A Better Size System For Fashion

A Better Size System For Fashion

April 6, 2016

Life is too short, and I’m Italian. I’d much rather eat pasta and drink wine than be a size 0. —Sophia Bush

charles i. letbetter - a better size system for fashion

Size labels won’t fix the problem of weight shaming, but it may change how we think of ourselves

This isn’t a new conversation, but the fact that we are still talking, regularly, about body size and weight shaming is itself a symptom of a larger problem that doesn’t have a simple solution. The human race has, as far back as anyone can tell, judged people by their size. At certain points in our history, being larger was considered more attractive because it was a sign of wealth that one had enough food to eat. Our obsession with being thin did not happen until the twentieth century, but body size has always been an issue.

While doing a bit of research, I came across a very interesting quote:

I felt like a loser. I was unhappy as a child most of the time. We were terribly poor and I hated my size.

Do you know who said that? One of the most unlikely people ever: Don Knotts, the late comedic actor known for his thin, wiry frame. A guy who felt bad about his size.

While the topic is not a new one, and not going to go away because of anything I write here, it has taken on a different direction of late. First, comedienne Amy Schumer is upset because she is in Glamour magazine. I know, that doesn’t sound like a horrible thing, but the problem she has is that she was included in the magazine’s special plus-size edition. Schumer wrote on her Instagram account:

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women. Plus size is considered size 16 in America. I go between a size 6 and an 8. @glamourmag put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn’t feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? “

Glamour responded:

“First off, we love Amy, and our readers do too — which is why we featured her on the cover of Glamour last year. The cover line on this special edition — which is aimed at women size 12 and up — simply says ‘Women Who Inspire Us,’ since we believe her passionate and vocal message of body positivity IS inspiring, as is the message of the many other women, of all sizes, featured. The edition did not describe her as plus-size. We are sorry if we offended her in any way.”

Still, more than a few people have noted that the very act of producing a special “plus size” issue further marginalizes anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotypical thin shape society expects from women.

Then, almost simultaneously but on a different part of the planet, Model Iskra Lawrence dealt handily with a troll who attempted to fat shame her. Lawrence, who is a bit of a gym rat, didn’t hesitate to post a picture of herself covered in bags of chips (known as crisps across the pond) and letting the troll know she’ll eat what she damn well wants. Scroll on down Ms. Lawrence’s feed and you’ll find some impressive pictures of her in the gym doing squats with more weight on her shoulders than I know I could manage.

Fighting against weight shaming is an eternal battle that, because of how some people respond to their own negative feelings of self-worth, is likely to never go away. Yet, I cannot help but think that we aggravate the problem with how we label both clothes and people. As mentioned in the Schumer/Glamour dustup, anything size 12 and higher is considered “plus” sized, but even women who wear size 4-10 often find themselves being ridiculed for not being a model-worthy size 0 or 2.

While changing the labels won’t make the problem go away, perhaps if we re-think how clothes sizes are named we can, at least, provide both men and women with something that doesn’t immediately demean them when they take an item off the store rack. Why not replace numbered sizes or even the more general small, medium, large, etc. with labels that provide a more general definition without being insulting. Here’s what I’m thinking for new labels:

Casual would be similar to what we now consider a medium size. Hips might be more full, waistlines more forgiving, but within a range appropriate for the average person.
Fit might be a more appropriate label for those who take body tone seriously. Waistlines might be tapered, but not too small, shoulders would be more accommodating, and trouser legs would be full so that those calf and thigh muscles would have room.
Sensible seems to make sense for the next size range up, as this would encompass those whose skeletal structures would never allow them to fit into smaller clothes no matter what they tried. Millions, if not billions, of people fit into this range that is not trim, but still quite healthy with nothing to be ashamed of.
Abundant might be more appropriate for that size range higher than what is currently a size 16. Admittedly, for those who fit into the largest of sizes, nothing really takes away the stigma that comes from being compared to those who are smaller. Yet, by using a label that at least has a less-offensive connotation perhaps we can minimize the hurt to some degree.
Attenuated could work for smaller sizes, which can be just as difficult emotionally as larger sizes. Women, especially, whose metabolism runs high are never going to fit well into Casual-sized clothing. Kat is one of those people who typically has to shop in the Misses or Teen section to have any hope of finding something that fits. And that’s despite consuming healthy portions of my cooking.

These are obviously just suggestions and I don’t expect anyone influential to pay any attention. Getting the entire fashion industry to change anything is extremely slow and difficult. Yet, we need to start somewhere and realize that our labeling conventions are helping to shame millions of people who have no cause to be concerned about the size and shape of their bodies. Size labels seem like a good starting point.

Photography / PotD / Published

To Niche Or Not To Niche

April 2, 2016

charles i. letbetter - to niche or not niche

If everybody is doing it one way, there’s a good chance you can find your niche by going exactly in the opposite direction. —Sam Walton

charles i. letbetter - to niche or not to niche

The decision of whether to engage in niche photography can have a dramatic effect not only upon one’s income, but the development of one’s style

[Ed. note: We are traveling again this morning, so I’ve reached back into the archives for something of interest. This article was originally published January 12, 2008. I’ve had to update a couple of references and clean up some grammar references, but the rest of the article still holds. If anything, the question now might be whether one needs to expand outside photography as well. Either way, this is still good conversation fodder.]

“What kind of photography do you do?”

Some form of that question follows most every introduction of a photographer. The question is hedged in some anticipation that the answer might bring exciting stories of wonderful places visited or exciting adventures behind the camera. General expectation is that no photographer is simply a photographer; some definitive adjective must precede the noun so as to give one’s audience a reasonable concept of one’s range of work.

Socially, such labels help avoid confusion. A wedding photographer hardly desires to be confused with a pet photographer any more than an architectural photographer wants his work to be labeled as landscape photography. However, as digital photography continues to revolutionize the industry, one does well to question conventional wisdom regarding the value of declaring too narrow a niche.

Not all that long ago, niche photography was a matter of practical and economical necessity. Different styles of work required unique and often specialized equipment, much of which required considerable investment to produce professional quality work. Different types of film, some of which were quite expensive, were necessary for some types of special work. To maintain an inventory of such a wide variety of equipment and film makes little to no sense for most photographers. Rather, it has been more reasonable to select a specialty that one enjoys and pursue that field specifically.

Digital capabilities challenge the equation somewhat. What once was only reasonably shot with a medium- or large- format film camera can now often be more than adequately photographed with high-end digital equipment, equipment that, with the mere switch of a lens, is just as appropriate for taking pictures of a nephew’s bar mitzvah. Even projects requiring extreme enlargement, projects which ten years ago might have required the construction of a special camera and expensive, proprietary film, can now be shot with Canon’s newest 50+ megapixel 35mm camera.

What declaring a niche unquestionably does is allow a photographer to seriously focus on the methodology and styles of a specific genre. Architectural photographers need to stay abreast of changes in that industry just as fashion photographers are constantly watching the latest clothing styles and designers. Focusing on a specific specialty allows one to excel in that area, rather than being mediocre across a wider range.

Niche photography also allows one to more narrowly focus one’s marketing initiatives. Wedding photographers need exposure at bridal shows, landscape photographers don’t. Wildlife photographers don’t need the attention of editors at Sports Illustrated as does a sport or swimwear photographer. Marketing is expensive and can consume considerable time and resources. The more narrowly one can target their primary customer, the more effective the marketing effort.

A photographer chooses a niche based on the type work one most enjoys doing. Sports photographers are every bit as passionate about getting that one-in-a-million touchdown or slam dunk shot as a landscape photographer may be regarding the perfect sunset, or a wedding photographer capturing the perfect moment in a newlyweds’ kiss. If one is not enjoying what they are doing, it is questionable whether there is any real value in even picking up the camera; not that every moment is full of wonder and bliss, but that the passion for the work exceeds the pain of the downfalls. Taking pictures simply for the paycheck inevitably results in modest photography with little to no real lasting value.

Countering the philosophy of niche photography is the very real fact that more people than ever are picking up reasonably professional cameras and attempting to make a profession of their endeavors. On one hand, anyone true to the art of photography must be excited to see what has previously been a fairly exclusive field become more open to creative and experimental minds, especially younger photographers whose imaginations have not yet been completely shut down by reality. At the same time, however, the general accessibility of digital photography combined with the repairing and reconstructive capabilities of software have dramatically decreased the demand and value of professional photographic work. Metaphorically speaking, there is less pie to be shared at a time where there are more feet under the table. Such dilution brings into sharp questioning the validity of limiting oneself to a specific niche.

The artistic and marketing benefits of niche work have not gone away, mind you. What has changed is the fiscal viability of such limitation. Whereas one might have previously made a quite comfortable living as a wedding photographer, the field has been besieged over the past few years with newcomers who view the field simply as a way to pick up some extra money on the weekend. These “weekend wannabes” charge considerably lower prices than full-time professionals because they do not value their weekend hours as does one whose whole income depends on the work. Given that brides are always on a budget, the lower prices are attractive to customers who may not be especially quality-conscious.

Similar gluts have damaged the fields of fashion, glamor, travel, portrait, family and many advertising-related niches. Adding to the dilution is the increasingly prevalent use of online stock photography, which is generally cheaper and ready on demand. All these factors combined make economic dependence on a single niche of photography extremely difficult. As a result, one must seriously question whether limiting work to a narrowly defined niche still makes sense.

Expanding one’s range is a difficult and challenging decision, but may be one photographers can no longer avoid. Despite public opinion and casual observance, there is a considerable difference to be found between shooting weddings and photographing models. Family photography may seem tightly connected to infant photography, but the lighting and elemental differences between the two are dramatic. Just because a photographer is gifted in a specific area does not make them equally capable in others.

Photography instructors have long challenged students to shoot a wide range of subjects. Indeed, when someone asks me how to get started in photography I pass along the same instruction given to me by a grizzled and war-worn journalism photographer: grab a camera and shoot dirt. The basic lessons of light, focus, and depth-of-field are not subject dependent. One learns and develops most readily by simply keeping camera in hand and shooting life as it occurs. As one develops more fully in the craft, one then learns how certain elements react differently to changes in light, diffusion, and reflection. Keeping a wide-open perspective on the craft enables one to deepen both knowledge and appreciation.

Perhaps the time has come for the professional photographer to more widely apply that universal approach to their work; not advocating that one abandon their niche, but to expand intelligently upon one’s area of expertise, exploring secondary areas of interests as they apply to one’s own personality, background, and resource availability. Still vital is the notion that one must, unquestionably, hold some passion for their work, but just as a couple may expand their love for each other to their children without diminishing the original relationship, so can a photographer find pleasure in more than one niche without sacrificing expertise in their major field.

Another concept more photographers might do well to consider is to form more photographer’s cooperatives, such as the famed Magnum Group. Formed in 1947 by four war-weary photographers (Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Roger and David Seymour), this member-owned agency has grown both in terms of scope and prestige. Over the ensuing years, the prestigious list of names has expanded dramatically, as have the enviable accolades and awards, ultimately bringing success to Magnum’s members that they likely would not have achieved on their own. Such cooperatives well serve a photographer’s ability to maintain focus on a particular niche while benefiting from the combined marketing effort and reputation of the group. Cooperatives require extremely careful pairing of personalities, however. Members must be more committed to the camaraderie of the group than serving their own egos. Roles and responsibilities must be carefully considered and well defined. More cooperatives have failed than succeeded in the past. Yet, this may well be a time when membership in such a group is the best way for a photographer to maintain viability.

Photography is a tremendously wide-ranging field and the opportunities within it are enormous. Those who excel will always be the ones who have an undying and unalterable passion for their work. Just how narrowly one defines that passion, however, is a matter worthy of careful and studied consideration.

Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology

Can Fashion Separate From Religion?

March 31, 2016

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Religion has always influenced fashion, so what would happen if they were completely separate?

Here’s a question for the water cooler this morning: Would modesty still remain a moral virtue if it wasn’t mandated by religion? Think about that for a moment. All our laws and social expectations regarding the necessity of being clothed in public; the very concept that the activity in which one is engaged determines the appropriateness of what one is wearing is heavily influenced by religion.

We reported earlier this year about Dolce and Gabanna introducing a new line specifically for Arab women. Many celebrated that move as forward thinking and very supportive of a community the fashion industry had largely ignored. However, when Marks & Spencer began selling their burkinis (full body swimwear) in their European stores, including England, not everyone was happy. Most notably, France’s women’s rights minister Laurence Rossignol told The Daily Express:

“What’s at stake is social control over women’s bodies. When brands invest in this Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities and are promoting women’s bodies being locked up.

“You cannot pass off as trivial and harmless the fact that big brands are investing in a market that puts Muslim women in a situation of having to wear that.

“It is irresponsible on the part of these brands. All those who participate in how society is represented have a responsibility.”

Then, on the heels of that statement, both WWD and British Vogue published stories this morning with comments from Yves Saint Laurent’s co-founder and the designer’s long-time personal partner, Pierre Bergé. Bergé used some rather strong and potentially inflammatory language in denouncing what he sees as fashion designers going for a quick buck. Bergé’s comments were on radio station Europe1 and reported by The Guardian:

“Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion. Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.

“These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

One one level, it would seem that both Ms. Rossignol and Bergé are standing up for women’s rights. After all, if the full-body covering commonly attributed to Muslim women were, in fact, a symbol of their unwilling slavery, then by all means, the criticism would be appropriate.

However, such statements are made in ignorance of the fact that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqa and hajib and other modest clothing not because they are enslaved, but as a sign of their faith and devotion to their religion. To Muslim women of faith, dressing modestly is not “abominable” but rather a statement of how committed they are to Islam. These are choices these women have made for themselves, not something that was forced upon them.

If it is “irresponsible” for designers to provide choices for women of Islamic faith, then is it not equally irresponsible to facilitate the choices of women who practice any other religion? One can reasonably make the argument that if one religion’s dress code is practical enslavement, then the dress codes of all religions must fall under that same heading. If religious mandates are restrictive and to be abolished, then the fashion industry should immediately stop making the calf-length denim skirts favored by many conservative Christian women. So too, should they stop incorporating Hindu styles such as chador, kameez, and kurta into their styles, something which has been immensely popular among Indian women. Even traditional pagan clothing, most notably the long cloaks and capes that we’ve seen frequently on runways the past two seasons, would have to be forbidden. Oh, and by all means, let’s do away with those little gold crosses every teenage girl seems to wear.

Fashion has always been influenced by the religions of its wearers because religion influences most every aspect of society and the lives of those who believe. Because a designer may not hold to any one belief system is no reason for them to avoid providing clothing that is popular among women of faith. If anything, it would seem like a fairly astute business decision. Over one and a half billion people are Muslim. More than a billion people are Hindu. Why would a designer not want to provide fashion that speaks to those faiths?

Judging other people because of their religion is easy because judging religion itself is a fairly simple academic exercise. The claims of religions don’t tend to hold up well against arguments of logic and reason. However, while I am not opposed to criticizing religion for a host of reasons, criticizing the people who hold to those religions is absolutely wrong and morally reprehensible. Our failure to tolerate belief systems other than our own is one of the greatest failures of contemporary society.

Fashion designers who provide clothing that meet the restrictions of certain religious guidelines help build social bridges at a time when they are most desperately needed. It is not, as Bergé claims, a denouncing of one’s principals to help someone who believes differently than you. If anything, it is a statement of the strength of one’s faith to work and socialize with those who beliefs are contrary.

Fashion has a chance to help society. There’s no reason to not make the most of that opportunity.

Fashion / Music / PotD

Stardom Quest

March 31, 2016

Whenever I hear that I’m on the brink of stardom, I feel like I want to run into a cave. —Kate Bosworth

Many people are looking for the fast track to stardom, but could that track be a dead end.

As easy as it is for people of my advanced age to look at the current generations of 20-somethings and think them slackers, I have to admit that, in reality, millennials and the Gen-Y folks coming after them seem to have an impressive amount of drive. Stardom seems to be coming to many, and for most of those, it is coming quickly, outside what we might consider “normal channels. Makers of mobile apps can become millionaires literally overnight if their apps become even remotely popular. Appearance on a talent show such as The Voice or American Idol can create a career where none previously existed. The allure of stardom is strong.

The Twittersphere went apoplectic yesterday when model/reality star Emily Ratajkowski posted the following picture:

However sexual our bodies may be, we need to hve the freedom as women to choose whn & how we express our sexuality. pic.twitter.com/1KK0MtXRuv

— Emily Ratajkowski (@emrata) March 30, 2016

Given Ms. Ratajkowski’s rather untraditional rise to stardom, hitching her wagon to that of another reality star of even bigger fame seems to make sense. Mind you, I’m not saying the message behind the tweets is in any way insincere, but this brand of do-it-yourself stardom requires constant maintenance; one has to create ways of constantly remaining in the public eye or one’s star begins to fade.

Retail fashion consultantAdheer Bahulkar wrote an article for WWD earlier this week which advocates a system wherein fast fashion gives rise to new, “fast” designers. The way he sees it, fast fashion outlets such as H&M and Forever 21 have a high demand for new clothes and by essentially turning young designers into brands themselves, the designers achieve a level of stardom much more quickly than they would through the normal path (which can take years).

The fast strategy of do-it-yourself stardom may be best embodied, though, by pop musician Lady Gaga. Looking at a music industry that was already overcrowded with less-than-spectacular talent, Gaga took the bizarre route with wild costuming and outlandish videos that forced people to stop and stare. After building an audience from sheer spectacle, she then dropped the facade and did an album with old-school crooner Tony Bennet, showing much to the surprise of many, that Gaga actually had the musical talent to justify her fame. Gaga turns 30 soon and already has the world by the tail.

As inviting as the fast track to stardom may seem, though, one might do well to question whether such an approach has any permanence. Too often, those who rise to the top quickly also fall into complete obscurity just as quickly. I can’t help but think of the line from the 1954 movie, On The Waterfront where a washed-up boxer confronts his reality:

You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.

Consider self-made supermodel Kate Upton, who was a mainstay in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition from 2012-2014. She’s been completely absent from those pages the past two years, however, and unless she does something particularly outrageous, no one seems especially inclined to notice. Her stardom is not yet gone, but it has faded significantly.

Consider all those winners of American Idol, America’s Got Talent, The Voice, and even Project Runway. Where are they now? Only American Idol’s season 1 winner Kelly Clarkson has been able to keep hold of the fame given her in that fast track to stardom. The remainder still struggle to get noticed, with their reality show wins sometimes even working to their detriment.

Almost every field that yields celebrity is littered with names that were on everyone’s lips for a moment but are completely unknown to us now. Taking the fast-track to stardom is, more often than not, a roller coaster ride that often leaves one in a worse place than from where they started. At the very best, those who do manage to keep some level of shine find that they have to work even harder to keep from falling into complete obscurity.

Taking the fast track to stardom is tempting and there are so very many talented young people who seem poised to make that leap. Perhaps you are one of them. Just remember that, ultimately, no one makes a long-term career out of luck. Hard work has to happen if anyone is going to make the most of their skill and talent. Choose your path carefully. As arduous as it may seem, slow and steady still wins the race.

Photography

In The Middle Of The Night

March 28, 2016

If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I’ll bet they’d live a lot differently. —Bill Watterson

Finding aspiring models who are willing to tackle the tough shoots can be difficult, but Rachel Williamson jumped in like a champ

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the valley of fear
To a river so deep

And I’ve been searching for something
Taken out of my soul
Something I would never lose
Something somebody stole

The lyrics from Billy Joel’s River of Dreams seemed appropriate as I was editing this set of pictures with model Rachel Williamson. It’s been several years since I’ve had someone willing to get up so very early in the morning to take pictures like this. To find someone who was not only willing but able to pull it off without looking completely worn out is something of a dream.

Not that any of this was easy. Knowing that we would need to be downtown on Mass Ave. no later than 5:00 AM, Rachel and her boyfriend Jake came over the previous evening and spent the night, with poor Jake sleeping on the floor, so we could be sure to get everyone up on time. There would be no missing the shoot due to oversleeping. At 3:00 I was up making coffee and by 3:30 Kat Franson was applying makeup to Rachel’s face and brushing at her hair.

We don’t normally play so rough when shooting a model for the first time, but Rachel came highly recommended by a respected colleague and she had plenty of warning of what to expect from members of Jake’s family, which include model Tiffany Beckett and Sweet F. A.’s J.T. Thorpe. She didn’t back away from any of our suggestions, washed the sleep from her eyes, and brought everything she had before most people were having their first cup of coffee.

After running around the nearly barren streets of Nap Town for about an hour, we still didn’t let Rachel off the hook. We pushed through four additional looks once we returned and she kept going through them all. She didn’t complain a single time. Her poses were just as strong in the last set as they were the first.

I’m always a bit anxious when working with someone for the first time. Just because a model says she’s down for whatever we throw at her doesn’t mean she’s going to handle the situation well. Shooting in the middle of the night is rather extreme, but Rachel did it quite beautifully. We’re looking forward to working with her again very soon. Here’s a sample of the results:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertising / Fashion

Self-Cleaning Clothes Are (Almost) Here!

March 24, 2016

The software program for motherhood is impossible to fully download into the male brain. You give them two tasks and they’re like, ‘I have to change the baby and get the dry cleaning?’ —Allison Pearson

When we shot this photo back in 2011, the idea of self-cleaning clothes was still a fantasy

Seriously, when we mocked up this ad campaign for a fictional brand of self-cleaning fabrics back in 2011, the whole concept seemed absurd. How could clothes possibly ever be both self-cleaning and comfortable? We assumed any such invention was still a generation or two away. We were wrong.

Slackers everywhere can rejoice because the International Business Times – UK is reporting that self-cleaning clothes are, in fact, possible within the next few years. The technology, which is part biology, is cheap, easy to produce, and works off one of the world’s most plentiful sources of energy: sunlight. I know, that last little detail makes our friends in Oregon and Washington state a little less happy, but I’m sure there’s some workaround. Maybe you can take your clothes to the tanning booth, which would be the first time putting a tanning booth in a laundry actually made sense..

The invention comes from a team at RMIT University in Australia and was just published in the journal Advanced Materials Interfaces. What they have done is create special nanostructures that degrade in sunlight or under a light bulb. By growing these nanostructures on fabric, they render the material self-cleaning. Anything that is dropped onto the fabric dissolves once exposed to sufficient sunlight.

Is this not the coolest thing you’ve read all day, or what?

Don’t start throwing out your washing machine just yet, though. There’s still some research yet to go. Primarily, it is still unknown how long it will take to get out severe/stubborn stains like tomato sauce and wine. There’s also a question of how the nanostructures will respond to totally synthetic materials, especially those created by 3D printers. Not many designers are experimenting with those fabrics, yet, so that particular development is one that can be done in conjunction with the progress of the material.

The other bad news for slackers is that while the nanostructures may clean the clothes, they don’t do anything about body odor. Sorry dudes, but you’re going to have to pause that video game long enough to get up and take a shower at least once a week or something. Really. It’s bad.

We also don’t know if one will be able to post-treat clothes that you already have. If not, that means you ‘re going to need that washing machine a lot longer. And speaking of washing machines, what will this do to the whole appliance and laundry industry? I’m sure they’re not exactly welcoming of a technology that could put them completely out of business. There are multiple considerations at play here beyond the immediate advantages for fashion.

Still, the advantages of a self-cleaning fabric are considerable. They’ll make clothes more durable not having to go through the washing machine on a regular basis. Not having to wash all those clothes means less detergent in the water system. Less energy is required to maintain the clothes. Not having to worry about the delicacies of dry cleaning gives designers more freedom to add texture to their designs with sequins, applique, embroidery, and other difficult to clean elements. One would actually be able to wear delicate fabrics more frequently! And imagine what you could do with all the time you’ll save not having to wash clothes!

There’s no promise as to when this new technology may be commercially available, but know that it is possible and it is going to happen. There is hope for an end to the washday blues!

Fashion

No More Fur At Armani

March 23, 2016

You don’t have to wear fur. They make such great fakes. There’s no reason to kill an animal. —Grace Slick

Could this be the beginning of the end for the fur industry

Fur has been a never-ending part of the fashion industry since early man covered himself in animal pelts in an attempt to keep warm. There was a time when fur was not so much a luxury as it was a necessary means of surviving through cold winters. With time, though, we’ve learned to do more with other fabrics that do a much better job of insulating the body from the cold. Today, there is no legitimate need to use furs of any kind in clothing.

Yet, it happens, a lot, especially among French and Italian designers. While a few designers such as Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren have committed to using synthetic furs, and we tend to see more synthetics used by Asian designers, European labels still make heavy use of furs. In fact, for the fall/winter season that was just shown, the use of furs was exceptionally heavy, making at least a token appearance in almost every collection. Italian labels, some of which began as furriers over 100 years ago, have been especially reluctant to drop the material.

So when Giorgio Armani announced yesterday that new technologies “render the use of cruel practices unnecessary as regards animals,” and pledged to end his use of furs beyond the 2016 fall/winter collection, one has to wonder if this is the first domino to drop in a very long-standing chain of European designers. Armani has, for many years, been the most successful and most profitable brand among Italian designers. Armani himself is one of the richest people in the country and carries a lot of influence not only in the fashion community but across all of Italy. If Armani stops using fur, everyone is going to notice.

The whole issue of whether fur is still appropriate for fashion remains a heated debate. On one side, Elisa Allen, Vice-President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) writes that, “… there is no kind way to obtain fur, unless you are willing to go out on the motorway and dodge lorries while scraping dead foxes off the asphalt.”

At the same time, Jan Erik Carlson of Saga furs counters PETA criticism by saying, “We have not yet reached the boundaries of quality, creativity and excellence in fur design.” He claims that high standards in fur production eliminate the cruelty aspect that is so often the primary point of fur’s critics.

While synthetic furs have been used much more frequently, fur production across Europe remains a $40 billion industry. It is questionable whether the faux-fur industry could ever replace that kind of revenue stream, especially when quality among faux furs tends to run the gamut from hideous to a level impossible to discern from real. Popular sentiment among high-profile celebrities tends to be very strongly anti-fur, but at the retail level fur remains a top seller that retailers can’t afford to give up, especially when other related sales are declining.

Amidst this continuing debate, Armani’s move is a strong one. I cannot imagine that there will not be other prominent labels who will join him in banning furs from their collections. Should this increase public pressure for all designers to eliminate furs, the result could be quite dramatic.

But then, Chanel creative director Karl Lagerfeld has said, “In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.” His point has to be taken seriously. Can we honestly complain about one manner of animal exploitation without changing our attitudes about all use of animal products? We seem rather hypocritical when we complain about the use of fur while wearing leather boots and eating a hamburger.

This debate is far from over, but those wanting Armani furs had better buy them now. They won’t be here after the fall season.

Art / Photography

Five Years’ Difference

March 21, 2016

Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference. —Winston Churchill

Five years can seem like a long time, but having the time to mature can make some things all the more beautiful

I sometimes joke that I know I’m getting old when the even the best scotch in the world is half my age. While that’s not entirely true on either end of the equation, there’s a point at which one no longer thinks that they’re improving with age. There’s no definitive point at which that occurs. Some start feeling old when they hit 30. Others still feel young at 70. Only you can determine how you are going to feel at any given stage of your life.

The kids were watching a cooking show recently wherein Bo Derek was a guest judge. Yes, the same Bo Derek that raised more than eye brows when she appeared in the 1979 movie 10 opposite Dudley Moore. The difference between her look then and now, more than 35 years later, was astonishing. Derek, who turns 60 later this year, had not bothered to attempt to conceal her age nor the marks of a lifetime of experience. She was still beautiful, but in a way defined by maturity.

Our model for this set of portraits, who I’ll simply refer to as K. in order to keep stalking to a minimum, hadn’t quite hit that 25-year-old mark when life led her to do other things. She changed occupations, had new experiences, and even attempted to settle down a bit. There were ups and there were downs and there were lessons learned that one would rather read about than experience. She comes back now, five years since she was last in front of the camera, more mature, wiser for the experience, and even more beautiful than before. She’s sporting some amazing new ink on her back, and a revised attitude toward life. The difference is significant.

We have Owen Tate to thank for the take on K.’s hair and make-up, a slight revision from what he did for a contest last month. I found the violet color on her lips and the just-rolled-out-of-bed look to her hair a refreshing difference from her older pictures.

I don’t mean to imply that every young model should take five years off and mature. I’ve missed having K. in front of the camera and I can’t say that going through some of the same experiences would make as positive a difference as it did with K. Not everyone would necessarily survive. Yet, that five years’ difference is a positive for K. I’m hoping this set of portrats might prove inspirational for others we’ve not seen in a while to take a moment and try again.

Beauty doesn’t stop at any given age. Beauty grows with us if we let it. Don’t ever hide because of a few years difference. Embrace your beauty and enjoy.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Current Issues / Fashion

Fashion Without Gender

March 16, 2016

We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination. —Nelson Mandela

Fashion has always been dictated by one’s gender, but slowly that’s beginning to change

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a revolution, but there’s a change coming to fashion, a change that few are talking about. Not that it hasn’t gotten any press, but those articles go largely unnoticed in the wake of designers dropping from labels and shallow wannabe’s screaming about who is sitting front row at which show. Fashion is steadily making moves to support those for whom gender is either fluid or nonexistent and the result is not merely an added sales point but a shift in how society views gender.

There were two significant moments last week. One was the Dries Van Noten Fall/Winter collection. While I didn’t have space to cover the issue in our review, the folks over at Fashionista.com didn’t let pass the genderless aspect of the entire collection, including evening wear. No, this isn’t the first genderless collection we’ve seen on a Paris runway, but this one was significant in that the Belgian designer has traditionally been quite feminine in his designs. Last season we saw tight pencil skirts and bustier tops. Those were nowhere to be seen this season. Instead, we had a plethora of four-in-hand ties, trousers with plackets, and masculine tailored coats. Sure, there were some traditionally feminine touches here and there, but those were blended in to create as close to a genderless collection as we’ve seen from a major designer.

The next day, online fashion retail giant Zara very quietly, without so much as a press release, added a gender neutral section to their website. Contents may appear rather bland to some: hoodies, athletic wear, trousers, and jeans. Yet, each of those entries is important, especially the jeans, because they’re not assigned a gender target. The jeans are just jeans. That’s it. Either they fit or they don’t. There’s nothing about their design that promotes one gender over another.

Gender fluidity has been getting attention in fashion advertising for a while. You may remember when we told you about Jaden Smith appearing in an ad for Louis Vuitton wearing a dress. The gender-bending stunt drew a lot of attention to the brand at the time, but was quickly forgotten as it was replaced by something else in the line of our short attention spans. While the campaign was important, though, it was still primarily about women’s wear, clothes designed with a specific gender in mind but worn by the opposite gender, which is the exact same thing drag queens have been doing for decades.

What the Zara move promotes, though, is something different: clothes designed without a specific gender in mind. This shift could be more difficult for the fashion world simply because the system itself is set up to cater to each gender separately. We have menswear, we have womenswear, and we tend to keep the two completely separate. While some designers, such as Tom Ford and Burberry, routinely mix men and women in their runway shows, we are still set up to accommodate separate men’s fashion weeks and women’s fashion weeks.

Change happens slowly in fashion primarily because we’re all comfortable with what we’re wearing now. Designers who venture too far into something different find themselves stuck with inventory no one wants. With margins already so slim, not selling clothes is an untenable situation. Moves like the one Zara has made, though, open a door, no matter how slight that opening may be. Gender neutral clothing finally has a place with a dominant retailer.

As always, the question remaining is whether the new move results in selling more clothes. We’ll see. We’ll cross our fingers. Maybe we’ll even shop. Consider it.

Advertising / Fashion

Are Networks Censoring Sex or Size?

March 12, 2016

If you ask men about their body image, they will tell you they look better than they do. And if you ask a woman, she’ll tell you she looks worse. —Gloria Steinem

charles i. letbetter - network censoring sex or size

ABC and NBC say they turned down Lane Bryant ads due to sexuality violations, but is the real reason a matter of size?

There’s nothing quite like the feeling of trying to put on an item of clothing that you’ve worn dozens, if not hundreds of times before, and having it not fit. I’ve had that happen twice in the past month with two separate pair of pants. One popped a button when I sat down and the zipper broke on the other. Sigh. I’ll blame faulty manufacturing for the zipper because there’s no way to prove that it wasn’t, but the button popping is more difficult to excuse. I’ve sat here eating chocolate for a month (because it makes you smarter) and not getting any exercise. So, instead of losing 20 pounds, which is what I need to do, I packed more on. Needless to say, my current body image is not positive. I am not a fan of my current size.

For women, body size and body image is an even more critical issue. In extreme cases, negative body image leads to severe eating disorders and even death. That’s why a number of retailers, including Dove and Lane Bryant, have created ad campaigns around supporting a positive body image, regardless of one’s size. Even Sports Illustrated got in on the act casting curvaceous model Ashley Graham for one of the covers of their famous swimsuit edition. Supporting a positive body image among women is a good thing, and has even proven to be good for business.

So why, then, did two major television networks, ABC and NBC, refuse to air the new Lane Bryant ad featuring Ashley Graham? NBC claims the ad violates “broadcast indecency guidelines.” I’ve searched through the ad meticulously, though, and fail to see how that claim is justified. NBC says they’ll air the ad if edits are made, but Lane Bryant says the ad is just fine the way it is and I tend to agree. In fact, so does pretty much every other broadcast outlet out there. No one else has turned down the ad for any reason.

The two networks can claim the ad is too sexy, but the appearance is that body size seems to be the greater issue than sexuality. Take a look at other ads both networks run and there would seem to be a double standard. Neither network seems to have any difficulty playing dangerously with the censors when the bodies are lean and fit, so why do they have a problem with bodies that have curves, bodies that are real, and bodies slightly larger than the size 2 that dominates most of fashion advertising? Here’s the ad. Take a look for yourself:

I could sit here and harp on the issue all day, but what ultimately matters is how you and I respond. Support those who support a positive body image and size. Censorship, for any reason, is just not acceptable.

Fashion

That CFDA Report on NYFW Isn’t Helping

March 10, 2016

charles i. letbetter - cfda report on nyfw

Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can’t make head nor tail out of it. —Groucho Marx

What good is a report that spends ten pages talking and still says nothing?

Everyone in and out of fashion has known for the past couple of years that the whole construct of fashion weeks need to change. The most recent season is a perfect example of why. Some shows are customer-centric and are heavy on spectacle. Some shows are buyer-focused and try to totally block out consumers from attending their events. Other designers try to merge traditional runway presentations with various social-media tie-ins using apps such as Instagram and Periscope. There was little feeling of cohesion at any of the four major cities but, at least, the governing bodies in Milan and Paris both made statements that they’re not planning on changing from the traditional format. While that decision may yet come back to haunt them, they deserve some credit for making a definitive statement on which labels, designers, buyers, and editors can all depend.

For New York Fashion Week, the Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA) is responsible for the NYFW schedule. However, they do not have any logistical control nor any authority in telling designers and labels what they can or cannot do. Without anyone to tell designers no, NYFW has become the largest fashion week in the world. This past season saw more than 275 designers making some form of presentation during an eight-day period. This does not include events such as the Saint Laurent ready-to-wear show in Los Angeles just before NYFW kicked off. This is great news for the city of New York. NYFW generates more revenue than the Olympics or the Super Bowl. However, the environment makes it difficult for designers who have little or no name recognition to draw the attention of buyers and editors who are already swamped.

Just how difficult is it to get noticed at NYFW? Consider that, at my peak in 2014, I struggled, and often failed, to make it through eight shows a day, and that was when the tents at Lincoln Center still provided a central location for the majority of major shows. I topped out at 67 shows that week. That means I missed roughly 75% of the shows! I only made it through 23 this season, which means more than 200 presentations escaped our view. There simply is not enough time in a day to cover everything.

Getting noticed isn’t the only problem designers have at NYFW, though. As technology has changed, the current schedule of showing a collection, taking orders, then delivering on those orders in 4-5 months has deteriorated. The causes are obvious. Smaller ateliers with only an online presence may seem a small threat when viewed one at a time, but together they take millions of dollars out of the retail flow. Fast fashion houses such as H&M and Zara completely turn over their inventory every eight weeks, with new items arriving almost daily. Consignment and resale shopping has also grown dramatically the past five years. All this together, along with others such as online-only discounters, represent billions of dollars coming out of traditional retail, severely impacting fashion’s traditional flow.

Oh, but there’s still more. Now that a large number of fashion shows are streamed live on the Internet and/or mobile apps, in addition to live or nearly live pictures on Instagram, NowFashion, and Vogue, among others, consumers see the new styles, and want the new styles when they see them, but those same styles are old news by the time they actually hit stores 4-5 months later. By the time clothes are on store shelves, fast fashion retailers and online discounters have already produced and sold enough knock-offs that the “new” stuff feels old when it arrives.

Then, there’s the added fact that many designers are flat out exhausted by the current schedule. With many brands supporting spring/summer, resort, pre-fall, fall/winter, homme spring/summer, and homme fall/winter, there is a new deadline for designers every other month, or it would be every other month if the calendar made any sense. Dates actually overlap so designers are often working on four different collections at any given time.

We’ve seen these problems building for the past five years; they are neither secret nor surprise. With the loss of major sponsorship for NYFW after Mercedes-Benz exited last year, there was little question that something needs to be done. The question is: what? To that end, the CFDA hired big-five firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to help study the problem. Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Bring is someone objective and let them help.

Yeahhhhhh, about that …

Last week, the CFDA released BCG’s report. You can read the whole thing here if you wish; it doesn’t take all that long. There are a lot of pictures. What was the final conclusion after all this time and money was spent? Look for yourself:

While the CFDA will not promote only one specific idea at this time, it was imperative to bring out all the issues. It will encourage designers to try and experiment with new concepts and will foster continued conversations on the topic through stakeholder meetings, panel conversations, and workshops throughout the year. The CFDA owns the New York Fashion Calendar and will accommodate all types of shows and events and continue to support all designers regardless of how and when they show

For those of you not versed in consultant-speak, please allow me to translate for you: “Do whatever the fuck you want and we’ll stand here with our thumbs up our butts holding the calendar. You have our best wishes.”

This sorry excuse for a statement ultimately amounts to no statement at all and renders the whole report pointless. Void of any guidelines, and with a decree that they’ll support whatever a designer/label chooses to do, CFDA essentially gives up NYFW to complete anarchy with the door wide open for mayhem. While the report recognizes all the pertinent issues and accurately assesses the options, what was needed was for the CFDA to make a choice. Choose a method, perhaps a partnership between two methods, and say, “Hey, this is what NYFW can support, anything else and you’re own your own.” Instead, get nothing.

I can understand how the CFDA and BCG came to this conclusion. Read between the lines and the consultant speak and it seems rather obvious there is a preference for an in-season hybrid that uses capsule collections for sale at show times with the remainder of the stock arriving later. However, given they interviewed such a very small number of people (50 total), all it takes is one or two people voicing opposition to raise concern. Acting as a rule-setting authority is new ground for the CFDA, which still suffers from a lot of who-died-and-left-you-in-charge attitudes among its rank and file. Rather than risk upsetting any one group of designers, they punted, tossed everything on the table, and are waiting to see what happens next.

NYFW needs strong, authoritative leadership. Diane von Furstenberg has done well as the board’s chair, but the rest of the CFDA board of directors is a mish-mesh designers with such a disparate set of needs and interests that I doubt they can be unanimous on anything. Theirs is a society in which even one person not on board with the plan gets noticed by the press, and ultimately consumers. Designers are, inherently, under obligation to put the interests of their own labels ahead of those of the group. Such an organization has no business being in authority over a set of events that require definitive guidelines and objectivity.

What am I saying? The CFDA needs to let someone else handle New York Fashion Week, its calendar, its structure, and its management. NYFW needs an owner who can be objective, who understands the changing dynamics, and more than anything, understands that if you’re trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. For designers to manage NYFW is a severe conflict of interest and this CFDA report is evidence of how powerless the agency is to create any real and valuable change to NYFW.

Please, Ms. von Furstenberg, start looking for a managing third party now. While it’s not likely one can be found in time to save the trainwreck in September, perhaps next February won’t hold the chaos that this one did. Without strong leadership, and soon, NYFW as we know it may totally disappear. And this report? It does no one any good at all.

PotD / Social Commentary

Strong, Beautiful Women

March 7, 2016

Being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men. —Joseph Conrad

charles i. letbetter - strong, beautiful women

Our lives and our society would be nothing without the presence of strong, beautiful women

We are surrounded by strong, beautiful women. We see them every day. They are essential to our lives. In fact, contemporary society could not function without them. Even though they still lack full equality in a number of areas, that in no way diminishes the important roles they play in all our lives. Yesterday, however, brought three very strong, very beautiful women to mind and now that I have a few minutes I think it is appropriate to talk about them.

Former First Lady, Nancy Reagan passed away yesterday at age 94. Politically, Mrs. Reagan and I could not be any further apart, but that’s not what made her notable. She married and supported one of the most challenging men of the twentieth century through some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Her husband was shot, almost fatally, and she never left his side. When his mind began to deteriorate, she was there, a buffer between him and those who dearly wanted to paint him in a negative light. She stood strong on issues she supported. She fought breast cancer and won. She survived vicious attacks on her character. Through it all, she never stopped being elegant. She never stopped for a pity party. She never stopped being beautiful.

Yesterday would have been my late mother’s 83rd birthday. Mother was a staunch conservative whose Christian belief system dominated everything she said and did. She might have been short in physical stature, but her character was ten feet tall and there was no one on the planet who dared challenge her. I remember when former Oklahoma governor David Boren was running for re-election. The Governor was tall, large, and had the ability to present an imposing figure. Mother marched right up to him on a campaign stop, gave him a look that forced him to bend down to her eye level, and proceeded to grill him for ten minutes on the need for better education funding in the state. She backed down from no one and didn’t mind telling someone what they needed to hear. Being a pastor’s wife wasn’t easy, and neither was raising my brother and me. She managed on a budget that was impossibly small. Yet, never did she lose her sense of dignity and genteel gracefulness. She was always beautiful.

March 6 also marks three years that Kat and I have been together. I had a lot of respect for single moms before having met Kat, but she drove home the concept of women who could manage work, children, and every other challenge of life on her own. Strength? She is a United States Marine. Even though she hasn’t been active duty for a few years now, that strength and determination still show. She faces every challenge with the same grit and no-fail attitude as she would an obstacle course. She’s handling school and work and children, and most incredibly, me and still manages to find a smile, to be there for friends, and impress those who watch her in action. She keeps me going, remembers the lyrics to my favorite songs, picks me up off the floor when I fall, encourages me on the days I can hardly walk, and finds ways to make me smile when I am in full-fledged grumpy old man mode. She’s beautiful from every possible perspective but threaten her family and she won’t hesitate to leave one gasping for air.

There is no sense in which we give enough credit to the women in our lives. These are but three immediate examples of how brilliant, strong, inventive, creative, determined, and beautiful women are. I could add to the list infinitely and if you can’t as well you’re just not paying attention.

Mondays are rough for everyone, we all have challenges when it comes to adjusting from the weekend and getting into the routine of the week. Consider just how much more challenging it is for the women in your life. Not only are they having their own issues with Monday, their dealing with children’s issues, spousal/partner issues, and probably the issues of people at school and work, because it is women who most often end up resolving everyone’s issues, not just their own. Don’t you think it’s about time you said thank you?

And if it’s appropriate and possible, a kiss wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.

Art / Fashion / Music / Photography / PotD

Quality Or Quantity

March 3, 2016

Respect the masterpiece. It is true reverence to man. There is no quality so great, none so much needed now. —Frank Lloyd Wright

How many masterpieces should one have? Quality that is so high cannot be so frequently repeated.

There are 16 images to the set from which these pictures are taken. I had difficulty choosing two. While the whole set is creative, the quality isn’t there and I know why: I rushed. These images come from a point in 2010 when I was doing nothing but shooting during the week, saving all the editing until Saturday, and publishing everything on Sunday morning. Looking back, the whole schedule was a bit insane. I would hit Saturday afternoon having anywhere from six to twelve sets of pictures waiting to be processed and struggling to find both the creativity and the time to get them done. I was pounding energy drinks and coffee and making poor judgement calls in the interest of time.

If we are going to improve the state of creativity, we have to simultaneously improve the quality of what we produce. One of the mistakes we made when everything first started going digital was assuming that we could now mass-produce art of any medium. Because the production seemed easier and appeared to take less time, we mistakenly assumed that meant we could and should produce more. For photographers, that meant shooting 200-300 frames per set and then processing up to 100 of those. I remember looking at the back of a camera and thinking, “Wow, that’s not going to need any processing at all. This is great!” In hindsight, the level of our stupidity seems obvious. Unfortunately, we are still paying for those errors. Too many clients think we can turn out new material overnight, if not sooner, and do so in large volume. Doing so, however, means sacrificing quality.

More is not better. A certain rapper released a new, heavily anticipated album online last month. He allowed the album to be sold for 24 hours, then took it down. Now, he’s saying he has another new album coming out. What does that say about the quality and content of either album? Granted, I’m a bit biased in that I’m not a fan of this particular artist, which is why I’m not using his name, but I don’t know any artists who could turn around two new albums in less than a year, let alone two weeks. Quality inevitably suffers.

Fashion is making a similar mistake, constantly churning out new, cheap, inexpensive clothing so that stores can, in theory, completely turn over their inventory in eight weeks. This is the disease known as fast fashion and it has done a very good job of killing off mid-level retailers, undercutting their prices with cheaply made material. Quality is non-existent with these brands and, ultimately, one ends up spending more on their clothes than if they had purchased high-quality luxury brands once.

Are we killing off the masterpiece? Not everything an artist does, even the most creative of artist, is a masterpiece. To count as a masterpiece, a work has to achieve not only in terms of creativity but in matters of quality as well. Imagine what would have happened had Frank Lloyd Wright built houses that fell down; it wouldn’t matter how many of them were built nor how incredibly creative they were, without quality they would be worthless. The same holds true for every genre and every medium. We do better to take our time, be diligent, and perfect the one rather than trying to take the Wal-Mart approach of profiting from volume.

By over-creating works of poor quality, we reduce the overall value of all our work. When the world is flooded with readily available photography from every possible source, then it stops valuing photography. When YouTube can deliver chains of “experts” on every conceivable topic, we stop valuing experts. When iTunes makes it possible for anyone to release a new album, we stop valuing new music. When it comes to matters of artistic content, the volume approach simply does not work.

Our culture needs a creative revolution to be sure, but we must be careful that in doing so we do not overpopulate the earth with that which is too hastily produced and manufactured in such volume that we sacrifice quality. Creativity and quality must go hand in hand. Anything less is just landfill fodder.

Art / Fashion / Music / pop culture / PotD

Popped Culture Implosion

February 29, 2016

Creativity is putting your imagination to work, and it’s produced the most extraordinary results in human culture. —Ken Robinson

There is a lack of truly defining moments in contemporary culture that dooms us to boredom

No, I did not watch the Oscars last night, and no, it wasn’t because of any boycott, though the issue of racism in Hollywood needs a lot more than just platitudes thrown at it. I didn’t watch the Oscars last night because there was absolutely nothing about the show worthy of holding my interests for three-plus hours after a long day that started at 3:00 AM EST. To have stayed up that late would have required feeling passionate about some element of the show and there was nothing deserving of my passion. I had a much better time putting my head on my pillow and going to sleep.

2015’s Oscars views were off by 18% from the previous year, hitting a six-year low. Last night’s numbers aren’t in yet (7:00 AM EST), but I will be tremendously surprised if they’re all that much higher, if any at all. And while it might be tempting to blame things such as #OscarsSoWhite, the reality is that popular culture has popped, imploded into a pile of monotony that is about as exciting as the underside of a dog house. There was no reason to stay up and see what won the Best Picture award because I hadn’t bothered to see any of the nominated films. Spotlight, the film that won, hadn’t even managed to cross my radar before last night. What is it about? Apparently journalists at the Boston Globe, from what I’m reading, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who think it is a very good film, but am I going to drop $20 and an afternoon to see it? Probably not.

This period of cultural boredom isn’t just limited to film, unfortunately. I have spent the past three weeks totally consumed in covering ready-to-wear fashion for Pattern magazine. Earlier today, we finished up the shows in Milan, which should have been one of the most exciting weeks of the year. It wasn’t. If anything, it was anti-climactic at a level that I don’t remember having seen before. Worse yet, this has been a five-year trend that isn’t showing any sign of improving. An article in Business Insider this morning addresses the problem that such complete and total boredom with fashion is a leading cause of declining sales at department stores. Why shop when what we see on the rack is not substantially different from we already have in our closet?

Is music any different? Regrettably no, and music is the one place that our culture should be constantly reinventing itself. This year’s Grammy awards, which should be the biggest night in music, lost a half-million viewers from last year, which wasn’t exactly the most stellar statistic in the first place. With autotuning and digitally precise engineering, all new music has begun to sound too similar for anyone to care all that much about buying new albums. Scream all you want about how streaming services are cheating artists, what really matters is the fact that no one is buying the latest album because it sounds exactly like the one before it and the one before that and the one before … you get the idea.

What has happened to American culture? Where are the distinguishing artists that once shone out like beacons, names like Elvis, Hank Williams, Three Dog Night, or Ray Charles? Where are the icons of culture such as the Dorsey Brothers, Fred Astaire, Lucille Ball, and Norman Rockwell? Who is replacing Edward R. Murrow, Huntley & Brinkley, Bob Woodward, and Norman Mailer? Where are the underpinnings of our culture that give definition to this second decade of the 21st century? So far, all we have are hipster beards and oversized eyeglass frames and, quite honestly, both of those have lost their panache. We need more. We need something new to help define the next four years.

Why is our current culture not more significant? I have an interesting example. Tonight begins a new season of The Voice. Approximately 40 outstanding vocalists will be given a chance to work with experienced professionals, presumably to help get their music career jumpstarted. This is the tenth season of the show, which is a ratings hit for parent network NBC, but when we look at its actual impact on our culture, what have been the results: Nothing. Zero. Why? Because by the time the contest works its way down to the final four artists, the unique voices that started the show are gone. In their place are packaged, over-produced, tightly managed singers who are fed into a corporate music machine and promptly spit out on the other side having had little to no affect on our culture at all. Everyone sounds the same.

American Idol closed under exactly the same fate. While finalists from the first two seasons have done well, no one from this decade has managed to even get a glimpse of the Billboard charts. Nada. Zip.

Why was the literary world so wildly excited about what was ultimately a disappointing new book from Harper Lee, one which she had, presumptively, never wanted to be published? Because even contemporary literature is in the doldrums. We were wildly hopeful that a writer who had set culture on fire back in the 1960s might possibly be able to thrill us where more contemporary authors have failed.

Our culture has become far too boring. We, as creatives, have become too risk adverse, too unwilling to rock the boat, and the corporate entities that now control most everything we consume have choked the life from our movies, our music, our literature, and our life. We don’t need more Jackson Pollock, thank you. We need the next iteration of Pei Wei. We need people who can turn Banksy on its ear. We need people who give Giorgio Armani a reason to retire.

As I sit here ranting, of course, I have to ask myself what I’m willing to do to become part of the solution. I have some ideas. Who’s willing to help? Our culture is deficient of creativity. You and I can make a difference. Start now.

Editorial / Experimental

Editorial Experimentation

February 25, 2016

Photography has always been about documentary, the depiction of the instant, a moment, sometimes a place. Each project is somehow an experimentation of a specific context or a character. —Hedi Slimane

The world of editorial fashion relies on entire teams of creative professionals. Hair stylists, makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, art directors, lighting engineers, and a host of other people all do their thing before a photographer ever picks up their camera. No matter how good a photographer might be, it is the strength of the team that ultimately makes a good editorial picture. Many of the same people work to keep runways sharp and attractive during this Fashion Week season. One is less likely to see what styles are worn on the runway if the hair and makeup don’t match that intensity.

Keeping a good team together is challenging. Creative and talented people are always looking to expand their skills and broaden their horizons, something that is difficult to achieve if one feels boxed in by the team with which they work. Experimentation is key, and that means taking risks that not everyone on a team may not want to embrace. While there are myriad beauty schools always turning out new stylists and makeup artists, only a small precentage understand or even care about editorial work. When we come across one who does, we celebrate and try to help that person grow their skills.

So it is with our friend Owen Tate. Owen is a 19-year-old student at Aveda Fredricks Institute in Indianapolis. Though he won’t graduate for a few months yet, Owen has already demonstrated a willingness to engage in a higher level of experimentation and shows a particular talent for creative problem solving even when plans a, b, and c don’t necessarily work as expected. Owen pushes himself by entering various competions. A recent editorial contest gave us the opportunity to work together with a set of models who really didn’t know what was going to happen. Our time frame was short, which created its own challenges, but Owen proved himself dedicated to the task, working late into the night even after having spent 12 hours at school.

What you see below are some of the results of that editorial work. Owen worked from a concept of art coming alive, a premise where he felt the models would not arrive neatly coiffed and made up, but rather messy and disheveled from having escaped their canvas-bound prison. We found Owen’s interpretation quite creative and well developed for one still learning. There’s no telling where Owen might land once he graduates and gets a bit more experience under his belt. I feel confident that he has the ability to become one of the best in the industry.

Please join me in celebrating the editorial experimentation of Owen Tate and thank you for supporting Owen and other cosmotology students like him.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

Sexy Is Still What Sells

February 22, 2016

charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't always enough

I don’t know what a world would be like if you do away with sexy images.—Christie Hefner

The advertising mantra has always been “sex sells, ” but today’s market may change how sexy is defined

When one spends two months or more out of every year, as I do, watching fashion show after fashion show after fashion show, one can become a little jaded. What might have been considered innovative and attractive at the beginning of the season starts to look boring and over-used by the point we’ve seen it 87 times. We see certain designers try to define, or re-define, what is going to be the look for the next season and sometimes what they might send down the runway intending to be sexy completely changes how we look at women’s apparel. Other times, however, the whole concept fails, miserably. Even the best of designers have off seasons. Getting sexy right can be challenging

“Sex sells,” has been an advertising commandment longer than I’ve been alive and nowhere has that been more true than with lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret. The company has not only dominated the lingerie market, currently holding a 61.8% share, but they’ve successfully changed the entire course of the conversation regarding women’s underwear. Through the 1980s and 90s especially, they defined sexy with lace and silk, a heavy dose of tease, and an out-of-season runway show that is the thing of fantasies for both men and women. All that, however, may be changing.

Anyone paying attention last week was caught off guard when Victoria’s Secret CEO, Sharen Jester Turney, the woman largely responsible for making the brand the powerhouse that it is, resigned without warning. Her reasons were, “to prioritize my family and my personal life and consider what’s next for me professionally,” she said. Yet, the timing is interesting. The brand just finished its strongest quarter ever. What might Ms. Turney see on the horizon to make her think this is a good time to take a few days off?

Mallory Schlossberg thinks Ms. Turney might not like what she sees coming in the future. In an article for Business Insider this morning, Ms. Schlossberg considers all the social changes taking place that could very well challenge the VS approach to what is sexy. After all, attitudes are changing. Look at the covers of this month’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and on one we see a very fit but definitely not size two Ronda Rousey, while on another we find the very curvy Ashley Graham who is more along the line of size 14-16. Younger women especially are less likely to respond to overly airbrushed and manipulated images of women that are not real. What was considered sexy for previous generations of women isn’t working for Millenials or the Generation Z that is following them. Could this mean that Victoria’s Secret and brands like them, who have largely built their empires on being sexy, are going to have to change their tunes?

Maybe, or maybe not. For all the fret and worry and endless discussion over what Millenials and “Gen Z” shoppers may or may not buy, the fact is we’re just now starting to see the leading edge of their purchasing power. While that power is going to continue to grow, so, too, does their income. What we’ve not yet explored is the degree to which their shopping habits might change as they get older and reach a more mature income status. Granted, their shopping habits as young people are different from their parents, but they’ve yet to achieve the same income level as their parents. They don’t yet have the same level of expendable cash, so it seems natural that they’re a little more conservative with how they spend.

By contrast, let’s look at the fashion styles we’ve seen coming down the runway the past two weeks. Sheer is now everywhere, despite the fact that we’re looking at fall/winter collections. Backs are more likely to be open and necklines are likely to plunge well below the navel. Slits up the side of skirts frequently go all the way to the hip. While layering is still popular and often results in very bulky, shapeless silhouettes, even there, designers have found ways to show a bit of cleavage or flirt with the sight of bare thigh. Sexy is still a very strong look and we’ve yet to get to the notoriously skin-tight styles of Milan and Paris.

Each generation puts their own twist on what is sexy, to be sure, but whatever direction that twist takes, the fact remains that sex still sells. So maybe Victoria’s Secret has to widen the sizes of lingerie they’ve traditionally offered, and maybe they use a little less airbrush in their ads. I don’t imagine women’s appetite for things that are sexy to go away anytime soon. If anything, as the definition of sexy expands, it gives advertisers even more options for reaching out to a new generation of shoppers.

Sexy as your mother defined it may not always be enough, but it is still the dominant force in selling clothes. Sex still sells. A lot.

Current Issues / Fashion

Diversity At The Heart Of Fashion

February 14, 2016

It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.—Maya Angelou

charles i. letbetter - diversity and the heart of fashion

Fashion has always been a place for people of diverse sexuality. To intentionally work in opposition to that is wrong

Before I get started on this morning’s NYFW shows, I want to introduce you to some people you may not know.

Dominique Jackson,
Angel Qinan,
Ren Spriggs,
Chanel Viiperi,
Arisce Wanzer,
Laith Ashley,
Gigi Gorgeous,
Elliott Sailors,
Rain Dove,
Erika Linders,
Hari Nef,
Lea T,
Juliana Huxtable,
Aydian Dowling,
Valentijn De Hingh,
Andreja Pejic
Isis King,
Arisce Wanzer,
Geena Rocero,
Carmen Carrera, and
Dezjorn Gauthier.

Who are these people? Just a handful of the transgender models who are making their mark on fashion’s runways, campaigns, and editorial spreads. How long did it take me to compile this list? About two minutes because I had to check the spelling of a couple of names. These are not people who are hiding in the background. They’re visible, they’re active, and they’re just the beginning. Throughout the world of fashion, there are trans designers, makeup artists, hair stylists, casting directors, and even owners of modeling agencies.

Let’s stay real here: There are a lot of places where fashion needs to really work on its diversity. Models of color still accounted for less than 20% of all those walking last year. Size restrictions are still severe. And you don’t see too many 40+ women on the catwalk. We have a tremendous amount of room for improvement, but the Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA) is very much aware of those shortcomings and works hard to make New York Fashion Week more inclusive with each passing season.

That’s why, when I learned there is a so-called fashion week contest that intentionally and specifically excludes trans models, I came out of my seat and was ready to bite someone’s head off (metaphorically, mind you; my mouth’s not quite that big). I am very suspicious of such events in the first place as they very seldom come through with everything they promise. This one, however, has pushed my anger button and deserves to be shamed.

The contest is running under the name Miss Fashion Week. I was immediately suspicious from the moment I first arrived at their website this morning. They make the claim of being “the world’s largest modeling competition,” but do not go outside the United States for any of their events and specifically limit the contest to women in the US. They provide absolutely NO credentials to establish any level of legitimacy. There is no address, no legal name of the sponsoring organization, nor any indication as to who might be operating the damn thing. All of those are immediate red flags to any contest of any kind, anywhere. I would strongly advise models to distance themselves from this organization and its events based on those criteria alone.

Next, let’s talk about the fact there is no indication that the organization actually has any ties or relationship with any casting agency or director. If you’ve not met a fashion week casting director, let me introduce you to some of the pickiest people on the planet. They arrive at a casting call with a very specific and very limited set of measurements, limitations, and physical requirements a model must meet in order to walk in a NYFW show. Casting directors have shown a history of not liking contest winners. Even America’s Next Top Model winners have difficulty finding work. So, to promise someone that they will walk in a fashion show at all is misleading.

Furthermore, the website gives absolutely no indication as to which fashion week the winner might walk. This is important because there are fashion weeks everywhere. There’s a Tulsa Fashion Week. Cincinnati Fashion Week. Atlanta Fashion Week. Dallas Fashion Week. Orlando Fashion Week. Miami Fashion Week. Even Indianapolis is home to Midwest Fashion Week. So, exactly for which fashion week is one competing? Am I the only one smelling a great big rat here?

Finally, and most important to our topic, is this rule:

3. Applicant must be a naturally born female in order to compete in the Miss Fashion Week contest.

Yes, that would be the rule that had me ready to eviscerate someone with a spoon. I don’t care who the hell you think you are, what your personal beliefs might be, what you consider your planet of origin, nor how much money you might have in the bank, nothing gives you the right to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation. NOTHING! Not only does such a rule indicate that the person(s) running the contest are incredible bigots, but they have no real connection to the fashion industry at all!

For all of fashion’s shortcomings, and there are admittedly many, sexual orientation is one issue where we’ve actually seen strong improvement, thanks in large part to the fact that a significant and growing number of designers are themselves part of the LGBT community. The industry is proud of their progress in this area and is not likely to align themselves with anyone who would purposefully, willfully, and intentionally work against that progress.

We cannot allow contests and organizations like this to continue without challenge. To participate at any level is to condone their deliberate discrimination against transgendered women. While I cannot directly prove that the operation is a scam, it has all the hallmarks of one. Real contests don’t hide who they are nor with whom they are affiliated. Staying away from this outfit not only supports your transgendered sisters but sends a strong message that such discrimination in fashion is not tolerated at any level, even outside New York. Diversity is important. Diversity matters. Diversity should not, and cannot be compromised.

Stay away, children. Stay far, far away.

PotD

Opening Old Bottles Of Wine

February 13, 2016

Age is just a number. It’s totally irrelevant unless, of course, you happen to be a bottle of wine.—Joan Collins

charles i. letbetter - opening old bottles of wine

Relationships and conversations, like an open bottle of wine, have a point at which they are of no use to anyone

I was not raised in a house that understood wine. Sure, there was an academic knowledge of how it is made but beyond that, there was a fierce denial that wine could have any positive qualities at all. Our family not only didn’t drink, but we were raised to avoid anyone who did for fear they might be a “bad influence” on us, or drag down our reputation.

Then, I had my first glass of the real thing. Sweet. Red. Low alcohol content. I discovered that I could enjoy the glass presented with my desert and, contrary to all my mother’s warnings, not instantly become a gutter-hugging drunk. A few days later, I tried a glass of merlot with a meal and fell in love. I suddenly wanted to know everything about wine. I read. I talked to sommeliers. I went to tastings. We even bought a wine rack that was shaped like a cluster of grapes.

Normally, a bottle of wine never lasted more than 24 hours once it was opened. We enjoyed the wine too much to let any dregs sit in a bottle. One day, however, I was going through the wine rack looking for a specific vintage and came across a bottle that had been opened and then returned. When it had been opened, I didn’t know. Who had opened it was a mystery. The bottle was still almost full, less than half a glass had been removed. So, I took the bottle, removed the cork, and promptly took three steps back. The wine had turned to vinegar, and not a pleasant vinegar at that. Down the sink went the remains.

I bring up that subject because this weekend is one of those times when we can be tempted to re-open the old bottles of wine in our lives. With Valentine’s Day, we can be tempted to re-open past conversations, re-visit past relationships, things that we have left behind for good reason, but still wonder if they might yet be salvaged. The answer in most cases is no, they can’t. Like wine that has been opened, those things from the past have only soured.

One of the worst mistakes I made when I was younger was to re-open conversations that had been set aside. These would be tense words where no solution had been found, where walking away and not mentioning the matter had been the best solution. Conversations involving matters of human rights, religion, or constructs of government were topics that I frequently, and incorrectly, thought I had under command. I always thought I was right. Why else would I revisit a topic if I wasn’t sure that I needed to correct a gross misunderstanding?

I can be a slow learner sometimes and didn’t realize that there are moments where being right or wrong on a topic is irrelevant. Acquaintances who were once friendly became distant and found reasons to avoid contact when they feared I might yet, again, bring up a conversation that had been uncomfortable or contentious. I was sadly oblivious to the social vinegar I was asking, forcing, others to drink.

Even worse can be when we return to past relationships. When I’m looking through old pictures, such as the two used here that are over ten years old, I often think to myself, “I wonder what they are doing now?” For better or worse, social media makes it easier than ever to answer that question. I’ll find someone on Facebook, or, far too frequently, LinkedIn will insist that I need to connect with someone I had willfully forgotten. Many times I am tempted to click that button, to make a new friend request, but I’ve learned to leave those old relationships alone and just enjoy the memories. If we have not spoken for years, there is quite likely a very good reason.

As I get older, I sometimes regret letting relationships grow sour, especially when a simple apology might have negated ill feelings in the first place. One sits and looks at that old bottle of wine wondering if it might yet be salvaged. Is it too late to apologize? If an apology is offered, will it be accepted?

Occasionally, I’ll come across an article (like this one) that claims to have a solution for “fixing” wine that has gone bad; it’s a nice dream, but I’ve not found one yet that actually works. Sure, we all like the fairy tale of lost souls finding each other again after all the years and falling in love, or becoming close friends. Sometimes the risk pays off and if that old bottle of wine represents a relationship with a family member, then perhaps taking the risk is justified.

Still, more often than not, it’s best to just not re-open those old bottles at all. Enjoy the memories of the wine when it was good. Keep the bottle as a token of a special time if you wish. But should you open that bottle, be prepared for the reality that all you’re likely to get is vinegar.

pop culture / PotD

Only Tom Hardy Can Go Naked On TV

February 11, 2016

charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy gets to go naked on TV

If you look around Hollywood there’s no end of white smiles and six packs. Long lines of beautiful people lining up to be incredible on film.—Tom Hardy

charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV

Why can’t she be naked on television? Apparently only because she’s female.

At first, I was rather amused when I read Vanity Fair’s story claiming that Tom Hardy is filming a period adventure drama in the nude. After all, Hardy’s new show, Taboo, is filming in Essex of all places. There’s no way that being naked in Essex this time of year is even remotely comfortable. Brush up on your Photoshop skills because someone is going to need them! The whole matter seems just a bit absurd.

The more I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that the strangeness isn’t that Hardy is nude as much as it is the fact they’re getting away with it. Granted, the BBC censors have long allowed for certain amounts of non-sexual nudity and from what I can gather there’s nothing sexy about the role Hardy is playing. However, the program is scheduled to appear on FX as well, which means there will be naked man parts on US television.

Now, there are still some caveats, such as the fact that one has to have a cable subscription or in some other form be paying to watch content from FX. There still isn’t any form of nudity intentionally allowed on broadcast television in the US, whether it’s Tom Hardy or anyone else. We also assume (though we could be wrong) that there is some justifiable reason for Hardy’s character to be running around in nothing but his ink.

But, consider Tom Hardy compared to the photo above. They’re both human. They both are familiar with a tattoo gun. And they’re both naked. Actually, Hardy is more naked than our model; he tosses his underwear and goes full monty. Yet, it’s okay when Tom Hardy does it, but considered criminal if our model were to do the exact same thing.

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Of course, it’s not like gender discrimination is anything new. Women were screaming about it long before there was the Internet. The biggest difference between then and now and that more people are aware of the senseless discrepancy both in terms of law and practice. No one can claim ignorance anymore and the excuse that everyone is doing it only underscores the need for change.

Sexism is a problem all around the world, but it becomes difficult to battle when we see such biased values supported through media such as television. The qualities of Hardy’s character matter little in light of the fact that, were his character female exhibiting the exact same qualities and motivations, she would either have to put on clothes or risk being arrested and/or fined. Only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV. Anyone else has to cover up.

This is exactly the form of sexism that the #FreeTheNipple campaign protests. Double standards are abhorrent no matter where they occur and when they are so obviously gender-biased there is every good reason to use civil disobedience or whatever other means seem reasonable to protest. What’s important to realize in this case is that we’re not opposed to Hardy being nude. Good for him! We’re happy! What rankles our temper just a bit is that it’s only Tom that can get away with this. A woman in the same role just wouldn’t fly past BBC or FX censors.

We’ve talked about the problem with gender bias and nudity before both here and here so I won’t bother repeating everything I’ve already said. Let’s just consider this a dramatic underscore. Tom Hardy doesn’t get special privileges. If he gets to go naked on television, women deserve the right to do the same. No excuses.

PotD

What Are You Doing For NYFW

February 10, 2016

Playing dress-up begins at age five and never truly ends.—Kate Spade

With so many shows to watch, deciding where to spend one’s time is a difficult decision

New York Fashion Week, aka: NYFW, starts in less than 24 hours. I think I’m ready. There’s coffee. There’s chocolate. My phone is charged. There are pain relievers in my pocket. My comfy pseudo-dress shoes are ready. Everything is ready on Pattern for our reviews. Reading glasses, ink pens, photo editing … yeah, we’ve got this. I think.

Last year this season, we took it really easy, rarely doing more than two reviews a day. This season, we might be a little more aggressive, depending on the weather and exactly what we see from the different shows. There are a lot of new names on the official schedule this season, so we’re setting our sights on shows that are dependable and saving the rookies as possible additions if they manage to really impress. If there’s someone you just really, really want to make sure we cover, then let me know ASAP.

No schedule is ever as firm as we might like. Marissa Webb has already had to move her show to avoid conflict with a loud-mouthed, attention-seeking, ego-driven rap star. The weather forecast for New York isn’t exactly friendly, either, which could impact shows scheduled for the Dock venue. So, what we’re highlighting on our schedule below are the shows we know we’ll cover regardless of circumstances. We’ll try to be as timely with our reviews as the process allows. Follow along and let’s make this fun!

What we’re doing for NYFW:

Thursday, 11 February

We’ll start our day with BCBG Max Azria. Lubov Azria is firmly in control of the brand now and as such we’re hoping to see some changes in the direction she goes for fall. Creatures of the Wind hits at noon and will likely be the highlight of the day. We can’t miss Marissa Webb early in the evening, especially since she’s changed her show time. We’re totally ignoring the big mouth showing at Madison Square Garden. Show off.

Friday, 12 February

Jason Wu is the big show to watch today. We were disappointed last season and are really hoping he steps up his game this year. Tadashi Shoji, Kate Spade, and Nicole Miller are also worth watching. Zoolander 2 hits theatres today, though, so cross-marketing surprises could show up anywhere.

Saturday, 13 February

Dion Lee has our attention in the morning. Then, Alexander Wang shows at 5:00 PM and that never fails to, at least, be entertaining. Altuzarra will keep us up late. There could really be some surprises in today’s schedule, though, so we’re trying to stay as flexible as possible.

Sunday, 14 February

Will we fall in love with anything we see on the runway? We certainly hope so! There are SO many choices here, and a lot may depend on weather and timing. Victoria Beckham, Public School, and Derik Lam all show in the first part of the day. Hood by Air, Diane von Furstenberg, and Prabal Gurung show later. We may need an extra heart-shaped box of chocolates to get through this one. Public School is really going to be under a microscope.

Monday, 15 February

Another very busy day as Carolina Herrera and Tommy Hilfiger dominate the morning. I’m especially eager to see how Tommy implements his Instagram photographer’s pit. Real photographers are upset, so this could get messy. Zac Posen and Rag & Bone finish the day with a few new faces tossed in between. I wouldn’t mind seeing someone really break out of today’s pack.

Tuesday, 16 February

There’s a lot of activity during the day, and one newcomer to NYFW we’ll be watching closely is Ohne Titel at 1PM. However, the heavy hitters are much later, with Oscar de la Renta at 6:30 and Narciso Rodriguez at 8.

Wednesday, 17 February

Here’s where things could get really boring. Can Michael Kors show us anything that is really worth discussing? Jason Wu usually does better with BOSS than he does with his eponymous label but will he really show us any creativity? The guys at DKNY have a lot to prove this season if they’re given the chance, and Marchesa tends to like this season. However, they’ve all stumbled in recent seasons and left us yawning. We’ll see how it goes.

Thursday, 18 February

Only the big boys are allowed to play here. Ralph Lauren, J. Mendel, Calvin Klein, and Marc Jacobs. Of the group, though, only Marc Jacobs is likely to do anything really astonishing.

All the reviews will be on Pattern, so bookmark it now if you haven’t already. Follow us on Twitter (@charlesletbette) and Instagram (@charlesletbetter) to be alerted when new reviews are posted. It’s going to be an interesting month, NYFW is finally here, so buckle in and hang on!

Advertising

Bucking Trends: Our 5 Favorite Super Bowl Ads

February 8, 2016

The trends that last and the trends that are relevant are the ones that make you look pretty.—Aerin Lauder

There are times when a popular response and ad trackers can’t be trusted; this is one of them.

Whew, I am so very happy the Super Bowl is over if for no other reason than it’s likely to take a week for my indigestion to die down. There is still wing residue on my keyboard this morning and the over-abundance of dip and chips tells me what the kids will have for afterschool snacks this week. With some wacky weather moving in later this morning, it will be nice to talk about something else, once we tidy up a few loose ends around here.

Super Bowl ad watching has become just as much a part of the event as the football game itself. Some years, it’s been more exciting than the game, and let’s be honest, there were moments during the third and start of the fourth quarter when we might not have minded a few more ads to break the monotony of three-downs-and-punt. There were, as always, some very good ads, some horrible ads, and some that didn’t get the attention they deserve. There are also several rankings of the ads this morning. AdWeek and USAToday’s AdMeter are two decent lists if you’re interested. A lot of people look at Twitter response as well, but that can hardly be considered accurate, especially after half-way through the second quarter when a good portion of those tweeting are clearly drunk.

I’m going with a slightly different ranking system from what others use. Since we saw the vast majority of commercials before the game, what I found interesting was how some commercials actually felt different when viewed during the game than watching them cold beforehand. I was more likely to be entertained by an ad after one of the three touchdowns than one during the third quarter when the game fell into a rut. Reactions of friends also influenced my opinion, as happens for everyone. People viewing ads as a group almost always score them differently than when watching them alone. Overall, I was less entertained by the humor and more struck by the emotional ads. Let’s take a look at my top five:

Doritos, ‘Ultrasound’

Reaction to this one likely depends upon one’s age, whether one has children, and whether one was n a group when it came on. Kat and I had very different reactions. I thought it was hilarious. She thought it was a bit gross. We were both thankful the children were already in bed. This was the last of the Doritos “Crash The Super Bowl” contests, though, and one gets the feeling that no one was quite as enthused about it this year as with previous games. Given a choice between this one and the dogs, this is the clear winner.

https://youtu.be/vH2LsFcWOFY

Kia, ‘Walken Closet’

I still have questions about this one, including whether the dude in the tan suit is driving that care barefoot. Christopher Walken makes an excellent case for a car I probably wouldn’t otherwise consider, though, and that’s what Kia needed. The fourth-quarter ad really helps them stand out from all the other automobile ads in the game and came late enough, when people were actually paying attention, that they might stand a chance of remembering the ad when they pass a Kia dealership on the way to work this morning. The add didn’t hit the trends hard, but it works.

https://youtu.be/9r0FrXXKeiA

NFL, ‘Super Bowl Babies Choir’

I fear the NFL may have shot themselves in the foot a bit with how they teased this one in five-second spots throughout the game. By the time the 60-second version showed up late in the fourth quarter, it felt as though we’d already seen it before and I have a feeling a lot of folks just weren’t paying attention so it completely missed the trends. Millennials without children didn’t seem to get the concept at all, which is not new. Still, the commercial is probably one of the few times the NFL has actually made me smile this season. The little ones are cute. Seal doing a parody of his own song is hilarious. And you know damn good and well there are going to be some babies in Denver come October.

Hyundai, ‘First Date’

Those of you with daughters understand. Actually, anyone with teenagers of driving age understands. The tracking technology built into this car has many potential uses. Live in a high crime rate area? Catch a car thief with this tracker. Suspect that someone’s not where they say they are? Follow up on them. There’s a potential creepy element here because if that thing is using GPS to do the tracking, then it can be hacked. Hello, stalker alert! Still, there’s not a dad alive who doesn’t want to send a message to the guy dating his daughter. This was funny.

https://youtu.be/-R_483zeVF8

Jeep, ‘Portraits’

Hands down, my favorite of the game. That may well be a reflection of my age, though. While the ad trends really well with the Baby Boomers of my generation, it resonated less with younger generations. Millennials didn’t get many of the references, some of which were a bit of a stretch in the first place. There are dangers to reaching too far back into history and the ad flirts with that line but doesn’t quite cross it. AdWeek has a nice article on the relationship between the faces and the vehicle, in case you missed a few. The ad touches on the nostalgia of the vehicle and its universal reliance as a vehicle that gets one through the rough patches. I’ve always wanted a Jeep and this ad really stoked that fire. Too bad I can’t drive.

https://youtu.be/wKn5K5V7tRo

There were some major disappointments along the way, too. The Coca-Cola ad with Marvel’s Hulk? Not a winner. Butterfingers big reveal? A complete letdown. Taco Bell’s new product? More of the same, just given a silly name. Perhaps most disappointing was the complete strike-out by all the Budweiser brands. When they’ve done so much better, this year’s crop fell well short of the standard.

But we’re done with them now. Hooray! Just in time to make fun of the gooey Valentine’s Day commercials!

Current Issues / PotD

Matters Of Polite Conversation

February 6, 2016

A conversation is a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s why there are so few good conversations: due to scarcity, two intelligent talkers seldom meet.—Truman Capote

“Let them eat cake” is a fine party philosophy until you run out of cake. Then what?

There is no predicting the future, no matter how hard we might try. There are prognosticators and statisticians working like crazy in an attempt to predict how Super Bowl 50 is going to play out tomorrow. Everyone wants a good game, and everyone wants their favorite team to win. However, there are times when that just doesn’t happen. In fact, there are five Super Bowls, three involving the Denver Broncos, there were nothing short of blowouts. They were, in order of severity:

Super Bowl XXII – Washington Redskins 42 – Denver Broncos 10
Super Bowl XXVII – Dallas Cowboys 52 – Buffalo Bills 17
Super Bowl XLVIII – Seattle Seahawks 43 – Denver Broncos 8
Super Bowl XX – Chicago Bears 46 – New England Patriots 10
Super Bowl XXIV – San Francisco 49ers 55 – Denver Broncos 10

Those scores are rather depressing if one is a Broncos fan. No matter how much one might want to see Peyton Manning go out on top, the very real numbers are not necessarily in his favor. There is a frightening chance that by the end of the halftime show there’s not much left to do besides eat hot wings and chat with whomever is left in the room. This could get awkward, especially if one happens to be at a Super Bowl party where one doesn’t know many people. Yeah, we’ve been there.

However, and you can thank me for this later, I have compiled a list of topics that are great conversation starters. You have some time between now and tomorrow to study up a little bit so that should there be an unforeseen lull in the game, you can break the silence and monotony with one of these gems. You may be the one who actually saves the party! Any of these can work, so take a good look and find a couple with which you can get comfortable.

Traffic fatalities took a huge jump last year. When one considers the increase as a percentage, 9.3 doesn’t sound like much. Yet, in terms of real numbers, we’re looking at an increase of 2,200 and those numbers are still preliminary; they could go up. Now, there’s no need for complete panic just yet. When one adjusts for the numbers of cars on the road, which also increased, the percentage falls to five percent, which isn’t nearly as alarming. What seems to be the difference? Two major contributors seem apparent. One is the decline in road conditions. We’ve heard about our crumbling infrastructure for a few years and now that lack of attention is costing real lives. The second is distracted driving, with cell phones being the primary culprit. That particular problem is 100 % preventable. Play this topic off one of the many new car ads running during tomorrow’s game.
A sale isn’t always as good as it looks. Everyone’s looking for a bargain, right? In fact, we all know someone who enjoys bragging about the deals they’ve scored. They never pay regular price for anything. However, many stores, especially department stores such as Nordstrom and Kohls, are facing an increased number of class-action lawsuits based on what consumers consider deceptive sale pricing. Shoppers see a 75% off sign, but fail to read the small print that qualifies how that 75% is actually calculated. There are other times when sale prices and regular prices appear to be the same. JC Penney set aside a whopping $50 million to settle a suit claiming their 40% off prices were actually their regular prices. Designer Michael Kors settled a suit claiming made-for-outlet goods were misrepresented as discounted regular clothing. Stores often settle these suits so they don’t have to admit any wrongdoing. Remember that when your favorite retailer’s ad pops up on the screen between downs.
Twitter is changing to be more like Facebook. This topic may only work if you’re watching the big game with people who are constantly looking at their smartphones. People who don’t use social media, and especially those who don’t use Twitter, won’t give a damn. Those who do, though, are likely to be furious. Switching the timeline feed over to an algorithm similar to the kind Facebook uses means that tweets will not necessarily appear in chronological order. Popular and trending topics would appear first. On one hand, it might help sort out what’s important from all the white noise that Twitter attracts. At the same time, though, those who don’t have 20 million followers might have difficulty getting their tweets seen at all. While Twitter has yet to officially respond to this Buzzfeed article, the lack of a denial has the hashtag #RIPTwitter trending. Use this when you see everyone at the party staring at their phone.
Beer is getting into the fashion business. In a way, this isn’t the biggest revelation in the world, but given the number of beer ads shown during the game, it’s an easy segue for conversation. What’s going on is that more beer companies, from small-label craft beers to mass-produced brands such as Heineken (which does have a new ad during the game) are doing collaborations with designers to work their logos into clothing designs. We’re talking about more than just the PBR fishing hat or the Bud Light t-shirt here. Brands are spending major cash to have their brands show up subtly on department store shelves attached to designer names. They’re also likely to show up in places like the comforter on the bed at your favorite B&B, or the shades your girlfriend is wearing. While the collaborations haven’t gotten too noisy yet, if those $5 million ads don’t work we may see Clydesdale imprints on the catwalk come fall.
The Zika virus has the UN asking countries to loosen abortion restrictions. Warning: only use this topic if the game is a complete blowout and you’re desperate for some aggressive action. You won’t find this in any US newspaper because, to date, Zika isn’t an American problem. By summer, though, when the mosquito population increases and people are out more, we could see the issue here as well. Zika is a devastating mosquito-born disease that primarily affects the brain size of newborns. There is no cure, and to date there is no sure means of prevention. Pregnant women are, of course, most at risk, but it is worth noting that the disease can also be spread through sexual activity. The Zika outbreak has been declared a global health concern and even insurance companies, who are not prone to wanting government interference, are asking for help in finding some way to slow this deadly disease. Ths one is certain to start a lively conversation, though, so don’t bring it up unless the game is just so far gone that you’re need something dramatic to prevent you from stabbing your eyes with a colored toothpick.

Sure, we all hope the game is close and that you never have any reason to take your eyes off the screen. We also hope you don’t get food poisoning for wings that have been left out too long. Still, it is better to be prepared than caught sitting in a quiet room where everyone can hear you fart.

And if all else fails, try stripping in front of the TV. If that doesn’t start a conversation, it’s time to leave.

Fashion

NYFW: One Week To Go

February 4, 2016

charles i. letbetter - NYFW one week out

“I can handle crazy, but this is like a whole new batch of crazy.”—Overheard at NYFW

NYFW is only one week away!!

One week from today, the madness better known as #NYFW starts at The Dock with Nicholas K at 9:00 AM. From that point forward, we will spend the next four weeks carefully watching fashion show after fashion show after fashion show. Those that impress us the most we will review for Pattern. Those that don’t impress (which will be the majority) we’ll likely ignore. Those that are truly horrible, and that does occasionally happen, we’ll trash in the hopes that, like Mark & Estel, they don’t return next season (actually, we are beginning to wonder if Mark & Estel are going out of business. Their website hasn’t been updated since immediately after NYFW last year and no new collections have been added.).

With only a week left to prepare, we’re anxiously watching for any major announcements, especially should someone such as Hedi Slimane announce that they’re leaving their current label. For many designers, contract negotiations come down to the wire about now and it’s not at all unusual to see some of those fail right before a designer’s final show. So, here’s a quick look at the major topics we’re looking at for the moment, all of which are subject to change should something bigger come along.

Diversity is still an issue. We’ve talking about the lack of diversity the past two seasons, and last season (shown in September) was better than the one before it. Still, the early word from agents and casting directors is that very little is going to change from last season. That means we’ll still have an overabundance of runway presentations where two or three models of color appear only as tokens. What will it really take to change the status quo? Major editors and buyers staying away, which they’re not inclined to do. No one wants to accidentally miss a breakout line, so they put up with horrible behavior on the part of designers and fail to hold them accountable. When so much of fashion’s core demographic is any color but white, you’d think designers would do a better job of playing to a multi-ethnic audience. Unfortunately, this doesn’t look to be the season we see significant change.

How old is that model? Russian model Kristina Pimenova has done an editorial for Vogue Italia and campaigns for Armani, Gap, and DSquared² juniors lines. Her career is so hot at the moment that she just moved to LA. She’s ten years old. Yes, you read that correctly. Ten. While child labor and child modeling laws in Europe limit the age of runway models, there are no such restrictions at NYFW. While the CFDA strongly discourages the use of models under the age of 15, they have little recourse should a designer decide to not follow those rules. With the current editorial trend being toward young and younger models, there is more than a little concern that some may attempt to slip younger girls into the mix. This can be very difficult to catch, though, so we may not know until it’s too late to do anything about the situation.

Challenges in the contemporary market. If you’re not sure which labels classify as contemporary, think Theory, Alexander Wang, 3.1 Philip Lim, and Public School. Those and other brands rely less on traditional silhouettes and focus more on styles and designs that are more modern, and often more urban, than what we get from older houses. We tend to think of contemporary brands as more cutting-edge and trend-setting, but that doesn’t always translate well when it comes time to fill store shelves. Shoppers want clothes that are distinct, but at the same time they want looks with which they are comfortable. They’re also wanting deeper discounts, such as the pricing they get from fast fashion. Supply is currently outstripping demand and same-store sales have declined dramatically. We’re expecting contemporary labels to step up the high-end game a bit more this season in an effort to woo those more traditional designer shoppers.

Zoolander references everywhere you look. It is no mistake the movie Zoolander2 opens next Friday, the day after NYFW begins. Cross-marketing between the movie and the fashion world is excessively strong and multiple designers cooperated in the making of the movie, including cameo appearances by more than a few. As a result, catching the direct and indirect Zoolander references is likely to become something of a game. The only problem is, with the NYFW schedule so very, very full, who has time to stop and go see a movie?

Who are all these new people? Looking through the NYFW schedule, there are new names on almost every day. While there are always some major designers, such as Marc Jacobs, who show off-site and off-schedule, there are more than a few recognizable names missing from this season’s lineup. In their place are not only a larger-than-usual collection of new designers, we’re seeing more group and retail shows signing up for presentations as well. Kids Rock! hits the catwalk Thursday night, Fashion Hong Kong shows Friday afternoon, Asian Fashion Collection hits Sunday at noon, and the much anticipated JD.com show is next Wednesday at 7. For those not familiar, JD.com is China’s largest online retailer and their presence at NYFW is notable. We’ll be watching the newcomers very carefully and won’t hesitate to lavish praise on those who do especially well. Who knows, we may even find a new favorite!

Still being a week out means there’s plenty of time for additional issues and concerns to pop up as well. We’re trying to find reasons to get excited for what has recently been the most boring month imaginable. Let’s cross our fingers and hope this season is an exciting one!

Hashtag Philosophy

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf

January 31, 2016

The greatest mystery of existence is existence itself.—Deepak Chopra

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf gives us a chance to voice both our fantasy and our fears

Yes, boys and girls, it’s time to play with hashtags again. #WonderWhatWouldHappenIf just started trending on Twitter in the past hour (10 AM EST) and is already growing rapidly in popularity. I can’t say I’m terribly surprised. This is one of those hashtag games that gives one the opportunity to explore mystery, express fear, or expound upon matters of fantasy. I doubt there are any of us that haven’t at one time or another pondered, #WonderWhatWouldHappenIf and then proceeded to answer that question.

Actually, following through on #WonderWhatWouldHappenIf is at the core of science exploration, invention, and discovery. If no one ever was curious about what might happen, then we might never discover many of the wonderful things that make our lives better. Pursuing the innate curiosity regarding life and all that surrounds us is what allows us to advance as a society. If no one ever asked #WonderWhatWouldHappenIf we would likely still be living in caves and pounding rocks.

While the trend is still new, here are some early favorites:

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf people really start thinking for themselves and not what people tell them to do

— Compton Willy (@Willy2Wise_4U) January 31, 2016

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf my face opened up pic.twitter.com/CeUTncmxLe

— Mikey Barbera (@ThePianist1770) January 31, 2016

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf the only people who were allowed to tweet were the ones who knew the difference between there, their, and they’re?

— ♥️ Sassy Mouth ♥️ (@SassyMouth2012) January 31, 2016

Those are just a very small sample, of course, and since it’s still early I’m sure there will be even better ones coming. I’m tempted to contribute heavily because, being totally honest here, I ask that question probably more often than is healthy. Fortunately, I rarely follow through or else there would constantly be a mess in the kitchen and my computer probably wouldn’t work. Still, here are some of my more frequent thoughts:

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf

we all had the chance to learn physics directly from Dr. Stephen Hawking (@ProferssorSH)
everyone was concerned about being better than they are now
I mixed blueberries, raspberries, and a MilkyWay™ bar in a chocolate shake (rather surprised I’ve not tried this one yet)
the terrorists trying to build bombs were color blind (unable to discern red wires from green wires from yellow wires)
children always listened to their parents the first time
nationality wasn’t a thing
we all behaved more like our favorite pets (I fear a lot of public urination on fire hydrants)
we had a clean, unlimited power supply that was not controlled by any government or third party
grass was purple
we really did have to eat our words

I’m sure you’re beginning to think of a few of your own by now. We really are very curious as a species and once we start asking hypothetical questions like this stopping becomes quite difficult. I’m intentionally avoiding those with political or overtly religious themes to them, but as long as we’re asking the question let’s get serious for a few moments.

#WonderWhatWouldHappenIf

No one in the world had to worry about access to clean water
Everyone in the world had equal and free access to education
Men started truly treating women as equals in every way
Women started respecting each other rather than being competitive
Everyone’s skin was the same color: cobalt blue
No one was ever afraid to sing
We only saw the beauty in other people
We didn’t allow ourselves to be confined by artificial social constraints
Clothes were free
Children never went hungry, were frightened, or alone

Like every hashtag game, whether you take it humorously or seriously is up to you. I think there’s plenty of room, and need, for both. I enjoy the more creative replies, but sometimes we need to be reminded about the issues right in front of our face as well.

Now that your brain has been stoked with the idea, go ahead and join the game and don’t forget to tag me so I’ll see your tweet! @charlesletbette

Advertising / Fashion

Sophia Loren Does Family Values For D&G

January 30, 2016

Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the actual state of things is disastrous.—Vladimir Zhirinovsky

Everyone loves their family, and every family has values; but if you’re saying your family is better than mine, we have a problem.

At 81, Sophia Loren is proof positive that real beauty and elegance never fade. The actress that stunned in The Houseboat and won an Oscar® for La ciociarau in 1962 is still every bit as stunning in the new fragrance ad (please, don’t call it a short film) for Dolce & Gabbana‘s Dolce Rosa Excelsa. Whether she’s brushing on paint while wearing a white button-down shirt or gracefully descending the stairs in a black lace dress, Ms. Loren still possesses the ability to outshine every other model on the planet. Her appearance in the 90-second piece is exquisite.

The move plays right into D&G’s spring campaign that casts a number of grandmothers as the featured models, and that on the heels of a fall/winter runway show that emphasized mothers. Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have figured out that appealing to a woman’s maternal instincts is a great way to sell clothes to the whole family. You can’t fault them for a unique marketing plan that is working even better for them than it did for Sears & Roebuck back in the 1960s. Yes, you read that correctly; I just compared Dolce & Gabbana to Sears. If you just had a Brady Bunch flashback, you’re welcome.

While all the family values marketing seems sweet, however, one would be naive to think that it is being promoted only to sell clothes. Not hardly. While both designers are openly gay and have, in the past, been in a relationship together, their interview in Panorama last year presented a very narrow and non-inclusive view of family. Specifically, Domenico claimed that there is a sharp division between children conceived and “born to a mother and a father” versus “children of chemistry, synthetic children. [Products of] uteri [for] rent, semen chosen from a catalog.” Never mind that a very large number of heterosexual couples have to use in-vitro fertilization to have children just the same as a gay couple might. Dolce goes on to say, “I am gay, I can’t have a child. I guess you cannot have everything in life. Sometimes it is beautiful to be deprived of something. Life has a natural course, some things cannot be changed. One is the family.”

Such views clash with what we see in the film as the well-muscled young models helping Ms. Loren revitalize an Italian villa take a moment to lose their shirts and play in the water hoses. Depending upon one’s orientation, this might be gay, or it may be a straight girls wet dream. Either way, it is a strong juxtaposition to the more right-wing, traditional family values tone D&G prefers to espouse publicly.

In the final scene of the film, Loren’s real-life son, Edoardo Ponti, presents a rose to “Rosa,” played by model Kate King, who then presents the same flower to Ms. Loren. All this seems so very lovely as though perhaps leading up to a big Italian wedding (don’t bother, ladies, Edoardo is married with two children). For 90 seconds worth of add, there are family values oozing from almost every frame. Too bad Dolce & Gabbana doesn’t see fit to make room for the entire family. Perhaps they’d prefer all those non-traditional family members shop elsewhere.

Here’s a look at the full commercial.

https://youtu.be/K6pdNpNgmtg

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for family values and I think the commercial is beautiful and Ms. Loren was the perfect choice for the role. However, I prefer family values that include everyone, not just someone’s exclusionary view built upon antiquated mythology. Perhaps, eventually, D&G will find a way to include the whole family.

glamor

Life is too short, and I’m Italian. I’d much rather eat pasta and drink wine than be a size 0. —Sophia Bush

Share this:

Like this:

If everybody is doing it one way, there’s a good chance you can find your niche by going exactly in the opposite direction. —Sam Walton

Share this:

Like this:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this:

Like this:

Whenever I hear that I’m on the brink of stardom, I feel like I want to run into a cave. —Kate Bosworth

Share this:

Like this:

If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I’ll bet they’d live a lot differently. —Bill Watterson

Share this:

Like this:

The software program for motherhood is impossible to fully download into the male brain. You give them two tasks and they’re like, ‘I have to change the baby and get the dry cleaning?’ —Allison Pearson

Share this:

Like this:

You don’t have to wear fur. They make such great fakes. There’s no reason to kill an animal. —Grace Slick

Share this:

Like this:

Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference. —Winston Churchill

Share this:

Like this:

We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination. —Nelson Mandela

Share this:

Like this:

If you ask men about their body image, they will tell you they look better than they do. And if you ask a woman, she’ll tell you she looks worse. —Gloria Steinem

Share this:

Like this:

Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can’t make head nor tail out of it. —Groucho Marx

Share this:

Like this:

Being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men. —Joseph Conrad

Share this:

Like this:

Respect the masterpiece. It is true reverence to man. There is no quality so great, none so much needed now. —Frank Lloyd Wright

Share this:

Like this:

Creativity is putting your imagination to work, and it’s produced the most extraordinary results in human culture. —Ken Robinson

Share this:

Like this:

Photography has always been about documentary, the depiction of the instant, a moment, sometimes a place. Each project is somehow an experimentation of a specific context or a character. —Hedi Slimane

Share this:

Like this:

I don’t know what a world would be like if you do away with sexy images.—Christie Hefner

Share this:

Like this:

It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.—Maya Angelou

Share this:

Like this:

Age is just a number. It’s totally irrelevant unless, of course, you happen to be a bottle of wine.—Joan Collins

Share this:

Like this:

If you look around Hollywood there’s no end of white smiles and six packs. Long lines of beautiful people lining up to be incredible on film.—Tom Hardy

Share this:

Like this:

Playing dress-up begins at age five and never truly ends.—Kate Spade

What we’re doing for NYFW:

Share this:

Like this:

The trends that last and the trends that are relevant are the ones that make you look pretty.—Aerin Lauder

Share this:

Like this:

A conversation is a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s why there are so few good conversations: due to scarcity, two intelligent talkers seldom meet.—Truman Capote

Share this:

Like this:

“I can handle crazy, but this is like a whole new batch of crazy.”—Overheard at NYFW

Share this:

Like this:

The greatest mystery of existence is existence itself.—Deepak Chopra

Share this:

Like this:

Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the actual state of things is disastrous.—Vladimir Zhirinovsky

Share this:

Like this:

Login

Follow Us