Damn Kids Ruin Everything. Officially.

Fashion / Mythology / pop culture

Damn Kids Ruin Everything. Officially.

September 2, 2016

charles i. letbetter - damn kids are ruining everything. officially

I’ve got seven kids. The three words you hear most around my house are ‘hello’, ‘goodbye’, and ‘I’m pregnant’. —Dean Martin

charles i. letbetter - damn kids ruin everything. officially

Millennials are accused of killing a lot of things. Some of them needed to be killed.

If I hadn’t pulled the article for reference yesterday, when I was still almost in a good mood, relatively speaking, I’d blame this whole article on the kids. You know, the seven-year-old who decided to play with lighting birthday candles at 2:00 in the morning. And his sister who refused to go to sleep after all the commotion. Damn kids. If I’m more surly and cantankerous than normal it’s all their fault.

However, those particular kids aren’t the ones we’re discussing this morning. Once again, we’re talking about Millennials. You know, the ones born somewhere between 1980 and 2000. These are the same kids that will comprise half the workforce by the year 2020. They are formidable, at least as far as logistics are concerned. They are also very different from Gen-X (those born in the 70s) and the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1963). These dear children have ideologies and concepts sometimes directly in opposition to their parents and grandparents.

As with every generation before us, those of us who are older blame the destruction of the world as we know it on the younger generation. Our grandparents leveled that claim against us, with our rock-and-roll music and that long-haired hippy stuff. I’m sure their grandparents did it to them as well. This is a time-honored tradition that is a necessity if we are to continue progressing. However, millennials stand accused of killing a multitude of things. We’ve seen at least a partial list and it’s quite long. Millennials are murderers.

Those Meddling Kids

I know, I know. I’m sounding more and more like the old man chasing kids off his lawn. In a way, that’s what we’re all doing. When some things change, the things with which we are most comfortable, we’re going to resist; it’s our nature. Some of what has changed because of Millennials pisses us off. Damn kids. We have a right to be upset. Consider this list of things they’ve killed:

Manners. Someone has said that Millennials have no class. This is a broad, sweeping generalization, the kind you’re not supposed to make. There are exceptions. As a group, however, they are totally void of any social considerations. They talk too loud. They are oblivious to anyone else. And have you seen these kids eat?
Retail. No, seriously, it’s all the kids’ fault that Aeropostale was sold at auction yesterday. They don’t shop in stores, they shop online. They don’t pay full price. Bargain basements and second-hand shops source their wardrobes. They just don’t spend money, and for a group their size, that’s a very bad thing.
Vacations. I can’t really say too much on this one. I’ve not had a real vacation since 2009. However, the problem is that not only are Millennials not taking vacations (they can’t afford it), they’re shaming those who do. That, dear children, is enough to make us collectively hate you. We’ve worked hard for our vacation time. Fuck you.
Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding was a really great idea when it applied to unique ideas that were outside the mainstream. Damn brats killed that, though, by asking people to help pay for their weddings, or their honeymoons, or their boob jobs, or their flat tire. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Some Things Need To Die

Not everything that has died at the hands of Millennials is a tragedy. There are some of the things on that list that should have died long ago. Scream and yell at the kids all you want, we’re rather happy that some of these things have died, or at least fallen out of favor.

McWraps and (maybe) McDonalds. McWraps definitely needed to go. That piece of pretentious self-indulgence was long over-due. Putting the whole fast-food chain into a nose-dive was a surprise no one saw coming, though. Millennials don’t like chemically-produced food products. Not a bad move.
9-5 Work Days. There remains some debate over whether the kids actually killed this one or just pulled the sheet over its head. Freelancing, job-sharing, and other creative forms of doing anything but working 9-5 is almost the norm now. Mind you, they still manage to work more hours. This is a good thing.
Email marketing. This isn’t quite complete, but it can’t come fast enough. While Millennials check their email more frequently than anyone, they don’t click marketing links. Hell, half the time they don’t even open the email. Email marketing was always a numbers game but those numbers are almost impossible to reach.
The religious right. Remember that whole Moral Majority thing of the 1980s? Dead. Gone. Fewer of these sinners attend church at all and those who do are far more likely to be part of a more progressive, dare I say liberal congregation. They have a different morality. They support a woman’s right to choose. LGBT lifestyles are their normal. Sorry, Newt, you can go decompose now.

Not Letting Them Off The Hook

Just because the damn kids got a few things right doesn’t mean we can let them off the hook for ruining the things we enjoyed. I’m still on the fence about them destroying network television as we once knew it. I just don’t get into the whole binge-watching craze. I rather agree with them on their concepts of dating and marriage, too. Their obsession over gluten-free and organic is a pain in my ass, though. I don’t like paying more for vegetables just because someone carefully measured the amount of shit that was dumped on them. And I like bread, dammit! And cookies! You just keep your tiny little hands off my gluten!

We also have to take them to task for this whole anti-vax thing. C’mon, kids, just because you didn’t like the ouchy shots doesn’t mean they weren’t good for you. And while we’re at it, the rest of the world would appreciate it if you’d actually discipline your own brats, now that you’re finally having them. We’re sick and tired of them talking back to teachers and other adults and swearing like little sailors. No, it’s not fucking cute. We’re not laughing.

Being the largest demographic group in the world carries a lot of responsibility. We Boomers should know, we had a similar effect when we came along and it cause problems for a lot of older people. There were too many times we didn’t think before we acted. Disco is a good example.

So kids, watch yourselves. We don’t care if there are more of you than there are of us. Have some consideration for the generation that made the choice to let you live. Trust us, there were plenty of times when we considered the alternative. Some days, we still do.

And stay the fuck off my lawn.

Fashion / PotD

Luxury Shoppers Aren’t Nice People

August 30, 2016

I am convinced that there can be luxury in simplicity. —Jil Sander

charles i. letbetter - luxury shoppers are not nice people

If you need help, don’t bother asking the person coming out of a luxury retailer

Let’s play a game this morning. You’re walking down the street with a friend, maybe doing a bit of window shopping. It’s a nice day and you’re enjoying looking at the window displays of luxury brands even though you don’t have the money to actually shop there. A young woman on crutches approaches from the opposite direction and just before she gets to you she stumbles and drops the bags she’s carrying, spilling their contents on the sidewalk. What do you do next?

Sitting at home, looking at this on your phone or tablet, it’s easy to say we would rush over and help the young woman. After all, it’s just the polite thing to do. One would have to be callous to just stand there or keep walking. Who would do such a thing?

But when Paris Descartes University and University of Southern Brittany teamed up to actually test shoppers reactions, the results were not favorable. As it turns out, just the presence of luxury brands is enough to change how people react to someone in need. Whether those people actually shop in the luxury stores doesn’t seem to make a great deal of difference. Being around retail shops for names like Prada, Chanel, and Dior causes us to be less kind, less helpful, and less charitable. Only 35% of luxury shoppers offered any kind of aid or assistance to the person in need. By contrast, when the same test was performed in an area void of luxury retailers, 77.5% of shoppers responded in a positive manner and helped.

I Gave At The Office

There are many reasons for why luxury shoppers might be shy about helping. I don’t have time to go into all of them, but one of the primary reasons is that people who have money typically manage their money, or have someone do it for them. When it comes to charity, donations are made at scheduled periods to accommodate both cash flow and tax issues. These people often give millions of dollars annually. As a result, they tend to be of the opinion that they’ve already given back to society, substantially. They don’t need to do any more.

Paired with this is the sad reality is that those who have large amounts of money are constantly being asked to donate more. They’re aware of myriad scams and con games that would quickly drain their bank accounts if given the opportunity. Those who have been stung by such fraud are justifiably cautious. Even a simple act of stooping down to help someone with their packages puts them at risk of theft or kidnapping. They are cautious for a reason.

Does this justify them not helping someone in need? In some cases, perhaps so. How does one observe such an event, especially on a busy Parisian street, and know whether or not the need is real or an act? If someone is out without a security detail, they may already feel significantly at risk. Such events are exactly the type of thing security experts warn their clients to avoid. So maybe we give some of them a little slack.

Faking The Luxury Thing

One of the most interesting aspects of the study is that the mere presence of a luxury shop is all it took to change people’s reactions. When the super-rich reacts negatively, we’re really not all that surprised. When average non-rich people react this way, though, we’re a little more surprised. Why would their behavior change based on what they’re near?

Blame the credit card. While the number of millionaires is legitimately increasing, so are the number of people who want to act and shop as though they’re richer than they are. Their lives are fueled by an array of credit cards with floating balances. Their debt is high. These people are playing a game of public deception. They want everyone to see them as something they’re not. One most often sees them window shopping at the big-name stores, but then making their actual purchases at the outlets.

Should we expect any different behavior from these people, really? If they’re already living fictional lives based on incredible debt, then we shouldn’t be too terribly surprised when they follow through by acting more snobby in the presence of someone in need. The difference is that their behavior isn’t fueled by security concerns. They are just being assholes because they think that’s how rich people are supposed to act.

A Lack Of Empathy

Researchers theorize that the presence of luxury, reminders of conspicuous consumption, causes people to be less empathetic. Those who shop in and around luxury stores actually consider themselves better than others around them. That feeling of superiority changes how one views people in need. The assumption made is that anyone in need must be of a lower social class or otherwise they wouldn’t be in need.

That lack of empathy is something we see growing across what we would previously have considered upper middle class. As socio-economic strata flatten out, those who perceive themselves to be at the upper end of the ladder look for more visible ways to separate themselves from those they consider to be lower. These people can actually be mean in how they deal with other people, and especially those who ask them for any kind of assistance. They are completely lacking in empathy, even though they’re not all that different from the people around them.

A Little Kindness Goes A Long Way

Even in this less-than-friendly climate, there are still those who do help, who do have a touch of compassion. People in this study were not asked for money or any kind of contribution that might put them at any actual risk. Some were asked to simply watch a person in a wheelchair while the other person retrieved packages. The young women asked some if they could borrow a cell phone to make an emergency call. When removed from the obvious presence of luxury, people responded with overwhelming kindness.

These results make for some interesting correlations. Do money and/or luxury make us worse people? Do we really think that wearing a luxury label makes us better than our fellow humans? Are we really good people at heart who are too easily swayed? Hopefully, this study opens the door for more. If luxury brands are going to affect how we interact with people to such a strong degree, we need to understand more about the causal factors and how they might be addressed. The last thing our world needs is to encourage any greater absence of empathy.

Meanwhile, if we want to shop around nice people, perhaps we’d best stick to shopping at Target.

Current Issues / Fashion

Is Fashion Week Flying Off The Rails?

August 26, 2016

You really do have the license during fashion week to wear the things that you wouldn’t necessarily wear to dinner, because it really is a fashion parade. —Brad Goreski

charles i. letbetter - is fashion week flying off the rails

With Fashion Week less than two weeks away, the traditions surrounding the month-long event seem to be disappearing

We’re now less than two weeks from the start of New York Fashion Week and I’m not sure at this point whether to bother consulting the schedule or not. Normally, shows would be pretty much locked down by now. We would have a good sense of the schedule and could begin preparing for where we need to be at any given moment. Not this season. At least, not yet. I suspect the calendar will straighten itself out eventually, but there are some big names still missing and some will stay that way.

Fashion week as we knew it a year ago no longer exists. Everything is in a state of flux and it is this season that is seeing a lot of the transition that is likely to become the norm for coming years. Digital media and online buying having taken over. With that comes a complete change of attitude, strategy, and availability. What we once expected from a fashion week just doesn’t happen any more. This is the season we start making that shift and it’s making more than a few people uncomfortable.

What We Know

Without going into any boring detail at this point, here are some of the changes we are aware of:

Kate Spade is not doing a show this season at all. This is so she can align her collection next season for see-now, buy-now strategies.
Misha Nonoo is doing her show exclusively on Snapchat. She’s also cutting all her wholesale connections and moving to a direct-to-consumer model.
Public School isn’t showing until December, on the pre-collection schedule.
Vivienne Westwood and Gucci are just a few of the designers combining men’s and women’s collections.

The waves of change are all over. Even how sets are constructed and shows are structured is changing. We’re expecting far fewer traditional runway shows this season. Who gets invitations and who doesn’t, who sits where, and what is allowed into a venue is all different than it was last season. Very little of what one expects from fashion week is staying the same.

Consumers Want Current Season

Folks in Italy may have to do some backtracking on their February statements against current-season show strategies. They came our pretty strong against the concept last season and Italian designers seemed to largely agree that shows needed to stay a season ahead of retail. Consumers, however, seem to have other ideas.

A report was released this week by Verdict Retail showing exactly the opposite of what the Italian Fashion Council wants. 85.6% of shoppers say they want to shop current season and support a see-now, buy-now strategy. 85% is a scale-tipping number. Labels can either get with the program or suffer the consequences of continually declining sales.

Unpredictable weather and social media are the primary culprits behind this change in consumer expectations. When everyone around the world can see a collection the instant it walks, the demand to have that collection now increases significantly. With weather often blurring the lines between seasons, a heavy coat is appropriate for summer as much as s short shorts are part of the winter collection.

Discounters Rule

The other aspect that is spurring changes on fashion runways is the fact that luxury labels are having difficulty keeping up with discounters and outlet stores that are digging into their profits. Large department stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom are having to run sales 50% and even 75% off in order to compete with the likes of H&M. This leaves designers increasingly narrow margins and effects how they approach fashion week.

Even discounters, though, may soon face declining sales. A Moody’s retail analyst told Bloomberg TV this week that consumers make $80 billion in interest payments on student debt each year, leaving them with increasingly less expendable cash during that time of their lives when they should have the most money available to spend. Gen-X and older Millennial shoppers are having to adopt a more frugal spending plan. Historial studies show that once such a mindset is established, consumers typically don’t change habits even when they do have more money

This leaves luxury labels looking for new ways to entice cash- and credit-strapped shoppers. Traditional runways are not selling the clothes as effectively. Fashion week is, in some cases, too old school to hold the effectiveness it once did. Labels are actively seeking alternatives.

Hang On For A Wild Ride

We’re expecting even more shifts and changes as we get closer to the September 8 start date of the season. We’ll do our best to keep up with the most important. Stay with us.

Advertising / Fashion / pop culture / PotD

The Beauty Industry Is Looking Ugly

August 26, 2016

charles i. letbetter - beauty is getting really ugly

Yeah, I know I’m ugly… I said to a bartender, ‘Make me a zombie.’ He said ‘God beat me to it.’ —Rodney Dangerfield

charles i. letbetter - the beauty industry is getting ugly

The beauty industry is under fire for tactics that are best described as downright ugly

Beauty is big business. Looking at revenue amounts for the billion-dollar industry don’t begin to fully embody the scope and reach of the behemoth that is Beauty. We’re surrounded by the messages, both pro, and con, on a daily basis. Regardless of one’s personal opinion, regimen, or gender, the onslaught of beauty-related messaging is downright ugly.

Consider, for example, that I can be sure that I will see a short video teasing some manner of beauty article every morning in my newsfeed. Today, it was Amanda Steele’s #GirlBoss Tricks to a Gorgeous Bold Brow on the Go published by Teen Vogue. The subject of the article, Amanda Steele, is a beauty blogger on YouTube. Beauty is one of the largest content areas on the video streaming site, rivaling gaming and music. There are teen beauty bloggers, black beauty bloggers, Latino beauty bloggers, Asian beauty bloggers, and even beauty bloggers for those who don’t like makeup. One might get the impression that people are a bit obsessed about beauty.

Then, people come along like Lena Dunham and Jemima Kirke who aim to upset the status quo by emphasizing a more natural, non-shaming approach to the subject. When this photo hit social media yesterday, the whole planet seemed to go rather berserk.

‘A love letter to themselves’: Lena Dunham, Jemima Kirke pose in lingerie campaign https://t.co/KWYEMJq6Yf @nparts pic.twitter.com/1DnvoTL6qh

— National Post (@nationalpost) August 25, 2016

Great for them, right? It’s wonderful to have role models not afraid to be themselves, but the attention they received shows just how ugly the beauty business can get.

This Gets Personal

Not wearing makeup has become a “thing,” a movement, a trend, even a form of self-righteousness. Leading the battle, at least from a public standpoint, is singer/songwriter/grammy-winner Alicia Keys. She made her #NoMakeup campaign public last spring, but her continued refusal to wear makeup even as a judge on the television show The Voice has raised attention for the topic yet again. Yay for personal freedom! Yay for not covering up! Congratulations on being naturally beautiful enough to not be publicly condemned!

So, this really gets at all those beauty companies who make billions of dollars selling makeup, right? Think again. They simply shift tactics. Sephora even started offering “No makeup makeup” classes in some of its stores. Not wearing makeup doesn’t mean one stops taking care of their face. In fact, if one’s personal genetics leave one prone to oily skin, patchiness, or other issues, getting a no-makeup look that is as attractive as Ms. Keys might actually be more work than not wearing anything at all!

Then, there’s the whole matter of shaming in both directions. Recent studies from the University of Chicago and the University of California, Irvine, show that makeup and personal grooming are the primary factors in determining a young woman’s salary. Her skills might make her employable, but how she looks, which includes how well she wears makeup, determines at which end of the salary range she starts. What is ultimately being said that if you don’t wear makeup, you’re ugly. If you wear the wrong makeup, you’re ugly. But by all means, be yourself. How the fuck is someone supposed to make sense of that mess?

Dangerous Beauty

Whether or not one wears makeup, one still consumes beauty products and that’s where matters really get ugly. We pay a lot of attention to things that are supposedly helping our skin. Exfoliants and moisturizers, creams and lotions, and myriad other products are used by both men and women in abundance. What we too often don’t realize is that those products, not the makeup, are what cause one’s face to break out or appear blotchy or have patches of dryness. Even more frightening is that regulation for these products is practically non-existent. Beauty companies can put just about anything they want in a cleanser or a skin cream, and they often do.

One of the biggest issues of late has been the presence of microbeads in a number of products, especially soaps, shampoos, cleansers, and toothpaste. While they are technically illegal in the US, if one is buying their beauty products online, which a lot of people do, the actual source of the product might not be disclosed. The results are about as ugly as anything you’re going to find. Not only are the microbeads bad for your skin, they’re even worse for the environment. Microbeads don’t break down and can be ingested by even the smallest of marine life.

The problem of microplastics is so ugly that Britain’s Parliament recently called for a worldwide ban on microbeads. While microbeads are a small portion of a much larger problem, they pose a most direct and immediate threat to the larger number of people because they can be ingested without the consumer even having a clue that they’re present. The long-term effects have not been studied in humans, but microplastics are even being found on the bottom of the ocean floor. There’s an environmental disaster larger than your face looming here.

The Spirit of Caveat Emptor

Beauty has always been an industry that enjoys extremely little oversight in the United States. While the EU, for example, has banned or restricted over 1,400 substances from beauty products sold there, the US only has a complete ban on eleven. Eleven. No wonder beauty companies like doing business in the US so much. Anything goes! Even worse, we are so gullible that once a company starts touting the beauty benefits of a product, consumers start flocking to it without doing any investigation. We just grab new products and start slapping them on our skin without so much as reading the ingredients list. When our skin breaks out, or dries out, or cracks open and bleeds, we might complain to our friends, but we don’t do anything to stop that product from harming others.

Back in the spring of 2015, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced bill S.1014 – Personal Care Products Safety Act. The bill, in my opinion, is mild. It says, in part:

If the FDA determines that a cosmetic has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, it may prohibit the cosmetic’s distribution by suspending the cosmetic ingredient statement. If other cosmetics from the same facility may be affected, the FDA may prohibit distribution from the facility by suspending the facility’s registration.

One might have thought that the FDA already had the ability to stop dangerous cosmetic products, but it does not. Even within the definitions set down within this bill, were it to ever be passed, the FDA would only have to investigate four products a year!

Freedom To Be Stupid

Since being introduced in 2015, Bill S.1014 has gotten exactly one reading in the Senate and assigned to the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Heaven forbid the US Senate to have a committee structure that makes a damn bit of sense. Since arriving in that committee, absolutely nothing has happened. There have been no hearings. No one has undertaken any kind of investigation. The United States Senate has done absolutely nothing. Beyond Congress’ current attitude of complete and utter obstructionism, the prevailing “wisdom” among our elected officials is that regulation takes away a corporation’s “freedom.” Since we now consider corporations as people, they are, supposedly, free to do whatever stupid thing they wish without government interference.

So, the beauty industry is free to be as ugly as they want. They can foist any ridiculous product on the market, including no-makeup makeup, and there’s practically nothing can be done to stop them. Sure, they claim to have the consumer’s best interest at heart. A number of them even signed on in support of Bill S.1014. Senator Feinstein’s website lists the following:

Johnson & Johnson (brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products)
Procter & Gamble (brands include Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, Cover Girl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon)
Revlon (brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum)
Estee Lauder (brands include Estée Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors)
Unilever (brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree)
L’Oreal (brands include L’Oréal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken)

Yet, for all the talk, no one is actually doing anything to actively protect consumers. The entire beauty industry is bent on convincing us that we’re ugly, even while telling us that we’re beautiful from the inside out.

The Battle Is Yours

Fuck waiting on Congress to do anything. This battle is your own. Whether you wear makeup or don’t wear makeup is irrelevant. Everyone consumes some form of beauty product, whether it be soap or toothpaste or moisturizer. That means everyone is potentially at risk. The industry is not looking out for you. The government isn’t looking out for you. You have to look out for yourself.

Best line of defense: talk to a professional. I know Kat has a list of products she recommends as does Danelle French. Either of them will discuss the particular needs of your skin and help direct you toward products that are not likely to leave you in worse shape than when you started. Take control of the situation for yourself.

The world of beauty really is an ugly business that too often runs akin to the snake oil salesmen of the 19th century. Dangers lurk everywhere. Take care of yourself.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

Will You Look Good When You Die

August 23, 2016

If you don’t look good, we don’t look good. —Vidal Sassoon

We can’t control when we’re going to die, so perhaps we should make sure we look good all the time.

I looked in the mirror the other day and wondered just who that person was staring back at me. Kat had just cut my hair, but my beard, which is now nothing more than a bib of gray at the bottom of my face, was still long and a bit ragged. I see that image, especially with my shoulders slightly slumped, and I don’t think I look good. Kat says I’m being preposterous but I know she’s biased. I think I look more like a retired Canadian logger in search of a plaid shirt.

I’m not the only one who wants to look good. Even when we say we don’t care, more often than not we do. The entire fashion industry exists not just because we need to get dressed, something we discussed yesterday, but we want to look good when wearing those clothes. In fact, we depend on clothes to make us look good because you’re not confident that we look good without them. As a result, we wander from retailer to retailer, searching from one label to the next, trying to find that look that makes us more attractive.

Here’s the question of the morning, though: are all our efforts to improve our appearance ultimately futile? How many people woke up this morning, put on their favorite ensemble, and are then killed on their way to work? It happens. Every day. When might it be my turn?

Can that existentialist angst be used to sell more clothes?

A Fatalistic Approach To Advertising

I was looking through new ads this morning, because I like the creativity found in them, and I discovered this piece from BBDO Dubai. Before I say anything more about it, just imagine this popping up in the middle of your favorite program:

As if the title alone shouldn’t cause some concern, the moment the ad tells us that the universe is not our mother and doesn’t really love us we’re in dangerous territory. The ad goes on to pretty much sum up how all of us feel at one point or another: Life sucks and no one gives a shit. Then, just to end the commercial on a low note, the ad ends with the attractive young couple, apparently too bored with life to bother getting out of the car, get plowed by a speeding train.

Oh look, the pretty young couple is dead. Does anyone want to go shopping?

No, it’s not your imagination. The whole concept is rather morose, at least in one sense. Consider who the audience is for this commercial, though. Centrepoint is a Middle Eastern retailer. They have no stores in the EU or US. Their primary customer lives with a reality that most Westerners can’t begin to comprehend: Life can be disappointingly short. They live in a world where going to a friend’s wedding can get you killed. Unexpected moments of death surround them. So, why not make sure you look good when that 14-year-old kid running through the party detonates a bomb?

Leave A Good-looking Corpse

The picture above is one of my favorite exhibition pieces. The saying is well known across Indiana: “Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse.” Folks in these parts want to attribute the saying to James Dean, but the origins actually go back much further, all the way to 1855, if one is really interested. From it’s beginning, though, the sentiment has been the same, that the younger generation was too shallow, too concerned with looking good. I had to laugh when I found an 1870 use of the phrase directed toward “electrified Americans.” That damn electricity is going to be the ruin of us all.

I had to laugh when I found an 1870 use of the phrase directed toward “electrified Americans.” That damn electricity is going to be the ruin of us all.

All the way through history, though, the phrase is directed toward the bourgeois

Dressing For Death

Still, if we’re honest, life is frighteningly uncertain no matter where one lives. I couldn’t help notice over the weekend that there were three different Interstate accidents involving more than 20 cars each. With each pile-up there were deaths. We don’t like to think about it, but almost certainly none of the victims got into their vehicles that morning with any thought that this might be their last road trip. Death happens.

Does it really matter how we look when we die? Going back to the commercial, one has to assume that getting trashed by a train probably isn’t going to have a good effect on that well-tailored suit he was wearing. Those expensive hair styles probably wouldn’t look so wonderful when caked in blood. If one dies through unexpectedly violet means what one is wearing becomes rather irrelevant.

We like to think we look good in our final minutes, though. Even if no one sees us. Even if no one cares.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

Why Do We Get Dressed Everyday

August 22, 2016

I always say: To be well dressed you must be well naked. —Oscar de la Renta

A growing fashion retailer asks why we get dressed. We think that’s a damn good question.

My alarm goes off at 4:00 AM and the first thing I do is reach for my clothes. I get dressed quietly, in the dark, one of the benefits of having a monochrome wardrobe. I don’t have to worry about whether colors or patterns match. By the time I get my shoes on, though, I’m sensing a nip in the air. Checking the weather app on my phone, I see it’s only 60°F outside. I pull on the sweater draped on the back of my office chair, attach the leash to the dog’s collar, and out we go for our morning walk. 4:00 in the morning and I’m already dressed. There’s something wrong with this picture.

Chances are, especially if you live in the Midwest, you don’t think of not getting dressed. Even when we tell people we’re not feeling well and aren’t getting dressed today, we’re still wearing something. Running around naked always sounds fun until one actually does it. Then, we discover our skin sticks to things in uncomfortable ways. Little pointy objects we’d never noticed before reach out and grab at us. The slightest breeze makes us shiver. And those damned mosquitoes are a constant nuisance. Okay, time to put on some clothes.

Fashion retailer Uniqlo, which is just starting to make serious attempts at the US market, thought this might be a good time to ask the question: Why do we get dressed? The question is at the center of their very first global ad campaign and it smartly addresses a question with which many of us wrestle every morning. Why are we doing this?

We Have Our Reasons

Whether one believes ancient mythologies of how we were created or prefers the scientific explanation of evolution, we find that we’ve been covering ourselves pretty much from the moment we learned to walk upright. Even now, high school students are taught the five main reasons we get dressed: protection, adornment, identification, modesty, and status. We break each of those down into subcategories based on things such as tradition, social class, occupational requirements, religious intervention, and comfort. We want to look acceptable even when we’re drenched in sweat.

Fashion is a $1.2 trillion industry built on one primary concept: we need to get dressed. Different labels offer different answers to the how, what, and how much of it all, Some take the quality route. Others go for practicality. Still others are nothing more than utilitarian in their scope. Our reasons are as many and varied as the styles of underwear found in our drawers. As much as we might complain, we actually like getting dressed and can be damned picky about it.

This careful choice of clothing is what Uniqlo is trying to tap with this campaign. Despite being one of the largest fashion retailers in the world, they’ve had trouble getting a foothold in the US market. The campaign focuses on both the diversity and quality of the clothes the store carries. Here, take a look at their new ad:

https://youtu.be/AKwd_0q7-mw

Not So Easily Defined

While quality and selection are wardrobe choices are important, they’re not the only reason we choose to wear what we wear. Color, for example, not only reflects certain styles and trends but also reflects our mood and our physical condition when we get dressed. If you’re feeling a bit depressed, you might choose to wear something pink because it cheers you up. On days you need to tackle tough situations you might choose black or a dark navy because they give you a sense of power. Maybe you just really like a particular shade of green. We all have our reasons.

Some have expressed fear in the past that fashion styles are erasing our sense of nationalistic or cultural identity. I can see where someone might feel that way. Look at the ad and one notices that, while the two main characters are both white, everyone else is Japanese. This is Uniqlo’s way of staying true to their roots in Japan. At the same time, though, we notice that everyone is wearing a distinctly Western style of clothing. Remove any racial identity and we might have trouble discerning whether this is a scene in Japan or Moscow or Paris or Minneapolis. Large retailers do tend to create a homogenous fashion palette that leaves all the customers with a certain sameness to their look.

Shoppers have proven, though, especially in recent years, that they want more say in how they put a look together. Advertisers might style a look one way, but everyone tends to put their own individual twist on things. How we look when we’re dressed says something about us individually. Uniformity is passè and, for many, insulting. We are not likely to wear head-to-toe Chanel but a certain coat or handbag might be the perfect touch for a look pieced together from discount stores and second-hand shops. How we put ourselves together is a complicated matter for some people.

How You Should Get Dressed

Style experts, who seem to be getting younger every time I blink, tell us to utilize the three F’s when getting dressed: Feel, fit, and flatter. Granted, that approach seems a bit simplistic if your occupation requires something specific, whether it be a suit for the boardroom or dungarees for working with heavy equipment. Such restrictions can make the flattery element challenging but if the feel and fit are on point then the look is probably going to be flattering anyway.

Fit is probably where we fail most often. As our weight fluctuates between seasons and levels of activity, we find ourselves trying to squeeze into clothes that are too tight or trying to find creative ways to hold up something that’s a touch too large. People at either end of the spectrum, either very thin or very large, have the most difficulty finding something that both fits and flatters. Retailers like Uniqlo best serve the mainstream. Anyone with special challenges can find getting dressed more like a nightmare.

Perhaps the question of why we get dressed is one we should ask more often. Too often we pull on whatever is close and convenient with no regard to even how it feels, much less fit or flatter. We all might be happier if we considered the reasons we wear what we wear. Certainly, it would make our society more interesting and less like a homogenous blur. Express yourself in what you choose to wear.

Even if you’re only wearing underwear.

Art / Fashion

Burberry Adapts Virginia Woolf For Fall

August 20, 2016

There is much to support the view that it is clothes that wear us, and not we, them; we may make them take the mould of arm or breast, but they mould our hearts, our brains, our tongues to their liking. —Virginia Woolf

charles i. letbetter - Burberry Adapts Virginia Woolf

Burberry blurs lines of both fashion and society with its adaption of Virginia Woolf’s Orlando

An article earlier this week in Business of Fashion discusses the changes in fashion as “Fashion’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Everything from how material is made to how clothes are purchased and consumed is changing in ways that a decade ago would have been impossible. What we’re experiencing is a seismic shift that redefines the most basic concepts of fashion.

Burberry and its creative director, Christopher Bailey, have put themselves at the center of that change. Earlier this year Bailey announced that the label would be combining its men’s and women’s wear runway shows, shifting to a straight-to-consumer strategy, and showing current season fashion rather than next season’s, which is traditional. Any one of those changes on its own would be significant. To bring them all to bear, with much more, at the same time changes the landscape not only for Burberry but for every other British fashion label, if not the entire industry.

What Burberry announced today is that their fall presentation is based on Virginia Woolf’s 1928 gender-fluid novel Orlando. If you’ve not heard of the work don’t feel surprised. Critics has long attempted to downplay the story of gender-fluidity as they felt it was too far out of step with society. However, as gender-bending androgyny has become a major theme in both society and fashion, more people are giving the book another look. Additionally, Burberry is changing the time, place, and duration of its presentation.

About The Book

Bailey’s choice of inspiration may challenge the non-Oxford educated members of fashion society. When one thinks of Virginia Woolf, one typically thinks of her novel, Mrs. Dalloway. If one experienced Ms. Woolf’s writings, it was most likely in college and that only if one was truly attending a forward-thinking liberal arts institution. While Orlando is not unknown, it has only recently become more socially acceptable as attitudes toward gender fluidity, gender identity, lesbianism, and androgyny in general. Still, especially in the United States, Orlando is banned at more conservative-minded schools. If that doesn’t make you want to pick up a copy immediately I have to question your humanity.

Orlando is based on Woolf’s dear friend and frequent lover, Vita Sackville-West. Sackville-West frequently slipped between male and female identities, which was much more shocking in 1928 than we might think now. In fact, Woolf’s elegant telling of her friend’s life and exploits is so fantastic that censors of the time may not have even recognized much of the eroticism in the book. These are not characters who hold back on their feelings or desires. In a word, this book is hot.

We tend to see Orlando now as a must-read for women’s studies. Woolf champions not mere gender fluidity or bisexuality but a complete separation of gender from identity. In Orlando, we find a character that is neither male nor female, but both and either at the same time. Gender does not define personality nor characteristics. Everything is fluid and dependent upon the needs and desires of the current situation.

About The Fashion

There shall be ruffles. Lots and lots of ruffles. Orlando covers a 400-year time period, which is rather unusual for a biography. This gives Bailey plenty of room to play with the history of British fashion, however, and adapt it to serve his own needs. Will we be able to tell the difference between men’s and women’s wear? Does it really matter? Expect there to be an emphasis upon the androgynous aspects and plenty of sets that could reasonably be worn by either gender. Certainly, the gender of the model at the presentation is not indicative of for whom the garment is meant.

Burberry has already announced that they will be introducing a new bag, The Bridle, for both men and women. The bag emphasises equestrian and outdoor themes that are also likely to be found in several of the clothing styles. Equestrian themes are not uncommon among British fashion and the utilization of those characteristics is almost inherently gender neutral.

Burberry’s overcoats have long been without gender specification, at least from a practical standpoint. While there might have been some minor tailoring differences between men’s and women’s coats, they’ve always been practically insignificant and more than one chap has complained about a girlfriend absconding with his favorite Burberry trench. To a large degree, Burberry is well positioned to take on this shift in fashion and style.

About The Presentation

What may shock Burberry fans the most is that they’ve given up their afternoon showtime. This fall’s show, scheduled for September 19, doesn’t start until 7:30 PM London time (2:30 PM EDT in the US). What that time change might mean for local traffic I can only imagine. Getting to the Burberry show on time has always been a challenge with many guests arriving two or more hours in advance to avoid traffic congestion. The late time puts the show at odds with London traffic, so the typical 30-minute delay might stretch several minutes longer.

The Burberry show is also abandoning its traditional Hyde Park location for a place called Makers House in London’s Soho district. In addition to the presentation on the 19th, Markers House is open September 21-27 to showcase the works of the craftspeople involved in helping create the Burberry collection. Ceramicists; potters; leather, textile and jewelry designers; woodworkers; silversmiths, and illustrators are all part of the week-long presentation.

Then, to top everything off, the company plans to unveil a consumer app later in September to help make those instant as-you-see-them purchases easier. The impact of this development alone has the potential to send shockwaves throughout the industry if it is successful.

There is a lot going on with Burberry’s Virginia Woolf collection this fall. Perhaps this is the beginning of separating gender from fashion and fashion from seasons. Everything is different from this poinforwardrd. I’m sure this is just the beginning.

Art / Fashion / Nature / Photography / PotD

Celebrating World Photo Day 2016

August 19, 2016

charles i. letbetter - world photo day 2016

There is nothing more miserable in the world than to arrive in paradise and look like your passport photo. —Erma Bombeck

Today we celebrate the joy of taking a photo, of preserving a memory, of telling a story

Welcome to World Photo Day 2016! This is a day in which we’re going to play along nicely and pretend that the organization behind this day isn’t just trying to sell their book. We like this day because it celebrates something we feel rather passionate about: photography! I mean, who doesn’t like it when someone captures a good photo of you? Granted, for some people that is excessively more difficult than for others. I will also admit that there are times, even when the photography is good, we don’t especially like how we look. I mean, that whole passport photo quote above is way too accurate.

Still, we like to celebrate World Photo Day. Mind you, we don’t celebrate because this was the day photography was invented. The date was determined based on the Daguerreotype, which showed up in 1837. Even that wasn’t really the first photo process. The first fixed-image process was the Heliotype in 1826. What this date actually celebrates, though, is your access to photography. The French government purchased the rights to the Daguerreotype on this date in 1839 and made them open to the public. This allowed for further development of the camera so that you can take selfies with your phone.

Photography has come a long way since 1839. Photography will go a lot farther. This has never been a static industry. Change is constant as someone is continually trying to find a way to take a better, more real photo. Every time someone snaps a shutter, they capture both a moment in time and a moment in photographic history.

The Joy Of A Photo

I’ve taken hundreds of thousands of photographs over the years. From the first time until today, I still get excited when I look at the finished product and find that I have captured something special. Of course, there are times when I’m the only one who thinks a particular image is special, but many of them hold a lot of meaning.

Your pictures are the same way. Sometimes the pictures we hold most dear are those that are not technically stellar. It’s that picture of someone special, or that moment that gave you an incredible feeling, or the last time you saw the person who gave you life. Photographs tell our life’s story. They mark the moments of highs and lows. They remind us that we’re human.

So, we’ve chosen a group of photos for today that spans a range of events and emotions worth remembering for different reasons. Some pictures were chosen not because of the photo itself but because of the people involved behind the scenes. Danelle French did make up for some really great make-up on several. Some are special because of where they were taken. And several are of Kat. That’s a good excuse on its own.

We’ll take more pictures. It’s not always convenient or easy, but we keep going. Some we share. Many we don’t. What follows is a mix of both. And if you want us to take your photos, just ask!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Current Issues / Fashion / PotD

Terrorism Gives Fashion A Shake

August 18, 2016

Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities. —Pope Francis

charles i. letbetter - Terrorism give fashion a shake

Recent terrorism around the world has given the fashion industry reason to worry

Western media often turns a blind eye toward problems in the East, but as radical acts of terrorism continue to grow around the world the effect comes closer to impacting our own lives every day. For fashion, one of the most critical areas of the world is Bangladesh. Only China assembles more clothing than the many garment factories here. Over 4 million people are employed in the nation’s garment industry, making it a critical economic element. We’ve expressed concern about conditions in Bangladesh before, but now matters are more critical.

Last month, terrorists attacked a cafe in Dhaka. Twenty people were killed. Among those were two Italians with connections to the fashion industry. Seven Japanese were also killed in the attack, some of whom were there on fashion business. Almost immediately, buyers started canceling trips to the city. Retail brands began calling their staffs back home. The ripple effect sent shivers throughout the Bangladesh garment industry.

Terrorism is not new here, nor in any of the Asian countries struggling to pull themselves from Third World status. Recent attacks, however, have given international companies reason to worry more about the safety of their employees. Employees are worrying more about the safety of simply trying to get to work of the morning. As fashion’s buyers become more reluctant to visit the impact to the fashion industry begins to grow.

Reason To Be Concerned

This time last year, terrorism was a topic whispered carefully in backrooms. While care was taken to keep presentation venues safe, no one was willing to admit that any direct efforts were made to prevent any kind of attack. Then, a Paris nightclub was hit. That act of terrorism shook one of fashion’s most important cities to its core. People wanted to know that attending fashion events would be safe. No one wants to be a victim.

Since then, another attack in Paris as well as attacks in Brussels, another city with strong fashion connections, has put the topics of terrorism and security at the front of fashion discussions. As we mentioned a couple of days ago, event organizers in all four major cities have dramatically increased their security plans for this fall’s shows. Every effort will be made to keep those security factors in the background, though. No one is planning on having armed troops standing at the doors.

For garment workers in Bangladesh, those armed troops might be a welcome sight. The rise of terrorism in that country has thrown everything into turmoil and created questions about the safety of both garment workers and retailer’s representatives in the country. Should workers begin to feel unsafe going to work, production could see a significant decrease. If buyers refuse to travel to the country, orders decline. Without retailer’s representatives keeping an eye on factories, working conditions are likely to deteriorate again. There is a lot that could be lost.

Everyone Is Affected

For those of us in the US especially, it is still very easy to dismiss terrorism when it occurs elsewhere in the world. Yes, we “Stand With Paris,” and sympathize with Brussels, but beyond the reach of social media, we don’t see those events touching our daily lives. Our stores are still full, our prices are still low. We’re happy and completely oblivious to the dangers others face. That naivitè may be short-lived, however.

Start with the very fabrics necessary to create clothes. Much of the weaving and looming of natural fabrics is done in places where terrorism is nearly a daily occurrence, from Afghanistan to the Sudan to Third World parts of Asia. Here, terrorism threatens to disrupt the supply chain, keeping Western visitors out while preventing textile factories from being able to run at full production. As production falls, prices begin to increase.

Then, when assembly factories such as those in Bangladesh are affected, the very availability of clothes is threatened. Fast fashion retailers such as H&M are especially vulnerable to terrorism as disruptions both in ordering and supply chain threatens the regular arrival of new clothes on their store floors. Inevitable price increases threaten the already razor-thin margins that allow discount retailers to stay profitable. Another major disruption could cause holiday profits to disappear with price increases.

Responding Appropriately

Anytime terrorism raises its ugly head we face the question as to how to appropriately respond. Corporate statements carry little weight as they are carefully crafted so as to not offend anyone or commit to anything that might affect their bottom line. Individuals assume that there’s nothing they can do beyond keeping victims “in their thoughts and prayers.” We leave it up to governments to handle the official response and assume they’ll do the right thing.

They don’t. Towns in France that ban Burkinis, Muslim swimwear that keeps a woman fully covered, are only adding to the problem, not solving it. Terrorism thrives on recruiting disaffected and marginalized people who feel betrayed by the society and government of which they long to be a part. Any time we respond in fear, any time we limit the rights of any marginalized group, we are feeding terrorism. The not-quite-under-your-breath remark made when passing someone wearing a turban helps feed terrorism. Getting Arab-looking people tossed off airplanes just because of their appearance is feeding terrorism. Supporting xenophobic politicians threatening to ban entry to the United States is feeding terrorism.

Higher prices and fewer choices are the price we will ultimately pay for terrorism against the fashion industry. With the luxury market already taking some severe hits the past two years, any additional decline could see retailers cutting back on inventory, orders dropping, labels making cuts, quality suffering, and prices jumping dramatically. What we say and how we treat people can have a much larger effect than we realize.

Terrorism isn’t going to stop overnight. More attacks will happen. Much of what happens we cannot prevent no matter what we do. Power-mad ideological extremists don’t employ reason when determining their actions. We can keep those attacks from changing how we respond to people, though. We must care more about people now than we ever have. Fashion is good at caring. We just need to emphasize those actions a lot more.

Fashion / PotD

Fashion Is Changing Its Look. Again.

August 16, 2016

Fashion doesn’t look good only on models; it can look good on different people of different ages and different body shapes. —Alber Elbaz

charles i. letbetter - fashion is changing its look - again

The next round of fashion weeks is just around the corner and the whole system is changing its look

We are now less than a month away from New York Fashion Week. One of the most frequent statements made back in February was, “we’ll have to wait until September.” Many of the changes that were announced early in the year com into fruition with next month’s set of shows. Not only have designers swapped seats, attitudes about the shows themselves have changed. Even more, the economy surrounding fashion has changed. What we experience through the fashion shows this season is likely to be a very different look than what we saw this time last year.

Change is a given in fashion. We wouldn’t need to do these dog-and-pony shows twice a year if fashion wasn’t always changing. We complain if we see two collections in a row that look too terribly similar. What’s important this season is the degree of change. Major wheels were set in motion back in the spring that change not only what we see now, but how we see it. The very structure of the presentations is changing and that may influence our perspective of the shows as well as our buying habits.

As I type this, schedules for New York are being finalized. There are some names we’ve come to expect that we won’t see on the roster this year. London, Milan, and Paris are getting ready as well and it’s just not the same as it was back in the Spring (if you can call February Spring). The whole attitude is different. Let’s consider some of the changes.

Designers Swapping Seats

The number one topic at the beginning of each season is always which designers have switched to different labels. We didn’t see a tremendous amount of significant movement back in February, but we’ve certainly had some major changes since then and now all that jostling around has to prove its worth. These are going to drive changes in look for a number of labels.

Raf Simons has moved to Calvin Klein. You had to be hiding under a rock to miss this announcement. Everyone knew Raf was moving almost from the moment the first phone call was placed. The timing could have perhaps been a bit better. Simons works fast but it would be out of the ordinary even for him to create a full set on his own by September 15, which is when CK is likely to show. Still, he’ll be anxious to demonstrate the direction in which he wants to take the line. Anxiety and anticipation are very high here.
Peter Copping left Oscar de la Renta. What the fuck? This one almost knocked me out of my chair when the announcement was made last month. It’s been less than two years since Oscar de la Renta named Copping as his successor and then promptly died. The match looked perfect. The past two season’s shows have been well received. What the fuck happened? No one on either side is talking. Copping promptly moved back to the UK. De la Renta will run with a design team for the time being. We are very confused and very sad.
Bouchra Jarrar makes her debut at Lanvin. This looks to be one of the most highly anticipated shows of the season. Jarrar brings a different look, a more feminine look, back to Lanvin. That being said, shareholders are watching for a collection that resonates with buyers and increases sales. Will it work? We’ll see.
Anthony Vaccarello takes over at Yves Saint Laurent. The whole attitude has changed at YSL. Vaccarello comes from Versus Versace and almost certainly is going to bring some of Donatella’s influence with him. Expect a sexier, more defined, and perhaps even a little edgier look than YSL saw under Hedi Slimane.
Maria Grazia Chiuri changes things up at Dior. Following Raf Simons isn’t going to be easy. Dior took its sweet time replacing the famed designer and makes a bold statement in appointing the label’s first female creative director. Chiuri makes the leap from Valentino where she was co-creative director. Pierpaolo Piccioli now has sole authority over there.

Spending this season on the sidelines, still, are Alber Elbaz and Hedi Slimane. One really has to wonder why they’ve not been snatched up.

A Little Less Fur

Fur has long been a mainstay of luxury fashion and Angora has been the go-to fur for quite a while given the endangered status of wild sources. Then, Peta, the animal rights group, took aim at the Angora industry in 2013, claiming harvesting methods were cruel. Now, it seems Peta has won. Orders for the fur dropped dramatically for this season after more than 100 major labels suspended use of fabric. Other types of fur have seen dramatic declines as well. I have to admit that I’m curious as to whether Dennis Basso is reducing his use of fur at all. Historically, he’s been unapologetic about using fur and animal skin in general.

What’s next? Wool. A recent op-ed takes aim at the ubiquitous fabric, claiming that large-scale harvesting methods are just as cruel as those used on angora rabbits. Will this movement catch hold? The atmosphere certainly seems to be ripe for it, but the global use of wool peaks for the fall/winter season. We’re not likely to see any change until February.

What Season Is This?

We talked back in February about designers skipping the fall shows to go real-time this September. Well, September is here and we get to find out whether that strategy is going to work. Be sure, all eyes are watching Burberry, Tom Ford, and Rebecca Minkoff, among others, to see how they handle the straight-to-stores approach. Critical to this new look is whether consumers are confused by seeing both fall/winter looks and spring/summer looks in the same season. The seasonal look has been muted the past few years, with coats in spring and shorts in the fall almost being normal.

This change may work well, though, as designers look for alternative presentation methods. Criticism of the traditional runway approach grew rather heated back in February, but we’re not hearing much talk about the alternatives leading up to this season’s shows. Will Gloria Vanderbilt return to a runway approach or will she go with another fashion event that confuses the hell out of everyone? Talk back in the spring held that we would see more such presentations this fall, but as budgets have been trimmed to match declining profits much of that talk has disappeared.

A Little More Security

For people in Paris and London, the world feels less safe than it did back in February. Organizers in Milan and New York aren’t taking any risks, either. Whereas some designers had been flirting with the idea of open-to-the-public presentations, more care is being taken this fall to ensure the safety of everyone involved. Invitation requests are vetted with increased scrutiny and press credentials are more difficult to obtain. Guests lucky enough to attend an event will find security lines longer than ever. Restrictions on what guests can bring with them, including nail files and hair spray, are taken seriously.

Paris saw dramatically increased security last season but it didn’t seem to interfere with the overall spirit and celebration of the events. This season, though, there is a palpable difference in the tone. Multiple attacks across Europe have everyone looking over their shoulder. Supplier lists are under greater scrutiny. Location accessibility is a concern. In some cases, labels who might have traditionally sought a larger audience are scaling back a bit to reduce the risk.

Everyone wants fashion week to be fun and exciting, but the shadow of terrorism is impossible to escape.

Side Glance To Retail.

Macy’s is closing 100 stores. The announcement wasn’t a surprise. In fact, the retail conglomerate said earlier this year that store closings were coming. Yet, the impact was still like dropping a ton of bricks across the fashion industry. At the same time, China’s luxury market, which had been the one strong point in the industry, has begun a decline. No one is sure yet how much a hit global fashion brands might take but the Chinese government is making it clear they want those Yen to stay at home.

Meanwhile, both H&M and Lululemon are anticipating continued growth. Low-priced fast fashion is eating away at the luxury sector and forcing major labels to make changes to their corporate look. As much movement as there has been among designers, there’s been even more seat swapping among fashion’s corporate CEOs. Even Burberry’s Christopher Bailey had to take a back seat in the boardroom over the summer. No one wants to make a knee-jerk move that spooks the fragile market, but if sales don’t improve we may see even bigger shifts in the look of fashion by next February.

We Can’t Stop Watching

All that being said, interest in fashion is as high as ever. Fashion schools are experiencing prime enrollment numbers. Fashion magazines have retooled their look and enjoying higher numbers than this time last year. Instagram and Snapchat are full of fashionista-wannabes taking selfies of their latest look. Interest in fashion hasn’t waned one bit.

Everyone is being cautious, though. With so many changes hitting at the same time, this could be a very exciting season. We are hoping for a very exciting season. Strong interest in shows next month could do wonders for a slumping retail market. Don’t expect anything that looks like last year, though. This fashion look has changed dramatically. You may need to clean out your closet and start all over.

Prep your credit cards now. NYFW begins September 9.

Photo credits:

Model: Presley Stewart (LModelz)
Makeup: Danelle French
Hair: Jenise Norgaard
Styling: Nativa (Allyson Brooks and Lila Palomares)

Photography: charles i. letbetter

Fashion / PotD

Brides Of A Different Tribe

July 22, 2016

In Hollywood, brides keep the bouquets and throw away the groom. —Groucho Marx

charles i. letbetter - brides of a different tribe

An increasing number of brides are opting for a style of wedding that is anything but traditional

I was amused earlier this week when Bloomberg magazine ran an article about alternative styles of wedding dresses as though the world had suddenly shifted off its fashionable axis. How dare brides not wear long, flowing, white dresses made of silk and satin and miles and miles of fabric? What of the time-honored etiquette? What of the billion-dollar industry built around weddings? Is everything going to ruin?

Of course not. We both know better. No matter what trends might be forthcoming, the foreseeable future is still going to be dominated by traditional wedding wear. There’s very little cause for worry in the short term. Brides dream of their weddings long before there’s a groom or another bride in the picture. Weddings are the stuff of fantasies and the star-lit hopes of runaway romanticism. As long as little girls dream of being a princess, there will be over-the-top traditional weddings.

Times are changing, though, and one would be crazy to not consider how modern trends are impacting the bridal industry, not just in terms of bridal fashion, but all the supporting industries necessary to make a bride’s dream come true. Change, in this case, equals opportunity if one is paying attention.

Budget-Conscious Brides

There have always been brides who do their best to squeeze every ounce of value from what they spend on their weddings. While we don’t advocate overspending on anything, there seems to be a contest among some brides to see just how little they can spend while still getting all the services they want.

To be quite honest about the matter, discount brides are a pain in the ass for everyone else. When one asks a service provider to work for less than their stated rates, or ties to trim expenses by ordering the minimum ala carte, they are devaluing the service that person provides. As a photographer, I find it extremely annoying and presumptuous when someone asks me for a discount off my smallest wedding package. The same is true for florists, caterers, and cake bakers. They all deserve to be paid fairly and not asked to discount their work.

Many brides have solved this problem by doing some things, such as making decorations, invitations, and other items themselves. Some even sew their own dress, which I think is a remarkable and romantic thing to do. There are plenty of ways to save money without cheating anyone in the process.

Alternative Brides

Kats at that age where a lot of her friends are getting married. Many are getting married out of town, so we won’t be able to attend. One we did get to go to this summer, though, was gloriously alternative. In fact, there was very little that was traditional, short of the fact there was an aisle the bride walked and they did have an officiant, which I think is required by law in most states. The bride wore a green dress. They served breakfast at the reception. The “cake” was made of Long’s donuts. Even though a thundershower soaked the area right as the wedding was about to start, the event was still wonderful, romantic, and happy.

Brides with an alternative mindset are growing in number. There are a number of reasons for this, from a change in same-gender marriage laws to a decline in religious affiliation. Many young women do not feel obligated to tradition in any way. Therefore, they are more open to exploring alternative ceremonies and creating a romantic event that suits the couples’ particular interests.

As Kat and I have discussed the eventual legal necessity of marriage, our perspective is definitely out of the norm. No church. No traditional minister. I wanted to go nude, but she wants to invite her parents, so, uhm, probably some form of clothing will be involved. What we don’t want to do is anything that someone else has already done. We’re unique rule breakers and think any wedding we might eventually have has to follow suit.

Older Brides

Another factor in non-traditional weddings is that a number of brides are older than previous generations. Part of this is due to an increase in career options. There are also more women with multiple marriages than was previously socially acceptable. More than anything, though, a high number of young women today don’t place as much importance on weddings. As a result, they’re waiting much, much longer before making that decision.

Relationship expectations have changed. Few young women today grew up in a home where Dad worked and Mom stayed home. Instead, most were either raised by single parents or in homes where both parents had to work to make ends meet. As a result, young women don’t come out of high school or college expecting prince charming to sweep them off their feet.

Waiting until you’ve traveled a bit and explored some of life’s adventures before getting married is not a bad idea. After all, many of those things become unavailable once one is tied down to the responsibilities of being married. As a result, older brides tend to have weddings that are more low-key, smaller, and more intimate affairs attended only by closest friends and family. Wardrobe is often a secondary thought with a new dress bought off the shelf at the last minute.

Happily Ever After

Ultimately, what matters most about a wedding is the union between two souls who are hopelessly and deeply in love. What they wear, where they are married, the expense involved are all factors, but, in the end, none of that actually impacts the quality of the marriage.

Every bride deserves to have the wedding the way she wants. Some will always choose to be surrounded by white and fluff and all the traditional accouterments. Others will always choose to be different. There is plenty of room for both. We wish everyone the best.

Fashion / PotD / science

Wearing Someone Else’s Skin

July 21, 2016

charles i. letbetter - someone else's skin

I’m confident – confident in my skin, and I’m cool with my flaws and all that stuff. —Minka Kelly

charles i. letbetter - wearing someone else's skin

Fashion technology is giving us some great things, but are we ready to wear someone else’s skin?

I’m sure there are times when many of us wish we could bring back someone from history, at least for a while. We miss the intellect, the insight, and the talent of many who are gone. But, what would we do if someone from history really did come back—as a coat? That very thing may well be possible. Quartz is reporting that Tina Gorjane is growing replicas of Alexander McQueen’s skin. Why? To make coats and handbags.

Yes, you read that correctly. Ms. Gorjane is developing a new technique to “grow” skin based on a DNA sample from McQueen’s hair, which was obtained with permission. The process isn’t speedy. Getting enough material for even a handbag has yet to actually happen. Ms. Gorjane has been using pig skin as a prototype until there is enough of McQueen’s skin to develop a product. Even once she has samples available to show, we’re still not going to see products on the shelves anytime soon.

The very fact that Ms. Gorjane is experimenting with DNA products raises some interesting questions, though. Who has a right to use your DNA? Is it ethical to wear someone else’s skin? And how is this all not just a little bit creepy?

You’re Wearing Who?

On one hand, I can see where wearing the artificially grown DNA of another person, especially someone who had as much of an impact on fashion as Alexander McQueen, is attractive. Not only might we want to “wear” McQueen or Miuccia Prada or maybe even Karl Lagerfeld (shudder), we might also think a coat made of great-grandma is a good idea, or a handbag made from the DNA of a deceased spouse. I can appreciate how people might come to look at such DNA products as a form of flattery or even affection.

What’s not certain just yet is exactly how durable such products are going to be. The DNA will grow new skin, not the wrinkled and worn stuff that seemed to hang off grandma’s bones before she died. However, the process has the ability to duplicate things such as moles and scars. Ms. Gorjane apparently plans to duplicate some of the tattoos McQueen had, which could be interesting. The material is also subject to sunburn, though. Imagine having to apply SPF 30 to your jacket before going out.

We’re so accustomed to seeing new types of fabric that we’re not likely to immediately notice that someone is wearing someone else. But when you ask someone who they’re wearing, a common question among those interested in fashion, you’re probably not ready for someone to come back with an answer like, “Oh, I’m wearing my family. My blazer is my grandfather, my skirt is my Aunt Jane, my handbag is my sister, and my shoes are my Dad.” It could happen.

Who Can Be Worn?

One of the more debatable aspects of this technology is exactly where the line is on using people’s DNA. Laws regarding DNA ownership vary from one country to the next. In the United States, for example, you do not own discarded DNA material. So, in theory, someone could take a strand of hair you left behind on a chair and develop a whole line of wearable products based on your DNA. They would not need to ask your permission, give you any credit, nor pay you for anything. Laws are slightly different across Europe, but still light enough as to leave the field open to random harvesting of castoff DNA samples.

As a person, we have a surprisingly little right to our own DNA. DNA cannot be copyrighted or patented. There is no way to legal limit how or who uses one’s DNA at the present time. Neither is there any limit to the number of times or methods through which it can be reproduced. Ms. Gorjane’s process is currently a very slow and tedious approach, which likely prevents the creation and stockpiling of large amounts of McQueen’s skin. However, should these DNA products prove commercially popular, it is quite likely that someone else would look for a way to speed up the process. What would, for now, be an extreme luxury product would almost certainly hit mainstream within a few years, creating a tremendous demand for DNA-based material.

To her credit, Ms. Gorjane did ask permissions of everyone involved in her use of McQueen’s hair as a base sample (except his surviving relatives, who are not involved in the project). History shows that we cannot expect others to be as careful, however. Laws are nowhere close to addressing these issues, either. Should the process become reasonably widespread, one could be contributing to garments around the world and never have any idea their DNA is being used.

What Are The Odds?

So, one person, a student at that, is experimenting with wearable skin. What’s the big deal? Is this really an idea that is likely to take off? Anything is possible. Luxury houses have already been investing in bioengineering companies that are likely to produce results similar to Ms. Gorjane’s. Some type of DNA-based product seems almost inevitable.

That’s not to say that it is human skin being developed. The same technology is being considered as a possible replacement for the fashion industry’s heavy use of leather products. Being able to produce leather without having to kill animals would remove a lot of the criticism the industry faces on a regular basis.

For the moment, though, growing skin is an extremely expensive method of creating material. The process is slow and requires very precise development conditions. While luxury houses might find the material usable on small collections, large-scale implementation is not economically feasible at this point. At the same time, legal considerations are likely to increase and may provide further hurdles to any widescale use of DNA material.

Imagine The Possibilities

Ms. Gorjane’s research opens the door to tremendous possibilities. Using DNA to grow skin has already been used with burn patients, but with some of the same slow issues. Were the fashion industry to find a way to make the process faster, the same technology could have amazing medical benefits as well. Where pure research can be slow and plodding at times, commercial involvement may speed up the process for other biological concerns providing broader benefit outside the industry.

Then, there’s also the possibility that one might be able to wear a nude-colored skin suit that actually looks nude, nipples and other body features included. Technically, one isn’t nude if wearing someone else’s skin, are they? Perhaps the skin could be used as a lining behind other sheer fabrics as well.

But then, what if a person who is light skinned wears clothing derived from the DNA of a person who was dark skinned? I’m not sure anyone has even considered how this fabric might impact discussions of race and even cultural appropriation.

At the moment, the issue raises more questions than answers. The potential sounds both exciting and frightening at the same time. Skin over skin could be one of the biggest developments in the history of fashion, though. We’ll watch anxiously.

Fashion / PotD / science

Warming Up To Science

July 19, 2016

The truth is, as most of us know, that global warming is real and humans are major contributors, mainly because we wastefully burn fossil fuels. —David Suzuki

charles i. letbetter - warming up to science

The science is solid, the warnings are not new, so why aren’t people warming up to science?

31 groups of scientists delivered a letter to Congress last month addressing the seriousness of global warming. Unfortunately, Congress doesn’t seem to care. They’ve slashed the budget on almost everything that even contains the word “climate.” The director of NASA was forced to justify why the agency even studies the earth at all. Welcome to a new era of science deniers.

As I’m looking through a number of articles from different science-based journals, the term “post-factual era” keeps popping up. The term not only applies to Congress, but to the attitude of much of the general populace. That a majority of people fail to understand how something labeled a “theory” can also be “fact” demonstrates the failure of science education. If the most basic constructs of science are not understood, we cannot be surprised when theories postulated based on those constructs fail as well.

Americans have long struggled with warming up to science. Whether it’s because the teachers were seen as too nerdy, the texts too difficult to understand, or the practical application too challenging to visualize, science has gotten a bad rap as a boring subject that doesn’t really matter in real life. As a result, we now face a Congress and a society that doesn’t know how to work with the frightening things science is telling us.

Is Science Really Important?

I had to delay walking the dog yesterday morning as a major thunderstorm system rolled through the area. When I finally did walk him a couple of hours later, it was still raining a bit, but our walk wasn’t all that uncomfortable. The temperature was in the 70s. There was no wind. The smattering of rain almost felt refreshing. So, where is this warming problem scientists keep screaming about?

The issue of climate change and global warming is real. The problem is we look at weather most often in terms of what is happening right where we are standing (or sitting) at this particular moment. We tend to not care about anything that we perceive to not affect us directly. Therefore, when scientists start talking about global trends rather than your immediate forecasts we often close our ears and pay no attention.

Science matters, though, even if we ignore it or don’t understand it. You don’t have to believe in gravity for it to hold you to this planet. When scientists warn us that the planet is changing, we don’t have to understand the hows and whys any more than we understand how electricity turns on a light bulb. What is happening to the world impacts everyone and everything living on this planet. That makes science rather important.

The Danger Is Real

One degree doesn’t seem like much to us. We don’t feel a lot of difference between 87° and 88° Fahrenheit. The fact that the US still uses fahrenheit as a measurement instead of celsius is indicative of how scientifically ignorant we are. We don’t understand the scale at all. We think of warming trends as what naturally occurs between March and April. Americans fail to understand how one degree’s increase in global temperature is a big thing.

On a delicately balanced scale, however, even the tiniest changes can have big influences. Living conditions on Earth exist precariously on the most delicate scale one can imagine. One degree is enough to cause considerable glacial melting. One degree is enough to significantly alter the salinity of the oceans. One degree is enough to cause the extinction of species. One degree tips the scale closer to making the planet unlivable.

So far this year, every month has been the warmest on record. We may not see that when our neighborhood is covered in multiple feet of snow, but when the total amount of snow during a winter decreases from blanketing several states to just three or four, there’s a problem. Cyclical weather patterns might explain some changes in moisture, but they don’t account for the severity of global climate changes. Warming comes with hard figures only a fool would ignore.

Nature Doesn’t Nurture

I’ve watched over the past week as storms rolled across the plain states causing large-scale power outages. As I’m writing, friends in parts of Oklahoma and Kansas have been without power for almost a week. This is a region accustomed to storms and even tornadoes, but an electrical storm of this magnitude is unusual and significant.

Deadhorse, Alaska, meanwhile, hit a high of 85°, the highest temperature ever recorded at any location on the Arctic Ocean.

Nature doesn’t give a damn about what you want to believe. All the ideologically-driven opinions in Congress are worthless. When nature feels things are out of balance, it reacts in ways to restore that balance. Those reactions are often severe.

Summer was put on hold last week as the Alps received a very unexpected dumping of snow. Nature chose to not wait.

These reactions a mild compared to what happens if we continue to ignore the warming problem.

We Are To Blame

All scientific indicators point to human development and industrialization as a significant contributor to the warming issue. While we are not the only factor, we are the one which can most easily and readily be altered. There are numerous things we can do, many of them rather simple. By reducing our own carbon footprint, we help keep the planet within that delicate balance required for life.

We have to start listening to science, though. We cannot deny warming trends and we cannot ignore climate science. Continuing to elect representatives who try to ignore science threatens every life on the planet.

I find it interesting that we talk so often about wanting to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. We want to make everything great again. Yet, our actions say exactly the opposite. When we deny science, when we discount warming, when we ignore climate change, we doom our children and grandchildren to air that is unbreathable, water that cannot be purified, and food grown in a laboratory because the ground is no longer fit for farming.

Don’t you think it’s past time for us to warm up to science?

Art / Fashion / Photography / PotD

Are We Still Photographers?

July 13, 2016

charles i. letbetter - are we still photographer

Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. —Alfred Stieglitz

charles i. letbetter - are we still photographers?

Is the ability to do more justification for abandoning what we’ve done before?

Take a look at the image above. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t, or maybe you’re not sure. Any of those opinions is acceptable. What’s important, though, is that I did not ask you to look at a photograph. I asked you to look at an image. Photographers understand the difference. What you see here might have started with a camera, but the offset double exposure was manufactured in Photoshop® as was the processing. What you see above barely resembles the photographs at all.

Are we still photographers? I’m speaking specifically of those of us who consider the medium of photography our profession, or at least more than just a casual hobby. British fashion photographer turned media specialist Nick Knight doesn’t think so. In an interview published this morning in Business of Fashion, Knight makes the case that we do so much more with images today that we can no longer put modern imagery in the same class as that produced by legends such as Richard Avedon and Robert Mapplethorpe.

While I found the interview itself rather gratuitous and was annoyed by Tim Blanks anointing of Knight as some kind of creative god, there are some valid considerations. What we do with imagery now can be considerably different than what we were doing 30 years ago. But does that mean we are not photographers? If we’re not photographers, what are we? How do we define ourselves and our work?

Carrying Around A Camera

Perhaps the question of whether we are photographers wouldn’t such a volatile issue if people would just stop asking us, “what is it you do?” Replying with, “I’m a photographer” has been my answer for more than thirty years. Identifying as a photographer is a role that people understand. Regardless of how manipulated an image might be, publishing entities still give credit to a photographer. We simply can’t think of any other way to accurately describe our work without launching into a detailed diatribe that hits the boredom point after 15 seconds.

Knight refers to what he does as “image-making,” for lack of a better term. His justification is that the end product might include sound or 3D or any number of other elements he might include. He also thinks photography is dead in traditional terms. He refers to his website, SHOWStudio, as “the home of fashion film.” Nick is very good at what he does, but when we strip it down to its core, the base product is still the same: photography.

While what we do with a photograph has changed, however, the base product hasn’t. Nick’s not carrying around equipment that’s any different from the rest of us. The base product of a still camera, even if it’s housed in a phone, is a photograph. If the base product is multiple images strung together so as to infer motion, then it is a motion picture, or film. Therefore, the people who create those photographs or films are known as photographers. We can add additional titles on to that, but for public identification purposes to call ourselves anything other than photographers is just silly.

To Modify Or Not To Modify

At the heart of this issue is whether and how we modify an image. Now, let’s be clear: photographers have always modified images. The type of toner being used is the most basic form of image manipulation. Toner changes the base color of an image. This is why some older images are different shades of brown or amber, while others have a more silver or blue hue. To say that photographers didn’t begin manipulating images before 1985 is disingenuous at best.

What has changed, though, is the ease with which image manipulation is done. Global filters are everywhere, even on your cell phone. All one has to do is touch a button and the image is altered in any number of ways. More advanced software allows us to add and remove objects as well as change the shape of things and people. Sometimes those modifications are necessary and welcome. Other times, though, the results are nothing short of a disaster.

Nick mentions his amazement with what people are doing on Instagram. Yet, over the past couple of years, one of the most-used hashtags on the social media site is #nofilter. People are proud and happy when the photograph they take is of sufficient quality, in their opinion, to not require any form of filtered distortion. Much has been made in the media about magazines altering the shape of models’ bodies. A growing number of prominent models are including riders in their contracts that prohibit any physical alteration of the pictures for which they’ve posed. While there are many modifications available, they are often not well-advised.

Evolving As A Medium

Nick makes an interesting statement that not only reflects his views of photography but of its relationship to society. He says:

… we must be creating new things. We must be evolving as a species. We can’t be the same physically and emotionally as we were 500 years ago. We’re no longer chimpanzees, but we’re not where we’re going to be. Although they are the same stories, we’re not exactly the same people.

I don’t think anyone would question that the equipment with which we take photographs has changed dramatically. Photography has been in a constant state of evolution, if one wants to continue misusing that word, from its very inception. Wet plates, copper plates, film of various sizes and quality, digital development and everything else has kept the medium of photography in a constant state of flux.

Photographers have always been agents of change. We are constantly looking for a different way to use this tool to express ourselves. While the rate of change has sped up thanks to the technology brought to bear, and the number of people involved, to infer that the medium has ever been stagnant is misguided and, quite honestly, insulting to the photographers like Avedon and Mapplethorpe who helped push the medium forward.

Take My Picture, Please

While there is plenty of reason to get all excited over the new and different ways one can use digital images to create things never before imagined, we cannot let go of the fact that all the cool and creative things people like Nick Knight and others do is the exception, not the rule. The primary use of a camera always has been, and still remains, to capture a moment. We see it in the selfie obsession that has consumed the Internet. We see it in the volume of pictures people post to various social media sites. Filtered or not, what matters is that photographs remind us of something we did or something we saw or someone we loved.

A lot has been written about how Millennials are an experience-based generation. They invest less in physical objects and more in doing things. As a result, they are less interested in hiring someone to create a distinctively new and different digital image and more interested in hiring photographers to capture those experiences that mean the most. From weddings to diving expeditions to parachute jumping, photographers are much more frequently asked to capture those experiences than create something cold in a studio.

Not that there isn’t a place or demand for what Nick Knight and others do. There is. But the global demand for their work and innovation is nowhere near being strong enough to warrant completely redefining the entire medium. At the end of the day, all anyone wants is for us to take their picture.

Tomorrow, We Will Still Be Photographers

Our medium of capturing images continues to change. We all know that. There are some incredible and mind-altering advancements coming in the very near future that could well change, again, the way we look through a camera and decide what to capture. How we process those images continues to change as well. Wonderful things are coming down the road.

Perhaps, someday, when we gain the ability to take recognizable pictures in the dark, we can refer to what we do as something other than photography. The word means “writing with light.” As long as there is still the transfer of light onto media so as to capture an image, we will still be photographers. There’s nothing in that word to cause us shame. Embrace it rather than run from it. We are photographers and damn proud of it.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

You Better Shop Around

July 12, 2016

Buy, buy, says the sign in the shop window; Why, why, says the junk in the yard. —Paul McCartney

Shopping has changed and using a single source is rarely a good idea

Today, July 12, is the big Amazon Prime sale. Think of it as second Christmas. Sales are huge. People who never shop online make purchases during this sale. Traffic numbers are immense. The best deals sell out in a flash. Every other retailer on the Internet cringes when the online juggernaut has this sale. Amazon is so huge, so overwhelming, that no one can afford to compete. Even Wal-Mart doesn’t try to match prices. They do offer free shipping with no minimum purchase, but that’s nowhere near the savings some Amazon deals offer.

This is the way shopping works now. Deep sales, free shipping, and everyone has to find a way to compete with the big guys. There’s always a sale somewhere. No one ever pays list price. Even Amazon stopped showing list prices. Instead, they just show the sale price because that’s what they know people want to see when they shop online. The sale price.

Luxury goods have been in a free-fall all year. Discounters, outlet shops, mid-market retailers, and re-sellers are where all the business is going. Online fashion magazine Business of Fashion says stores need to look and think more like Facebook. The op-ed by John Bricker says that stores need to be more of a social gathering place, not just a place to shop. Coffee bars, art galleries, and social events are all part of the shopping experience as Bricker imagines it.

I’m not sure he goes far enough, though. People still shop around. Let’s look at alternatives.

Tighter Integration

Bricker’s article mentions that women in the 25-35 age group pre-shop, arriving at a store already prepared for what they want. Why didn’t they go ahead and make the purchase online? They want to feel what they’re getting. That’s not surprising, but retailers are still not playing that strategy to their full advantage. The online experience needs to merge with the brick-and-mortar experience so tightly that shoppers consider it a single event.

For example, if a woman finds a set of sheets online that appear to be what she wants, she should be able to mark and save that product without putting it in a shopping cart. She already knows she’s not making the purchase online, so why would she put the item in a cart? Yet, if she doesn’t, she loses the location of the item and may have difficulty finding it when she wants to go back. Then, when she gets to the store, she has difficulty finding the sheets she wants midst all the stacks of other sheets. If she doesn’t find them quickly, she leaves frustrated.

Stores would do better to lock down that sale by doing three things:

Provide a way to save items of interest online
Encourage the shopper to visit the nearest store to see that item
Use the store’s app to guide the shopper to interested items when they arrive at the store.

Just those three things would increase actual sales by at least 10%.

Help Customers Compare Prices

This is taking a tactic once used in large New York department stores and giving it a digital comeback. Retailers know people shop around online looking for the best deals. Let them do the same in store as well. Wi-Fi connected apps at displays could easily list the price of an item and then show what the same item sells for both online and at other brick-and-mortar stores in the immediate area.

What this strategy does is keep a customer in the store. You don’t want to run the risk of them walking out the door to compare prices and never coming back. That already happens far too often for most stores. By allowing customers to comparison shop right there in the store, the retailer could choose to match a competitors price, provide coupons to apply to the sale, and inherently increase the stickiness of keeping people in the store longer.

Of course, this means marketing people have to do a better job watching competitors’ pricing, and that can be a very difficult job. However, with the ability to search instantly across a wide number of sites, building an app that would track such competition on the fly shouldn’t be too terribly difficult. For all I know, that software may already exist. If it does, though, it needs to be used more efficiently.

Make The Store A Destination

We read a lot about Millennials looking for experiences. Retailers can tap into that by making shopping more of a destination; a place one wants to go even if they’re not actively in the market for anything the store offers. Sorry, but coffee and art are yesterday’s marketing tactics. Retailers today need to find more event-driven and exciting reasons for people to come through their doors and shop.

I still remember when a specific sporting goods store opened in Atlanta with a 40-foot climbing wall in the store. My boys loved going to that store just to climb the wall. Sure enough, we purchased something every time we went. When that store was bought-out by a competitor, though, they took out the climbing wall. Care to guess how many times I’ve been in any of that retailer’s stores since? Zero. I’ve no immediate need for their products, so I walk on by.

Whether online or brick-and-mortar, retailers have to do more than just offer sales to get people to look. If I were CMO of a major chain right now I would be looking for some way to make stores attractive to Pokèmon Go players. What the store sells is irrelevant. Getting more people through door inevitably means more people are going to shop. Playing to social trends rather than marketing trends may be the stronger strategy for the future.

Increase Visibility Of High Need Items

Briker also mentions that people separate their shopping into two groups: wants and needs. They buy the needs first, often without much comparison shopping, then shop around for the things in their want list. The traditional tactic has been to put high-need items toward the back of the store so that people have to walk past everything else, increasing the possibility of an impulse by. For many years, that strategy has worked.

What grocery store chains such as Kroger have found, though, is that placing high need items such as milk, eggs, and bread near the front of the store, close to the checkout, increases brand loyalty among consumers. When a busy mom needs to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from work or between shuttling kids from soccer practice to piano lessons, she remembers the store that saves her from walking all the way to the back. She’s more likely to return to the same store when she needs to buy a full basket of groceries.

Fashion retailers, especially department stores, could learn a lot from this tactic. Consider what shoppers most likely need and make it accessible without having to traipse all over the store. A hair straightener is not likely to be a must-have-right-now purchase, but a lipstick is. Sports socks are not sexy, but when the drier eats half your last pair you need a replacement before you go running in the morning. Build brand loyalty among a generation not inclined to be loyal.

Shop Around

More retailers need to consider throwing out the playbook and completely re-examine what it means for people to shop. Even those in the over-65 age group don’t shop with the same habits as they did ten years ago. Everything about shopping is new. The winners are going to be those who don’t look like retailers. Embrace innovation and realize that one has to meld into society to benefit from it.

Advertising / Art / Fashion / Photography

Goodbye, June 2016

June 30, 2016

All June I bound the rose in sheaves, Now, rose by rose, I strip the leaves. —Robert Browning

With the year half over, leaving June is like setting a marker, daring the rest of the year to improve

June 30. The year is half over. While the month has had its happy moments, such as the wedding of two dear friends, June has also seen a lot of death, a lot of turmoil, and an incredible amount of global stupidity. We’ve suffered the largest mass shooting ever in the US. We’ve laughed about secret sex parties. We’ve mourned the death of a real champion. We even tossed Kat in the water. For a mere 30 days, a lot happened. Our world has changed dramatically from where we were at the end of May.

To some extent, today puts a half-way marker on the year. We look back and see all we’ve lost, all that happened, and we dare the rest of the year to be better. We’ve had enough suffering. We don’t want more bad news. We don’t need more nonsense. We need new champions rising to the cause. We need faith restored in our governments. We need to feel that the entire planet is not hurtling out of control.

Of course, none of us can predict the future, and I’m not sure we want that ability. What we might see there could be too frightening to imagine. We’re also too early to start writing obituaries for the year. We can’t yet give up hope when so many good and wonderful things could yet happen.

Pictures You Might Have Missed

Midst all the activity of this month, chances are you might have missed a picture or two along the way. In fact, we’re pretty sure you did because we know which articles received the least amount of attention. So, before we totally close out this month of June and proceed forward with our year, we want to give you a chance to catch up on the pictures. There were some new ones this month, which is surprising given how busy we’ve been. So take a moment, enjoy the view and we’ll look forward to July.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertising / Fashion / pop culture / PotD

Information Overload

June 30, 2016

Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? —T. S. Eliot

charles i. letbetter - information overload

The glut of information comes at such a heavy pace so as to make keeping up impossible

I don’t know about anyone else, but the volume of information I receive on a daily basis is impossible to consume. While the majority of articles, press releases, and various studies shoved my direction do have some value, there is simply not enough time to digest and comprehend the bulk. I end up setting some pieces aside to read later and then get to the end of the month, like today, and realize I have a backlog that needs to be addressed.

Even then, I know there’s some information I have to let go. That article that says one out of three internet users are content creators? It’s been sitting there for two weeks. The information seems interesting, but there is not enough time to get into the details. A detailed essay on the dumbing down of America has been sitting there since the 7th. Incredible amounts of information that is highly applicable to this election season. Too detailed for my schedule, though. I have to let it pass.

Still, there are some stories that, for various reasons, I can’t let pass without at least a tiny bit of comment. This is information I am quite sure you need, that will impact every aspect of your life. Okay, not really, but some of it is damned entertaining. The headlines are links. Click them for more information.

Alexander Wang Is Now Chairman/CEO Of His Own Brand

For those outside the fashion industry, this may sound like a rather obvious move. It’s not. Fashion designers are notoriously bad at the business side of things. That’s why conglomerates such as Kering and LVMH own so many top-name labels. People who are wonderfully creative, such as clothing designers, too often attempt to apply that same creativity to the business side of the house and it rarely works.

Alex takes over the head of the boardroom from his sister-in-law and his mom, both of whom have been running things rather well. Certainly, Wang would not have been able to spend the time at Balenciaga had they not been in place. They’ve done an excellent job of steering his young brand through its first ten years. Influencers such as Marc Jacobs haven’t hurt, either.

The fashion market has changed dramatically in the past five years, though, and strategies that made sense when the label was founded no longer work. The move signals a new direction, though it remains to be seen what that new direction might be. Alexander Wang is one of the top US fashion brands at the moment. Let’s hope he doesn’t blow it. We’ll file this information under things to watch.

Kering Ordered To Pay Hedi Slimane $13 Million

Speaking of Kering, they were sued earlier this month by former Yves Saint Laurent designer Hedi Slimane. Honestly, when I first saw a related headline, I rolled my eyes. I think Slimane was expecting another label to pick him up quickly upon his departure from YSL. His expectations were a bit too eager. Few talked with him at all and none of the conversations reached a serious stage of negotiation.

That means the rather extravagant designer was starting to feel the financial impact of not having a regular income. So, what does he do? Find a loophole in his former contract and sue his former employer for failing to include a non-compete clause in his separation agreement. Understand, a non-compete means that a designer cannot just hop directly from one label to the next for a given period of time. A non-compete is what is allegedly keeping Raf Simons from taking the head job at Calvin Klein. How does this make sense?

Non-competes, in the fashion world, are generally compensated. Labels essentially pay a designer to not work (in an official capacity) for usually two or three years. The $13 million Slimane was awarded should keep him going long enough to create a new strategy.

Dove Release New #MyBeautyMyWay Campaign

Dove has been using messages of affirmation for women in its ads for some time now. While there has yet to be any firm information showing that the tactic is adding anything to the brand’s bottom line, the campaigns are at least socially popular. This particular campaign comes along at a time when body image and self-image, especially among women, is a significant issue. Women are tired of the cat calls and the impolite statements regarding their appearance. Dove’s campaign encourages women to define their beauty their own way. Take a look at the 60-second ad:

My expectation is that an overwhelming number of women can identify with at least one if not multiple statements made. Additional ads address the details of each of the six women shown in this introductory piece. The timing ties into the presidential campaign as well. With a woman as the presumptive Democratic nominee and the misogynistic tone of the presumptive Republican nominee, women are feeling more empowered to be vocal and reclaiming their personhood.

Still, how long can Dove continue these campaigns without them adding significant revenue? Altruism doesn’t pay the bills.

Starbucks Is The Favorite Food Brand Among Millennials

Is anyone really surprised by this one? Of course not. Anytime we stop by one of the coffee stores we have to wait in line behind two or three 30-somethings getting their mocha-soy-caramel-latte-frappucino on. All I want is a venti blonde roast. Black. Yet, I still have to wait while each of the millennials in front of me orders a drink with far too many syllables to be healthy, then mulls over the ever-growing list of food items that look and sound healthy. Can I just get my coffee, please?

Click the link above, though, and what you’ll see is a list of the top 17 most popular food brands among this top group of shoppers who are the driving demographic for almost every company on the planet. Look through the list and you’ll notice a trend that has been part of Starbuck’s strategy from the beginning: Fresh, healthy and innovative. The growing food menu items address the fresh and healthy issue. The drinks have always been innovative. Starbucks has made the strategy work for them and other brands are finally beginning to see the value as well.

Even we old codgers benefit. With everyone adjusting to lure millennials, we’re all eating better whether we like it or not.

Crystal Pepsi Is Making A Return

Depending on how one feels about the product, we might file this interesting piece of information under “too good to be true,” or “what the hell are they thinking?” Crystal Pepsi, which is supposed to taste exactly like the original product, hasn’t been on store shelves since 1994. There is a very good reason for that: no one wanted a cola that looked like 7Up. The caramel color is part of the identity of a cola. The drink was treated more as a novelty and then slipped slowly away.

Today, though, artificial dyes are under attack from the healthy/pure food woo groups. You know, those same people who are convinced that Monsanto is out to destroy the entire food supply (they’re not). While the actual peer-reviewed science regarding food dyes only shows a danger in a handful of very specific colors consumed in high quantities, the concept of going without dyes has a lot of marketing clout. The move worked for Hershey, after all. They saw a significant sales bump after announcing they had eliminated artificial coloring from their chocolate.

The difference between Hershey’s and Pepsi, though, is that the chocolate still looks pretty much the same. The color may not be identical, but at least it’s still brown. Take the artificial coloring out of Pepsi and you have something that does not look anything like a cola. The move didn’t work well the first time. We’ll see if this effort is different.

French Cable Now Has Porn Ads

Americans like copying a lot of trends that are popular across Great Britain and France. With the UK having pretty much sabotaged itself with the whole Brexit thing, France is getting more of the attention at the moment. Maybe a bit too much attention. The French cable provider Cable+ has come up with a set of ads that, while hilarious to view, would be almost impossible to duplicate for the American market. Let’s see if I can describe this delicately …

It’s porn.

Apparently, French Cable providers can get away with a lot racier content than we can here. In the American cable market, the most shocking thing one is likely to see is the blood bath known as Game of Thrones. We can be explicit in our killing, but not our sex. That might explain some problems with our culture.

What these French ads do, though, is hilariously parody old-school porn by removing one person from the scene. So, you have real porn stars looking as though they’re getting it on, but their partner is missing. Why is the partner missing? Because all the good porn has moved to Canal.

It’s a bit much and definitely NSFW. I’m not posting the ads here. Click the link, though. They’re hilarious.

Take A Break

After that last bit of information there, I think we need to take a break. I need another cup of coffee. I hope at least one piece of information here improves your life somehow.

Advertising / Fashion

Banning Photos Of Thin Models

June 27, 2016

charles i. letbetter - banning photos of skinny models

It is stupid on my part to think of banning the media. —Shah Rukh Khan

Banning a photograph because a model appears too skinny is making a dangerous judgement call

Banning photography for any reason is never a good idea. When we ban things such as art, photography, books, movies, and other means of expression, we are closing off an avenue of expression, a means of learning, and perhaps even a path to enlightenment and understanding for other people. Banning the arts in any form, even those distantly related such as advertising, is wrong.

So, in what seems to be a trend, the Brits have fucked it up again. This time, it’s specifically the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who has banned ads on public transit that might challenge a woman’s body image. The mayor’s action responds to an ad that ran earlier this year asking whether one’s body was “bikini ready.” Many people found the ad offensive, even foolishly started a petition on change.org, and as a result made the ad more famous and seen in more places than it ever would have on its own.

The UK is already a bit of an anomaly in the advertising world in that its Advertising Standards Board has the ability to order the removal of any ad it doesn’t like for pretty much any reason. The board has been challenged frequently for banning ads in Britain that wouldn’t have been a problem elsewhere.

Body Image As A Matter Of Perspective

Body shaming is unquestionably a problem and body image, especially among teenage girls, is a critical issue that affects other decisions that women make. Body image determines what one chooses to eat, what one chooses to wear, and even who one chooses to date. As a result, things we used to say often, such as, “Is your body bikini ready?” are no longer publicly acceptable. We find those statements offensive because we presume they promote an unsafe body image.

But what about the image accompanying that ad? While I’m not inclined to re-publish the ad again here (it’s had more press than it deserves), I can tell you that the hourglass figure of the model would not be considered too skinny by a lot of people. If the same image had run with different copy, would Mr. Khan still be so upset? Would people still be offended?

Consider the picture I chose to go with this article. Do you consider the model too thin? Does her body shape offend you? If so, why? I can promise you that the model involved is quite healthy. She certainly does not consider her body too thin and her physician would likely agree. In banning a picture of her body, are they not body shaming and affecting her body image as well?

Body Image As A Matter Of Health

Both advertising and the fashion industry have for several years been challenged with the body image they present. Paris and Milan passed laws protecting models from being forced to maintain unhealthy weights. Such laws are good and necessary. No one should be asked to do things that put them in danger simply for the sake of a photograph. I have no problems with that.

However, laws banning photographs, such as this one in London, fail to actually show concern for the health of the model. There’s no requirement for a doctor’s note, such as there is in the Paris law. There are no means in which the model’s health is even considered. Rather, a judgement call is being made by an autonomous board (the members of which have yet to be selected) without any specific guidelines for what is and isn’t acceptable.

If we’re going to be concerned about body image, shouldn’t the health, both physical and emotional, of the model be considered first? If one is banning an ad because the image is considered unhealthy, is that not also telling the model that she is unhealthy as well?

I can tell you that I’ve worked with hundreds of models who are quite frustrated at people telling them they look too thin or unhealthy. How is this type of action any different than fat shaming?

Body Image As A Form Of Judgement

Vaness Friedman, a fashion editor for the New York Times, wrote an opinion piece on the matter of photographs of skinny models yesterday. In the article, she states:

Though often conflated with the movement to protect models, which resulted in legislation in France in 2015 requiring models to produce a doctor’s note attesting to their health, and digital alteration of photographs to be disclosed, banning is a separate issue. It doesn’t involve working conditions (which can and should be legislated), but subjective, and ultimately regressive, assumptions about what constitutes a positive female image.

Banning pictures of skinny women unfairly judges them. What right does someone else have to say that a skinny body is wrong any more than an overweight body is wrong based merely upon a photograph? Can you look at a set of photographs and know, based on the model’s size and shape, which one just found out she has breast cancer, or Crone’s disease, or diabetes, or a thyroid condition? Of course you can’t! One might guess, but a large portion of the time that guess would be wrong. The judgement is unfair and unreasonable.

Banning isn’t the answer

There’s no question that body image is an important issue. Everyone should be encouraged to embrace the fullness of who and what they are without any judgement. There is no right body type for every person. We all get to be unique.

In embracing that point of view, however, we must include women who are thinner. Their body image counts just as much as that of the woman who can’t keep her weight below 350 pounds.

We also have to start trusting women to make their own decisions about their body and stop trying to do it for them. While some women may look at a Gucci ad and find the models too thin, someone else may look at the same ad and be encouraged to eat better, exercise, or consult their doctor about losing weight. We must allow room for a difference of opinion regarding any photograph.

Censorship, in any form, is wrong. Banning pictures of skinny women is a huge mistake. If Britons get a chance to re-vote on the Brexit, perhaps Mr. Khan should also consider shelving his new law. Neither do the good for which they are advertised.

Fashion / Photography / PotD

Street Style Loses Its Icon

June 26, 2016

The best fashion show is definitely on the street. Always has been, and always will be. —Bill Cunningham

New York Street Style has only one icon, and now he’s gone

Street style is a big thing in the fashion world. So big, that photographers from all over the world flock to the fashion capitals just to stand outside fashion shows and take pictures of the guests arriving. All over New York, London, Milan, and Paris, there are people claiming to be street style photographers for this online magazine or another. They’re quick to ask your name then shove their card in your hand before moving to the next victim, er, subject. None of them matter.

Only one street style photographer really mattered, and that was Bill Cunningham. Bill died yesterday afternoon at the age of 84.

There are only two or three photographers remaining for whom I would care to write a remembrance. For some, I can write about the experience of meeting them, of talking with them, and maybe even being friends. Not Bill. I have to write about Bill from a place of admiration and respect because he didn’t let anyone get any closer than that. He lived alone. He didn’t “hang out” with “the guys.” Try addressing him on the street and he waved you off. He wouldn’t go out for a drink. He wouldn’t just sit and talk. He was singularly focused on one thing: taking pictures.

A Dislike For Celebrity

Anyone who has wandered around Manhattan much at all has likely seen Bill. He rode a bicycle everywhere. The Times says he had over 30 of them over the years and that number doesn’t surprise me. Riding a bike in Manhattan can be challenging, but even as late as this past March he was still out there. He always wore the same blue worker’s coat, khaki pants, and white tennis shoes. He wore his camera slung around his neck, not too low, always at the ready. You couldn’t miss him.

One of the best quotes about Bill being used today is from Vogue‘s Anna Wintour: “Everyone dresses for Bill.” And they did. Modeling agencies would send up and coming models to walk the streets near where Bill was found most often in hopes of them being photographed. Celebrities pushing a new movie or desperately wanting some recognition would do the same. Yet, Bill didn’t care about celebrity. He didn’t need them in front of his camera. On more than one occasion he said:

I don’t pay attention to celebrities. I don’t photograph them. They don’t dress so… interestingly. They have stylists. I prefer real women who have their own taste.

Even at parties where the rich and famous were practically dripping from the chandeliers, one never saw Bill mixing and mingling. He’d be standing off to the side, watching, snapping away, fading into the decorations so as to not draw attention to himself.

An Obsession With Fashion

Street style didn’t start with Bill Cunningham and it won’t end with his passing. What we will miss, though, is an obsession with fashion that was particularly unique and original. Unlike most street style photographers who are simply looking for any way to get their work published, Bill was on the street taking pictures out of passion. Bill loved fashion. More specifically, Bill loved what people did with fashion and how they created their own style.

In turn, fashion loved Bill right back. There was a level of unspoken endorsement when Bill showed up to photograph a fashion show. He wouldn’t go to just any runway he happened across. He was more comfortable on the street and wasn’t shy about letting designers and editors know that. When he did shoot a fashion show, though, he didn’t stand with all the other photographers in the “pit.” Instead, he had a front row seat, almost always on a corner where he could catch models as they turned. He could get the front and back of an ensemble by just swiveling in his seat.

Fashion honored Bill with plenty of awards as well, but he never mentioned them, never made a big deal about them. Instead, he’d leave the ceremony where he had been honored and hit the street, taking pictures. He didn’t care about accolades, he cared only about fashion.

A Unique Photography

Bill never considered himself a good photographer. He thought he was too shy and not nearly aggressive enough. He never gave himself much credit.

For the bulk of his career, he shot on an inexpensive 35mm camera using Kodak T-Max film. When the Times made the switch to digital cameras, he was initially upset. He didn’t care for all the bells and whistles that got in the way of him taking a picture. What brought him around was the ability to turn off or dampen the sound of the shutter click. The extra quietness allowed him to take pictures without people noticing, catching them in more “real” poses.

He kept all his negatives from the early days. I’ve no idea to whom his estate might fall, but I am hopeful that perhaps someone will curate all those hundreds of thousands of frames and create a book of Bill’s photography. He wouldn’t have wanted the attention during his life, but he certainly deserves it.

Not Here For The Money

One of the most interesting aspects of Bill’s life is that he didn’t chase a paycheck. He worked totally freelance until 1990. After being hit by a truck and hurt rather badly, he finally accepted an offer from the New York Times for the insurance.

The money wasn’t a big thing to Bill, though. More important was the freedom to photograph what he wanted, where he wanted, and how he wanted. He didn’t want or need any editor telling him what to do. Bill was fiercely independent and would tear up advance checks from magazine editors who tried to get him to do a specific editorial for them.

As a result, Bill didn’t live a luxurious lifestyle. He slept on a cot. He wore simple clothes. He ate simple meals. And then, he took pictures.

Leaving A Legacy

If I’m having trouble keeping the tears from my eyes now, it’s likely to be worse come September. I never watched a fashion show but what I was always looking for Bill. Hitting New York this fall, the street is going to feel a bit empty. I’m going to look at whoever is sitting on that front row corner and think, “You don’t belong there. That’s Bill’s seat.”

I’m going to open the Style section of the Times now and it’s going to be a little less exciting. I’m sure they’ll find street style pictures from someone, perhaps a young freelancer, but it won’t be the same. Young photographers have ambition, but Bill had passion and the difference is noticeable.

We will miss you, Bill Cunningham. Know that your work and your life will always be remembered.

Current Issues / Fashion / PotD

Upside Down And Spinning

June 24, 2016

The world that we all knew before, could wake up in feeling safe… now it seems that everything has been turned upside down. —Tori Amos

When what we know takes a dramatic and unexpected turn, our perspective is that the world has turned upside down. Maybe it has.

Upside down. That’s the only way I know how to explain what is happening to the world this morning.

Normally, I wouldn’t bother writing about matters of foreign politics. We have more than enough trouble here in the US with complete ineffectiveness of our own political system. However, what Britain has done in voting to leave the European Union (EU) is not only a move that has devastating consequences for the island nation, but a ripple effect the covers the entire globe. Because the British Empire was once so extreme, everywhere they once touched is now affected by what has been termed the “Brexit.”

This may well be a warning for other countries considering any kind of selfish, “Make __________ Great Again” nationalistic-motivated action. As we watch what is only the beginning of a flood of consequences, perhaps we now realize just how interconnected the world is. One country’s mistake has devastating effects for every country with which it conducts business, accepts visitors or is an ally. Yet, because no other country dares interfere with the domestic politics of another, we have no choice but to sit by and watch.

Current Conditions

By the time most people read this, business in the UK will have closed for the day and won’t resume until Monday. Announcing the results of the vote on a Friday gave markets and people a chance to react but, hopefully, the weekend provides an opportunity for some of the shock to fade so that cooler heads prevail when markets open on Monday. Still, as I’m typing, here’s what’s happening.

The pound has fallen to a 31-year low against the dollar. A renegotiation of all major trade treaties seems necessary.
The Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) index opened with a straight-line drop of -9% but has recovered to an overall loss of -4.5%
Germany’s DAX is off -6.16%
France’s CAC index is in the red – 7.73%
Spain’s IBEX is taking the biggest hit at -9.98%
British stocks have lost an estimated value over £122 billion

Take a deep breath. This is going to hurt. If there is a silver lining in all this chaos, it is not making itself visible at this point. England’s GDP could fall as much as 3%. Pensions for younger workers could be completely erased. This upside down condition is not a happy place to be.

Fashion Takes A Hit

One business that is extremely concerned about the Brexit is London’s fashion industry. Business of Fashion lists Burberry, Mulberry, and Jimmy Choo among the victims in early trading. Luxury clothing markets were already having a rough year and the volatility the Brexit brings to the market isn’t going to help any. Many of Britain’s major labels are likely to find they have to severely cut expenditures and manage cash flow carefully.

What this means is that London Fashion Week coming up September 16-20 is likely to be even smaller as designers whose margins are already thin opt out at least for the season. For those who do stay in, collections are likely to be smaller and presentations will almost certainly be less extravagant. Frugality is the name of the game for those who hope to survive. Getting British goods off the island just became a lot harder. There is no upside here for fashion

Caroline Rush, chief executive of the British Fashion Council, said in a statement early this morning:

There was an overwhelming support from our designer survey for the UK to remain in Europe and there will no doubt be upset and dismay at today’s result that will prompt an outreach to our friends, partners, business colleagues in Europe. We now have a role to play in keeping the government updated on our industry’s priorities and keeping the designer community updated on any likely impact to business as our country prepares to leave the EU over the coming years.

A Warning For America

As the United States considers the possible election of a Republican nominee whose personality and concepts share many traits with UK Independence Part leader Nigel Farage, we need to watch carefully and consider how our own election might have similar results.

The United States doesn’t exist in a cocoon where it takes care of itself with no attention to the outside world. Our levels of global trade are higher than ever. We cannot simply back out of agreements and treaties that make business possible for hundreds of thousands of American companies. Our dependency on trade with Mexico is one of the highest. If we build a wall, that trade is destroyed and American companies and consumers suffer most. The same applies to China, Japan, and the EU.

Furthermore, our standing in the international community would erode further. England is just beginning to see how their Brexit vote puts them at odds with the rest of Europe. Several companies have announced plans to leave England completely, dumping thousands of employees onto the unemployment rolls. Britain will lose its last AAA credit rating when it next comes up for review. Prices for goods produced outside Britain rise as higher tariffs are anticipated.

One bad judgement call started it all.

Not Much Left

We are seeing now just how severely this vote divides the UK, much as our own country is divided. Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says that Scotland will almost certainly hold another referendum on leaving the UK, given that the whole of Scotland voted to remain with the EU. Members of Ireland’s Sein Finn also made statements this morning that the vote will likely fuel an effort to reunite Northern Ireland with the rest of the country. In the end, the UK may have nothing left but England and Wales by the time the Brexit is complete.

Such waves of populism are one of the primary arguments against democratic forms of government: there’s no way to stop the stupid. Every intelligent voice both inside the UK and around the world warned against the Brexit, but nationalistic-minded conservatives, fueled by an unrealistic fear of immigration, paid no attention to the warning.

A full exit from the EU will take approximately two years. There will be a lot of negotiation between the UE and the UK regarding trade, travel, and currency exchange. We have no way of knowing which direction those talks might go. However, when there are 28 countries teaming up against one that was always cantankerous, complaining, and acting like a bully, it doesn’t seem likely that Britain comes out on top.

The mighty have fallen. The world is upside down and twisting in the wind. Our best hope at the moment is that Americans don’t make the situation worse come November.

Art / Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology / PotD

Protest Naked: 10 Illustrated Reasons

June 23, 2016

What is art, after all, but a protest against the horrible inclemency of life? —Aldous Huxley

charles i. letbetter - protest naked: 10 illustrated reasons you should

There is much wrong in the world, but only a few things arousing the passion necessary to protest.

Yesterday was amazing. Following the lead of legendary civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Democratic members of the House of Representatives decided to protest that chamber’s lack of a bill on gun control by holding a sit-in. Mr. Lewis understands the power of a sit-in protest. During his work with Dr. Martin Luthing King, Jr., Mr. Lewis was involved in many such protests, including a rather famous one at a Woolworth’s lunch counter. As a result, the House of Representatives came to a grinding halt and House Speaker Paul Ryan managed to look like a fool in opposing them.

Staging a protest can be a powerful weapon when it is done at the right time, by the right people, in the right way. The sit-in worked because the time was right. After the events in Orlando, a majority of Americans, some polls say as much as 90 percent, favor some form of gun control. The fact that GOP leadership refuses to even consider such a bill gives Democrats incredibly clout with public opinion swaying in their favor.

There are other things, though, that are worth protesting. We think the strongest form of protest is not only holding a sit-in, but doing so naked. Showing up for something without clothes demonstrates a deeper level of purpose, passion, and commitment to the cause, whatever it may be. Nudity in protest represents honesty, transparency, and truthfulness. When faced with a sea of naked bodies, a lot can get done. So, here’s our list.

Gun Control

The protest has already started. Now, we should take it to the next level and get everyone naked. Okay, maybe not everyone. Older members are good leaving on their skivvies. Still, with all the passion and attention that yesterday’s protest raised, now would be a good time to go all in and make Republicans think twice before trying another procedural stunt like last night’s vote. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have extended background checks and registration, and require insurance. We do the same for cars and that doesn’t impede on anyone’s right to drive a car. Guns are more dangerous. We shouldn’t hand one out to every idiot in the village.

The UK Brexit Nonsense

The issue being voted upon in the UK today is whether or not the country should leave the European Union alliance, aka, the Brexit. Smarmy conservative Brits, rather on par with the intellectual absence of our own Tea Party, have convinced a large number of Britons that they need to separate themselves and go back to being independent. While, on the surface, that might sound attractive, what every major economist, every major bank, and every political ally have tried to warn these fools is that removing one link causes the whole fucking chain to fail. Every major industry that does any business outside Britain is going to be hurt. This isn’t the 16th century, folks. Britain is part of a global economy. You don’t just get to walk out. So yeah, this is worth staging a nude protest.

Wall Street and Big Banking

Eight years ago, the cheating and stealing ways of Wall Street and big investment banks caused our economy to collapse. Millions of people lost their retirement funds, their college education funds, and other investments. At the end of the day, though, no one was really punished sufficiently to result in any change. Now, all signs point to yet another collapse within the next three years, one potentially made worse depending upon who becomes president. Remember the Occupy Wall Street movement? We think it’s time to bring that back. Naked.

Fur

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is already using nude protest methods in their “I’d Rather Go Naked” campaign. Cara Delevigne, Alicia Silverstone, Pink, four Miss USA winners, and a host of others have already stripped for the sometimes racy and often banned ad campaign. Yet, the use of fur in fashion hasn’t let up a bit. While some European designers are beginning to substitute synthetic furs, which are longer lasting and often softer, Italian design houses especially, many of which began as furriers, have been resistant to change. One of the worst offenders, though, is American designer Dennis Basso. Each season he sends dozens of furs down his runway, even for summer. This is nonsense. Raising and harvesting furs for fashion is cruel. Perhaps we should all just go naked.

Religion In Politics

On Tuesday, the presumption Republican nominee for president announced an “executive council of evangelical advisors.” If anything should have your ready to protest in the buff, this should. No one does more to harm civil rights, women’s reproductive rights, and LGBT rights than do evangelicals. That a presidential candidate would embrace such hate and allow them to give him advice on policy should frighten every American. Why these people think they have any right to stick their nose into anyone else’s business defies reason. Our Constitution dictates separation of Church and State for a damn good reason. Don’t talk to me about imaginary second amendment rights when first amendment rights are taking a greater beating.

Freedom of the Press

Yes, journalism and the distribution of information, in general, has some issues. However, for all their faults, we still need these news producers to keep us informed at an introductory level. We may have to dig to find the truth of a story, but we wouldn’t know about the story at all without them. We’ve already talked about this to some degree, and watching how a billionaire is gleefully sending Gawker into bankruptcy extends our concern even more. The presumption GOP nominee for president has also banned several media sources from his events because he doesn’t like their criticism. Freedom of the Press is a critical element to our democracy. Getting naked to protest infringement upon that freedom should be a no-brainer.

Global Warming & Science Denial

Maybe we can stage this protest outside; just be sure to bring plenty of sunscreen. The ongoing denial of science in general, and specifically the matter of global warming, is both worrisome and dangerous. Global warming itself is not something that changes based upon how many people believe. The effects of the problem, the consequences of our inaction, are going to happen whether we pay them any attention or not. Do we wait until we’re neck-deep in water or our children are sunburned while waiting on the school bus before we begin a large-scale protest? This is another topic that seems natural for nudity as well. If we don’t do something, we’ll all need thermal shields.

Rape Culture

One of the most disturbing things I’ve read today is the account of a German model who was raped and then, adding insult to injury, fined because the judge doesn’t think she was actually raped. This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit and warrants a protest of thousands of naked women marching through the streets. Why naked? Because there is no better way to emphasize that a women, alone, is in control of her body. Her being naked does not justify rape. Her wearing short skirts or high-heeled shoes is not inviting rape. Being drunk or high is not a license for rape. It’s time to put this rape culture to an end.

Costs of College Education

I was special and took five years to finish college. Paying for it was a challenge and when I finished the amount of debt felt like a horrible burden around my neck. However, my debt over 30 years ago was less than $20,000. Today, students pay that much or more per year. Have classes improved that much? No. Have non-athletic facilities improved that much? No. Has the value of a college degree improved that much? Hell no. Yet, if anyone wants a job, even an easy one requiring no skill, the preference is for college graduates. Naked bodies lying all across the quad at homecoming sounds like an honorable protest to me.

Restrictions On The Human Body

Why aren’t we seeing any nude protests? Largely because, in most places, they are illegal. Or, we think they are. The Supreme Court has already ruled that being naked is a viable form of protest and political expression. We are still stymied, though, by so-called decency laws that confusing to read and legally fraught with error. Police see a naked person, or a group of naked people, and assume they must be doing something wrong. We must fight for our right to use our bodies, unclothed and unencumbered, as a means of expression and protest. There’s no logical way this protest cannot be naked.

I’m sure there are more things that might benefit from naked protest. I’ll leave you to decide what those might be. What’s clear, though, is that when large enough groups of voters become passionate enough about an issue, legislators listen. I cannot think of a more important issue than our bodies. I cannot think of a stronger means of protest. If I start, will you follow?

Fashion / PotD

An Ethical Wardrobe

June 8, 2016

A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives. —Albert Schweitzer

charles i. letbetter - an ethical wardrobe

We need clothes. We want clothes. But must each purchase we make hurt someone else? Can one have an ethical wardrobe?

I had a wardrobe crisis occur a couple of weeks ago. I looked down at my shoes, the one pair of black, slip-resistant shoes I’ve worn every day for over a year and a half, and saw a hole. I knew what was coming next. Because of the unbalanced nature of my walk, the right shoe always wears a hole in the same place: the inside seam where the upper meets the sole. Every time. The hole starts small enough but expands quickly and is not repairable. I was going to have to buy new shoes.

I hate having to buy clothes. I especially dislike having to buy new clothes as long as there is a reasonable and ethical alternative. Shoes, however, are the one thing I’ve learned to buy new, and to spend a little money. Sure, I could go to a discount shoe place and get a pair for$20, but I’m lucky if those last six months. I want a pair of shoes that lasts at least a year, longer if I don’t wear them every day. Shoes are a justifiable expense. Sort of. I still look for sales and ended up actually purchasing two pair so that neither wears out quite so quickly. I shouldn’t have to buy shoes again for at least three-four years.

That logic doesn’t apply to everything in my wardrobe, though. There is very little in my wardrobe that is less than five years old. I have a couple of sweaters that I’ve retired after 15 years of wearing and washing. About half the black shirts I wear every day are over ten years old. When I do occasionally need to replace one, thrift stores make more sense than do department or fast fashion stores. By shopping for previously worn clothes, I’m keeping something out of a landfill, which is often as much as 30% discarded clothing. It’s an ethical thing for me, not really a standard to which I hold anyone else.

If you’ve seen me, you know my personal style is not exactly on-trend. I soon could be, perhaps. Marc Jacobs has officially declared 1980s retro back in style. The problem with that, on a personal level, is that I’m about 436 sizes larger now than I was in the 80s. Even if I still had all those stylish (cough-cough) threads from back then, there’s no way that I would still be able to fit my ample dad body into clothes that did a good job of making my butt look almost attractive (something that was much more a concern then than it is now). Does that mean I can ethically justify buying new clothes that look like the clothes I wore 30 years ago? Probably not.

Having an ethical wardrobe is more important to me than having a stylish ensemble for every day. There are multiple reasons for holding that view, but fundamental to that reasoning is that I don’t want to get dressed every morning knowing that what I’m wearing was assembled by a child in Bangladesh who is thrilled to be making $73 a month and is using all that to help support his/her family. Yes, I really do think about those things in the dark at 4:00 AM. I’m also not a fan of adding to Amancio Ortega’s $57 billion empire (he own’s Zara, among other fashion-related things). I’m especially not a fan of ripping off designers, which is what fast fashion retailers do on a daily basis.

The ethical implications of what I have in my closet are significant. I’m not ignorant of the ethical challenges that occur in the fashion world. I know that what I buy individually, while it may seem small and insignificant on one level, becomes part of a greater whole. When I make a purchase, no matter where or what it is, I am aligning myself with a larger group of people making like-minded decisions and it is in the rise and fall of those groups from which trends are set. If I want to encourage a trend away from cheaply-sourced materials, then I have to refrain from buying cheaply sourced materials. Likewise, buying clothes manufactured in New York’s garment district, for example, encourages domestic production in an environment where workers are more likely to be treated fairly.

Still, if the 80s are indeed coming back … how do I not get in on some of that action? I felt good about my fashion choices back then. I had multiple pairs of Levi’s 501 jeans back then, and they were still being made in Northern California at the time. Levi’s has moved production south of the border though and I’m not sure one can even find 501 jeans in the store anymore. Shopping directly from Marc Jacob’s isn’t a financial option, either. How do I enjoy this momentary global lapse of stylish sanity while still holding to the ethical standards I’ve set for my wardrobe?

A couple of years ago, a Canadian artist, Sarah Lazarovic, wrote a book, A Bunch Of Pretty Things I Did Not Buy. This very interesting young woman went a full year without buying any new clothes. None. I know a lot of people who would begin to hyperventilate at the thought of going more than a week without making a new purchase of some kind. The book is quite interesting and, while everything she has to say may not align with someone else’s specific situation, she did come up with this interesting pyramid she calls the “buyerarchy of needs” to help one make a bit more sense of their fashion purchases. While she is not preaching a strict ethical behavior, the implications and applications are there. Take a look:

The Buyerarchy of Needs. Copyright Sarah Lazarovic

The concept is pretty straight forward. Buying something new should be the last option. Using what you have, perhaps even repurposing what you have, should be where we all start. There’s no good reason why we should be completely turning over our wardrobes every few months. If you’re looking at a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing, consider borrowing from someone who’s already been there. Kat and her friends swap clothes back and forth, both adult and children’s. Thrift, and I would add Vintage, shopping are my personal preference (though, I would warn, not everything in a vintage shop is necessarily original from that period). Making things yourself is one of those things that varies from person to person. I’m useless in that department.

Does that mean that I still don’t watch labels for where garments are made? No, not at all. Even when I’m thrift or vintage shopping I still look at labels and avoid those I know are unethically sourced. But, following the precepts of this pyramid brings us a lot closer to having an ethical wardrobe than we might achieve on our own.

Again, the standards I set for myself are not necessarily applicable to anyone else. You have to decide for yourself whether an ethical approach to shopping is even a concern. But for me, whether I’m buying a new pair of shoes or a t-shirt to replace the one that just disintegrated in the wash, how I shop matters. A lot.

Advertising / Fashion / Original Style / PotD

Beauty Becomes A Battlefield

June 6, 2016

Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears. —Edgar Allan Poe

charles i. letbetter - beauty becomes a battlefield.

The beauty industry has played for years to women wanting to look beautiful, but today women don’t want their help.

Beauty is big business. In the United States alone, cosmetics companies rake in over $60 billion a year. Proctor & Gamble and L’Oréal alone have a combined global revenue in excess of $115 billion. That’s not even starting to figure in on what is spent at salons and spas. People want to look better because, more than anything, it helps them to feel better about themselves. Perhaps it is a little vain, but as long as the individual is doing it for themselves, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to spruce up one’s image a bit.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people running around who think we all should look better than we do.

No, scratch that, they think women should look better than they do. Just try to find an employee handbook that tells men they need to come to work with makeup. I’d offer to wait but I already know you’re not going to find anything. Beauty is sexist because society is sexist and the biases and attitudes that were encoded in the 1950s have never really gone away, no matter how advanced we like to think we have become. Women are still expected to wear makeup, to make themselves “look better” than they naturally do, and an entire industry depends on women buying into that concept that they just don’t look good enough.

Men have never been taught that they need to do anything to their appearance beyond, depending upon social trends, maybe shave occasionally. You don’t see ads for men’s wrinkle cream. You don’t see ads telling men they need longer lashes. You don’t see men telling them they need to look “flawless.” Yet, women are bombarded with those very instructions every day and if they don’t succumb to those expectations, they can sometimes lose their jobs.

The battle between women and society over makeup is not a new one, but it may be reaching a fervor. Last year, actress Demi Lavato started a trend using the hashtag #NoMakeupMonday. About the same time, the hashtag #Iwokeuplikethis began appearing. By the end of the year, the two hashtags had appeared on Instagram over 10 million times. The craze caught on and big name models and stars such as Taylor Swift, Cindy Crawford, and Gwenyth Paltrow have all posted bare-faced photos of themselves. Of course, they then went immediately and put on makeup.

The latest volley from the #nomakup side came last week when singer Alicia Keys announced that she’s not wearing makeup. Ever. In her article for the magazine Lenny, the singer says:

In one song I wrote, called “When a Girl Can’t Be Herself,” it says,

In the morning from the minute that I wake up / What if I don’t want to put on all that makeup / Who says I must conceal what I’m made of / Maybe all this Maybelline is covering my self-esteem

No disrespect to Maybelline, the word just worked after the maybe. But the truth is … I was really starting to feel like that — that, as I am, I was not good enough for the world to see.

This started manifesting on many levels, and it was not healthy.

Every time I left the house, I would be worried if I didn’t put on makeup: What if someone wanted a picture?? What if they POSTED it??? These were the insecure, superficial, but honest thoughts I was thinking. And all of it, one way or another, was based too much on what other people thought of me.

The cover art for her new album is a picture of Ms. Keys, straight from the gym, no makeup, no styling, nothing. Of course, she’s beautiful.

But is that all it takes to undo decades of chauvinistic attitudes toward beauty? And, isn’t this expectation that everyone needs to be running around sans makeup just as bad as one that says everyone needs makeup? If someone else is setting the standard, isn’t one just as bad as the other?

Back in December of last year, Flare magazine published an open letter to Demi Levato that addresses that very situation. In that article, they raise the issue that there cannot be just one standard of beauty that magically fits all the women around the world. About halfway through the article, they make this statement:

It’s not the tyranny of makeup that women need to fight back against, but the tyranny of appearance. And when we post #nomakeup selfies, we’re replacing one beauty standard with another. Scratch that—we’re actually upholding an almost identical beauty standard. We’re just making it a lot harder to achieve by telling the women of the world that not only are they supposed to look like Goop or Rih-Rih or the ethereal goddess running across a field in your J.Crew catalogue—now they’re supposed to do it without the assistance of makeup.

And here women find themselves feeling as though they can’t please anyone. If they wear makeup, that’s feeding a negative stereotype. If they don’t wear makeup, they’re still feeding a negative bias that says they have to look a certain way. When does a woman get to choose how she looks because that’s how she wants to look?

Last April comedienne Amy Schumer took on the issue by parodying One Direction’s “What Makes You Beautiful” and in doing so makes the point that pushing a #nomakeup standard is just as superficial as insisting that a woman must wear makeup every day for every occasion. Both are wrong. Both need to stop. The video is hilarious, so of course, I had to share:

Whether one likes makeup or not, what ultimately matters is that you look the way you want to look. Society has no business defining what is best, or preferable, or even professional. We haven’t even touched on the topic of modifications such as piercings and dermals. The only person who can define your beauty is you and if that includes makeup, that’s fine. No one has any room to criticize what makes you feel like the best and most beautiful you.

Fashion / Photography / PotD

Film Returns To Fashion

May 27, 2016

What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything. —Aaron Siskind

While camera makers talk about breaking the 100-megapixel threshold, fashion editors are turning to film for their editorials

Film photography is wonderful, and in many ways, I still prefer it to digital. There is an artistry to using a film camera that is lost with a digital box that does most the thinking for you. Clients have to trust their photographer more, a lot more, and the photographer’s own talent and skill set actually matter. Working with film requires a bit more imagination, a bit more creativity, and a lot more precision. I love it.

So, you’d think that when Business of Fashion publishes an article headlined, “Fashion Photographers Return To Film,” I would be thrilled, right? Get out the old analog cameras, drop some Kodak TMax in the back, and let’s get rolling, right?

Hold on, not so fast. There are some issues here before we all dump our digitals. As enticing as the article makes film photography sound, and it does do such a good job of highlighting the positive aspects of using film, We have to consider whether this trend is sustainable and, beyond that, whether or not it even makes good sense. Let’s take a look at the issues the article doesn’t mention.

The article highlights the work of four very talented but nonetheless young photographers. This looks like fashion photography’s hipster movement and, like everything else hipster, just because the elements are “retro,” doesn’t mean we “old folks,” you know, the ones with all the experience in film are invited to participate. Nevermind that we begrudgingly made the switch to digital some twelve or so years ago. This is a youth-focused retro moment and just because we old guys can do film better doesn’t mean anyone is going to pay attention.
The retro styling of film photography matches the retro movement within the fashion industry itself. Void of any serious creativity for the past several seasons, fashion has gotten stuck looking back, especially at the late 1960s and 70s stylings. The film look works for those fashion lines because it matches the clothing lines. Should fashion ever decide to snap itself out of this ridiculous trend and actually do something creative, that film look isn’t likely to be as appropriate.
The support system is no longer present. When photographers made the switch to digital, and we all did it pretty much within the span of three to five years, we killed off a lot of people’s jobs. Prepress shops are virtually extinct now. There are still a handful of color houses running around the country, but the dramatic decrease in volume has forced them to severely increase their prices. No one even makes black-and-white paper anymore and the film options themselves have severely diminished. 20 years ago, AGFA and Kodak were invested heavily in imagesetters, but neither company even sells those behemoths now (though you can still pick up used devices if you’re really desperate). While I suppose that support system could be revitalized if everyone started using film again, there’s no indication that’s about to happen.
Even if one shoots on film, magazine layout is still digital. Again, the extinction of prepress shops is critical here. Everyone uses digital layout methods now and going back to analog just to accommodate a photography style doesn’t make sense. That means, even if the image is shot on film, it still has to be scanned and digitized and is likely to be photoshopped. That means the images being used are no more “pure” than those shot with a Canon EOS 5D. Bodies can still be reshaped, colors can still be manipulated, errors can still be fixed. So, what’s the point in using film, again?
The photography industry, as a whole, no longer supports film for general professional use. Canon has been showing off a 120-megapixel prototype that could, allegedly, be on the market later this year. Hasselblad’s H6d also offers a 100-megapixel option in full-frame medium format. Meanwhile, Sony continues pushing mirrorless options that grow increasingly sharper with each new update. Even the quality of cell phone cameras is growing rapidly. The photography industry is done with film and has moved on. I don’t see it backtracking. Ever.

I gotta admit, though, the lure of going back to film sure as hell sounds enticing, doesn’t it? To hear that click/whir of an auto film advance, the ability to get really creative and do multiple exposures on camera, trading backs from polaroid to TMax, and just the way a good, solid film box feels in your hand are all pieces of photographic nostalgia that I sometimes miss.

But without prepress and color shops, we’d all have to do our own processing. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t have room to safely set up a dark room anymore. Even if I did, do I really want those highly-flammable chemicals in my house? Yeah, I know we didn’t give it a second thought 30 years ago, but once we came out from under the influence of those fumes we started seeing just how dangerous an improperly ventilated dark room could be. Then, there are the costs. Products more difficult to find, there aren’t as many options, paper is horribly expensive, and you still have to pay for a high-end drum scan to have the image digitized at sufficient quality. My estimates are a final price tag of about $150 per 8″x10″ image! I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s well outside my budget!

I love the idea of using film for fashion shoots; it certainly fits a number of different styles currently on the market. I fear it’s little more than a pseudo-hipster, anti-establishment, anti-capitalistic trend, though, and like all trends, this will pass. The world is digital now. The world relies on digital imagery and the information a picture can carry in its data packets. As much as we love film, we’re not going back.

Sob.

Current Issues / Fashion / Music / PotD

Shoveling Through Another Monday

May 23, 2016

Cleaning your house while your kids are still growing up is like shoveling the walk before it stops snowing. —Phyllis Diller

When you’ve had such a good weekend, why does the universe feel the need to ruin that with a Monday?

Shoveling through digital tons of information seems to be the modern equivalent of going into work on a Monday morning and finding your inbox stacked five feet high. I have a feeling only government offices still use actual inboxes, given their penchant for wasting paper, but most everyone going to work today is going to find one of their first tasks to be shoveling their way through the detritus whether that be actual bottles left from consumed beverages or mountains of information that were blissfully ignored. Perhaps, like me, you have plenty of both.

I think one of the first things needing to be removed from the pile and set to the side is the fact that Canadian driver James Hinchcliffe won the pole position for the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500. I know most of the people reading this couldn’t care less about the 500, but what makes this story worth shoveling out of the pile is that one year ago today, the day after qualifying, Hinchcliff crashed into Turn 3, right here in my backyard, and nearly bled to death. With head and spinal cord injuries, it is amazing that he is even driving a golf cart, let alone rounding the 2.5-mile oval at speeds averaging 230.760 miles per hour. The strength and determination required to pull off this kind of comeback should be inspiring for a Monday morning.

Apparently the Billboard Music Awards were last night. I didn’t watch them, but if we’re shoveling we probably want to include this in the save pile somewhere. I can’t say anything authoritative, since I was sound asleep through most of it, but Billboard has posted their choices for 10 best performances of the night. Apparently Madonna did a tribute to Prince, Celine Dion sang in tribute to her late husband, René Angélil, and Britney Spears performed a tribute to herself. Or something like that. I do know that you should probably avoid the comments section of any performance you might see. The trolls were out in force last night and spread their hate and nonsense across the whole show.

Did you know that the used sneaker market nets over $1 billion annually? WTF? I thought it was strange when a “vintage” sneaker store popped up in a local mall a couple of years ago, but the number of people collecting limited release shoes has grown into a full-fledged part of the fashion industry. Does it make a lick of sense? Not really, but it does make for great conversation. Oh, and before you go shoveling your old sneakers out of your closet, one of the conditions to keeping the prices on these shoes stupidly high is that they’ve not actually been worn. Business Insider has a great piece on the industry. People who spend this much on shoes they can’t wear have no room to be making fun of geeks who buy toys they’ll never play with.

For those of you who enjoy shoveling politics, especially if you are my age or older, you’re going to either love or hate or love to hate this next one: The US is getting cozy again with Vietnam. Let that sink in a minute. During his visit there yesterday, President Obama announced the lifting of a decades-old arms embargo to the island nation where so many thousands of troops died in the one war the United States unquestionably lost. There’s a good, or at least understandable, reason for the move, though: China’s getting feisty in the region. While the President denies such reasoning on an official basis, Vietnam has been rather public in its concern regarding how China has been throwing its weight around in the South China Sea. Specifically, with island bases encroaching ever closer, China could send planes from one of those islands and bomb Hanoi in less than an hour. Vietnam is scared and we’ve seen this before. Be concerned.

Finally, today is #WorldTurtleDay. In the never-ending stream of special days and tributes, this is one that doesn’t annoy us quite as much. I mean, who can get angry about a turtle. In fact, I’m guessing a lot of us resemble turtles with the pace we’re moving today. These are some of the longest-living creatures on the planet, though. If moving a little (or a lot) slower is the key to a happy and longer life, then maybe we should start paying attention to the lessons they have to teach. Turtles are incredibly cool, even if they aren’t mutant teenagers chomping down on pizza.

Most of what I’m seeing this morning deserves to be shoveled right into the dumpster. There is an incredible amount of meaningless noise that serves no other purpose than to be a distraction. Shoveling to bulk out of the way is our best hope of sorting out what’s really important. I won’t say that it will make your Monday any better. Some of what I’m seeing rather sucks if one is deep in the stock market or heavily involved in retail. Still, just getting rid of the piles of stuff at least creates the illusion that you’re doing work or something like that.

With all that comes at you today, just keep shoveling and try to not throw out your back in the process.

Fashion

I’ve got seven kids. The three words you hear most around my house are ‘hello’, ‘goodbye’, and ‘I’m pregnant’. —Dean Martin

Those Meddling Kids

Some Things Need To Die

Not Letting Them Off The Hook

Share this:

Like this:

I am convinced that there can be luxury in simplicity. —Jil Sander

I Gave At The Office

Faking The Luxury Thing

A Lack Of Empathy

A Little Kindness Goes A Long Way

Share this:

Like this:

You really do have the license during fashion week to wear the things that you wouldn’t necessarily wear to dinner, because it really is a fashion parade. —Brad Goreski

What We Know

Consumers Want Current Season

Discounters Rule

Hang On For A Wild Ride

Share this:

Like this:

Yeah, I know I’m ugly… I said to a bartender, ‘Make me a zombie.’ He said ‘God beat me to it.’ —Rodney Dangerfield

This Gets Personal

Dangerous Beauty

The Spirit of Caveat Emptor

Freedom To Be Stupid

The Battle Is Yours

Share this:

Like this:

If you don’t look good, we don’t look good. —Vidal Sassoon

A Fatalistic Approach To Advertising

Leave A Good-looking Corpse

Dressing For Death

Share this:

Like this:

I always say: To be well dressed you must be well naked. —Oscar de la Renta

We Have Our Reasons

Not So Easily Defined

How You Should Get Dressed

Share this:

Like this:

There is much to support the view that it is clothes that wear us, and not we, them; we may make them take the mould of arm or breast, but they mould our hearts, our brains, our tongues to their liking. —Virginia Woolf

About The Book

About The Fashion

About The Presentation

Share this:

Like this:

There is nothing more miserable in the world than to arrive in paradise and look like your passport photo. —Erma Bombeck

The Joy Of A Photo

Share this:

Like this:

Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities. —Pope Francis

Reason To Be Concerned

Everyone Is Affected

Responding Appropriately

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion doesn’t look good only on models; it can look good on different people of different ages and different body shapes. —Alber Elbaz

Designers Swapping Seats

A Little Less Fur

What Season Is This?

A Little More Security

Side Glance To Retail.

We Can’t Stop Watching

Share this:

Like this:

In Hollywood, brides keep the bouquets and throw away the groom. —Groucho Marx

Budget-Conscious Brides

Alternative Brides

Older Brides

Happily Ever After

Share this:

Like this:

I’m confident – confident in my skin, and I’m cool with my flaws and all that stuff. —Minka Kelly

You’re Wearing Who?

Who Can Be Worn?

What Are The Odds?

Imagine The Possibilities

Share this:

Like this: