hristine 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 ge
tting 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 use
d 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).
1 comment:
I thought that this post dealt with a very interesting topic. Although I know nothing about fashion, you were able to make this post clear enough that I could still understand it despite my lack of knowledge on the subject matter. Your argument is made in a clear and concise manner that makes this piece easy to read. The humorous tone of your writing was very fun and added to your post. For instance, when you say, “Today’s artwork will cause future art historians major migraines” you are adding humor, but also advancing your argument. I thought that your pictures were well chosen and helped to illustrate the points you made in your post. I thought that the opening sentence was a bit to esoteric. I have never heard of “the 7 personalities of Sybil.” Maybe I’m simply ignorant, but I think that other readers might be confused by that reference as well. You also repeat yourself when you mention that Isaac Mizrahi made a line of clothing for Target both in the middle of your post and in the closing paragraph. I am not sure what the fact that celebrities are now getting high priced accessories and less expensive clothing has to do with your argument. I can see how it’s generally related, but it seems slightly extraneous. I’m also not positive as to what exactly the counterargument to your theory would be. Does anyone disagree with what you stated? It is always important to be able to place a few counterpoints to your ideas in your post so that you can refute them and illustrate the strength of your argument, but when there is not other side to your topic, this becomes impossible. Anyways, I found your post to be fun and informative and I look forward to reading your next post.
Post a Comment