Silver Spoons: Fashion and Class .. See Post #1 for Thread Rules.

[YoninahAliza]

Sure their are a ton of bloggers who are breaking down the barriers but I still think that some must come from incredibly wealthy families. For example, Jane from Sea of Shoes, clearly has to have some funds or how else would she be able to afford all of those designer garments? Although, I will give Jane credit for still mixing it up- high and low. Its nice to see bloggers put together outfits which come from Target and other low end stores yet at the same time never losing their sense of style. These bloggers have to work super hard to often even make a blip on the radar since people often flock towards those who are "shinier and upper class." Its interesting to see how this will play out in the next few years... lets hope a change is gonna come!

 

[thejarc]

A thing I've noticed after researching an interview by Lagerfeld is that many influental fashion people have their children also in fashion businiess.

francesco carrozzini, victor demachelier, vladimir and julia restoin-roitfeld, Donatella Versaces niece (forgot her name) and many more.

A possible explantion for people with affluent backgrounds being so influental may be due to an early interest in high fashion, because they could afford it. Many people dislike high fashion because it's being elitarian" in their opinion and they could never afford it. So if there's a 13 year old girl whose mother wears Chanel, then the little girl might accompany her daughter to the botique, finds it interesting and then she's hooked.

 

[Lina5]

it also depends on the publication .. but if you are talking about something more high profile like Vogue - I presume a high number of their readers buy the magazine because they aspire to a more high class style. the role of more visible editors is to promote a certain lifestyle, to give credibility to the magazine ... therefore they have to be from more affluent background themselves. I believe any less visible position is at least theoretically open to anyone good enough to take it.

 

[fraiseap]

There is a movement away from the situation where people working in fashion have affluent upbringings. Bloggers have already been mentioned but the ability to publish an independant magazine without megabucks has made a difference as well.

A lot of alternative, retro or just plain offbeat magazines have been launched over the last few years and these publications are a great way for newcomers to get exposure.

Having said that, if you want to work for Vogue, Harpers Bazaar or Elle you had better be well connected - and that generally means coming from an affluent background.

 

[JustABoy]

^^^^ Obviously there are going to wealthy people in fashion, as these people have readier access to contacts, as has been sad, but also to the luxury items themselves. Does anyone really want to read a blog about someone shopping at gap? I'm sure such blogs exist, but you don't hear about them for a reason.

But if you HAD to be wealthy to get into fashion, how would you explain the Mulleavy's? They had a meteoric rise (literally no fashion presence to the cover of WWD) with no background in fashion at all. I don't contest that there are wealthy people in fashion, as numerous people have pointed out, nor that these people occupy many of the highest positions, but it seems downright untrue that the door is closed to people who don't already have connections or who come from extreme affluence a la the Sea of Shoes girl. And since that's untrue, i'm unclear what change people really think is necessary -- no wealthy people in fashion? Wealthy people having less of an advantage than those from less affluent backgrounds? If the latter is the point being made, I think it's 1) a bit silly -- of course people from affluent backgrounds have advantages that those from poorer backgrounds don't; if having money didn't open doors for one's self/progeny, why would anyone bother to work difficult jobs that pay well? 2) A critique so general that it could be made against far more than just fashion -- wealth buys a lot of things (SAT tutors, private schools, access to people in power (of all kinds, not just political power)) (ETA: that confer advantages to people). What are we really questioning here? The way that fashion works, or the way the world works?

 

[loladonna]

^The Mulleavys are the exception to the rule which is the point of this thread--it's very difficult to break into the upper tiers of the fashion world without coming from money.

2) A critique so general that it could be made against far more than just fashion -- wealth buys a lot of things (SAT tutors, private schools, access to people in power (of all kinds, not just political power)) (ETA: that confer advantages to people). What are we really questioning here? The way that fashion works, or the way the world works?​

We're not talking about having the money for the best schools..etc. In the fashion world someone from a poor background who gets a scholarship to Parsons and builds a commendable design reputation stands less of a chance of having their own line than the average socialite with her liberal arts degree. In other professions like medicine and law you can find countless people who come from poor beginnings and either got scholarships or worked their way through graduate school to become successful doctors and lawyers. The fashion world does not reward the best design students or the hardest workers- it rewards *edited* , most beautiful and wealthiest more often than not.​

 

[Drusilla_]

But if you HAD to be wealthy to get into fashion, how would you explain the Mulleavy's? They had a meteoric rise (literally no fashion presence to the cover of WWD) with no background in fashion at all.

The Mulleavys are designers, not editors. The same goes for Alexander McQueen, who came from a far less privileged background than them and still had an incredibly brilliant, successful career. Designers like John Galliano and Ricardo Tisci did not grow up rich or well-conected either, even though one could argue that the fact that they went to Central St Martins gave them a leg up in the industry. When it comes to design, talent and training matter- of course connections come into play too, but there's much less room for faffing around or getting a position purely because someone is the son/daughter of XYZ.

I suppose this thread is talking mainly about fashion journalists, stylists and editors, the people who work at upper-end magazines. Vogue seems to be particularly fond of employing rich, well-connected girls, or girls who started out as models etc. Twenty years ago, perhaps it was less of a trend to want to "work" in fashion as something other than a designer or model. Now, every rich kid who enjoys a good game of dress-up will say she wants to "work in fashion" as something or other, and the connections mean that it's a done deal before anyone else even gets a look in.

Of course, I'd say there are exceptions to the rich-girl rule for magazine editors and stylists too, look at Katie Grand. Or anyone else who forms the requisite connections while they're still at fashion school (in her case, CSM) and starts off at a smaller magazine that is perhaps not as, er, snobbish as the major fashion flagships.

 

[JustABoy]

The two posts after mine seem to have a lot of generalizations and not a lot of facts about the people actually working in fashion. I'm not suggesting that my post contained infinitely more examples, but points made without any seem rather -- well, pointless. To flesh out the list, other designers without an affluent background/family connection to fashion include Altuzarra, Alexander Wang, Jason Wu ... all fairly lauded up and coming designers who prove that exceptions to the rule may be more numerous than those cases that prove it.

I can see for myself that the discussion thus far has been about editors rather than designers, but the title of this thread is "Fashion and Class" -- are you really suggesting that fashion designers are irrelevant to that discussion? That seems silly at best.

 

[Drusilla_]

I thought the point of my entire first paragraph was to point out that designers don't in fact seem to be silver spooners to the same extent as many well-known fashion editors and stylists. All you're doing is bolstering it even further.

Also: you want examples of fashion editors/stylists who came from wealthy or well-connected backgrounds, here are just a few: Anna Wintour (duh), Carine Roitfeld, Alexandra Shulman, Franca Sozzani, Plum Sykes, Lauren Santo Domingo, Emily Sheffield, Dasha Zhukova, Lucinda Chambers, the late Isabella Blow, and many more, including Camilla al Fayed's turn as an intern at American Vogue. I didn't bother naming any the first time around because other people had already done so in previous posts.

Also, the title of this thread is "Fashion and Class", but the OP spoke specifically about fashion editors and stylists at magazines. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by bringing designers into a discussion about the backgrounds of fashion press and stylists when they have no apparent relevance to it but it seems, to borrow your own words, silly at best. Maybe the title of the thread needs a change to make it slightly more specific.

 

[JustABoy]

Ah, I see your point, and you're right, the original post does point out that most of the fashion world isn't as homogenous the magazine world. So yes, perhaps the name of the thread does need to change, since a discussion of "fashion" that only focuses on such a narrow aspect of the fashion world isn't really a discussion about fashion, per se.

ETA: Even so, there are plenty of counter examples -- Tavi is reviving a magazine, Anja Rubik has a magazine, and each of these is receiving mainstream attention. Bryan Boy covers fashion and sits in the front row 2 seats from anna wintour at some shows (maybe that was just one show?). It's clear that even if there is a hierarchy with wealthy people at the top, the oligarchy is already falling (and i'm still not convinced that it IS an oligarchy).

 

[bothsidesnow]

To take the example of Vogue.. as powerful as it seems to be, it's essentially a brand.. its a brand of advertising publication which, in its current format, is heavily dependent on support from major fashion houses. Vogue sits below the "big 5" fashion houses (LVMH Group, Gucci Group, House of Chanel, Prada S.L., and Calvin Klein) in the industry's power hierarchy and it really isn't autonomous at all. Now, when key editorial positions are on offer at Vogue, it will be mindful of maintaining its relationship with these houses as well as considering its own corporate image. In the end, a more creative, more individualistic nobody with discerning taste will almost always lose out to a less discerning somebody who's prepared to tow the party line.

 

[Crying Diamonds]

I agree with JustABoy's point about people not wanting to read about shopping in Gap - in a recent article by Claudia Winkleman in Vanity Fair, she had been invited to most of the well-known haute couture shows and had written her version of a review for each of them. By the time I had finished reading I was sick of hearing her gushing about how gorgeous and glamourous the gowns were.
Nobody wants to repeatedly hear the excited, naive, first-time experiences of a high-fashion virgin - they want to read about how someone impossible that they aspire to be wore the £10k dress once.

High fashion is about aspirations, wealth and the unachievable.
Of course there are thousands of diamonds ready to be hewn from the rock, bursting to have their talent exposed, but unfortunately talent is not the only factor necessary to be part of the industry. The Talent also has to have the willpower to save the money and move to the right area and have the natural ability to bloom in social situations to source as many contacts as possible to smooth the road of their less-than-glamourous fashion career.
This contrasts with the rich and the famous, who are born with the contacts, they have the name, they have the money to do whatever they like.
Would Sirivannavari Nariratanahave been able to buy a slot in Paris and show her questionable designs if her grandfather wasn't the King of Thailand? Would Stella McCartney have been able to study at CSM and now be showing her nondescript collections in Paris if her father wasn't one of the Beetles?

Italian designer Giambattista Valli left Ungaro and created his own label using his own fortune. He even had the choice of turning down the position of creative director at the House of Valentino and to stick to concentrating on his own line. He could afford to put on fashion shows in Milan of collections that were purely for the media attention, before he started designing clothes that he could sell.

It's all extremely unfair, but no matter how much we whimper about it, the fashion industry isn't going to care; the people in their golden towers wont be able to look at you unless you scale the walls.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I think there is an audience who wants to read about shopping at the Gap and the like ... putting together a great, personal look at a reasonable price. I suspect that takes significantly more skill than putting together a good look with a much larger, or no, budget. But (and we see this here ) there seems to be a much larger audience that wants to talk about celebs, including what they're wearing--and tear them down. I'm certain analyzing the psychology of that would yield nothing pretty.

I think Stella would've been weeded out by now if she had nothing to offer. It's also very possible there were others right next to her with the same degree of talent who are now nowhere.

 

[liny]

I'm neutral about the Contributing Editor positions going to the moneyed (ie Lauren Santo Domingo, Marina Rust etc at American Vogue), since they bring with them the connections and the lifestyle to contribute to a magazine that's about celebrating the elite life.

But at American Vogue at least, even some of the writers come from money. For example, Jane Herman (dont think she's there anymore, but she was there for at least 2 yrs) is the daughter of Ron Herman, the Ron Herman of that boutique in LA.

I don't know about the rest of the writers/assistants on the masthead though: Esther Adams, Florence Kane, Stella Greenspan etc. Is Stella Greenspan related to THAT Greenspan (Alan?).

The Traina sisters are another example of parlaying their connections to fashion jobs. Being "stylist" seems to be easiest way to declare yourself part of the fashion industry without actually doing anything other dressing yourself well.

My take is that I don't care where anyone is from if they are exceptional at what they do. Joan Juliet Buck certainly came from a pedigreed background but she's an excellent writer. Does anyone know anything about Sally Singer (formerly fashion director at US Vogue, now at T Magazine) and Mark Holgate (US Vogue)? Or Sarah Mower (Telegraph, US and UK Vogue)? They're all pretty excellent fashion writers.

I find the issue of paid internships to be an interesting one...working in fashion is not so limited to the rich where I live, so I'm enjoying learning about the perspectives being brought up here.

 

[gimmethatbag]

Sure their are a ton of bloggers who are breaking down the barriers but I still think that some must come from incredibly wealthy families. For example, Jane from Sea of Shoes, clearly has to have some funds or how else would she be able to afford all of those designer garments? Although, I will give Jane credit for still mixing it up- high and low. Its nice to see bloggers put together outfits which come from Target and other low end stores yet at the same time never losing their sense of style. These bloggers have to work super hard to often even make a blip on the radar since people often flock towards those who are "shinier and upper class." Its interesting to see how this will play out in the next few years... lets hope a change is gonna come!

EXACTLY. I was thinking about Jane Aldridge when I read the post about fashion bloggers. And Tavi Gevinson wasn't exactly poor. She probably could have afforded designer clothes, too, but she instead went for quantity with her clothes, even in the early days. Susie Lau was going to Hong Kong in her first year of blogging. These are not people without a lot of resources. They are just slightly more "average" than the people we usually see in fashion magazines.

And as YoninahAliza said, you have to work super-hard to get to a place where you are at the level of Tavi, Jane, or Susie. Susie's been blogging since March '06. Tavi's blogged since March '08. In 2008 she made 175 posts, which works out to more than one every other day (every 1.7 days or so). In 2009, she made 241 posts (every 1.5 days). In 2010, when she really hit it big, she was clearly much busier and made 173 posts (every 2.1 days). Jane's blogged ever since April '07. All of that adds up to a lot of work.
Plus, it's a crapshoot. There are THOUSANDS of blogs out there just like these three girls', but those people live in anonymity. And the method is kind of dead now because people getting famous off of fashion blogs has become "been there, done that" and people can look at all of these established blogs rather than up-and-comers which are harder to find and not as shiny and polished. If you're not famous now from your blog it's really unlikely you will be. (Note: I don't have stats for the other girls because their archives are not set up in a way that you can see number of posts).

Last, on an unrelated note, I feel as though unpaid internships are intentionally designed not only to provide free work (the word "slavery" ring a bell?) but to weed out the less successful OR the ones who can live on 4 hours of sleep working an actual paying job and doing the internship. That's not necessarily a matter of working hard; some people are physically incapable of having that kind of schedule. Mostly it weeds out the ones who do not have the kind of resources to take a non-paying job. It weeds out people who didn't go to college (or the right college), weeds out people without "family money", weeds out the small percentage of people who can live a nearly unlivable life.

Okay, ACTUALLY last, on a really unrelated note again, is the idea of articles about what you can find at Gap being not as interesting. 1. Not necessarily true. 2. Okay, if people find reading about massive chains boring, then how about highlighting small, inexpensive places in different cities? Or inexpensive websites, which are accessible to everyone? Or chains that are less prominent? Despite all evidence to the contrary, inexpensive fashion can be interesting, chic, avant garde, trendy, futuristic, original, etc. etc., too. I'm not saying take the high-fashion designers out of magazines. Those brands are often run by true artistic geniuses who are less beholden to a bottom line or to appeasing middle America (or middle wherever) than a chain is. They are great to look to for inspiration and, as a whole group, for guidance on where fashion is moving (and some people can actually afford them!). But cheap fashion, despite its lower quality, lower prices, and broader availability/accessibility, is worthwhile too. Plus, it is what 90% of people can actually afford (and what 90% of people reading the magazine can afford). Surely appealing to 10% of your audience is not the best business strategy?

 

[ibarrac]

I see this going on a lot but my roommates sister is a pretty high up person in Harpers Bazaar, and she just came from a small town in OR. She didn't know anyone, just had talent. So there is hope.

 

[Drusilla_]

I think Stella would've been weeded out by now if she had nothing to offer. It's also very possible there were others right next to her with the same degree of talent who are now nowhere.

I agree. I also think that it's partly because it would be easier to weed out a mediocre designer than a mediocre fashion journalist, mainly because of the nature of their jobs and the fact that most mainstream fashion magazines don't really (in my experience) pay that much attention to the quality of their writing.

My take is that I don't care where anyone is from if they are exceptional at what they do. Joan Juliet Buck certainly came from a pedigreed background but she's an excellent writer. Does anyone know anything about Sally Singer (formerly fashion director at US Vogue, now at T Magazine) and Mark Holgate (US Vogue)? Or Sarah Mower (Telegraph, US and UK Vogue)? They're all pretty excellent fashion writers.

I'd contest the notion that Sally Singer is an excellent writer, though anyone can have an off day and maybe I read the results of some of hers- but otherwise I do agree with what you said. I'm not particularly fussed about the early life of Suzy Menkes or Justine Picardie either.

It's not as if having a well-off family automatically means guaranteed success for the mediocre even if it does mean they have a slightly easier ride, but it is a factor in how people get to manage their work (e.g. Carine openly admitting that she was able to turn down jobs she didn't want to do during the early years of her career because her partner was supporting her. In her own words : "If you struggle to pay bills, working on advertising you do not like, on magazines you do not like, at the end of the day is difficult to still like fashion. You know, is like when you squeeze a lemon... whereas I still have some juice.")

So, perhaps a little unfair? Yes, and I think it must be acknowledged. But at the same time, there's little anyone can do about it but keep trying.

​

 

[snowqueen]

people with a silver spoon in there mouth have advantages from birth, this means they are more likely to succeed and get the better jobs in this case fashion editor.

at an early age richer people are more likely to travel about be more cultured have better education and money to buy all the books or trips or what ever is needed to succeed. They are more likely to socialise with people of same class who are already high flyers etc. and strive to get ahead. Were as poorer people generally just live for the moment concentrating on getting through each month at a time or what ever. Also things like inturnships etc are unpaid so I would say very very very few people can afford to work unwaged for long or any period of time.

Also being exposed to designer labels etc. You know all the "top" customers usually get invites to shows etc. so if you have money its easier to get in with the fashion scene i would imagine.

Being able to afford to go out all the time and party and network etc. also would help alot I imagine.

But also people from different classes have different morals, they are more likely to want to and strive to suceed. It is exspected of them. And they have every advantage on there side to help them suceed.

We all know that money doesnt equal class. And that alot of class is to do with morals, upbringing and opinions. Generally lower class people are labeled and having labels on you from birth doesnt help you.

Argh im so bad at explaining things, hope some of this makes sense. Of course im generalising totally. And looking at it from more of a sociological point of view them specific to fashion.

 

[fashionista-ta]

people with a silver spoon in there mouth have advantages from birth, this means they are more likely to succeed and get the better jobs in this case fashion editor.

at an early age richer people are more likely to travel about be more cultured have better education and money to buy all the books or trips or what ever is needed to succeed. They are more likely to socialise with people of same class who are already high flyers etc. and strive to get ahead. Were as poorer people generally just live for the moment concentrating on getting through each month at a time or what ever. Also things like inturnships etc are unpaid so I would say very very very few people can afford to work unwaged for long or any period of time.

Also being exposed to designer labels etc. You know all the "top" customers usually get invites to shows etc. so if you have money its easier to get in with the fashion scene i would imagine.

Being able to afford to go out all the time and party and network etc. also would help alot I imagine.

But also people from different classes have different morals, they are more likely to want to and strive to suceed. It is exspected of them. And they have every advantage on there side to help them suceed.

We all know that money doesnt equal class. And that alot of class is to do with morals, upbringing and opinions. Generally lower class people are labeled and having labels on you from birth doesnt help you.

Argh im so bad at explaining things, hope some of this makes sense. Of course im generalising totally. And looking at it from more of a sociological point of view them specific to fashion.

Whoa whoa whoa ... what?!?!

Morals don't have jack sh!t to do with class ... they have to do with character.

Luckily passion knows no class ...

 

[BetteT]

It's semantics. The word "class: has two meanings:

• one can be "upper class" which means being born to a family with money, influence and breeding/aristocratic roots. Then, one can be "lower class" or "middle class", which refers to being born into a family with less money and influence and little if any aristocratic family background.
• And then there is actually having "class", which definitely means how you act ... good morals, good manners, positive actions towards other people, concern for others. A person from a "lower class" may still have a lot of "class" ...

Perhaps "motivation" might be a better word than "morals" and may be what she intended to mean.

I agree that in upper class homes, there is motivation to succeed, but often it is not motivation that is inherent in the children. They are often expected to succeed at a high level and are pressured to go to the best schools and use their contacts to climb into plum jobs. But that doesn't guarantee that the individual person actually is motivated on their own. It's thrust upon them.

And yes .... people with a real passion and the guts and work ethic to do what it takes to get there is certainly not limited to any particular class. It's sort of an inner motivation ... which not many people actually have.

But upper class people, with money, the best schools and familial contacts have the advantage and usually get a boost up. A lower class person will have to struggle more and longer... whether it's in fashion, or any other endeavour.

In addition, as it's been pointed out, I agree that it seems that stylists and magazine editors, etc. often seem to get in, via thier upper class upbringing. And that many designers come from more humble backgrounds.