Fashion in 3D

It's been another one of those 'I don't understand fashion' days. I recently saw the commercial for Gucci's Guilty fragrance (yes, that one with the ad campaign that upset me). It's shot in the style of Sin City, and stars Evan Rachel Wood and Chris Evans, who's apparently famous and hot and stuff. Who cares? All I was interested in was how they're downplayed the extreme fake tanning of Evan Rachel and made her look like Goldie in Sin City, with luminous golden hair and...well, greyscale skin? It's a strange campaign, given how contrary it is to their print ad.
It confused me, a lot, about what the brand was trying to convey. Hip, edgy and gritty cool with the Frank Miller references, vs. the old school, Pussy Galore samey feel of the honey-dipped print ad? That's what I got.
Fashion is in the grip of the biggest contradiction it has ever witnessed. You see it everywhere. My mum, flipping pages in this week's Grazia, with its amazing shoe supplement, asked 'so what happened to all those kitten heels we were supposed to be wearing?' Lisa Armstrong, The Times fashion editor and one of my shortlist of Women What I Want To Be, Like, seems to agree with me that Kate Moss, who appears to be shutting up at Topshop, is over, yet she's been on Vogue's cover twice this year and 30 times in total (thanks Lisa). All the magazines are telling us about the latest It bag, after declaring several months ago that the It bag is over.
And then there's Vogue Italia's revolutionary 3D issue (which I imagine James Cameron is trying to sue them for), featuring, as The Times put it, a 'whole dose of tacky' by showcasing Miranda Kerr's cleavage with this groundbreaking new issue. Using a totally original magazine concept to showcase the sexualisation of women to extremes in recent years and calling it a breakthrough? Eep. I'm off to cut my hair into a mullet and tell everyone I'm a lesbian.
But it does rather aptly sum up the current situation in fashion. Miranda Kerr, 3-dimensionally sexy, while the rest of the fashion world is still trying to work its way out of one simple, easy-to-follow perspective on what's in and what's out. Case in point - peoples' reaction to Anne Hathaway's haircut. Apparently those who declared the crop being back were as prematurely optimistic as Out Magazine saying Bionic was a comeback album to be reckoned with. And this rudeness about her haircut was featured alongside an article about how the 60s mod look is back! Yes! With Twiggy and that haircut! See my point now?
Oh it's too exhausting. I think it's just impossible for a magazine, or a brand, to have more than one perspective any more, else it loses its vision. Trends are too fleeting. I guess all we can do is choose our alliances wisely and stick to them. So I'm off to read Elle's 25th Birthday Issue, and try to figure out if I can copy Kate Hudson's eye makeup on the cover.


  1. Fashion is like quicksilver...no sense in trying to pin it down! That's why I ignore in and out lists...I keep on wearing my red lipstick and leopard prints and watch those cycle through every few years.

    MrB is very against kitten heels, by the way. LOL!

  2. AGREED!! It's all too confusing. I like Wendy's take.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.