Dior’s expensive leather bags in favor of small canvas accessories that say “Dior.” This effect had the CEO of Dior up in arms. Two years ago, he noticed that 300 tank tops from their collection which read, ‘j’adore Dior” sold in one day. His fear was that the power of the t-shirt was ruining “Dior’s cachet.” He pulled them from Dior’s line. He also began to worry when his teenage daughter wanted to wear Dior. This was a sign that the company had switched from a sophisticated line to an overly youthful brand that needed to re-balance its appeal. To counter its youth oriented indiscretion, Dior has stepped up production of exotic leather handbags that have a starting price of $2,800 dollars (image to the right). This approach has worked as sales of high-end bags have tripled recently.

The too successful saga has also plagued Louis Vuitton. Vuitton started luxury good branding by placing LV initials on waterproof fabric steamer trunks to identify them from copycats. Technology has allowed the copycats a leg up. The runway success of the Murakami line has caused it to be one of the most knocked off bags in history. Every imitated bag is a stab at Louis Vuitton’s exclusivity. LVMH has responded to the overly successful Murakami bag by producing only 24 of its newest $38,000 crocodile patchwork bags (pictured on the left). They hope that the exclusivity will protect the brand’s image from future tarnish. This effectively limits the coveted bags to the wealthy and privileged as iterated by Nicole Weston who states, “ We (Louis Vuitton) are confident that the bag is utterly exclusive and that it will remain so.”

The world of high fashion has a conundrum. Selling to the masses is financially enticing, but not carefully toeing the snob appeal line destroys the exclusivity necessary to sell to the classes. The search to find the superfine grey area that allows both is on. Holly Golightly found the first elusive sweet spot decades ago. Let’s hope it is corralled in soon, it makes the fashion world more intriguing and to some degree more attainable.

Fashion Woes: Celebrity Sightings Upstaging Fashion

New York Fashion Week, which showcased new collections two weeks ago, 
seemed to be hiding something amid all the finery. Newcomer Rosa 
Cha, the
 Brazilian Beachwear Company found that offering a front row seat no longer cuts it, even though it used to be akin to Charlie finding the Golden Ticket. 
Cha hired a public relations firm to woo celebrities and up-and-coming stars, and then found they also needed to provide free car service to lure the desired crowd. Is
 fashion no longer the feature show, but the filler? Clothing collections are having a difficult time holding their own against the distraction of celebrity show-goers, music groups performing, the swag and free entertainment.

Fashion shows are critically important for upcoming new designers. They must draw the right crowd to attract magazine and news attention. While the actual runway show isn’t a profitable venture, media exposure is priceless and can help make designers a household name. The newest form of fashion reviewer may not be fashion critics, reporters or editors, but the celebrity whose nod of approval is simply their appearance.

Front row fashion seats used to be reserved for important cliental, buyers, society fixtures and magazine editors or writers. A look at today’s front row fashion seat set is a virtual who’s who of celebrities, including movie stars, singers, reality television stars and public hungry socialites. Fashion writer Carolyn Enting, takes a stab at this new cultural phenom hitting the fashion world. She states that, “Celebrity is part of the culture here and, during Fashion Week, a celebrity at your show gives you twice the media exposure.”

For the most part, designers are coming to the rude awakening that to entice famous face attendees; they may need to offer financial incentives. Gone are the days when an invitation by itself was considered a coup. Now designers may have to throw in free hair and make-up services, clothing, car services and swag galore, as an enticement for the desirable to show up.

Besides all the aforementioned perks, celebrities who show up get free press when their name and photos appear in newspapers, magazines and the net. Apparently this is a good mix, because even A-list celebrity Charlize Theron showed up at several shows including Dior, and was featured in several magazines, ranging from US weekly to Vogue. She was wearing a piece from the new Dior collection, giving the collection great exposure.

Famous designers also befriend celebrities, a la Gwyneth Paltrow for Valentino or Stella McCartney. These friendships curry extra good will as a favor to the fashion house. As expected, young and B list celebrities are more willing to show up to promote their name and further their public profile. This whole media hungry bunch seems to have shifted the priorities of a fashion show from the designer’s collection to the show itself.

Many designers were left scrambling this year trying to fill front row seats. Designers are starting to get tired of dealing with demanding celebrities, who they think distract attention away from the clothing collection, diverting it to themselves. Pictures are being printed in magazines of celebrities watching the show, rather than pictures of the show itself. Photographers are more interested in catching an exclusive shot of Demi Moore chit-chatting or whispering during the show to Lucy Lui or her husband, Ashton Kutcher, than what is coming down the runway.

Celebrity intrusions are not the sole cause of the second row seats fashion has taken in its own shows, but they are the most notable. Fashion magazines know celebrities rock the marketing world and have increasingly used celebrities instead of fashion models to attract readers. Forbes magazine columnist Kiri Blakeley points out, “A decade ago, models graced 10 of the 12 covers of American Vogue. Last year, only one model made the cover, and that was Linda Evangelista.”

Fashion that is less than center stage could also be an indication of what the Japanese blogger, Raiko points out, “Fashion shows are misnomers. They are art shows really. With the art being made out of fabric, make-up and hair spray.” Raiko’s points out that much of the clothing that is being displayed is no longer wearable everyday clothing, but more about creating an experience or atmosphere that it is avant-garde or cutting edge. Raiko’s opinion may explain fashion being glossed over for celebrity. Unwearable clothing, art or not, has little draw to the consumer.

At any rate, it is undeniable that designers are tired of putting in all the work and time necessary for a runway collection, only to be eclipsed by a famous celebrity. At the end of the day, shouldn’t the excitement be about the new clothing collections, not promoting the Mischa Barton’s of the world.

Toto, I Don't Think We Are in Kansas Anymore: The Debate of Artistic Change

The two blogs that I chose to comment and leave posts on both involved discussions of art and fashion or a synthesis of the two I call, fashionable art. The first blog combines the art scene with architecture. The blog suggested that the fashion world borrows heavily from the art scene, and perhaps the time has come for the pendulum to swing the other direction, and the art scene borrow from the fashion crowd. The blogger, Guy Dammann fears the art world is stuck in a rut, because artists go for long periods of time producing no new or significant change in work style. The fashion industry on the other hand is constantly moving forward in a frenzied state. This frenzy is caused by the two huge weeks each year of fashion shows. Designers are forced to set up collections with new inspirations and ideas and exhibit them. He ponders the question “What if the art world had the equivalent of fashion week?” He suggests these “tests” of innovation would help inspire and measure progress. He points out that artist’s have gone through great measures to build a name or a brand image and are afraid to strike out of their comfort zone. This comfort zone makes them stagnant, which is the opposite of what art, should be, inspiring people to create new ideas and thoughts. The second post discusses the functionality and wear-ability of Couture clothing. After seeing the designers of Heatherette’s spring/summer show 2008, she was left with a few questions. I tried to respond to her basic question, does Heatherette really think anyone is going to wear that, with an answer about the fine line where fashion and art meet.

The comment I left at each of these blogs is provided below with the blog’s address:

Comment:
I agree with the general idea of this piece. Art is supposed to be about creativity and inspiration, and thinking outside the box. If you try to stay within your brand image for fear of retribution or criticism you can become stagnant. Fashion is like a revolving door, constantly in motion. Yes, we do hark back to other eras or time periods for inspiration because there are only so many ways of reinventing the wheel (or dressing the human body). Even so, the fashion world moves at a whirlwind pace.

The speed at which fashion moves is so quick that when a designer has a terrible season (can anyone remember Marc Jacobs circa his controversial days at Perry Ellis?) they are able to redeem themselves in roughly 4-6 months with a new collection. It’s like clockwork; we watch the fall/winter, 2007/08 show and before the clothing even hits the stores the designers are on to their next collection. The stakes aren’t nearly as high in the fashion world as they are in the art world. Dammann’s point is well taken, that if it has taken you an entire lifetime to cultivate an image, you unlikely to throw it all away on a capricious whim. Fashion is all about experimentation, you win some, and you lose some. Yet, the art world is less forgiving, one bad collection could define you. We can laud a fashion designer and ask “what were they on when they designed that?” However, the very next season they can be the darling of fashion week. Fashion represents creativity and the ability to live in a whimsical world of fantasy that is ever changing. What’s so wrong with that? Isn’t that really what art is all about? The art world is far more rigid and less likely to forget your artistic faux pas. Maybe we shouldn’t criticize artists for experimentation, but embrace the fallibility of human kind because at the end of the day its
better to have gone all out than played it safe. (Link to page)


Comment:
While I agree with your stance that clothing is a form of functional art that one can incorporate into your everyday life. I think couture is not mean to be a “joke” rather its meant to be artistic expression. Couture should be viewed as a blend of art and fashion with the pendulum swinging more towards the artistic side. Haute couture shows are known for their originality, not practicality. Surprisingly, most pieces or looks that you see at a couture runway show are never manufactured or available for sale. I think Heatherette like many other fashion houses, earns money through direct sales of a prêt-a-porter (ready to wear) its cheaper line of clothing, and uses the fashion show as a way to create an aura or certain cache. Heathertte has definitely capitalized on this idea. Their name is synonymous with kooky, crazy, fun clothing. Their theatrical theme shows make them enjoyable to watch. They literally transform the runway to the Land of Oz making the audience realize that ‘we’re definitely not in Kansas anymore.’ I hardly can imagine a place where Dorothy’s outfit would translate, but it was fun to see a modern twist on an old classic. (Link to page)

Fashionably Forward: Art as Inspiration

As New York Fashion week drew to a close, it was apparent to those of us not fortunate enough to get a front row seat, but rather a bird’s eye view, that a synergy of art and fashion is underway. This trend is not about clothing or style, it affects the direction fashion is heading. With the fashion industry in a slump and the world of art booming, design houses and clothing manufacturers are recruiting well known artists to design art into their clothing to try to mimic the art world’s success. This approach seems to be working, because the breakout stars of the most recent fashion week weren’t designers or models, but the artists who lent their creative name and talent to the fashion houses. The famous British artist Damian Hirst, collaborated with Levi Strauss and the Andy Warhol Foundation to create a new line of denim called Warhol Factory -X Levi’s X. Hirst is a heavy hitter in the elite art world, commanding enormous sums for his work. His diamond skull artwork recently sold for a record 100 million dollars. If Levi was trying to think of a way to shake up the old brand image, bringing Hirst on board definitely did the trick. The ambiance created at the Gagosian Gallery for the runway debut of Hirst’s jean line screamed artistic style and marked his arrival on the fashion scene. Hirst is known for his controversial subjects and using death as a central theme. The rhinestone skulls, daggers and crosses he artistically placed on his pants definitely brought a sinister and edgy vibe to the line. The debut of this line with Levi’s was a surprise to many people in the fashion industry. Levi’s jeans are like a Ford car, they are basic, classic, and dependable. Levi’s could have tried every trick and creative process known in the fashion world to conjure high fashion or dangerous allure, but it would never have bubbled into view. Damian Hirst had the alchemy needed to transform Levis into a brand with street credibility because his name is synonymous with Gothic style. Hirst also took his specialty spin art from the canvas to his line for Levi’s jeans. The final products were four fabulous pairs of limited edition brightly colored jeans that could become pieces of artwork if hung on walls not bodies. It is ironic that Andy Warhol’s Foundation stood in as a second in the Hirst fashion fusion with Levis. His disposable art/clothes, Campbell’s soup dresses were the prototype and definite forerunner of the art fashion blend

While Warhol may be given muse credit, Louis Vuitton, though not the earliest bird caught the biggest worm, in its collaboration with Marc Jacobs that gave wings to this trend. Jacobs, an expert in bringing in artists to produce or create special lines of clothing or accessories to shake up a brand’s image, tapped famed Japanese artist Takashi Murakami to make a special edition collection of Louis Vuitton handbags that showcased Murakami’s signature anime style (pictured to the right). Murakami’s success with bright bold colors and design made a stogy line, red hot with yearlong wait lists and prompted new lines for the artist. The Murakami bag a runway success in two senses, it became an iconic piece of fashion and revived Andy Warhol’s original idea and prototype.

This trend appears to be expanding. Modern designers are utilizing art’s ability to inspire by incorporating prints, from distinguished artists into their clothing collections. Celine’s fall runway collection included clothing designed by head designer Ivana Omazic from fabric printed with successful photographer Mike Ningawa’s photos, the image below and to the left showcases the floral photo that is used on the dress.


Matthew Williamson head designer for Emilio Pucci, used geometric prints that to a trained eye bore a striking resemblance to the neo-modern artist Piet Mondrian (top, right). This fusion of fashion and art not only lends creativity and freshness, it helps rid the fashion industry of the superficiality of fashion. Art lends some degree of substance and permanency to the ephemeral world of fashion. It takes a skilled or well-trained eye to pick up the visual reference of art in the clothing. The artistic provenance or inspiration in an outfit, make it wearable art and a classic. The reason is simple. Mondrian doesn’t go out of style; he is timeless and has left an indelible mark in the art world. The combination of art and fashion produces both beauty and brains. Fashion is no longer a pretty face without substance, it is on somewhat more solid ground, for we are no longer a slave to fashion, and we are hungry for art. Designers and artists are showcasing their knowledge of the entire visual art world and those who can identify and attribute the inspiration are part of a clique of well-trained fashionista’s. Yes, they can identify their Gucci from their Pucci, but they also can identify their Manet from their Monet.