Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[LostInNJ]

This is exactly why this entire “inclusivity and diversity” gimmick in the fashion industry— and we’re discussing the high fashion/luxury industry here, not any government institution that will importantly effect the lives of a nation’s everyday people, is turning this once very unique industry into a wasteland of mediocrity run by LinkedIn clones with the creative capacity of a drone bee, who only cares about optimized hits utilizing the latest business trends.

Whenever someone white knights for InstaLikes by fingerwagging that there aren’t enough inclusive/diverse representation for fashion shows/covers/content, it’s another shot at creativity to die a faster death. Because if we’re to really “reflect” the “inclusivity and diversity” of the global costumers, then the Asian nationalists have every right to weigh in on how being one of the biggest consumers of the industry is always relegated to the sidelines when it comes to representation in the industry; Except for Asian Vogues, none of the other Vogues have cast an Asian on the cover, despite harping on and on about “inclusivity and diversity” (I’m as sick of this tagline as much as writing it). I don’t blame them one bit for taking a nationalist stance when a high profile fashion influencer like Edward Enninful consistently pats himself on his own back on how his Vogue champions “inclusivity and diversity” but will always relegate the presence of one of they biggest markets to the back of the Vogue bus.

These headcount of how many MOC—and their nationalities, only further contribute to the demise of a creative industry. Soon it’s nothing but even more overpriced hoodies and kicks (more so than now) and “models" taking their own pics because everything and anything else is offensive to someone somewhere out there.

I think "inclusivity and diversity" being used as a gimmick, is wrong, but in and of itself, isn't wrong. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "this once very unique industry [turning] into a wasteland of mediocrity"....is it in reference to the "LinkedIn clones" that are pushing this inclusivity and diversity agenda, or because what people could once get away with is no longer acceptable?

I look back at shows of 5/10 years ago and see an entire white cast and I can't help but think that we have come quite a ways and I feel good about that. There is a long way to go, but there are some people in the industry that aren't doing this to capitalize on a moment. Yes, brands are aware that there is money to be made in pandering/catering to specific groups of people, but as with a lot of things, you take the bad with the good.

As for Edward Enninful, I think he has done a good job at including more underrepresented types of people in his Vogue. Far more than his predecessor ever had. Of course, there is room for improvement, but at least there is a dialogue and some progress.

For me, the Jing Daily article does come across as a bit entitled in a way. However, I too, would feel a certain type of way if you are trying to sell me an image/lifestyle in which I am not represented- yet I am apart of a market that contributes heavily to your sales.

This whole issue is a very grey area, but I do think that writing people off for wanting to see themselves represented is quite sad. If anything, it comes off as careless. Perhaps it is just me, but when I read comments on this board about how creativity is being affected because people want to ensure that runway shows and ad campaigns aren't completely whitewashed, it really rubs me the wrong way, and reads as discriminatory.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Of course genuine inclusivity and diversity is a great component of this industry— in theory and in principle. And in essence, it is a place where the creative outsiders/outcast/weirdos have always found sanctuary, no matter your race/sexuality/gender. But you’ve got to have the goods to back it up and proof your worth. And we wouldn’t be having this conversation if all the diversity are immensely talented. It’s because this era in high fashion is the weakest creatively— with only “inclusivity and diversity” defining the bulk of it, that I’m being extremely critical. It’s the most accessible, consumer-drive and lazy era in high fashion, ever. And this is where and when creativity suffers. Because it’s the consumer mid-range department store business approach.

Something that really bugged me when one of the Vogue people wrote about Isabel Toledo in her passing was that she was the "first Latina female designer and was famous for dressing bigger women…” Identity politics is used to define her life and career, when it is her solid talent and original creativity that defined and sustained her career. And identity politics has become more important as a gimmick now than ever to launch a career: The first Black photographer to shoot the American September Vogue cover; The first Black designer to lead Louis Vuitton; The first Black editor of British Vogue (who’s just doing the same thing Alexandria was doing— just with more Black presence in the magazine LOL) etc etc How is this a testament to their talent, their vision??? It isn’t because their talent is secondary to identity politics. So now an all-White cast for a show/campaign/cover is seen as a terribly racist/unacceptable offering... Why? Because people are too unreasonable to realize that it’s just one show, one campaign; and the next show, next campaign from the same brand could cast a predominately Brown/Black/multiracial cast? This equal-parts for every race headcount presence for shows/covers/campaigns isn’t creatively better— and the proof is in the current era of one-of-each-race mentality that hasn’t elevated any show/campaign/editorial like we were used to from 1995-2010 era in high fashion (arguably the Golden Age of high fashion creativity). A campaign featuring all-White models isn’t racist/offensive/hurtful to a reasonable person. And those that find it so-- get over it, because there’s another campaign/show/cover with a MOC/multiracial cast. Allowing creative freedom to reign in high fashion, and that includes the best models/designers/creative for the jobs, is true diversity.

And this is where nationalism/patriotism comes in. Because is it really inclusive and diverse? I’m not going to quietly sit at the back of the bus and obediently nod to the reductive beat of someone like Edward self-congratulating himself on how progressive/how risk-taking/how revolutionary his Vogue is, all the while shoving any Asian presence to the back of his Vogue— if he even bothers to include any, in the first place (and I’ve followed his Vogue since its inception, so it’s not hard to call him out on it how he views Asian presence for his Vogue). In such a case, I completely sympathize with the Chinese nationalists in coming off a tad defensive and demanding predominantly Asian/Chinese presence in their very own country. If the Western hemisphere isn’t going to offer Asians a few seats at the table, why shouldn’t Asian countries promote their own, especially when they’re the ones predominantly feeding the industry?

 

[LostInNJ]

I can see where you are coming from with some of your points. Two sides to every coin, I suppose, and perhaps it is the times we are in. Isabel Toledo's piece that included those tidbits, shouldn't be taken with offense, rather to highlight that she did actually do those things and was "ahead of the curve." I'm not sure why it is bad to highlight that.

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong (and perhaps it is just the way I have read it), but where you mention "But you’ve got to have the goods to back it up and proof your worth. And we wouldn’t be having this conversation if all the diversity are immensely talented." Are you referring to non-white designers and saying that they don't have the talent that warrants the hype and they are solely being put into the spotlight because of their race? If that's the case, the same argument can be made for their peers, so I'm not buying that. I'm not saying Virgil, or Pyer, or every single other designer of color is showing us anything groundbreaking, but the same can be said for a handful of other designers who have based in the limelight in years past.

Yes, we do put an emphasis on "the firsts" of a lot of things, at the moment. But rather than be annoyed at the emphasis on that, you should be annoyed that POC haven't had those opportunities in the past. We wouldn't need to highlight any of these things if the playing field was even from the beginning. However, here we are.

I am not quick to label anyone or anything in particular as racist, I like to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases. So no, when I see an all white campaign, I don't immediately scream 'racism', but I do look at the overall message a brand communicates. I like beauty for the sake of beauty, not for the sake of checking boxes. It has to make sense, however, I find it hard in this day and age for a brand to have a show or a string of campaigns in which only white people are cast.

I'm sure we will have to agree to disagree on some of this, but I don't think the argument you are making is fully balanced.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I’m bringing up race because race (and gender) is what is used to identify and hype this new guard.

Of course there were lessers being hyped in the past. Just that identity politics wasn’t used as a PR move. I don’t need for Anna and Edward to tell me that there are talented Black creatives: I’ve worked with such individuals, and they never needed to remind me how talented, hardworking and skilled they are— nor remind me that they’re… Black. And insinuations of racism are always going to be volleyed around to either dismiss and/or distract from valid criticism of the current era’s dismal lack of creativity and talent.

And getting back to the topic of (Chinese) nationalism, even within (North) America, patriotism takes on a completely different meaning depending on the individual’s political slant. If someone somehow equate nationalism/patriotism with that brand of Conservative/Republican and at the extreme, White Supremacist hardline that the American media loves to generalize in broad strokes, then that’s as unfair as racial/gender/class stereotyping. And I get the impression from some posts, that may be the intention to invalidate the raise of Chinese "nationalism”(patriotism)” as the same sort of “patriotism” practiced by the more extreme Right-Wingers in the USA???? Whereas I find the Chinese nationalism as more of a response from a population of high fashion/luxury customers whom don’t feel they’re a part of the so-called “inclusive" enclave that this industry seems to use as a tagline to sell their crap. And with the wealth that the Chinese have, why bother complaining when you can create your own “enclave”?

And I absolutely agree we are all more complex and rich in shades of grey than simply black or white. Don’t believe the hype.

 

[fashionista-ta]

This is what I also dislike about nationalism, that it creates space to question the legitimacy of diversity and put it in quotation marks, and imagine it's harming us in some way.

I don't buy that fashion is frivolous and unimportant. I feel like everyone should by now understand that representation is important, and it actively harms un- or under-represented people, of all kinds, to be excluded from the visual, printed, etc. cultural record, as though they have no possibility to participate, or beauty to celebrate.

I absolutely do not see how tracking runway diversity is further contributing to fashion's demise. I see your point about how a country that's collectively a major fashion customer wants to be addressed and represented. The formulas necessary to address such concerns do worry me, and it seems to me there could be destructive potential there. I think marketing, accounting, and micro-targeting taking over fashion is rather worrisome. Taking over the rest of our lives, much more so.

I think it's important though not to mistake provincialism and privilege for creativity. The freedom to be clueless does not fuel creativity IMO.

This is exactly why this entire “inclusivity and diversity” gimmick in the fashion industry— and we’re discussing the high fashion/luxury industry here, not any government institution that will importantly effect the lives of a nation’s everyday people, is turning this once very unique industry into a wasteland of mediocrity run by LinkedIn clones with the creative capacity of a drone bee, who only cares about optimized hits utilizing the latest business trends.

Whenever someone white knights for InstaLikes by fingerwagging that there aren’t enough inclusive/diverse representation for fashion shows/covers/content, it’s another shot at creativity to die a faster death. Because if we’re to really “reflect” the “inclusivity and diversity” of the global costumers, then the Asian nationalists have every right to weigh in on how being one of the biggest consumers of the industry is always relegated to the sidelines when it comes to representation in the industry; Except for Asian Vogues, none of the other Vogues have cast an Asian on the cover, despite harping on and on about “inclusivity and diversity” (I’m as sick of this tagline as much as writing it). I don’t blame them one bit for taking a nationalist stance when a high profile fashion influencer like Edward Enninful consistently pats himself on his own back on how his Vogue champions “inclusivity and diversity” but will always relegate the presence of one of they biggest markets to the back of the Vogue bus.

These headcount of how many MOC—and their nationalities, only further contribute to the demise of a creative industry. Soon it’s nothing but even more overpriced hoodies and kicks (more so than now) and “models" taking their own pics because everything and anything else is offensive to someone somewhere out there.

 

[Benn98]

Just thought I'd point out that even though I do not agree with Jiang Daily's burn book at all, at the same time I can't stress enough how important it is to understand the background of luxury brands in China, because I think it's unique in a way. Basically, these brands had very little understanding of their new customers and were only concerned with the bottom line right from the start. Native talent wasn't spotlighted, collections weren't tailored, trunk shows weren't prioritised, and it was only until recently that designers actually bothered to pay major courtesy visits while unveiling collections.
And to get back to Jiang Daily, these luxury brands didn't even bother to tailor their marketing approach to the Chinese at first. I mean, according to Angelica, many top photographers openly refused to shoot Chinese models and subjects for Vogue China because they weren't considered prestige enough. Someone mentioned that Du Juan appeared on Vogue Paris, letting out the fact that she's still the only Chinese woman to have appeared on that magazine - TO DATE. American Vogue - 2, British Vogue - 0. That alone gives you a clear scope of the level of arrogance they've had to endure, despite owning a huge percentage of the market share which indirectly makes it possible for those magazines to stay afloat. So eventually a newer, younger breed of consumer entered the Chinese marketplace who became educated and confident enough in a fashion sense to start asserting their spending potential and flip the script by making some demands. And the only way brands could adapt to those demands was by casting Chinese figureheads to represent their brands in the country as a personalised approach. And that's where this 'marry/fck/kill' list comes in. It's not something which just miraculously popped out of nowhere, they've been accustomed to it for some time.
And I really don't blame them. Because trust me, they're well aware of how unanimously all forms of diversity other than the Asian variety are being embraced in the Western sphere. I know this will ruffle some feathers, but to me it sort of sounds like when the time came for other types of diversity to be incentivised, there were no rules which had to be followed - it just had to happen, and I get that. So why can't the same apply in this instance if we're gunning for a 'balanced' industry? In fact, how different are the above lists from Bethann Hardison's lengthy campaign a few years ago to include more black models on the runway/campaigns/magazines, or Ashley Graham going on frequent talks to highlight the industry's reluctance to embrace fuller figures, or the trans models and icons underscoring their cause.......all making strides in more ways than one, I must add. Yet...

And with the wealth that the Chinese have, why bother complaining when you can create your own “enclave”?

I would theorise that the reason why it's hard for the contemporary Chinese fashion system to develop their own enclave is because it was created under the umbrella of Western fashion. And so I think that's why the visual style isn't as easily identifiable. As much as Angelica Cheung can say that she's booking photographers, stylists and subjects of Chinese origin, or that she's trying to gun for a 'Chinese' point of view in the most pedestrian sense or try to encourage a unique identity, there will always be that inescapable degree of validation they'd need from the Western fashion system and that's sad really. Because in her bid to bring her readers up to speed by guiding them through fashion history (the 20s, the 80s, Teddy Girls etc etc), she merely ran the interpretation of essentially Western fashion through a Chinese facsimile. In the end it worked, but they've lost the opportunity in the process to develop their own point of view

 

[modela]

The arrogance of those photographers .I doubt that Angelica had any real say in the way she would want to shape her magazine, these foreign editions are just cheap cashflow for the publisher and a way for western brands to enter a market without really putting time and effort into these markets.I dont give a f*ck about these highfashion brands being held "hostage" by these foreign markets.The suits and their need for more and more is now coming back to bite them. The suits are the real reason why fashion is dead.

 

[Benn98]

The arrogance of those photographers .I doubt that Angelica had any real say in the way she would want to shape her magazine, these foreign editions are just cheap cashflow for the publisher and a way for western brands to enter a market without really putting time and effort into these markets.I dont give a **** about these highfashion brands being held "hostage" by these foreign markets.The suits and their need for more and more is now coming back to bite them. The suits are the real reason why fashion is dead.

Exactly, on old article, but still very much relevant:

How Angelica Cheung silenced critics by tailoring Vogue to Chinese tastes

The first editor of Vogue China faced a battle to win over the international fashion community. But the magazine is celebrating 10 successful years under her leadership

Emma Graham-Harrison in Beijing
Fri 22 May 2015 13.29 BSTLast modified on Mon 2 Jul 2018 15.03 BST

When Angelica Cheung became the first editor of Vogue China 10 years ago, she learned the hard way what the elite fashion world thought of Beijing.

Photographers, designers and models turned down requests to do shoots in a country that is now probably the world’s biggest single market for luxury goods, but was then seen as a crass backwater.

“You thought being Vogue they would automatically want to work for you, and you realised no, because people didn’t know you, they were sceptical about China,” she said with a rueful smile.

“People thought China, to use a crude phrase, would be full of ‘new money’ peasants.”
Critics claimed the country had neither the money nor taste to make Vogue successful. But by the time her bumper first issue went to its third reprint, they had been silenced by Cheung’s vision of a magazine made to international standards just for Chinese tastes.

She did not just want to bring high fashion to China, but also to demand that the industry elite respect the needs of Chinese readers rather than peddling them hackneyed stereotypes of oriental mystique or transplanted western ideals.

Cheung has always been a strong advocate of Chinese photographers, designers and other creatives, but, particularly in the early years when the domestic fashion industry was still finding its feet, needed foreign talent on board to make a Vogue that matched international standards.

Coaxing famous names to come and work with her, then insisting their much-celebrated creative instincts were a bit off, was not a task for the faint-hearted.

“We started battling in a very nice way, you had to be careful not to scare them off ...[I was] changing their point of view about China in a very respectful way,” said Cheung, whose trademark asymmetrical bob has subversive echoes of US Vogue supremo Anna Wintour.

She challenged, as diplomatically as possible, everything from a preference for “cheongsam”-style traditional clothes that “our readers’ grandmothers would wear”, to a moody tone that was off-putting in a country just emerging from decades of deprivation.

“They wanted to dress the models in ‘exotic’ costumes, and then they wanted to shoot them in some ‘ancient’ location,” said Cheung. “They tend to go for the moody, dark, artistic, and sometimes I have to fight and say that is too European.”

“The Chinese will think, ‘Why do I want to be that beauty, it’s not even beautiful? Look at that woman, that woman looks sick, that woman looks downbeat, that woman looks like she is going to commit suicide soon. Why would I want to become that woman?’”

She also had to fight to put Chinese models at the heart of her magazine. “The difficulty was, to be honest, the photographers did not want to shoot Chinese models. That was 10 years ago,” adds Cheung.

“First they were not famous,” she explains. More disturbingly, some photographers struggled to celebrate Chinese beauty. “Creatively, professionally, they didn’t have a feel for them, they had never worked with them, they never shot Chinese models, so genuinely they did not have a feel for how to make them more beautiful.”

Cheung decided the best way to resolve this was by making China firmly mainstream. “We needed a Chinese supermodel,” she said, and set about creating one, pushing homegrown talent with simple deals: ‘If you want to shoot this international supermodel, you also have to do a shoot with Du Juan.’”

Du went on to become hugely famous in her own right, her star rising along with Vogue China’s. The magazine is now one of the biggest in the world, more than twice the size of its UK sister and so popular with advertisers and the country’s moneyed and aspirational classes that they have added 12 supplements a year to the monthly magazines.

“Everyone can see we are so successful, there is a big market and if you want a foot in China you have to work with us,” said Cheung, now preparing for a bumper 10th anniversary edition in September, which will go out to around 1.4 million readers in print and online.

She drew in her original audience by running the magazine almost like a fashion text book for its first few years. Articles about 60s fashion meant nothing to readers whose main point of reference for that decade and the next one was the Mao suit.

“We had to catch our readers up on the last 50 years of fashion,” she said. “What does ‘inspired by the 1980s, inspired by the 1940s mean ... who was Marie Antoinette? Even our own editors had to study, they didn’t know everything.”

She ditched the Vogue rulebook again after her daughter Hayley was born eight years ago and she started to think about the type of woman she wanted her to become.

“I painted a great picture of a stylish woman in the magazine, but that woman doesn’t have a soul,” Cheung says.

She brought in an “Attitudes” section, to showcase women’s work and character, and boost circulation among women who might not find time for a pure fashion fix every month. “Suddenly the magazine had a heart,” she says. “Vogue China readers are mostly working women, dressing is only a small part of their lives, so I have to capture the other parts.”

Cheung is as multifaceted as her target reader, as happy talking about her love for Arsenal as discussing her favourite Chinese designers and models. Before becoming a mother she would stay up until the small hours to watch British football matches in dingy Beijing sports bars, almost certainly the only person there who could analyse the success of both David and Victoria Beckham.

She won the battle for the heart of her magazine but is still fighting for the rest of the global fashion world to see her country as a source of inspiration, rather than just a giant storefront, and ditch the lingering cliche of Chinese as brand-hungry but otherwise indiscriminate shoppers.

The country’s sometimes strange and often mocked fashion trends of the 1990s and 2000s were born of the tumult of choice suddenly offered to people whose clothes had been as narrowly defined by the state as their job and marriage prospects, not any inherent lack of taste, she says.

“Not enough people come to understand contemporary China ... [for them] there is always somewhere else more important than the country that makes up 50% of their business,” she says.

“They create advertising campaigns that cost millions of dollars but antagonise and confuse the customers.”

Some of that patchy understanding was on display at this year’s Met Gala, sometimes dubbed fashion’s Oscars, where the theme of the evening and an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was “China: Through the Looking Glass”.

Along with a string of Chinese celebrities and designers, there were also plenty of the old cliches on display when guests arrived in dresses that owed more to Japanese than Chinese tradition, or were apparently inspired only by vague western fantasies of “the Orient”.

But Cheung, who helped to organise the museum show and chronicled the glittering ball on Instagram, said the evening had been a rare chance to get people talking about Chinese fashion.

“If you complain every time people do something, [saying] ‘this is done wrong, we in China are not like that’, then nobody does anything,” she said. “At least they created more awareness about China. I try to look at the positive side of things. It’s better than nobody giving a damn about anything Chinese ... But is that the only image that I want people to see of China? No.”

The Guardian

 

[fashionista-ta]

“The Chinese will think, ‘Why do I want to be that beauty, it’s not even beautiful? Look at that woman, that woman looks sick, that woman looks downbeat, that woman looks like she is going to commit suicide soon. Why would I want to become that woman?’”

Apparently I have a Chinese outlook, because this is exactly how I feel Now I'm interested to see Vogue China ... I don't know if I can get it here.

Thanks for that article, Benn, it's very helpful. As she explains it, it certainly makes sense.

A single fashion show to make the whole world happy, it's a big ask ...

I'm also in agreement that the suits are killing fashion.

 

[mathiaskatz]

Kerby Jean-Raymond calls out BoF.


BoF responds:
Why I’m Listening to Kerby Jean-Raymond

 

[Lola701]

^^
I totally support Kerby...
From his story, there’s a lack of honesty and professionalism from Imran’s part.
That being said, I think Kerby should have expressed everything he felt to Imrân without having to wait for this fall out to come.

I hate Imran’s response. He took the expected route « I’m not racist, I have a black friend », « I’m not homophobic, I have a gay friend ».

He could have present an apology and explain why he invited the choir without the whole story telling about him being gay or such and such. A lot of people in the fashion shares the same story and that wasn’t the point.

 

[dior_couture1245]

I’m pretty tired of everyone bitching about their self-centered problems all the time...”wah wah look at me...boo hoo I didn’t get a magazine cover, read this obscenely long narcissistic rant that’s ALL about ME but I’ll wrap it up with some trite message claiming to be a voice to the voiceless, I hope this inspires someone else to speak their truth, I’m using my platform for good, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.” I mean, honestly...the gall to write something that long that I’m supposed to care enough to read the 10 pages??

Maybe make some clothes that are good and memorable like it’s your f*cking job, ‘cause IT IS. Whining is not.

It’s honestly mind-numbing for me at this point. I had to delete Instagram off my phone because I couldn’t bear to see another poorly written, multi-paragraph long novella describing, say, something as asinine as “it’s ok to be sad!”

 

[Benn98]

Kerby Jean-Raymond on making it on his own:

“It seemed like the only way to get success in this space was to have Kanye co-sign, or Rihanna co-sign, or whatever celebrity was trending at the time,” Jean-Raymond said. “I think the first four years I came out, I was trying to chase that formula and trying to make that formula work. The minute I decided that it’s not going to work, it’s not for me, and I really just do the things that I’m passionate about and show that in my work, everything changed.” Three years ago, for example, he was showing at Milk Studios in Chelsea and juggling investors. Now, he owns his company and gets the industry to come to Crown Heights and Flatbush. It’s meant the difference between trying to seed product to influencers or celebrities “versus opening the Shopify and seeing that Michelle Obama made a couple-thousand-dollar purchase.”

and on the CFDA:

The most recent change in Jean-Raymond’s world is the announcement last week that he will join the board of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, after Tom Ford appointed him along with Virgil Abloh, Maria Cornejo, and Carly Cushnie. “I think that the CFDA is moving in the right direction by acknowledging that there’s a diversity, inclusion, and race problem in American fashion,” he said carefully. “Selecting me on the board of directors”—he paused—“is cute. I’m honored that I was chosen. I would’ve been offended if I wasn’t. However, I do feel like I have to wait and see what my role is. It was under conspicuous timing when I received that letter,” he said, referring to the period when protests began around board member Kara Ross, the wife of Hudson Yards developer and Donald Trump supporter Stephen Ross. (Ford told WWD last week that Ross’s departure “has absolutely nothing to do with her political views or her [husband’s] fundraiser for Trump.”)

Jean-Raymond continued, “I think an organization like the CFDA that is meant to be progressive and to be supportive of young artistic talent—which tends to be gay, which tends to be poor, which tends to be ’other’—should’ve known better, and done a better vetting process than to employ—I mean, than to adorn someone associated, married to a person with such a low moral fiber.

Full article here for context - Pyer Moss Designer Kerby Jean-Raymond on the CFDA, His New Collection, and Finally Making It

 

[Melancholybaby]

“Selecting me on the board of directors”—he paused—“is cute. I’m honored that I was chosen. I would’ve been offended if I wasn’t.

“Me and Anna, we f*ck with each other. We’re both Scorpios.

I had never heard of this guy before this BOF debacle. Took a look in vogue.com, his clothes are perfectly in line with the Virgil Abloh/Heron Preston crowd. Is he popular in the US or something? He barely has any stocklists in Europe and Asia.

 

[Deleted member 119799]

I had never heard of this guy before this BOF debacle. Took a look in vogue.com, his clothes are perfectly in line with the Virgil Abloh/Heron Preston crowd. Is he popular in the US or something? He barely has any stocklists in Europe and Asia.

i had never looked at his work before, it's actually pretty bad.
good for him for getting where he is without any noticeable design talent.

 

[Melancholybaby]

i had never looked at his work before, it's actually pretty bad.
good for him for getting where he is without any noticeable design talent.

No talent, but a huge ego and good connections. He'll be designing for a luxury giant in no time.

 

[dodencebt]

Not really a "behavior" story but I think everyone here would appreciate knowing that Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington, Marc Jacobs, Steven Meisel, Edward Enninful, Pat McGrath, François Nars and Anna Sui have a group chat where they talk all the time, according to WSJ. How fabulous is that!

 

[tapenerd]

Oh to be a fly on the wall during those text chats!

 

[perfect blue]

Not really a "behavior" story but I think everyone here would appreciate knowing that Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington, Marc Jacobs, Steven Meisel, Edward Enninful, Pat McGrath, François Nars and Anna Sui have a group chat where they talk all the time, according to WSJ. How fabulous is that!

I am jealous.

 

[Benn98]

Tom Ford via PageSix:

“I had a woman slap me one time because her shoe heel broke,” Tom Ford said Thursday at Vogue’s Forces of Fashion conference. “She took it so personally. I was standing in front of the Beverly Hills Hotel waiting to get into a car, and a woman came up and slapped me and said, ‘I bought your shoes and wore them to an event, and the heel broke and I looked like a complete fool.’ She thought I had decided to personally ruin her night by making that heel break. It was scary.”

Ford, who is also a critically acclaimed director with films like “Nocturnal Animals,” also discussed the effect of social media on fashion. “The things that photograph well on Instagram are maybe things that in real life can look a little silly,” he said. “It’s caused us to become slightly cartoonlike. You need that traffic quality, something that will read as an image. Less and less, we react to each other in a real way.”

He said Instagram “leaves you feeling ugly, fat, inadequate, dull, pathetic, sad. It makes you want to just jump off a building,” but, he said, “I like the ads! I buy a lot of things from them.”

PageSix