Lucrezia Magazine

  • Photobucket


The Cozy Spot

19 posts categorized "fashion"

September 12, 2008

"We'll Always Have Paris (thank goodness)...and Milan"

Fashion is about many things. It's about sex, it's about adornment, commerce, many, many things, but the trends tend to make their way in our everyday wardrobes. It doesn't matter if a selection of designers charge and arm and a leg for their fashions, but I can't say I'm thrilled with everything at New York fashion week. Spring/Summer fashion trends conclude in Paris (thank goodness).

Alexander_wang One of the things that caught my eye, not in a positive way, that appeared at New York this week was this Alexander Wang ensemble (pictured left). Someone should tell that dude that it's Spring/Summer. As for that gray top? We call them sloppy joe's in Australia, and we can buy similar styles at K-Mart. And the pants? They look like leather to me. Hello, it's spring/summer Mr Wang!

I mean, how sloppy is the ensemble to the left? This is why I have a problem with New York fashion week each year. Sometimes, the designers seem repetitive. If you take a look at Calvin Klein's spring/summer 2009 collection, you'll see why. White, white and more skinny shapes. White everywhere. White-out. I haven't posted any Klein images here because the clothes aren't any different. Think a knee length version of Caroline Bessette-Kennedy's wedding dress and you'll see similar shapes this year. Vera Wang seems to be using the same color scheme as Alexander Wang: a selection of dark colors. And it makes me ask what part of spring/summer don't these designers comprehend?Delarenta_2

So far, there are a couple of days left (I think) of New York fashion week, the winning designer, or one of the best collections shown at New York, has to be Oscar de la Renta (pictured right). His clothes don't fight against the feminine form, rather, the designer doesn't fight against the feminine form.

If you want to check out more clothes/trends from New York fashion week, head to Vogue. They have a complete rundown.

September 05, 2008

Should Fashion Designers Appearing in 'that spread' in Vogue India Be Boycotted?/Priya Tanna is a Stupid Cunt

When I did work experience in fashion as a high school student, I loved the pomp of it all. Although a bitchy industry, there is always something to gossip or laugh about, that's if the head designer isn't something to laugh about if they're camp beyond belief, which was what I experienced at the first fashion house (I won't name the designer here). I don't believe that a person's sexuality (in the case of fashion – homosexuality) immediately gives them a passport to style. You can't compare Tom Ford with Marc Jacobs; the former put Gucci back on the map and the latter continually creates fashion atrocities. So no, the 'gay' aspect doesn't immediately provide superiority. Coco Chanel wasn't a gay male and she made a huge dent in women's fashion.

01vogue02_190 The last fuss in the fashion world or the fashion publication world relates to Vogue India and their 'creative' use of poverty-chic to create a wave of controversy. Vogue India's editor is using the lame excuse – to illustrate the power of fashion. Power of fashion eh? It's something that you can only expect a fashion editor to say. Sure we'd like to believe that we're all born equal, but if that were the case, then why do some women become Nobel winning scientists while others prefer to push the superficial line?

In one of the photographs, an old Indian man is holding a two hundred dollar Burberry umbrella. The old man is obviously living in a slum of sorts, not dressed in a Saville Row suit, and the resulting disparity has led to outrage. What do the designers say? What do companies like Burberry say about these photo shoots? Nothing so far; is it the magazine's fault, the editor's fault (for being idiotic) or the fashion label's fault for not having creative control. And if they did have creative control, then what the fuck is that company thinking? Yes we know that Burberry is a high end fashion label, but do they need to highlight that by having their products photographed in what resembles a slum, held by an individual that doesn't fit the image (financially?), and is it his personal fault that he doesn't earn enough money in this world of inequality masked as 'fantastic globalization?' The idea of featuring models, in this case ordinary (impoverished) citizens to model luxury items is an insult. It has been viewed as being callous and out of touch, and yeah, if someone tells me that there is a growing middle class in India, I'll just point them to my house phone and tell them to wait for the latest round of telemarketers so they can answer the phone. I doubt that the customer service army in Bangalore can afford Burberry, let alone Prada but there are people in India who can afford it, so use models that fit the part.

Continue reading "Should Fashion Designers Appearing in 'that spread' in Vogue India Be Boycotted?/Priya Tanna is a Stupid Cunt" »

Style & Luxury fashion is and isn't (purely) about money

What is luxury? More specifically, what is a luxury product? A luxury product is something that most people cannot readily afford. It’s that simple but there is more. A luxury item is an item that doesn’t cost the earth to manufacture, but has other costs factored into the product. If you take any luxury label, and you assess everything, from magazine marketing campaigns (advertising) to the rents it pays across the world - to occupy space in a department store to the building it uses as a ‘boutique’, the costs are astronomical. Then you factor in the behind the scenes marketing costs: photographers, models (in many cases known public personalities), makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, and you have more expenses, so a luxury item, like a Louis Vuitton product has all these prices factored into the retail price. Although the quality may seem superior, the materials are usually similar to what you will buy elsewhere.

My simplest example is a Napa leather Oroton handbag that I recently bought at an Oroton outlet. The bag is black (goes with everything), it’s a good size and it has a classic design (that really doesn’t go out of style) but it is out of season (for the label) and it was sold in their outlet store for $175 dollars. However, its retail price was $325.00. Now I know that the company will earn a profit from the $175.00. Companies make sure that the cost is accounted for, which means that this bag must have cost less than fifty dollars to manufacture. In other words, how much (raw cost price) are other luxury items? I guess it’s more obvious to state the obvious - people tend to pay more for a name than the ‘real’ cost, and no, I don’t really care for the excuses: ‘but it’s SUPERIOR quality,’ excuses that may as well be hinged with, ‘it was constructed from the hand of God himself.’ Sorry but I don’t buy it. I’ve known people who have worked in the rag and fashion trade to know that wholesale prices are low and that the manufacturing costs are even lower; products enter the boutique with mind boggling prices. Take a fashion and accessories label like Coach. I don’t care that it’s been around since 1941. Who cares? But its products aren’t made in the US of A, they’re made in Asian countries. How much do you think they pay the workers? Let’s take a cheaper item from their catalogue, something that is priced at $98.00 (US). Factor in advertising, rents (around the world for stores because all these luxury boutiques don’t own their buildings outright), marketing campaigns (photographers to models to makeup artists), how much do you think that  product is to make before it enters the store? Less than twenty dollars? Less than thirty dollars? Most likely.

Thus, luxury to me, is all about presenting an image. The buyer is a person that associates luxury products with status, and in most cases, many buyers are tacky; money doesn’t buy class, nor does it buy decorum. Kelly Osborne may wear all the Chanel handbags in the world, but her style is shabby.

Continue reading "Style & Luxury fashion is and isn't (purely) about money" »

September 04, 2008

JC Penney Launches in Australia: Retail Evolution

When I go shopping (even when I window shop), I do compare prices and that isn't related to me being a miser, I'm not, but I don't want to be ripped off by the taxation department or the Australian government, with all its GST and duties.

I've had my eye on many things that I've viewed on overseas retail sites, to find them in Australian boutiques for incredible prices. If it was a simple matter of currency exchange, then I'd happily accept the difference, but it goes further than this. There can be a difference of one hundred dollars, after the currency exchange, and that difference relates to extra taxes/duties, and frankly, I don't see why Australian consumers have to pay them.

One simple example is a handbag. I recently went to the Coach boutique at the Queen Victoria Building here in Sydney, to find a bag, and compare the Australian store price to the US site price, and after the currencies were converted, I realized that there was an additional hundred dollars added to the price. To be blunt, this federal government, like the one before it, expects its citizens to spend (to maintain a fluid economy) but they slug us with hefty taxes on retail goods. They probably slug taxes on retailers, and if you really look at the ineptitude of this current government (it can't even find an extra few million dollars to increase the aged pension from its billions surplus), the extra taxes are enough to make anyone froth at the mouth. They slug us with goods and services tax on everything, including toilet paper and tampons. Do we really need it for clothes? This stupid Labor government was, up until now, planning to add a hefty tax on luxury cars but has failed to pass this through. It's outrageous, but it reflects the ineptitude of the Rudd government; they're grappling at economic straws because they have no idea. Meanwhile aged pensioners struggle to live on their meager pensions. WTF do they do with the surplus and perhaps they've invested it in stupid marketing strategies, like the idiotic Commonwealth Bank ad campaign.

Thus, the launch of US retailer JC Penney online in Australia is a good change because Australian retailers (department stores) cannot be bothered with an online shopping presence, then again, what would be the point when you're likely to encounter a few hundred dollars difference if you compare prices? I recently asked an overseas friend if I could ship items to her address, for her to ship them to me (for me to reimburse the shipping to Australia) because I'm fed up with entering a boutique or department store here to be slugged with an over inflated price, or be limited in selection.

For example, many US labels don't import all their ranges to Australia. I've recently visited the Ralph Lauren store in the city to find a limited range. I've visited the Ralph Lauren boutiques at Sydney Department Stores (Myer and David Jones), to see that they have a restricted range. Coach doesn't have its entire range at its Sydney boutique. The assistants are the first to reveal this first, so what is the point? Then you'll visit the US site, to find items, and you can't purchase them because they don't ship to Australia.

I've seen tremendous price variations over the last few months. I've seen an item with a four hundred dollar difference (to an Australian's disadvantage), due to additional duties. The retail price of an item takes outgoings and taxes into account, the item isn't produced in Australia, so if we buy items from the United States, why should we pay an extra GST and tax? For what? And if we use the same logic, most items here in Australia, such as clothes are made in China but we're slugged with additional taxes that are reflected in the retail price. They say that the standard of living here is 'excellent', but come on, shopping isn't what it used to be, especially with apparel and food. They're making out like we're having a food shortage in Australia, but does anyone see the government trying to help farmers? Not really. The huge supermarket chains in Australia – two dominant chains – dominate the market, but their prices aren't really cheap. It's cheaper for someone to drive to a large market and buy fresh produce. A head of cauliflower here is inflated by more than a hundred percent by supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths. Is that to provide for its incredulous marketing campaigns and letterbox leaflets? Yeah, we know you both exist because you're everywhere, but do you need massive television campaigns? I doubt it. Does Myer really need to pay Jennifer Hawkins to model clothes? I doubt it. Does David Jones really need Miranda Kerr to prance around? I doubt it.

I think it's fantastic for JC Penney to launch an Australian website. It will make retailers, and possibly the federal government, sit up and take notice because many things don't need to be priced the way they are. Any one who regularly shops at factory outlets would agree with me. Most of the time, we're paying for the brand or the name, or the extra duties the government expects (just so politicians can go on overseas junkets? Just so certain politicians can evade prosecution – like that uncouth sow Belinda Neal). People do have a right to ask about what they're being charged. It's not about the money but the principle of the matter. And no, bullshit excuses like ‘food shortages’ aren’t sufficient, because there isn’t a food shortage. If Burger King can promote a heart attack burger with four meat patties and four cheese slices for an affordable price, then there isn’t a food shortage.

It’s ironic how junk and high fat food in Australia, and I’m guessing everywhere else, is the cheapest form of food one can buy but fresh produce is slugged like a luxury item here. And then they tell you to ‘be healthy’, ‘look after yourself,’ but these governments don’t do anything about it, but they're quick to tell people how fat their nations are becoming. It's not too complex to see why and no, sometimes it's not about compulsive eating but eating what you can afford. A goods and services tax on toilet paper, tampons, condoms…I mean, it’s fucking incredible isn’t it?

The Leather Pant is Back

Ralphlaurenleath Leather pants have a sexy vibe. That much can be seen if you look at pictures of Jim Morrison of The Doors. So when I checked my email and saw that I received the latest Ralph Lauren newsletter, I quickly looked at it (they've introduced stylebooks) and my eye stopped at one picture. I normally don't look twice at ordinary fashion or faddish fashions. Believe me, I can do without the likes of Marc Jacobs and his female unfriendly styles. But this little ensemble by Ralph Lauren is -without a doubt- understated 'sexy'. The Corliss Moto Cross Pant isn't cheap. Leather pants are a lifetime investment, so tailoring and fit are important and these pants fall into the investment category not only due to their price but style. The overall look or flavor of the Blue range for fall is described as, "Menswear revisited in distinctly feminine looks with impeccable tailoring and fresh silhouettes."

The annoying thing about fashion in different continents is that the seasons vary. Some store assistants in Australia -working for overseas labels - don't get it, and I don't think it's a label's fault. I recently visited Coach, to be told that 'berry' was the 'in colour' only to correct her. Berry is the 'in colour' for fall, but we're nearing the end of winter here in Australia, and now we're officially into spring, which would make us one season behind weather-wise.

July 11, 2008

Budgie Smugglers or Mankini?

Mankini I laughed my head off when I watched Borat. Every scene in that mock-doc is hilarious but Borat's lime green mankini stole a viewer's breath. It was unlike anything else and it appears that fashion designers are considering the useless fashion article. Alexander McQueen displayed his version of the mankini at Milan in June, and it just raises the question: what for?

The vertical black shred of fabric doesn't do anything. Nothing at all. A bikini is understandable. Women have boobs. Boobs need support, but a man's pecs? I can understand a mankini for "man-boobs" but it's quite pointless if a man (like the male model in the picture) has defined pectorals. Will the 2009 catwalks be swamped with mankini's. I'm willing to take the banana hammock/budgie smuggler over the mankini any day. Which would you pick if it all came down to two choices: banana hammock or mankini?

June 18, 2008

Universal Fashion Blunders

Alg_lauradundovic It's a dark day in fashion when the national 'costume' of a Miss Universe entrant does nothing for her figure.
I saw it paraded on the evening news last night and thought, 'oh hell no!' Housemate cocked his head and thought it represented Sydney Opera House (yeah right).

I can totally get the boomerang (even though it could have been a little more decorative -this one looks like a wooden slab straight out of a high school woodwork class), but the tiered bodice is just uncomplimentary. This dress reminds me - although not the same -as the dress Bjork wore during the Athens 2004 Opening Ceremony. It's the type of dress that mask you ask, 'what were they thinking?'

The entire dress distracts the eye. One doesn't know where to look.

This isn't Miss Universe, it's Miss Frou-Frou. It's a version of something Barbara Cartland would have worn - in pink.

June 13, 2008

Fashion, Sex and Mating

Shoppinglogotss I only think about sex when I’m writing a short story, or if I’m on the lookout for sex-related articles for the online magazine. Outside of these two things, I seldom think about it. I think I reached a point where I’d had just about enough of going out to watering holes, clubs and other places, thinking about bagging a bloke and the potential sex that may (or may not) arise. This turning point arrived when I began this blog a little over three years ago. At that point, I’d had about enough of all the internet dates I could handle, and I didn’t see the point in emulating any popular television female characters because I knew the reality - going after sex or any sexual fun can be more confusion and irritating than the televised ideal.

778 women surveyed in the UK say they think more about shopping than sex. I can really see this as a reality, although I don’t buy the other - that they think of shopping every sixty seconds. And I don’t think it can be isolated to shopping but other thoughts associated with shopping, like career (income to shop) and money (career: source of income to enable shopping). I think that these surveyed women think about those things more than sex or the quest to find the perfect male. That is not to say that there aren’t women who think more about finding their perfect soulmate, there are, but I don’t believe that the majority of women think about pure sex as an animal pleasure more than other things. Is sex a lower priority? It’s not, but other things do take over. Shopping isn’t just about buying things because most purchases relate to body image and presence - two things that women use in order to attract mates. So shopping does have some relation to sex if that shopping or the interest revolves around fashion and beauty buys.

Continue reading "Fashion, Sex and Mating" »

June 02, 2008

Yves St Laurent Dead at 71

This piece of news is so fresh it has just hit Google. It arrived to Australian news agencies early this morning. Yves St Laurent is dead, at 71, after struggling with illness. I was half-asleep in front of the television when it was announced, in a dream state. I thought I was dreaming about it. I felt really sad - because YSL was my favorite designer, back in the day when he ruled fashion. He was the only reason I did fashion as my high school work experience project. So today, I thought I'd revive an old blog post as a tribute. Fashion has never been the same since Yves St Laurent retired.


“Fashions fade. Style is eternal.” - Yves St Laurent

I’ll go on to discuss how, and why, I came to be fixated on YSL at an early age but first things first, YSL made it his mission, as a designer, to focus on feminine beauty and elegance. Unlike some other designers who go for whimsical spectacle, frocking up their models to the point of fashion overkill (so you have difficulty discerning their gender), that’s so far removed from accentuating feminine beauty, the house of YSL has always focused on elegance. Current YSL designer, Stefano Pilati has likened YSL to Picasso, and has gone on to say that “YSL is history” in relation to fashion. Tom Ford has described YSL as a major influence, and you’d be hard pressed to find a fashion designer who hasn’t been influenced - on some level - by Yves St Laurent.

There are moments where I think the world of fashion is fickle, especially now where more emphasis is placed on frivolity than style, however the influence of a fashion designer can be far reaching. Imagine, walking into a function and being told you have to leave because your clothes are inappropriate? Women used to experience discrimination based on their clothing. In the Sixties, during the Melbourne Cup, Jean Shrimpton donned a mini dress and caused a stir. During her time, Coco Chanel caused a stir by opting to wear pants instead of dresses. Many of the clothes that are acceptable today, are so because noted designers behind the scenes pushed forth in order to proclaim their creative/artistic freedom.

I used to draw clothes, because my mother worked as a dressmaker and I would be awed at the finished results. She worked as a contractor, and would put together something like fifty blouses (or whatever she was assigned) a week. She’d receive the cut parts, and assemble them in the same way car aficionados hot-up their dream cars . So my interest grew, and the major turning point occurred when I was five. As a recent widow, she was hard pressed to fork out cash for new ‘anything’. Clothes were either sewn or hand me downs, and everything was budgeted to go toward the rent, utilities and groceries. Our leisure times were spent in parks, or walking around this city I live in, and we’d only catch a film once a year. So one day she saw a pink dress in a shop window, took out her memo pad and pen, started sketching it, and in a few weeks (once she bought near matching buttons) a near identical, ‘new’ dress was born. Years down the track, when I was in high school, I decided to try and see if fashion was for me, and although I could conjure up mad-ass sketches, I couldn’t sew to save my life. During Year 10, Work Experience cropped up and we had to pick where we wanted to spend our four weeks, and during the past four years mind you, I spent a lot of time educating myself on the designers that made significant inroads in fashion:

Coco Chanel, and her suit (which people still purchase to this day).
Paco Rabanne and his futuristic type garments fashioned from metal mesh.
Christian Dior and the post WWII ‘New Look’.
Elsa Schiaparelli, and her signature color ‘Shocking Pink’
Mary Quant, and the Mod look.
And the list goes on and on.

Everyone gravitates toward a favorite in the end, but work experience, in two ‘then’ Sydney fashion houses wasn’t for me. If you think the magazine world depicted in The Devil Wears Prada is tough, then the world of fashion design is like DWP on roids. There’s little room for fuck ups within fashion houses. One of the designers I chose was a former designer for Esprit, who opened up his own fashion house here in Australia, and the other one (I had the fortune of finding out, during the last fortnight of work experience) was his former business partner. They split, and I had no bloody idea, and let me tell you once I divulged my previous fortnight’s whereabouts to the other designer, you could chip (forget about slicing the air) the ice within the immediate atmosphere:

“Oh, so you came from there…”

Fashion design isn’t for the faint of heart. I wouldn’t classify myself as being faint of heart, but I couldn’t sew, and I didn’t have the cash flow, besides this I didn’t have the patience for temper tantrums and I still don’t, so I moved on however, I still retained my favorite fashion designer, and that designer will always be Yves St Laurent. YSL is also responsible for a few dates of mine - with supposedly fashion minded males that purportedly worked in the industry - that went pear shaped. It would be:

Him: “Oh I like Armani and Valentino. Who’s your favorite?”
Me:  “Yves St Laurent”
Him: “Are you serious? Too boring.”
Me:  “Well you have no idea about fashion design.” (translation: I am so mortified, that I'll never even consider making out with you, let alone give you a blowjob.)

Mind you, the above isn't to say that Armani and Valentino are 'crap', they're great designers, but to put-down YSL is absurd.

To gauge the achievements, and sheer determination, of YSL to succeed in a world that was closed off from outsiders, is to backtrack to the time when a 17 year old YSL left home for Paris to pursue his dream of being a couturier. In 1953, at the age of 17, his entry - an asymmetrical cocktail dress - won first prize in the International Wool Secretariat Contest. It was while he was working as a cutter, that he was employed by Christian Dior to work as an assistant. At the age of 21, after Dior’s death, YSL took over as artistic director of Christian Dior. Mind you, there are no designers today that take over prestigious fashion houses at the same age.

Yves1954firstprizeintlwoolsecretarprize St Laurent was a prodigy. He spent an immense amount of his childhood, and adolescence, sketching clothes, but his early success as artistic director had to be put aside due to National Service where he was conscripted to serve in the French army during the Algerian War of Independence. This service led to him having a nervous breakdown, and entering a mental institution where he underwent electroshock and psychiatric treatment.

In the wake of this, he then went on (with the financial support of his one time partner, and business partner Pierre Bergé) to establish his own fashion house, and then the Rive Gauche (for Pret-a-Porter/Ready-to-Wear lines) boutiques were established in 1966. Menswear was then added in 1974, and the empire expanded with cosmetics, and fragrances (Opium, Rive Gauche, Jazz for Men, Kouros, to name a few). In regard to fashion firsts:

  • YSL, was the first to create the ‘Le Smoking’ Tuxedo pantsuit for women in 1966, which many have tried to reproduce, and still reproduce.
  • In 1996, he was the first couturier to show his Haute Couture show live on the Internet.
  • He was the first living designer to have a retrospective exhibition of his work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
  • He was the first designer to use models from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.
  • He created the ‘Mondrian Dress’.
  • In 1960 his ‘Beat Look’ caused a sensation in the fashion world.

In the Sixties, he brought in the pantsuit as an essential staple for a woman's wardrobe and this was initially met with social resistance, but it all panned out, the pantsuit stayed. He is also famous for bolero jackets, see-through blouses (1968), safari jackets, smocks, and peasant blouses.

Outside the world of fashion, he was awarded (by President Mitterand) the Knighthood of the Legion of Honor.

So, you can see why some of my then dates would go pear shaped? To ‘poo-poo’ YSL is to have no idea of fashion in the sense of where many of today’s popular garments/styles originate. Clothes aren't just a strip of fabric, they represent cultural changes, art, scientific innovation, in addition to style. Even though I'm no fashion plate (hey, I may consider putting a Paypal Donate button for the Haute Couture Fund, only kidding), these are standard things and clothes don't have to cost a bomb, it's more often a question of style. Couturiers put an image together, observe trends, and work from that point on to create an ensemble that is then mass produced or copied, so the rest of us can afford it or the look can be reproduced - on some level - without borrowing on the mortgage.

In addition to the above, the women who patronized him or whom he chose to represent YSL were also his muses, the most popular or well known among the four is Catherine Deneuve, one of, if not, the most elegant women on this planet where style is concerned.

Captb915f686f6aa4cfe80d303b4d38578ccfran In 2002 problems such as ill health, depression, addiction, including difficulties with Tom Ford, led to Yves St Laurent and Gucci (which bought YSL, with YSL designing Couture and Ford designing Pret-a-Porter) closing the Couture house of YSL.

I spent quite a large chunk of my time, up to 2002, following YSL’s collections. Opening up a magazine, to see each collection, was a highlight for me, and way back in my ambitious teen years, YSL was always someone to watch. When he announced his retirement, it was like the end of an era and I have to admit, I lost interest in fashion from that point on, and do confess to thinking that the hipster jean for women is totally hideous because it only suits 'straight up and down' bodies and I'm so sick of seeing it, and seeing women try to squeeze into the fuckers. His designs weren’t trashy, and his style wasn’t dependent on or proportional to the amount of flesh shown (ouch!), it was about cut, tailoring, elegance, and most importantly, style where the person came first, not the other way round.

So, even if one’s not consciously aware of it, Yves St Laurent’s influence still lives on in many fashion styles that are frequently resurrected through the seasons, and this would have to count as one of his most significant achievements.

May 20, 2008

Louis Vuitt-Yawn

The fashion world is fickle, but nothing is more fickle than Louis Vuitton's legal action against an artist who produced posters to raise awareness and funds for the violence in Darfur.

One look at the image, and one can clearly see that the artist hasn't used the Louis Vuitton logo. Is it Nadaiaplesner 'theft' of intellectual property? Is the design so precious? Louis Vuitton are responsible for forcing ghastly handbag designs (I'm no fan of Marc Jacobs' garish creations, and wouldn't be a fan if I were loaded beyond belief) on socialites and celebrities, and some of those ghastly creations are GHASTLY. I like how fashion pundits use the word 'interesting.' In fashion 'interesting' means eyesore.

The artist's T-Shirts illustrate the contradictions within our world, and the ironic statement, 'Simple Living' reinforces the contradictions. If only some other designers were that creative instead of designing visually challenging handbags.

*The image also parodies certain bimbos who flounce about with their pet Chihuahua's and 'ghastly' luxury bag of the moment, not mentioning any names.

I don't see the point in spending large sums on the bulk of luxury items, considering many French brands aren't even made in France. Many 'luxury' lines, within collections are made in Asia, and the going price for handbags and accessories is a meteoric leap from the salaries workers (in places like China) earn.

Not only is the fashion industry fickle, it's also very fucked up.

Image (via SMH): Reuters

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sponsor -

Premium Space


Visits n Things

  • Readers Online

  • eXTReMe Tracker

  • Photobucket

  • Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites


Reviewed By...

© Anastasia Mavromatis 2005 - 2008