Fuck Being Inappropriate, Wear What You Want

Current Issues / Fashion / pop culture

Fuck Being Inappropriate, Wear What You Want

April 8, 2024

Take a good look at the photos below and tell me if you see a problem:

Anne Hathaway @ Versace 2024 fashion snow

The problem? Each of these looks has been touted in my newsfeed this morning as being “inappropriate.” This type of thing happens almost every day (I get some really weird things in my newsfeed). From the red carpet to work to school, everyone seems to have some opinion about what other people should be wearing, and, a lot of the time, they don’t like it. If we were all polite, reasonable-minded people, those opinions would be kept to themselves, as they should be. But no, the Internet exists and heaven forbid we fail to share our displeasure.

Dear fashion trolls: Take your unqualified and unworthy opinions and shove them up your ass so far as to need surgery to remove your fist.

I have a number of reasons for thinking that dress codes of any kind in any place are wrong. I see all this fashion shaming coming from people who have no fashion sense themselves and it makes my blood boil. Let’s consider what is wrong with this whole “inappropriate fashion” idea.

Fashion Doesn’t Appear Out Of Nowhere

Have you ever stopped to consider what it takes to get a piece of clothing into the store where it’s purchased? Whether it’s a name-brand fashion designer such as Versace or some Chinese knockoff found on the floor at Walmart, everything you wear started somewhere, on someone’s drawing board. Those drawings are based not only on the creativity of the designer but on a deep understanding of what is likely to sell. No designer, known or unknown, intentionally creates a garment that no one wants to wear.

Once the garment is designed, it’s shown to buyers. Buyers represent all the stores that are likely to sell the garment in their stores, whether off-the-rack or couture. The buyers know their customer base well and reject any design that is going to take up space and never sell. They only place orders for what their customers want.

Department stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue, which have multiple stores, have multiple levels of buyers, each of whom makes a decision as to what to carry in their store(s). By the time any garment reaches the final consumers, as many as 20 different people have made a yes/no decision about whether to sell the piece. All these people have determined that the wardrobe they are providing is appropriate and desirable for their customers.

All these people are infinitely more qualified to determine what is appropriate than some overweight troll sitting on their couch snarfing their eighth box of Girl Scout cookies.

Fashion Is A Matter of Free Speech

What you wear makes a statement. Anything that makes a statement falls under the umbrella of free speech. Among other things, fashion choices say things like, “This is who I am,” “This makes me feel secure and comfortable,” or “This is how I want you to see me.” Fashion, at its best, should be a statement of pride in oneself.

Yet, there are too many times when people wear clothes that they don’t like, more layers than could ever be comfortable, because someone has shamed their fashion choice and labeled it “inappropriate.” For example, my 14-year-old daughter always wears multiple shirts and baggy pants to school because of comments she received two years ago. She no longer feels comfortable in the dresses she loved when she was younger. Her speech has been muted by what other people think.

Such invasions into one’s life are despicable displays of immoral character. Sure, you may have the right to criticize someone else, but should you? Do you ever stop to think of the long-term consequences that come with opening your damn mouth? How dare you shame someone who is simply enjoying the clothes that make them feel good?

Censoring Fashion Sends A Negative Message

I have long held the belief that when fashion is censored those doing the censoring are sending an inappropriate message: “There’s something wrong with your body.” There’s a conflict that comes with saying, “Your body was made in God’s image,” and “You need to cover more of your body.” Bottom line, your body is beautiful and clothing should enhance that beauty, not hide it.

How many millions of people look in their closet or dresser every morning and wish they could wear something more fun and exciting? How many people are forced to wear someone else’s idea of what is appropriate? How many people are forced to identify as something/someone they’re not because of the clothes they’re mandated to wear?

The worst censorship of all is the tired line of one’s clothing being “distracting” or “causes people to have inappropriate thoughts. WRONG! You are never responsible for what someone else is thinking or how they act based on those thoughts. If someone has sexual thoughts based on what you’re wearing, that’s a them problem and they need to adjust their thoughts accordingly.

Our society has a difficult time with the old-fashioned and not-appropriate-in-the-first-place idea that if a woman wears something that causes a man to have sexual thoughts she must somehow be “asking for it.” This utter piece of bullshit has dominated our society for far too long. The more we publish ill-conceived articles about someone’s clothing, we give ammunition to the people who would use it as an excuse for sexual assault.

No, there’s nothing wrong with you or your clothes, and it is never your fault if someone else can’t deal with your choices.

Trolling Fashion Shows Your Ignorance

As a photographer, I covered the fashion industry from New York to Paris for a long time; longer than some of you have been alive. One of the many things I’ve learned is that there’s a difference between honest, intelligent design critique and speaking blindly out of ignorance. There are people who get paid well to understand fashion and critique it responsibly. Everyone else is a wannabe.

One easy way to tell the difference is how the person talks about the fashion. The legitimate critic looks at the fabric, the stitching, how the garment moves, how comfortable it may be, how it compares with previous seasons, and how buyers will likely receive it. The asshole says things like, “It’s too daring,” “I can’t imagine anyone wearing that out in public,” “That is the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen,” and “No one should be seen in that.”

Ignorance abounds on the Internet and too often it goes beyond the drivel of unrequested opinions filling the servers on the X platform. X trolls are their own brand of stupidity and most people know to ignore them. What hurts are websites parading around as “news” or some other form of legitimate media without any real form of knowledge about any topic they cover. All they do is repeat the nonsense found on X and dare to try passing it off as journalism. I’ve not linked to any of them because that only gives them more oxygen. It is best for everyone if they shrivel up and die.

When it comes to red-carpet fashion, especially at awards shows, one needs to understand that fashion choices are not made in a vacuum. Conversations are held between stylists and designers with consideration given to where a person is seated, the type of seating provided, who they are sitting with, whether the desired fashion has been worn on a similar red carpet, and how the fashion reflects on the personality and style of its wearer. There are no accidents in the choices made.

I have no problems with any of the fashion choices I’ve seen of late. In fact, I quite celebrate the fact that the “year of sheer” has found a delightful home on red carpets around the world. I hope that the trend continues until everyone everywhere feels proud enough and secure enough to wear similar things in their lives.

But for that to happen, the trolls need to shut their fucking mouths and mind their own business, and let people wear what they want to wear.

By the way, have you noticed how no one’s saying much about Morgan Wallen being arrested for throwing a chair off a building and into a crowd last night? Yeah, let’s focus on the actual bad behavior for a change.

Fashion / Long Read / Social Commentary

We Are Slobs

April 9, 2017

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

With thousands of major brand name stores closing this year, fashion labels and department stores alike are struggling to find a way adapt to a fundamental shift in how people dress. Comfort dominates over style. Dress codes once forged in steel have been shattered. Rare are the occasions when we feel the need to “dress up.” Our preference is for wearing what once would have been referred to as gym clothes. All around the world, we have become a society of slobs.

Defining The Situation

My youngest son’s prom was last night. He came out of his room dressed in a black tux with white shirt and a tie that I had to tie for him. He was even wearing hard soled shoes for the first time in well over a year. He was handsome. He looked good. I took pictures to send to his mother.

Within ten minutes of arriving back home, however, he was back in his typical uniform of shorts and a t-shirt so old the white cotton has yellowed. This is how he prefers to dress. This is how his friends prefer to dress. They see little reason to dress up, especially if they’re spending most their day in a classroom.

On one hand, it would be easy to say that my son’s choice of clothing style is typical of a generation, and to some extent it is. However, his generation is merely taking to the extreme a trend that has been growing since before I was a teenager. We can talk about millennials and Gen-X and Boomers all we want, but the truth is we’ve been building to this level of casualness since the Great Depression of the 1930s, nearly a century ago. Society’s standards for clothing are not based on the trends of a single fashion season but upon multiple generations desiring to be more comfortable, less rigid, and freer.

Unfortunately, in our desire to run away from the corporate dress code and gender-based stereotypes, we have gone to such an extreme where the greater majority no longer care about trends or passing fads, or standards, or social expectations. We care more about our own comfort, creating our own “style,” being “unique,” and not selling out to a label. In the process, we have become a society that is full of slobs. We’re not just casual. Our global fashion style has evolved to a point to where wrinkled and slouchy is acceptable and we have decided to be okay with that.

A Slow Progression

One of the challenging aspects of my life now is that I struggle to get in 30 minutes of physical exercise or reasonably aerobic activity during the day. My doctor insists that I must, but our house is small, space is limited, and the effects of unpredictable weather provide too many convenient obstacles. Still, I have to take responsibility for my health (Kat insists) and that led to me going to the mall this week to do that stereotypical old person thing: walk. I have become that person. We’re not there to shop, just walk.

I took the 18-year-old with me for safety. I still don’t have these new meds balanced out just yet and sudden blood sugar drops are a problem. Sure enough, by the time we made a couple of rounds, I needed to sit and chug some juice. This gave us a chance to people watch, which is typically an interesting enough activity all on its own. What we observed was interesting.

The number of women wearing some form of Spandex®-infused leggings was roughly 70 percent. Most were black, but there were a couple of middle-aged women whose thighs were far from toned wearing leggings of bright colors and designs that made it impossible to not notice that their thighs were large and not toned. Easily 90 percent of men were in jeans or some other casual pant, loose fitting, a little too long. The day’s cool and wet weather had most everyone in a jacket, the range running from Nanook of the North-styled parkas to plain hoodies. Under those jackets were primarily t-shirts, which isn’t too surprising. None of the shirt tails were tucked, though, and men especially tended to not tie their shoe laces, leaving them dangling or tucked in the top of their sneakers. The general appearance, overall, was best termed as slouchy.

Sure, there were exceptions. We saw a couple of young women wearing very nice dresses, fully coiffed and made up, pushing babies in strollers as they headed toward Von Maur with fierce determination. People of certain ethnicities and religious practice were dressed according to their cultures’ traditions. One young woman, who might have been coming from or going to a job interview, was dressed what we traditionally refer to as “professional” but was having some difficulty walking in block heels that were about a size too large for her.

Those were the very obvious exceptions, however. More typical was the teenage girl who wandered into Pac-Sun wearing well-worn flannel pajama pants and a frayed hoodie. The pajamas were long enough to nearly hide her worn sneakers and the hoodie was large enough to obliterate most her features. She shuffled as she walked and her phone never left her ear.

How did we get here? Blaming generations is easy, but incorrect. We’ve been building up to this for a very long time.

Prior to the stock market crash of 1929, what one wore defined their place in society and the vast majority of people were anxious to look better off than they were. Think of what we refer to as the “roaring” twenties and one conjures images of girls in flapper dresses and men in sharp pinstripe suits. While the every-day reality was something a little less formal, there remained a sense that how one dressed reflected their character and morality.

The Great Depression changed all that, however, and by the time we came out of World War II we had begun softening our attitudes toward how we dressed, especially in non-work settings. Denim moved away from being strictly the uniform of labor and became an after-school favorite of teens and college students. Slacks became a regular part of women’s fashion and men came home and traded their suits for khaki slacks and open-collared short-sleeve shirts. As quaint as that may sound to us now, it was a fundamental shift in philosophy as casual wear became a fundamental part of the fashion industry.

Once society got a taste for casual style, we decided we really liked it and slowly moved toward integrating more casual looks into our daily wardrobes. By the time we got to the 1970s, we had the horrible experience of the leisure suit, leather fringe, and the shift toward athletic footwear for things other than athletics. The “track suit” became a thing and President Jimmy Carter even wore jeans and a denim jacket in the oval office. Ronald Reagan tried pulling the nation back with forced formality at the White House, but it was too late. Casual Friday became a workplace

Casual Friday became a workplace norm in the mid-80s and by the time Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the world was well on its way toward khaki hell, fueled by the casual attitudes of the burgeoning high-tech industry. Office dress codes that once required ties and jackets of men and dresses for women were the exception rather than the rule by the time the world nervously celebrated Y2K. Denim was always pre-washed and often “distressed” and ripped in strategic places. Flip-flops replaced sneakers to the point that some people didn’t think twice about wearing them for official visits to the White House.

Underwear became a part of our fashion sense, partly thanks to Madonna and partly the influence of Calvin Klein. “Street style” and “urban” became regular parts of our fashion lexicon. Questions of what, exactly, defined “office appropriate” became a regular struggle for HR managers who no longer had a clear road map to follow. We rebelled against any kind of forced style structure and increasingly insisted upon autonomy in deciding what we wear.

At the same time, we also became more self-aware regarding our health and our bodies. Videos on the Internet allowed us to see “behind the scenes” of how the “beautiful people” kept in shape. Fitness went mainstream and yoga, especially, not only became the dominant form of wellness but also infused itself into our fashion sense. Yoga pants and sports bras went from being something one wore to the gym to a regular part of our wardrobes no matter where we were.

In 2014, Vanessa Friedman, of The New York Times asked what to call this “gym-to-street sector that has suddenly become the hottest thing to cover two legs?” Nike CEO Mike Parker declared, “Leggings are the new denim.” Beyoncé’s line for Topshop targeted “women who go to yoga or the health club, as well as those who just want to look as if they do,” according to WWD. The term “athleisure” came to define those clothes that have an athletic appearance but are not really meant for one to actually sweat in. Alexander Wang, chief among the athleisure designers, made a killing.

In the short years since our style decisions have completely disintegrated. If athleisure is okay, then a couple of steps below that must be okay as well. Ragged, ill-fitting, wrinkled, old, and frayed have become such a standard part of our wardrobe that we even see those elements incorporated on fashion’s runways.

The problem is that fashion relies on trends, which change and lead us to keep buying new clothes. Athleisure is not a trend and as we dissolve into a new level of slovenliness we care less and less about purchasing anything new.

Fashion On The Ropes

A part of me cried this week when Ralph Lauren announced that they are closing their flagship store on New York’s 5th Avenue. Not only has that store been the base for all things Ralph Lauren, in recent years it’s been the home for the designer’s fashion shows, spectacles that transformed the entire store into a giant runway. Lauren is not alone, though. Fashion retailers are fleeing their 5th Avenue shops like rats flee a sinking ship and that sinking metaphor is more appropriate than any of us care to admit. Consider the number of store closing already announced this year:

Payless
Stores closing in 2017: 1,000
RadioShack
Stores closing in 2017: 552
The Limited
Stores closing in 2017: 250
Family Christian
Stores closing in 2017: 240
Wet Seal
Stores closing in 2017: 171
Bebe
Stores closing in 2017: 170
Crocs
Stores closing in 2017: 160
J.C.Penney
Stores closing in 2017: 138
BCBG
Stores closing in 2017: 120
American Apparel
Stores closing in 2017: 110
Kmart
Stores closing in 2017: 108
hh Gregg
Stores closing in 2017: 88
Staples
Stores closing in 2017: 70
CVS
Stores closing in 2017: 70
Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Macys
Stores closing in 2017: 68
Sears
Stores closing in 2017: 42
Guess
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Green Mountain
Stores closing in 2017: 30

I know, not all of those have anything to do with fashion or style, but what affects one retail sector ultimately affects them all. How we dress or don’t dress, the degree to which we shop or don’t shop, has a ripple effect across all of retail, even reaching all the way out to seemingly extreme disconnects such as Family Christian stores. Guess what: we’re not buying religious t-shirts, either. The retail economy is reeling from such a severe attitude of casualness that we no longer give a fuck whether we buy anything or not.

Not that we care. As our society has descended into this realm of wearing whatever we pick up off the floor and calling it our “personal style,” we don’t seem to realize that at the core lies a self-centered philosophy that no one has a right to challenge or question what anyone else does. For me to sit at the mall and question whether or not someone should be wearing those leggings is considered “shaming,” and I’m told to not do that. For me to challenge the young woman who wore her pajamas to the mall is infringing upon her personal rights. Even my choice of titles, asserting that we are all slobs, is considered judgemental and inappropriate by most. We want to wear what we like and have rejected any sense that anyone has the right to even question our decisions.

The longer-term danger, beyond the severe economic impact and the jobs being lost, is that in our self-centered casual attitude we’ve not only stopped caring about what other people think, we’ve stopped caring at all. We care about my pets, my cars, and my life experiences. Sure, we still consume, and those who cater to our selfish desires are doing well. However, the Internet has made it all too convenient for to pretend that we care about refugees by simply donating $5 online rather than actually getting out and helping people. We post our political opinions on Facebook but can’t be bothered to actually have conversations that matter with our elected representatives. We’ll join a rally if enough other people are going because our egos are stroked when we appear to be part of something popular.

Unpopular conclusions

The examination that leads me here is harsh. We are slobs. We are self-centered. We are selfish. While none of these conditions are new, we’ve been this way for thousands of years, where society once considered these traits as something to avoid, we now embrace them fully and cherish them as if they were actually desirable. We love doing and wearing whatever the hell we want. We don’t care if our actions destroy the economy as long as we’re getting what we want. We just don’t want anyone else telling us what to do, where to go, or how to behave. We’re independent, dammit, and if we have to dress slovenly and act slovenly to prove that, then that’s exactly what we are going to do.

Perhaps, however, we need to reconsider some of the lessons our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents tried to teach us. There is some benefit to following rules. Standards not only help maintain order, they keep us safe. We mind our manners because it matters how we behave and how we treat other people. We don’t put our wants and desires first because it is important to actually care about other people first. We are taught delayed gratification because it keeps us fiscally stronger and avoids the irresponsibility of debt. We dress as well as we can for any given situation not to show off but because it is a sign of respect for those around us.

That last piece there, respect, is something we’ve all but lost. We want others to respect us, we’re all about people respecting who we are and what we do, but we give no one anything to respect in the first place. Respect does not exist when we don’t care what other people think. When we choose to dress like trash, we are effectually telling the rest of the world that we think they are trash. When all of our actions and motivations are self-centered on personal pleasure and gain, we are telling the rest of the world that we think they are inferior. We can copy and share the suicide hotline number on our Facebook profile over and over and over, but the proof of whether we actually care about the lives of other people lies in our all our actions, not our words.

How we dress, how we talk, the activities in which we directly participate, tell those around us whether we respect them as humans, part of our shared society. Dressing, speaking, and behaving appropriately says that we care, that we are willing to put respect for others above our own comfort and/or convenience. Without that visible demonstration of respect, all the words we might post on social media or anywhere else are meaningless.

We when dress, speak, and behave like slobs, we tell those around us that we really don’t give a shit about them. We say that our own comfort and perceived independence is more important than anything or anyone else. Ultimately, slobs don’t even respect themselves.

We can do better. We must do better. I don’t know about you, but I don’t care to be a part of a society of slobs.

Advertising / Just For Fun / PotD

Rejected Business Cards

April 2, 2017

Not every choice is a good one.

[dropcap] Sleep deprivation. That’s really the only excuse I can think of for some of the copy that was offered up during our latest round of business card re-design. As a photographer and creative, I can’t keep handing people the same business card year after year. First, the phone number keeps changing in this cell-oriented world where keeping the same number is an exercise in how much patience I don’t have. Second, seeing the same business card more than twice makes one look boring. We have to keep changing this up. [/dropcap]

As we were once again going through that process this week, our habit is to choose from some images we like, whether they be cute or different or just awesome, and then try them out on our business card template along with unique copy for each one. We then eliminate them one by one until we have the look we want. or at least have some concept of what we don’t want.

In the end, the two-sided design we chose looks nothing at all like the images you’ll see here. We rejected all of these looks, all the copy, all the concepts. And after having gone through that process, we found some humor in the ones we rejected.

So, here are the ones we didn’t choose. As for the ones we did, you’ll just have to catch up with me somewhere and ask for one. They should be here in a couple of weeks.

As always, click on any image below to view the full slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11100″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

News & Comment / Photography

Any Given Tuesday: A Mini Gallery

March 21, 2017

charles i. letbetter - any given tuesday

Monday’s news fuels Tuesday’s fallout

I first started noticing the pattern some 30 years ago and it’s only become more relevant with passing time. A lot of important decisions and statements are made on Mondays. Yesterday was a good example. Just consider some of the revelations made yesterday:

The FBI is investigating Russia’s involvement in last year’s election and to what degree the president’s people were involved.
The US is prohibiting electronics larger than a cell phone on flights inbound to the US from eight countries, but failed to provide those countries with details.
The Secretary of State is snubbing NATO to meet with China and Russia. Fraternizing with the enemy, anyone?
North Korea tested a rocket engine that could fuel ICBMs and the US is considering sanctions.
Google is overhauling its policies and hiring more people to make sure client ads don’t appear next to Breitbart and other offensive content.

All of those issues are important in one way or another and now that they’ve been announced, the fallout starts. Expect it to be a rough day at the State Department. Firing decisions are often made on Tuesday (though they may not be announced until Friday). Don’t be surprised to see some bankruptcy and store closing announcements today. It’s going to be rough for a lot of people.

Then, there are the things one doesn’t read about in the newspaper. A dear friend became a widow at the age of 49 yesterday thanks to her husband’s heroin addiction. Another friend who had relocated across the country for a better job lost that job yesterday, less than six months after the move. There are surgeries and complications, illnesses evading diagnosis, and physical problems threatening to end careers.

Tuesdays suck.

So, though we don’t have a lot of time to just sit and look at pictures, we do have some pictures, re-processed with bolder tones. These photos won’t solve anyone’s problems. However, our hope is they will at least provide a moment’s respite from all the stress and anxiety that come with any given Tuesday. Click on a thumbnail to view the whole slide show. We’ll worry more about the news stuff tomorrow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11073″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Fashion / Fashion Review

Our Favorite Shows From Autumn/Winter 2017

March 10, 2017

There are a few that will always stand out

[dropcap]I spent most of Wednesday sleeping. Thursday was a surprise doctor appointment (not as bad as it sounds). Maybe it’s because I’m older, or perhaps because we put a lot more effort into our reviews this season, but by the time we reached the end of this autumn/winter fashion season I was ready for Kat to take me out back and just shoot me. These things take an inordinate amount of energy from me and more than once I’ve wondered if it is worth the effort. Of course, the answer is ultimately yes, they are worth all the effort, all the time, and all the loss of sleep. [/dropcap]

Now is the time for everyone to start with their “Best of … ” lists. I’ve already seen a couple and, while I agreed on most points, felt they missed some collections that were either very fun or very important. The list we want to present today isn’t really a “Best” list. Best is an arbitrary definition and seems a bit bullying toward those who might not agree. Instead, ours is a list of favorites, the shows that made it worth the ungodly hours, the sore muscles, the aching back, the endless eye strain, and the gallons of coffee. When all the other shows blur together, these are the ones that stand out in my memory.

Please note that there is no uniform set of requirements for making this list. Some are more because of the designer’s attitude than the clothes. Others had fantastic casting. Still others had just one piece that really caught my eye. Of course, all of our reviews are ready for you to read on Pattern. If you’re interested in the full review, we’ll include a link to each one below. What we want to acknowledge here are those that made us smile, made us feel good about our use of time, and excuse making everyone else alter their schedules so we could catch the next show.

These are the autumn/winter shows that are worth watching again, in no particular order.

Prabal Gurung

There are a couple of shows from this season where I really have no choice but to show video rather than still pictures. I love still photography and much of the time find that it presents the stronger message. Not in this case, though.

Gurung had already achieved a place on this list by casting “plus size” models Marquita Pring and Candice Huffine in his show. We didn’t see nearly enough of that this season and Gurung’s was probably the most notable show in which they appeared.

He also won the award for the most sheer we saw in a New York show this season. I’m guessing he didn’t want anyone to get too hot under those fantastic coats of his. We’re talking really sheer.

What cemented this show’s place in our hearts, though, was the finale walk. These are usually rather boring, actually. In fact, it’s not unusual for me to get up and grab another cup of coffee if I think it’s going to be long and drawn out. Prabal kept me in my seat, though, as the lights went down, the familiar introduction to John Lennon’s Imagine began playing, and models walked out in t-shirt with feminist messages of empowerment. I’ve never heard a fashion crowd go so completely quiet in all my life. The effect was amazing.

You can read our full review on Pattern, then watch the video here:

https://youtu.be/GV6G9LQxw9o?t=6m52s

Calvin Klein

This could be one of those collections that go down in history: Raf Simons’ first show for Calvin Klein. There was a lot of speculation beforehand as to whether or not the designer best known for his time at Christian Dior. Could he produce something that Americans would notice and want to wear?

While the jury may still be out on whether Americans actually want to wear this new version of Calvin Klein, it definitely got attention when he sent down some “sweaters” with sheer bodies. It was an interesting look, to be sure:

Granted, Calvin Klein is known for being a very sexy line of clothing, especially when it comes to their men’s underwear ads. But is the US ready for this? Actually, what this look does is allow one to make a sweater with any t-shirt. The sheer bodice let’s the shirt’s message shine through while keeping one’s arms warm and toasty. At least, we think that’s the direction Raf was going. It will be interesting to see if anyone actually tries wearing the sweater as it appeared on the runway.

We suggest reading the full review over on Pattern for more details. There are several interesting pieces in this collection, but this one, available for men as well, could make this fall’s college football games a lot more interesting.

Marc Jacobs

You won’t find any pictures from inside the Armory where Marc Jacob’s fashion show was held. In a season where spectacle often exceeded the value of the clothes show, Marc seemed to give the entire industry a giant middle finger by going with an anti-spectacle. No set. No photographers pit. Just one long aisle down the center of the floor with folding chairs on either side. No music. No distractions. Just the sound of models’ heels clicking on the hardwood floor. Stripped back and as bare bones as possible.

Only when models stepped outside the Armory were there cameras and music. Lots of cameras and lots of music. Models came out and sat in front of large speakers playing Issac Hayes’ cover of Walk on By while everyone snapped pictures of them, and the models snapped pictures of everyone else. It made for a most interesting end to NYFW. Our full review is here.

Marc Jacobs Ready To Wear Fall Winter 2017 New York / NOWFASHION.com

Burberry

A lot of people don’t understand this Burberry collection. No matter how much explanation Christopher Bailey has given, I’ve been amazed by the number of people who just don’t get it. The challenge seems to be that the collection is based on the work of a specific sculpture artist, Henry Moore. Even with Moore’s work on display right there in front of them as the models walked, not everyone seemed terribly thrilled with the collection and more than a few have wondered aloud whether Bailey’s days are numbered.

No, Christopher Bailey isnt’ going anywhere, and this collection is better than the credit it’s been given. There is some critical work going on here and while it’s not necessarily down the normal trench-coat-laden path it is still a strong collection with a number of worthwhile pieces. Among them, Bailey’s new take on that famous trench. What really blew my mind, though, were the amazing oversized capes that he put on models for the end of the show. While these pieces are not part of the collection that will hit stores, they definitely made the collection stand out and demonstrate how incredibly creative Bailey is. There’s a lot more to say, and you can find it all on Pattern. And for the record, I like the new trench, too.

Antonio Marras

This show kind of takes the cake for coolness this season. Not only was the runway diverse in terms of age, gender, and size, it was 100% entertainment without using outlandish set design as a spectacle. Instead, Marras employed a German-based theater method known as Tanztheater. As a result, there were ongoing skits between couples and silent monologs from individual models that were constantly taking place as the incredibly colorful line of clothes made their way around the catwalk. It was fun and entertaining without taking away from the clothes.

Then, came the finale, which involved a choreographed march of sorts. Humorous, to be sure. But oh, they weren’t done! Marras comes out to take his bow and the entire Tanztheater cast chases him crazily around the runway. I put the link to the show in our review, but I’m including it again here because it’s just that much fun to watch! Absolutely nothing like it all season!

Missoni

Politics was on the mind of a lot of people this season and with good reason. As trade policies with the US could become less friendly to imports, many labels are looking for ways to express their dissent. Many designers kept their protest subtle so that it wouldn’t cause too much of a stir. Not Angela Missoni. She caused a stir and stirred hard.

First, there were pink knit “pussy” hats on all the guests’ seats. Then, at the end of a fairly typical Missoni show, came these three looks:

Now, in case you don’t catch all the symbolism, let me help you out a bit. The pink triangle is for AIDS awareness. The Venus symbol is for feminism. And the two hearts over the breasts are to protest the social media censorship of women’s nipples. That’s a LOT to put into one fashion show.

Oh, but she wasn’t done. After models made their finale walk wearing those same pink knit hats, Ms. Missoni and her entire extended family come out onto the runway where she read the following statement:

“I feel the need to recognize that in a time of uncertainty there is a bond that can keep us strong and safe, that unites those that respect all human rights. Let’s show the world that the fashion world is united and fearless.”

Wham. This was without question the boldest activist statement we saw all season and it was BEAUTIFUL. You’ll want to read the full review for more detail.

Dries Van Noten

This season marked Dries Van Noten’s 100th runway show, which is pretty impressive. Rather than putting on some great spectacle, however, Dries chose simply to review his past 20 years of fashion by bringing back the models who wore the looks the first time around. Talk about age diversity! That meant there were models ranging from 45-years-old to 16-years-old all on the same runway. The entire atmosphere was fun, jovial, and sufficiently celebratory without going over the top.

Equally important is that Van Noten kept his catalog parade from feeling like a catalog parade. He overlayed his house silhouettes with geometric patterns that fit well with contemporary looks and kept everything fresh and lively. He even incorporated metallic fabrics there were literally everywhere this season. While Van Noten doesn’t always get an overwhelming amount of press during the season, he gave plenty of people reason to look at him this time around and they’ll likely stick around to see what happens next. Read more in our Pattern review.

Christian Dior

This was Maria Grazia Chiuri’s blue season, which would, in of itself, have been enough reason to include this Dior collection on our list of favorites. Blue is such a wonderful color for fashion in the first place, and her sense of design and styling fits the color very well. There was no way that this wasn’t going to be a strong collection.

However, what really causes this collection to stand out for me is her use of denim as a metaphor for women’s strength. When she sent down a set of blue denim overalls with a wool blazer, she had me. The message she was sending was emphatic: women can be strong, stylish, and feminine all at the same time. Women can work at the hardest manual labor jobs you want to throw at them and still turn around and be the belle of the ball without batting an eye. This was a more subtle form of political statement, but be very certain Ms. Chiuri was making a statement and women heard it. You’ll find more in our review.

Andreas Kronthaler For Vivienne Westwood

Vivienne walked.

That’s really all I should need to say. Instead of waiting and coming out at the end of the collection to take a bow as she always does, Dame Vivienne Westwood became a model in her husband’s collection and walked twice during this season’s show. The auditory response she received from the crowd was overwhelming. Dame Westwood is loved throughout both the fashion and environmental communities. Her clothes speak to those who don’t care to fit into current trends and those who love her clothes love her as well.

So, when Dame Westwood set foot onto the runway, the entire crowd erupted in cheers and totally forget anything else that came afterward. Nothing else mattered. Vivienne walked! Catch the full review on Pattern.

Stella McCartney

Leather has been a huge trend this season, but there are a lot of people who find the use of animal products cruel. The size of that audience is significant and leading that charge in the fashion world is Stella McCartney. Her animal-friendly collection has been the go-to line for animal activists for quite a while.

This year, however, she took it a step further with not-skin-skin, a new high-tech material that looks and feels identical to leather. Ms. McCartney is picky, mind you. She’s very much aware of her brand’s luxury status and knows that if she doesn’t maintain quality she loses that status. She waited until she had a material that she’s confident is as strong and as durable as real leather. While I can’t speak to the durability of the product, I can say that it certainly looks like leather with the exception of being a bit more flexible. The question now is whether the rest of the industry will follow suit. The answer lies in what consumers demand, so that one’s totally up to you. See the full review on Pattern.

And now we’re done, although I’m sure I’m leaving someone out. Overall, this hasn’t been as boring a season as some of those previous. Perhaps the sense of activism helped more of the clothing lines take a more serious tone, which is a good thing. We didn’t get the sense that anyone was “phoning it in” this season as we often have before. Not that every collection was great, mind you. We’re still wondering about both the Gucci and Prada collections. Those were both… interestingly creative. And if we didn’t review your favorite designer it may very well be because we watched and decided there wasn’t any point in dragging the whole label through the mud because we couldn’t find anything nice to say. We try to not be totally mean, but there are limits.

So, the Autumn/Winter 17 season is past and we’re already looking toward Spring/Summer 18. Just this morning, Chloé announced Clare Waight-Keller’s replacement as Natasha Ramsy-Levi. Already we have something to which we can look forward. Who knows what else might happen between now and then. Perhaps Roberto Cavalli will find someone worthy to take the reigns of that ship. Know that we’ll be watching, waiting, and planning a great experience for you this fall.

Advertising / Art / Current Issues / Editorial / Long Read / Photography / Social Commentary

Over Thinking Rethinking

March 5, 2017

Rethinking the ethics of Photoshop is missing the point of Photoshop

The Short Version

Yet another group is taking aim at photo retouching, this time pushing their agenda through something called “The Retouchers Accord.” Their aim is to rid the world of what they consider photographic “fake news” that comes from altering images significantly. Our take, of course, is there is a purpose to retouching that defies any kind of blanket statement or set of rules. We also challenge their definition of “fake news.”

NOTE: We are not, under any circumstances, saying that body image and self-esteem, especially among teens, isn’t an issue directly affected by the media at large. We are well aware of the research in that regard and don’t argue that point. We do, however, take exception to the allegation that photo retouching itself constitutes a “public health crisis” or can, in any significant way, resolve the larger issue.

A Bit Of Background

Sitting at a table in a coffee shop back in 2007, I’m talking with a young woman anxious to get into modeling. She’s tall enough, attractive enough, and seems to have above-average intelligence, everything a model needs. As we’re talking, I ask, “How do you feel about having your pictures Photoshopped?”

“Oh, Photoshop the hell out of me,” she said. “I have trouble keeping my face clear so, by all means, clean that shit up. Oh, and make my boobs bigger if you can.”

I stared back at her for a moment. Make her boobs bigger? The young woman was far from being flat-chested. Increasing her size any risked moving into comical proportions. She was quite serious, though. So serious that she had implants doubling the size of her breasts just a couple of years later.

We’ve shot with this model for several years, but my favorite shots of her are the ones I have to retouch the least. She has a wonderful face and on days when her skin is clear, which happened more frequently as she got older, there was very little that makeup didn’t cover. Of all the pictures we’ve taken, only twice has she asked me to go back and airbrush her skin. I’ve never augmented the size of her breast.

Here’s the thing: when it comes to photo editing I’m lazy. I don’t want to spend any more time with an image than is required for it to meet client expectations, whether that client is a model, a family, or an ad agency. My take has always been that if I’m having to spend hours on photo editing, we failed to take a good picture in the first place. All-night editing sessions should never be necessary on a standard photograph.

However, not every situation is the same. As technologies have developed making some tasks much easier, many art directors look to creative photo editing as a way to save money. Increasingly, shots that once involved hundreds of thousands of dollars as we transported entire crews to the middle of the Amazon jungle are done in studio in front of a green screen. Not only does this save a tremendous amount of money, I can speak first-hand to how much safer the studio is than putting an insulin-dependent model on a boat in the middle of the freakin’ jungle. The move makes sense and there’s no good reason, in my mind, to not do so.

If you’ve been reading these pages long, you know Photoshop is a sensitive topic for me. While it frequently comes under fire because of some very public misuse of the tool, the fact is that photo editing is now, and always has been, one of the most critical aspects of the job. Even long before Photoshop was a thing, post-editing skills were necessary to make sure a photo was suitable for public release.

We’ve written about Photoshop issues rather extensively. Roughly 37 times in the past three years by our count. Rather than making you do a search, though, let me save you some time. Here are the ones you most likely need to read:

Everything else we’ve said on the topic is more instructional or relates only to how a specific set of photos were produced. Still, know that as much as I dislike spending endless hours editing, I will, to the last pixel, defend the right to do so. Editing is a necessary and valuable skill. Suggest otherwise and you’ll likely make me angry.

They Made Me Angry

There I was, reading during a moment of downtime between shows in Milan. I start flipping through the online version of Fast Company Design, a magazine whose ideas I want to like but question frequently. What catches my eye is Katharine Schwab’s article, Rethinking the Ethics of Photoshop. The subheading instantly had me feeling defensive:

Retouching is its own form of fake news. Can an oath change a problem that stretches from fashion to product design?

What the living fuck? “Retouching is its own form of fake news?” Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even understand the concept of photography and imagery and portraiture? Do you understand the fundamental difference between photojournalism and boudoir photography? How is transitioning from a color image to a black and white image suddenly equivalent to telling a blatant lie?

If I had been reading a paper copy of the magazine I would have thrown the damn thing across the room. This article isn’t just full of bullshit, “its own form of fake news,” if you will, it is irresponsible in the way it fails to understand why we edit photos, how we edit photos, and the results of editing photos. Not to mention the fact I find it fucking insulting.

I apologize for all the four-lettered expletives, but every time I look back at this article it feels like a slap in the face and I just don’t respond well to that kind of offense.

The article is written in support of the Retouchers Accord, a statement of ethics being pushed as though every photographer and photo editor on the planet were going around dramatically altering their photos. Sarah Krasley, the author of the accord believes:

“The downstream impacts of the design decisions that postproduction artists and retouchers are making are causing public health problems. You have young women and men looking at those pictures and thinking their body needs to look like that in order for them to be beautiful, to be loved or accepted.”

Excuse me, but “public health problems?” McDonald’s is responsible for more public health problems that retouched photographs. Let’s get grip on reality here.

Yes, we know there is a relationship between consumed media and eating disorders, but what Ms. Krasley is trying to push is a questionable 2014 study by Kristen Harrison and Veronica Heffner, Virtually Perfect: Image Retouching and Adolescent Body Image, which claims to show that retouched photos resulted in lower self-esteem and higher body image consciousness among teens. There are all kinds of problems with the research and how it was conducted, but the biggest issue is in translating what they found. The changes in self-esteem and body image occurred only in the group that was told the photographs had been retouched. In other words, make a big deal about the retouching and a few kids are going to respond.

Ms. Harrison and Ms. Heffner do make a big deal about the effect of media on eating disorders. Between the two of them, they’ve since authored dozens of articles not merely related to retouched photographs, but every kind of visual media, claiming that the images were shown to have a detrimental effect on adolescents. One might say the two are rather obsessed with the topic, but obsession does not make for accuracy. Even their own research shows that the majority of teens are well aware of the line between real and fantasy and don’t fall for what they know is unattainable. The hype is unfounded.

In fact, not only is the hype unfounded, it is misdirected. More substantial research points to obesity being the more serious health effect from media consumption. Teens, on the whole, are better arbiters of the images they’re fed than we give them credit. I know because I happen to have one in my home. Show my 18-year-old a dramatically enhanced image of a shirtless Hugh Jackman and he will scoff. Not only does he know that the actor’s form has been enhanced, he also knows that muscle is difficult to maintain and turns to fat. Krasley, Harrison, and Heffner are making a big deal about something that might have personally affected them at some point in their lives, but does not affect a large enough group of adolescents to constitute a “public health crisis.”

Nonetheless, being the passionate and highly-motivated person she is, Ms. Krasley has decided that every photographer and retoucher on the plant needs to acquiesce to her little “ethics” accord because, you know, less than one-tenth of one percent of the global adolescent population might be adversely affected by a retouched image. Never mind that for most of us getting that level of exposure is a pipe dream. Never mind that there’s no negative nor positive effect at all if the viewer doesn’t know the image has been altered. Ms. Krasley has the “If one child is saved …” attitude that sounds altruistic but actually ends up making life more difficult for more people than would ostensibly be helped.

What Does The Retouchers Accord Say

There are five steps in the Retouchers Accord, and two of them are actually decent ethics statements. Not that I would try to force any of them on anyone, mind you. Ethics are a personal decision and only once someone has agreed to abide by a certain code can they be judged by whether or not they follow it. What we need to look at are the parts of the accord that are either unnecessary, offensive, or unrealistic. Let’s do that now. I’m pulling the images directly from the Retouchers Accord website, so don’t think for a moment I created any of it.

What the living fuck? That’s how you’re going to start, by demanding that one let everyone else know that they’re in the fucking club? What strange sort of cultic evangelism is this?

No, just absolutely no-way-in-literal-or-figurative-hell am I going out of my way on any level to let someone outside an organization—any organization—know that I am a member of said organization. I had enough of that nonsense rammed down my throat while growing up in church. The same maxim applies now that applied then: “If you have to tell someone you’re doing something good, you’re not doing it very well.”

The world is already far too full of people who talk too much and do too little. We elected such an idiot president. We don’t need more people running around essentially saying, “Hey, look at me! I’m doing this thing that’s good for society,” just because it brings attention to them. I never have understood that form of reasoning and never will.

Extending that reasoning out, this is why I’m not a member of any professional organization. I don’t want anyone looking at whether I’m a member of this group or that association when deciding whether or not to hire me. Look at my work. My work is what matters. Anything else is a distraction away from that work and I really don’t like distractions. So no, I’m not signing anything that forces me into a position of being any kind of evangelist.

This statement reflects how little Ms. Krasley understands about the greater scope of photography and retouching outside her own little world. For example, one of the aspects of my work that I enjoy most is taking pictures of newborns. Each one of them is lovely and perfect in their own special way and it’s wonderful to interact with a young family that is just starting out with this little one, or adding to their young family, and feeling all the warmth and joy they have for this precious little life.

So, in the midst of this beautiful setting, you now want me to “fuel a dialog about social impact, diversity, and authenticity?” Have you lost your fucking mind?

That’s not saying that such a discussion is never appropriate, but it’s damn sure not going to be with every client or partner. In fact, for the majority of photographers, it’s not likely to ever be an appropriate topic of conversation. If I’m shooting the wedding of a black Muslim to a White Jew, the last thing I need to discuss with them is social impact, diversity, and authenticity. If I’m covering the local women’s march and selling the images to a wire service, no one really cares what my views are on ethical matters. They expect those things to be reflected in my images if they actually impact the topic.

This “each and every” thing is a sign of severe ignorance and antipathy toward the greater scope of photography and retouching and borders on being insulting both to photographers and our clients.

I’m curious at this point as to what manner of strange, fucked-up world Ms. Kraley lives in where she thinks anyone needs to “improve and build upon my knowledge of retouching techniques” every, single, fucking day? Does she not understand how education works? Retouching isn’t something where one sits down, reads a book, and then instantly is better at retouching. It just doesn’t work that way.

First, one must focus on a specific area within which they are challenged. Just for the sake of having a real-world example, let’s say that challenge is masking. For the sake of those who are not familiar with the photographer’s use of the term, masking comes from when one would place a piece of acetate over an image being processed and cut out specific areas to which a given treatment would then be applied. This protected the rest of the image while working on a selected area. With film, it is extremely time-consuming and frequently messy. With digital images, it’s a lot safer but many people still find it confusing and difficult. So, if one wants to improve their masking technique, they don’t just read and practice it one day then move on to the next subject. They start with the basics and keep practicing, over and over and over sometimes for months, as the need and opportunity presents itself.

Even then, are we going to focus on improving our masking technique every day? Nope. Probably not even close. There are plenty of days I never open an image for editing purposes. There are plenty of other days when the editing I do does not require expanding beyond my current skill set. The whole “daily basis” thing is excessive to the point of being abusive.

Another issue with this article is the effectual adage that when one only has a hammer everything looks like a nail. In other words, when one learns a new skill, one looks for and even deliberately creates situations where that skill can be applied, whether appropriate or not. We see this almost every time a rookie encounters the Photoshop filters menu for the first time. Everything is so cool! All the effects are so neat! Let’s use this on everything! A torrent of really bad images floods Facebook shortly thereafter.

Photoshop, and editing programs like it, is huge. Adobe has packed more power and capability into that one piece of software than any one person would ever have any reason to use, but addresses the needs of the imaging community at large. There is a limit to what any one person needs to know. A photographer who specializes in landscape images doesn’t have to worry about carefully removing skin blemishes. The photographer who only shoots black-and-white images doesn’t really need to know the finer aspects of color control. Everyone’s skill set is specialized to the aspects of retouching they actually need. When we add skills we don’t need, we start making mistakes because we want to use that knowledge and information. Instead of getting better at what we do, learning new or different techniques might actually make someone’s end product worse because of the tendency to apply it where it’s not needed.

Learn what you need to know, by all means, but don’t make the mistake of thinking you have to know everything. There’s a limit.

I have less of an issue with this one and the one following. Practicing integrity and empathy isn’t limited to creating images. Integrity and empathy are global characteristics that I would hope we are applying in every situation we face. In fact, if one only attempts to practice integrity in one aspect of their life and not others, they don’t understand integrity at all.

For example, let’s say you see someone drop their wallet and you pick it up and return it to them. Integrity, right? But then, you see someone drop a twenty-dollar bill, something not so noticeable, something whose ownership cannot be easily traced, and you pick that up and slip it into your pocket, hoping no one else was noticing. Guess what: you don’t have integrity. It’s not a switch one turns off and on. Either it’s there in every situation or its not there at all and you’re just pretending.

Empathy is even more difficult to apply randomly. We are not natural empaths and depending on one’s age there’s a very good chance one was taught to ignore those feelings in order to get certain tasks accomplished. Empathy takes practice and can be easily misplaced and/or misused. Exercising empathy requires patience and the ability to put oneself in another’s position. Not everyone can, or should, do that.

There is a great need for empathy in a number of situations, but misapplied it can cause trouble. Ask the photojournalist who defies instruction and befriends native children in a war zone. Empathy leads the photographer to want to help the children but in doing so they put the entire military unit to which they’re assigned in danger.

We have to give hard examination to both ourselves and our work to decide where and when it is appropriate to be empathetic. We cannot take every story at face value. Such is the reality of the world in which we live. Not everyone can or should be trusted. People can and will lie if they sense they might get something out of it. We want to be sensitive to real situations, not taken in by false ones.

I can live with this one. Granted, I’m not sure how much actual impact I am ever going to have “throughout the industry” given that 99.985% of the industry doesn’t even know that I exist. That’s okay, they probably don’t know you exist, either. There are millions of photographers and retouchers out there and there are only a handful, probably fewer than ten, who command enough respect to actually get anyone to change their method of operation.

I’m sorry if that deflates your ego. This is what is known as “keeping it real.”

Is body image distortion a problem? Absolutely. Most of that distortion comes from other forms of media, though, and, get this, from the people with whom one chooses to associate. It’s the difference between having a parent who says, “Hey, you look nice today,” versus, “You’re not going to wear that are you? It makes your butt look big.” The root of self-image problems start long before anyone steps in front of our camera or sees any of our images.

We need to be careful with what we say. I saw a photograph recently of a young woman who happens to be a ballet dancer. To say that she is thin would be an understatement. We know the photographer well and know he would not engage in any body manipulation techniques, but I double checked just to be sure. The woman really is that thin. Does that mean she has an eating disorder? Should we say something?

We should be very careful here. I’ve known far too many women, especially models, whose metabolism runs high enough that they simply don’t gain wait. What, when, and how much they eat is irrelevant. They’re not going to gain any more weight until their body metabolism slows down. Then, when all the weight gain suddenly hits, the threat of developing an eating disorder gets real because they miss how they once looked.

Body shaming occurs in both directions and is just as equally wrong. What matters is that we promote healthy attitudes in both directions not only with the photos we take, but perhaps more importantly with the things we say to models and clients as we’re taking those pictures. We can do a lot more harm with our words than with our photographs.

We also need to understand that there is no one set definition of a healthy body. That call is made between an individual and their physician. We have no right to imply that someone’s body needs improvement or modification.

So yes, we can advance the understanding of a healthy body image, but we’re likely to be more effective in that goal on an individual basis rather than trying to take on the whole industry. The industry will change on its own as we alter our individual methods of operation.

All that being said, I can’t encourage anyone to sign this Retouchers Accord. The first three articles alone are sufficient reason to walk away and the final two are more complicated than a simple statement can address. If what we sign is going to mean something, we have to find points that make sense, take the diversity of our industry into consideration, and don’t accidently lead us into activities that could do more harm than good.

About that “fake news” line

By this point, I’ve had nearly two weeks to mull over Ms. Schwab’s assessment that retouching is the equivalent of fake news. I am still as angered by her misuse of the term “fake news” as I am by the president’s repeated and offensive misuse of the term. Perhaps we’re using different definitions here as to what is fake. So, let’s see if we can get this straightened out.

First, calling something “fake” implies that something was fabricated in whole with no intention of utilizing any element of truth. For example, if I were to re-color a photo from World War II and paint all the German soldiers green then make the fantastic claim that the Nazis were actually aliens attempting to invade the planet, that would be fake news. If, however, I took that same image (without the green part) and made it sharper so that the details of that image were more clear, that would not be fake but enhanced.

The distinction between what is fake and what is enhanced becomes increasingly important in situations like we are experiencing now where the allegation is being used as a weapon against legitimate media taking on a corrupt leader. To call an image fake simply because it has been enhanced to more fully communicate its message is a disservice and disrespectful to everyone involved.

Claiming that by simply retouching an image somehow falsifies its content is like saying that editing a book makes it less interesting. Denouncing retouching creates an expectation of perfection that is unfair and unreasonable. Not only would the photographer have to do their work perfectly, but the model would have to be perfect, the hair and makeup artists would have to be perfect, the stylist would have to be perfect, the art direction would have to be perfect, and the lighting would have to be perfect. In my over 30 years of photography, all those elements have worked in perfect harmony exactly zero times. Sure, there have been some wonderful images that came very close but at no time has anyone been foolish enough to think that there wasn’t room for improvement and then proceed to make that improvement in post production.

Here’s the thing: photographers have always manipulated photographs. We’ve had to. Early cameras were extremely fussy and if a photographer wasn’t as diligent about the developing process as he was about taking the picture itself they would wind up with an unusable pile of garbage. As the cameras and films developed, so did our processing techniques. We learned to use masking, as we mentioned above. We learned to use dodging (making something lighter) and burning (making something darker) and we even learned how to use cloning (an extremely difficult process in film) to remove blemishes. By the mid-1950s, we had learned to make skin appear more even and soft as well as remove wrinkles and the bags under a subject’s eyes. Portrait photographers’ entire reputations were built upon their ability to retouch a photo and mind you, this was well before computers were small enough to fit in anything smaller than a three-story building.

To think that suddenly, somehow, all this retouching of images has gotten out of control and become a “public health concern” is both naive and insulting.

What makes articles like Ms. Schwab’s troubling is that they are too often read by people who know absolutely nothing about photography beyond the snapshots they take with their cell phone. Neither is their audience likely to have any appreciation for what actual photo retouching involves. So, I’m going to try and show you using a series of photos in various stages of processing.

Understand, every time I open Photoshop or any other image processing software, I’m faced with thousands of choices for how to process my picture. Even when I know what steps I must take to make an image acceptable for public consumption, there are still multiple different ways to achieve exactly the same results. While I am showing you a particular method (sort of) that I used on this particular image, a different photographer would likely approach it in a very different way, with different results, and still be just as correct in their interpretation of the image. There are no exacts. There are no absolutes. Artistic vision and understanding of what the client wants comes into heavy play here. Are you ready? Let’s go:

The Image

To help everyone understand the issue more clearly, I needed to use an image fully under my control with a model not opposed to me displaying both the raw image and it’s final form. Obviously, the easiest and most convenient solution to that issue was to toss Kat kicking and screaming in front of the camera. Okay, maybe not kicking and screaming, but she really didn’t like having the sun in her eyes. I processed the photo and then gave her the finished image. She then posted the image as her profile picture on Facebook. Here’s the picture:

Having been posted less than a week, the image already has nearly seven times as many likes as her previous image, more than twice as many likes as her most popular image over the past four years. So, it would seem that the overwhelming response to the finished image has been positive.

Oh, but you know the raw image, the one we started with, didn’t look quite this way. Here, let me show you:

The RAW image

This isn’t a totally horrible image, mind you. In fact, under different conditions, I might just adjust the contrast and color tone a bit and let it go at that. Still, there are some things about this picture that just bug me, so we need to fix those issues.

First revision

Before you go jumping to conclusions, I didn’t touch Kat at all in this photo. We balanced color and tone then cleaned up the background a little bit, primarily removing the fire hydrant that was inconveniently near Kat’s head in the photo. It doesn’t take much to dramatically alter the appearance of a photo.

Second Revision

First round of blemish removal. I focused primarily on the eyes and removing the pesky shadow caused by the glasses. We’ll do a little more later, but it’s too early in the process to get all heavy-handed. Anything feel fake yet? No? Good.

Third Revision

This is a tough one. Look carefully at this image and the one before it. Can you see the difference? The revision applied here is only necessary with digital cameras that do not have a full frame sensor. Because the size of the lens and the sensor don’t match exactly, we have to correct the distortion that occurs. A lot of times the difference is so subtle even I can barely tell the difference. Here, though, because of all those angle and ratio factors, there was actually a significant difference. Oh, and we cleaned up her left eye a little, also.

Fourth Revision

By this point, we’ve lived with the image a little bit and the softness of some areas is beginning to bother me. We have to be careful in applying a solution. While there are a number of tools that can sharpen an image, applying them globally can really cause problems. Here’s where masking comes in. I won’t bore you with the details, but we sharpened up the places where it makes sense while being careful to not adversely affect the places we want to remain soft.

Fifth Revision

Cross processing. This is a concept, like most others photographers apply in Photoshop, carried over from film processing. Originally, cross processing was a mistake caused by using the wrong chemical solution for the type film being processed. Depending on how far apart the pairing was, the results could be extremely dramatic. Obviously, we don’t apply chemicals to digital photos, but we can mimic some of the same effects, typically by raising contrast in certain areas and adjusting the colors and hues appropriately. We didn’t want too dramatic a difference, just enough to brighten the image and make certain colors pop a bit more. While all that might sound like we’re faking the look, what we’ve done is come all that much closer to duplicating the actual environment of that morning.

Sixth Revision

Okay, there’s a lot to this one because stopping after every little process and method was getting exhausting and I realized I was soon going to have more than a dozen images with changed so subtle that even in telling what they were one might not be able to see the difference. So, you should know we did a lot of manipulation between the previous photo and this one, which is the finished image. We cleaned up the remaining blemishes and removed some wrinkles. We dealt moderately with the offset on the right side of the glasses that was caused by the camera looking through her prescription lens. We did some selective color adjustment where the cross processing had created problems and pulled back on some highlights that had gotten out of control.

That’s it, folks. That’s all we did. The whole process, including stopping to save the interstitial files, making coffee, and checking on photos from a fashion show, took less than two hours. Oh, and I think I played with the dog some in there. We could have gone faster had there been motivation, but there wasn’t. I sent the picture to Kat, she posted it to her profile, and the fandom began.

The image is processed, not faked.

So, where’s all the fake stuff?

Is this to say that no one ever fakes anything in Photoshop? You know better than to ask that question. Of course, there are people who dramatically alter photographs. For some, that’s what they do for a living. What matters is their intention in doing so. Most of the time, such revisions are an artistic decision to make the image a little less boring or, perhaps, give an image a specific meaning. Not everyone wants their portrait in front of a plan-colored background. When done well, changing the background scenery makes all the difference in how a photo is received. As long as the intention isn’t to make someone believe you were on a beach in the South of France when you were actually off having an affair with your dog groomer’s cousin, then I don’t see a problem.

Yes, there are times, especially in advertising, when no one is paying enough attention to detail and an image slips past that shouldn’t. Yes, there are times when clients have severely unreasonable expectations and push agencies into releasing images they probably shouldn’t. I have two thoughts regarding those situations.

First, negative consumer feedback has done a lot to curb over-manipulated photos. Remember that research by up there a few pages ago? There was only a response when viewers were aware that the image had been manipulated. People don’t like being played for fools and an obviously over manipulated photo in a product ad does just that. Organic change comes slowly, but it’s more likely to stick as opposed to trying to force change from the outside through some unrealistic statement.

Second, the number of times when a photographer or retoucher has much say in the matter is actually rather small. You don’t know to know how many times I’ve been shown a finished ad and not recognized that it was a photo I took. We submitted the slides and the editing department took it from there. My opinion was neither considered nor requested. Targeting photographers and retouchers with some ethics statement might work in tiny little boutique agencies where everyone is all family and time is lost consulting everyone on every decision. Major agencies, who produce the majority of ads, don’t work that way. They don’t have time. And if a photographer or retoucher has ethics issues with how a photo is used, they know how to find the door. The Retouchers Accord addresses the people who are in the least position to actually effect any change when it comes to major advertising accounts.

Been there. Survived that ass-chewing. Wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

The Proper Place For Fake Images

If we really wanted to, and had sufficient motivation (specifically, pay me a lot of money for all the eye strain), we could easily create a bunch of totally faked photos. We’ve done it before when the concept called for such. In fact, just to demonstrate what a fake image really looks like, we took the picture of Kat and spent a couple of days throwing every bad idea at it that we could find. We call our finished product, Invasion of the MasterCard Alien. If you don’t get the reference then you’re really out of touch.

Is that image over-the-top? Oh my stars, yes! Not only is it over the top, it is totally impractical. This one image required days of work. While Kat and I can sit here and laugh at it, this isn’t the kind of we engage in because we’re not in the business of designing sci-fi book art or anything related to it. Is it an entertaining exercise on occasion, yeah. but ultimately we’re not fooling anyone. This is “fake” and was created to be fake.

Now, since you are aware that this image is fake, how does that make you feel? Are you upset that your skin tone isn’t a strange shade of green? Would you like your eyes to be oversized? Do you wish you had a clue what is going on in the background? Should I have given you more warning before we showed you the image? Do you need to go to your safe place now?

I realize there will always be some people who believe anything. The late Orson Welles’ epic War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938 proved that point. Today, that same broadcast would likely be referred to as fake news simply because too many people failed to realize that what Welles was doing was all scripted for radio. They had no intention of creating a national panic, but that’s what happens when people over-react to something. Just as Welles cannot be blamed for the chaos that followed his infamous broadcast, neither can photographers and retouchers be blamed when people over-react to obviously over-processed images. Step back, consider what the digital artist is trying to communicate (and this is digital art at this point, not a photograph) and understand that obvious manipulation might be sending a message different than the face value of the image.

Conclusions and considerations

First, and let’s be excessively clear on this point, if you or someone you care about has an eating disorder, severe body image issues, or suffers severe depression due to low self-esteem, please seek professional help immediately. The solution is not blaming external causes. Very few of those external causes can be controlled. The solution is in how one responds to and processes that external input. This is not easy work and the risk factors are high. No solution should be attempted without professional guidance.

Second, realize that all commercial media, everything consumed on TV, radio, and the Internet, has the same basic purpose: to sell a product. Products are made by companies and companies, especially the big ones, are largely amoral. Therefore, the way to effect change within a corporation is to disrupt its bottom line, not attacking or questioning the ethics and practices of mid-level or lower employees who are simply doing what they’re told.

Third, understand that creators of non-commercial media, such as portrait, wedding, and boudoir photographers, edit their images to meet the direct requests of their client. If a client has body image issues when they walk in the door, those issues are not going to be resolved by giving them back photographs that fail to address their misgivings. The responsibility first and foremost is to that client and everything else is secondary.

Fourth, appreciate the reality that there is a time and place to hold conversations about body image and self-esteem but unless a photographer also happens to hold an advanced degree in and licensure for practicing psychotherapy, the photo studio is not the place to be holding that conversation. More damage is likely to be done from bad advice than a bad photo.

Fifth, let’s acknowledge that labeling something as a “public health crisis” is the job of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and/or the World Health Organization. No one else has that authority and attempts at claiming such from parties unrelated to those organizations only serves to inflame fear and panic among the general populous. Calling something a public health crisis on your own does not make it so. Furthermore, such unwarranted and baseless statements make it all the more difficult to address the core issues because of the uncertainty and confusion created by non-authoritative sources.

Sixth, accept the fact that asking people to join your group just so they can get others to join your group is not only anti-ethical but also self-defeating. If your group or cause is actually doing something good versus merely talking about doing something good, people will ask to join. Proselytizing is bad form even if you’re not a religion.

Seventh, know that as long as we are all imperfect there remains a need and justification for photograph manipulation. Using Photoshop or some other editing tool on an image does not create “fake news” in the same manner in which Kelly Ann Conway opening her mouth creates #alternativeFacts. Editing manipulation and editing can either improve the message of a photo or create a work of digital art for a specific purpose. Stop demonizing people who edit photographs.

Eighth, maybe it’s time we stop harping on first world issues when there are so many infinitely more severe problems among third-world countries that are being ignored. Each of us has limited time and resources. We do better by applying that time and those resources to places where it does a lot more good, such as providing clean drinking water, sustainable food sources and distribution, and getting medicine to where it is needed. If you can look at a starving child and tell them you cannot help them because you need to whine about an over-edited photograph, you desperately need a change of perspective.

I am really tired of having to continually address people who feel they are justified in attacking those who edit photographs. I do not do what I do to make some random person in Boston happy. I recently had a model upset with me because I didn’t do enough to her picture. Now, if someone else wants to lecture her on body image and self-esteem, you just go right on over there and do so. Me, I’m going to give her new pictures because I want her to be happy. That’s what matters.

I won’t sign the Retouchers Accord or anything remotely like it. Instead, I will focus on the work I do, consistently try to do it better, and hope that the people with whom I work are happy with the end result.

And scream at the idiots running the stop sign on the corner because that affects our children’s safety.

Focus on what really matters.

Photography

Sunday Gallery: All The Pretty People

February 26, 2017

charles i. letbetter - all the pretty people

Still too busy to edit anything new

As I’m writing this, I’m waiting for yet another fashion show to start in Milan. To say this past week has been hectic would be a tremendous understatement. In the past four years, we’ve never gone this long without adding anything to the website. I feel bad about that.

I wish we had new pictures as well, but it would be unfair to ask anyone to come in for new pictures when I don’t have time to edit them immediately. We’ve made that mistake before. The pictures are still sitting there. Not making any promises on that front.

What I do have is a curated set of pretty people. Understand, when I use the term “pretty,” we are in no way talking about physical appearance. Pretty is who one is, the person they display, who you allow other people to see. Unfortunately, we’ve photographed a lot of people over the years who are attractive enough on the outside, but less so when it came to who they really were. The people in these pictures were wonderful, every last one of them. We would happily work with any of them again.

Sigh. For some reason all the pretty people keep disappearing, moving away, getting on with their lives. I do wish they’d come back occasionally.

As always, click on any thumbnail to open the full slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”10946″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Photography

Scattered Pictures: A Gallery

February 19, 2017

Found on the digital floor

I never have been the most graceful person on the planet. I trip over nothing, fall over anything, and have an uncanny ability to not see that giant obstruction standing directly in my path. I’ve gone through life with a never-ending array of cuts and bruises on my shins, knees, hips, and elbows. There’s always a sore spot somewhere.

What makes being clumsy especially challenging is what happens when you’re carrying something. How many white shirts did I ruin with a splash of coffee before I learned to stop wearing them? All it would take is one loose thread in the carpet, my foot would find it, and I’d stumble just enough to turn that white shirt brown. The more valuable the thing I was carrying, the more troubling the fall would be.

It doesn’t seem all that long ago when one of the things I would frequently carry were trays of photo slides. Those things never were secure and it never seemed to take much to upend the whole thing and send slides scooting across the floor. There would always be a few that would escape under some random piece of furniture and not found until months later.

Finding those random slides, though, could be exciting, if they weren’t ruined. They would bring back to memory some long-forgotten photo shoot, or a model who we hadn’t seen in years, or stories of some little out-of-the-way place I couldn’t find again. Then would come the challenge of trying to find the rest of the original set and returning the slide to its proper place.

We don’t have those problems with digital files, obviously, but we do have problems of another kind. Namely, I’m really bad about nesting folders and then giving them some bland label that does nothing to tell me what’s nested inside. Only when I’m desperately searching for an image I know exists somewhere in this mess do I occasionally come across those folders and become sidetracked by their contents.

Hence, this week’s gallery. I won’t embarrass myself by saying how far down the nesting chain these were, but it’s been a couple of years since this folder was opened. What’s here are some of my favorites from that collection. There’s no real cohesion, as they were specifically processed to go with specific articles somewhere back in the long ago but not too terribly far, far away. They’re just pictures scattered across the digital floor that we picked up and dusted off for your enjoyment.

As always, clicking on any thumbnail opens the full gallery slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”10897″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Current Issues / News & Comment

Smaller Is Better

February 10, 2017

Fashion powerhouse LVMH is on the prowl

The Short Version

As the fashion industry spends the next month looking at new styles, some of those people sitting on the front row are more interested in a brand’s bottom line more than what’s coming down the runway. Fashion mega holding group LVMH has changed its strategy from buying large, successful brands to smaller, up-and-coming designers that have yet to make it big. The result is making a lot of designers nervous.

A Little More Detail

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (LVMH) is one of fashion’s largest conglomerates. It owns brands you know such as Marc Jacobs, Christian Dior, Kenzo, Fendi, and Givenchy, among several others. They also own a number of high-end wine and spirit brands and a few other things in the luxury category. They’re big, they’re powerful, and they are extremely well financed. They have plenty of money to throw at most anything they want to purchase.

In the past, the LVMH strategy has been to purchase only known brands, fashion labels that were established, well recognized and profitable. The conglomerate would infuse their purchase with enough capital to fuel extensive growth in an effort to make them super brands. For the most part, that strategy has worked.

However, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault says that the company is changing its purchase strategy. Instead of going for the big brands, they’re looking for smaller labels that address a niche spot in the market. An example would be their purchase of German baggage label Rimowa late last year. Chance are, unless one travels to Europe frequently, one has never heard of Rimowa. Expect that to soon change. That’s exactly the strategy the group is taking toward fashion as well.

If they’re looking at anyone specific, though, they’re keeping their mouths shut about it and that silence has everyone on edge. There are several smaller brands, from Jason Wu to Adam Semalt, showing in New York this week that could be a good fit for the conglomerate’s new strategy. There are plenty of others in London, Milan, and Paris as well. The question is whether the label’s growth pattern is sufficient to warrant their purchase.

Smaller luxury brands have had it tough given the downturn in luxury sales over the past three years. Smaller labels don’t have as many flagship stores, if any, and are more dependent on department stores to fuel sales. Department stores have been sucking air of late with major chains such as Macy’s having to close hundreds of units. As a result, the attraction of big company money is very attractive to those trying to stay afloat.

Already this year, New York-based designer Bibhu Mohapatra has had to file for bankruptcy protection. Several other small brands could be looking at making similar moves if not closing altogether.

As a result, all eyes are on the front rows looking for any LVMH executive who might be checking out potential purchases. Almost everyone would like to be on LVMH’s list, but they typically make only two or three purchases a year when they’re in a buying mood. Still, several designers have their hopes set high. They’re putting in a little more effort to this week’s presentations, a little more pomp, a little more glamour, hoping to prove they are worthy of a significant investment.

Only time will tell whether the effort will pay off.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

What is #tiedtogether

February 9, 2017

A new movement is underway in the fashion industry

The Short Version

Digital fashion magazine Business of Fashion (BOF) introduced the #tiedtogether campaign this week, just in time for the ready-to-wear fashion season. Its aim is to provide a focus point for unity and inclusiveness by asking people to wear white bandanas.

A Little More Detail

There’s not a whole lot more to write on the matter. BoF’s own #tiedtogether page is rather brief and void of too many details. The movement is in response to the significant silence on the part of the fashion industry as a whole regarding recent world events, such as the US travel ban and the impact of more nation-centric trade deals. Fashion brands must have a global presence to be successful, but things such as travel limitations and high import fees/tariffs can not only strain the business side of fashion but create animosities between people from different countries.

Few fashion brands have bothered to say much about political situations for fear the backlash might hurt business. While there was some dustup last month regarding which designers might dress the new First Lady of the United States, most companies have chosen to not take a stand. The most notable exception is Levi’s, the denim jean maker, which signed on to an amicus brief for the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the travel ban.

BoF’s movement is admirable, to be sure. With the world seeming to fray at the edges, it would seem that we could do with a little more unity and inclusiveness. The question is whether people are actually interested in either. The distance between political ideologies is extreme and in many camps, unity is seen as a compromise that favors the evil of the other side and inclusiveness is pretty much the same as fraternizing with the enemy. The strength of the #Resist movement is an example of the challenges to finding or creating a global sense of unity around most any topic.

Fashion is not immune from politics and the question designers and labels face now is how much of their personal attitudes and feelings to allow into their work. Under previous circumstances, the conventional wisdom has been to keep the two separate. However, there are some notable exceptions to that rule, the most obvious probably being Dame Vivienne Westwood and her strong stand for environmental causes. Much of the rest of fashion, however, prefers to remain quiet.

#tiedtogether did get an important endorsement last night as all the models walking in the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach were wearing white bandanas imprinted with #tiedtogether on their wrists. Even the designer had one tied to his belt loop as he made the finale walk. If BoF can convince other designers to incorporate the concept into their shows in a similar fashion, the idea might have a chance of catching on, at least as an accessory idea.

Still, we’ve seen this type of movement before. Just because people wear a bandana, or a plastic bracelet with a certain inscription, or a given set of beads, doesn’t mean that they actually subscribe to the philosophy behind the symbol. Wearing every white bandana in the world has little effect if the people wearing them do not genuinely believe in unity and inclusiveness across the deep chasm of political divide. The white bandana risks becoming just another fashion trend with no real substance behind it.

What’s missing in this movement is an example, someone or something that demonstrates what unity and inclusiveness mean in the fashion world. If we’re talking racial inclusiveness, which has been a problem for fashion shows, then seeing more diversity on the runway would be a good start. If we’re talking about gender inclusiveness, then the trend toward mixed men’s and women’s show is a start, but seeing more transgender models on the runway would be a significant step forward. Size diversity has been a significant issue, but only a handful of designers have done anything on that front. There are options and those options have always been there. The industry has been frequently criticized for not embracing those options before now. Are we to expect that a white bandana can be the thing that makes a difference?

BoF is certainly trying hard to get as many designers, editors, models, and bloggers on board as possible. Just getting industry insiders to understand and sign on to the concept is a herculean effort. While we applaud BoF for taking the initiative in starting this campaign, however, we remain skeptical of any real change. We’ve seen other campaigns for inclusivism before and watched as major designers totally ignored them. We will be watching carefully to see if a white bandana can actually make a difference.

Fashion / Fashion Review

Ready For Fashion

February 8, 2017

What we’re expecting from upcoming fashion weeks

The Short Version

Disruption continues this season as some designers abandon New York and challenges to the traditional fashion shows increase. Our fashion week coverage for Pattern magazine begins tonight with the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach in California. We’re expecting a lot of changes in methodology but don’t know if those changes carry over to the styles themselves.

What’s Going On

New York Fashion Week officially starts tomorrow, Thursday, with Nicholas K at 10:00 AM. So, naturally, the first show we’re covering is tonight on Venice Beach. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Yeah, I’m having some problem with the logistics myself. Doing NYFW in LA is definitely a continuation of the disruption that started last September. Tommy Hilfiger is taking the lead on Venice Beach, with yet another extravaganza likely to be even larger than the carnival on the boardwalk last season. He’s not the only one who is abandoning NY in search of a younger, possibly more hip audience. Rachel Comey and Rebecca Minkoff are also doing LA. We’re rather used to designers occasionally hopping to Paris or London for a season, but moving to LA is something new. This has a lot of people asking if New York is still the center of American fashion. For now, it is, but be sure that many questions will be asked about what might happen in the future.

There are some serious absences on the schedule this season. DKNY is out. Open Ceremony is out. Rodarte is moving to the couture schedule and no one is quite sure exactly what Tom Ford is doing—some kind of film. Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and

Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and Monse? This one is going to interesting to watch. Remember, Oscar de la Renta has a new creative team, Fernando Garcia and Laura Kim. Despite Carolina Herrera’s efforts to block Kim from working for the storied house, they are presenting their collection on time. Here’s the catch: Garcia and Lim also have a separate line, Monse, which they started a few years ago. Monse has a similar aesthetic to de la Renta, but doesn’t have the audience or market share. So, the creative team is combining the two shows. Confusing? Almost inevitably.

Then, there’s Raf Simons at Calvin Klein. All I can tell you is that they’ve moved up on the schedule to Friday morning. We’ve been trying to get in touch with their PR team but, as of this writing, haven’t had any luck doing so.

What’s happening in New York is spreading to the other cities: London, Milan, and Paris. There are new creative teams we’ve not seen before in addition to the usual spate of designers hopping houses. In fact, we’re expecting some interesting good-bye parties at Chloé and Givenchy with Claire Waight Keller and Ricardo Tisci both having announced they’re leaving but no word as to where they’re going.

Because there are so many questions and not a lot of answers, we’re changing the way we’re covering the shows. I’ll be doing fewer reviews than previous seasons—no 24-hour writing marathons. We will be trying to go into more detail on the collections we do cover. We’ve been actively trying to make contact with the labels so that we can provide a deeper level of information. We’ll also have more pictures and try to talk more about the clothes and accessories.

So, here we go with another season. As always, our reviews are exclusively on Pattern. We hope you’ll join us.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Dress Like A Woman

February 4, 2017

More misogyny from the White House

The Short Version

#DressLikeAWoman started trending overnight as word of an unofficial White House dress code that is more strict for women than men began to circulate. Women have been posting pictures of themselves in various styles to emphasize that there is no wrong way for a woman to dress.

Wait, Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Yes, yes we have. We’ve covered the topic of what is appropriate for women to wear no fewer than three times in just the past year:

Ciara & The Double Standard was posted almost exactly a year ago after a number of closed-minded people made too big a deal over the evening gown Ciara wore while singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl.
Modesty Doesn’t Become You got a lot of attention nine months ago when Kat ultimately left a job because someone didn’t like the way she dresses.
Appropriate Fashion Is Whatever You Want was our post last September in response to France attempting to dictate what women wear on the beach.

So yeah, we’ve covered this general topic before. The fact that we have reason to discuss it again is rather disturbing.

What’s The Big Deal This Time?

This time around, the issue is an apparent double-standard in the unofficial White House dress code. We have to say “unofficial” because, officially, the White House doesn’t actually have a dress code. However, as presidents inevitably come and go, each one sets a different tone for how people dress.

For example, Jimmy Carter wore blue jeans in the oval office, something that really upset a lot of people at the time. So much so, that when Ronald Reagan became president he immediately reversed the trend and even required male reporters to wear ties inside the White House. President Clinton was, again, more relaxed, and, again, President Bush made things a bit more formal. Most recently, President Obama was known to not wear a jacket in the Oval Office and aides often came to meetings wearing t-shirts and jeans. So, it’s not the least bit surprising that as we return to largely Republican leadership fashion preferences run a more formal direction.

What got everyone up in arms, though, was an article from former Politico writer Mike Allen in his new newsletter Axios. Citing an anonymous source (which we consider questionable at all times), Mr. Allen wrote:

Trump likes the women who work for him “to dress like women,” says a source who worked on Trump’s campaign. “Even if you’re in jeans, you need to look neat and orderly.” We hear that women who worked in Trump’s campaign field office—folks who spend more time knocking on doors than attending glitzy events—felt pressure to wear dresses to impress Trump.”

That was all it took for women everywhere, especially those who already dislike the president and his policies, to take offense and start asking, “How is a woman supposed to dress?” then answering the question themselves with pictures.

While the article has no actual authoritative quote from the president or anyone on his staff, such a dress code requirement from this White House isn’t unbelievable. After all, this is the same man who, while on the campaign trail, rated women on a scale of 1 to 10 and insulting women who criticized him in any way. His misogynistic tendencies are already well known and well documented.

By questioning the White House dress code, however, we are at the same time questioning all dress codes where more emphasis is placed on how women dress over men’s styling. This isn’t an uncommon occurrence among businesses, especially those in more traditional industries such as banking and finance. The president is far from being the only one with antiquated ideas of how a woman should dress.

Does that give the White House a pass, though? Absolutely not. If anything, the White House should be the one setting an example of inclusion and self-definition.

Oh, wait, this White House doesn’t understand those words, does it?

In the end, this is an issue the entire business community needs to address, not just the White House. That we cannot depend on the White House to show any leadership on the matter is just sad.

Really sad.

Answering The Question

Thousands of women have already posted their pictures on twitter with the hashtag, #DressLikeAWoman. Here are some of our favoriates so far:

I’m a marine biologist and I #DressLikeAWoman , mostly in bathing suits pic.twitter.com/LzKfMEEXj5

— camila caceres (@Camila13Caceres) February 4, 2017

I am an #actuallivingscientist (or so it feels) and naturally I #DressLikeAWoman at work. pic.twitter.com/aKr2Kc9bWL

— Laura Baudis (@lbaudis) February 4, 2017

#DressLikeAWoman like this? pic.twitter.com/UyKwnipPoA

— Karen Sue Castle (@KareCastle) February 4, 2017

@YWCAToronto @papillon4444 I like this one best because they’re also defeating Nazis, defending human rights, liberty… #DressLikeAWoman pic.twitter.com/dSdt3hVL5H

— WheezySmurf (@snoopmary) February 4, 2017

Here I am #DressLikeAWoman while loving on our Muslim neighbors & #resisting @realDonaldTrump‘s illegal #muslimban pic.twitter.com/g8keNZybir

— Millie (@millieryb) February 4, 2017

#Repost @shopmombasa
・・・
How do you #DressLikeAWoman? #resist #defendscience #climatechan… https://t.co/o95V5IEA0d pic.twitter.com/kgnPxZXExt

— NubianOne (@NubiaOneSpeaks) February 4, 2017

Just trying something new out today #dresslikeawoman pic.twitter.com/WVQGRzz2MX

— HoverClosetoInsanity (@HoveringClose) February 4, 2017

I wear a lot of things, but I always #DressLikeAWoman, because I am one. pic.twitter.com/rim7seeGUF

— Samantha Oester (@samoester) February 4, 2017

Sorry @potus I forgot my pearls. I was too busy becoming an #Ironman #DressLikeAWoman pic.twitter.com/2FQHYuENLK

— Becky Aaronson (@RunBeRun) February 4, 2017

Whatever a woman chooses to wear is dressing like a woman. Any questions?

Current Issues / News & Comment

H&M Closing Stores

February 4, 2017

Online shopping is where profits are found

The Short Version

Forbes magazine is reporting that fast-fashion retailer H&M is going to start closing under-performing stores and is abandoning its goal of opening 10-15% new stores each year. The chain is moving to put more emphasis on online shopping as it continues to chase a younger demographic that doesn’t shop in stores.

A Bit More Detail

No, your favorite H&M store isn’t going to close tomorrow. Probably. Maybe. Unless it’s one that has been defined as “under-performing.” For now, those are the only stores on the chopping block. The majority of stores in the US and Europe will keep right on putting out the fashion as fast as those factories in Bangladesh and Turkey can churn them out.

For now.

However, H&M’s CEO Karl-Johan Persson has changed his mind about the company’s growth strategy, away from physical stores in Europe and the US and more toward online sales. The reasons are numerous. In posting a six percent increase in sales last year, net income actually dropped almost eleven percent, largely because of increased markdowns necessary to stay competitive. Persson also said that events such as terror attacks and Brexit are creating problems in certain areas of the world.

The move toward a more online strategy isn’t universal, however. Persson says that emerging markets such as India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey are growing and will see more stores open. In fact, 430 stores will open this year, including new entry into Kazakhstan, Colombia, The Republic of Georgia, and Taiwan.

As H&M grows its online presence, it looks directly at competing with Amazon, Zalandro, and Alibaba, hoping to capitalize off its online/brick-and-mortar combination. The company still expects a 10-15% annual sales increase despite the shift in focus. They are also expanding their online presence, adding Malaysia, Mexico, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey to the list of cyber markets.

The move by H&M is important in light of the continued struggles that have plagued mall-based retailers over the past several years. Rumors that Hudson’s Bay, who already owns Saks, is making a takeover move on troubled department store Macy’s was greeted with considerable optimism. Traditional fashion retailers are struggling and brick-and-mortar stores are a large cost factor that yields little, if any, profit.

Fast-fashion retailers, such as H&M and Forever21, have been seen as the exception to the decline of retail fashion stores. Where others have failed, fast-fashion outlets have been booming, for the most part. H&M’s change in strategy seems to signal the popping of that bubble.

Again, H&M emphasizes that only under-performing stores are going to close. However, there was no detail defining “under-performing” and whether that might expand should on-line sales beat sales goals. We only know that once a store is targeted for closure, that the door-shuttering will happen quickly. Don’t expect a lot of huge clearance sales.

We also don’t know how this might effect H&M’s partnerships with fashion brands such as Kenzo and its relationships with designers, things that have made the store popular in the past.

What we do know is that this could be a serious blow to real estate and mall developers in the long-term. Any hope for a resurgence based on fast-fashion growth would appear to be crushed. As Amazon and other companies look at faster and cheaper delivery methods, the days of physical in-store shopping look to be shorter than previously anticipated.

At the same time, this move makes the opportunities for smaller boutiques that much stronger. Located in more urban areas in places where storefront rents are not quite so expensive, boutiques counter the online trend with a more intimate shopping experience. As bigger brands drop physical stores to move online, boutique owners are likely to see an increase in traffic, especially from shoppers over 40 who still like to touch and try on clothes before buying.

Either way one looks at the situation, however, the consumer almost certainly comes out the winner.

Fashion / Photography

Sunday Gallery: Moments Of Beauty

January 29, 2017

charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

We need to find the beauty in an ugly world

[dropcap]I found it difficult to curate a gallery for this week. My heart just wasn’t in it. Our eyes have been glued to news reports and wire feeds as thousands of people have been stranded, detained, and/or deported at our nation’s airports. They are victims, innocent victims of the president’s illegal immigration order the excludes people from seven countries from entering the US. Never mind that these people have legal work visas and green cards. Never mind that they have family members here who are relying upon them, waiting for them. Never mind they have employers who need them. The president’s order was a giant “fuck you” to all of them without regard, and a “fuck you” to the entire country.[/dropcap]

With all that going on, trying to find pictures along any kind of theme for this morning was impossible. I gave serious consideration to skipping this week’s gallery altogether. But no, when in moments of crisis, we need things that are beautiful. We need to see the beauty in our fellow human beings.

I’m sorry I don’t have pictures of anyone from the countries directly banned by the president. People in that situation rarely make it in front of anyone’s camera. They prefer to live quiet, unassuming lives with their families. They don’t take any chances.

So, for this week, we chose what I call “second glance” images, those pictures I probably didn’t choose on my first pass through a set, but have come to like for some reason or another. I hope they will bring a moment of beauty into your day, perhaps your life. Enjoy.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9846″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Current Issues / Fashion

Wet Seal Dries Up

January 27, 2017

Fashion retail takes another hit

The Short Version

Less than two weeks after American Apparel announced the closing of all its stores, teen-focused retailer Wet Seal announced yesterday that they are closing all 173 stores after failing to find an investor or alternative source of capital to continue funding operations. The closure marks another serious blow to traditional retail fashion as fast-fashion stores such as H&M and Forever21 continue to dominate the sector.

(more…)

Photography / PotD

Strong Women: A Gallery

January 22, 2017

Beauty and glamor does not make a woman any less powerful

Over the years, I’ve photographed hundreds of thousands of women. Many were beautiful models, but many were not. Every last one of them, however, has been a wonderfully unique individual. So, when someone comes along disparaging women in any way, I tend to take offense. I despise the stereotype of the air-headed model who doesn’t know anything more than how to look good. Sure, there have been a couple over the years who seem to match that description, but the vast majority are far from that. Even those who might appear somewhat clueless are usually hiding strong qualities that are not immediately evident.

So, for today’s gallery, I decided to choose a group of photos specifically highlighting some of the strongest women I’ve known, specifically focusing on images from 2003-2008 just to keep things under control. Among those, you’ll find photos of Cherokee women quilting and doing beadwork. You’ll also find the late Anne McCaffery, author of the Dragonriders Of Pern series. You’ll find musicians, dancers, actors, designers, accountants, lawyers, immigrants, and so many others that I can’t remember them all.

If I were to include all the strong women I’ve ever shot the gallery would go on for pages. They are the rule, not the exception. Enjoy.

[Remember, click on an image to view the gallery in slideshow mode.]

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9692″ layout=”contain” columns=”4″]

Photography / PotD

Jenn King: A Mini Gallery

January 19, 2017

I hate saying goodbye

I’ve said many times before that models inevitably come and go. Young women who are bright, talented, and intelligent are not likely to stay stuck in a place that does not offer them enough opportunity or challenges for being their best. Models move away and, too often, we never see them again. We try to get over it.

When Jenn King announced a couple of weeks ago that she is moving to Austin, TX, my first response was to give her a hard time about moving to a state governed by some of the most stupid and backward people the planet has ever seen, such as Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. Fortunately, Austin is the type of city that insulates itself from most of the idiocy around the state, but still, it’s Texas. As an Okie, I hate seeing a friend move to an under-developed country. [insert evil grin here]

I hadn’t considered how many times we’ve shot with Jenn over the past few years. Since we first met, she’s married and has a wonderful baby girl and expanded her career as a florist, which is ultimately what takes her away from us. However, as I was looking through photos earlier this week, I realized just how many pictures I have of Jenn and didn’t want her to escape without a final look at all the beauty she’s brought into our lives.

While I could endlessly extol her virtues as a model, I have to admit that my favorite set with Jenn came very early one morning as we did portraits of her and her daughter. It was early and baby girl wasn’t too sure what to think about the old guy that was trying to take her picture. She warmed up, though, and took some beautiful pictures. Then, as we were paused between shots, a deer wandered nearby. Baby girl looked over at the deer, pointed, and called it a dog. Her sweetness and innocence made me smile.

So, without droning on forever, here is a brief look back at some of our favorite shots with Jenn. By the way, I have to thank makeup artist Danelle French for introducing us in the first place. Danelle did most the makeup for these shoots, just please don’t ask me to remember who else was involved. I’m not that talented. I’m old.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9619″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Look Who’s Walking

January 18, 2017

The fashion runway just took an interesting spin

The Short Version

Buzz Aldrin and Bill Nye will take to the runway for Nick Graham’s Men’s show titled “Life on Mars: Fall-Winter 2035.” Aldrin was the second person to set foot on the moon, and Bill Nye is an avid advocate of space exploration. Graham’s menswear line for fall/winter has a futuristic look and considers what might be appropriate for life on the red planet.

Not Your Average Model

We’ve seen a few exceptions to the standard model casting in the past couple of seasons, but I don’t think anyone else would have thought of casting the 86-year-old former astronaut and national hero, Buzz Aldrin. Aldrin has strongly encouraged the US to explore further into space and has stated frequently that he believes we can live on Mars by the year 2035. The astronaut told WWD, “I’ve walked on the Moon, so how hard can it be to walk in a fashion show. Nick’s collection is very Mars-friendly and every astronaut should look their best when they land there.”

In addition to Aldrin, Graham has brought along science educator Bill Nye to narrate the event and Graham has even gone so far as to design a set of limited-edition bow ties with Nye’s help. For those of you not in the loop, bow ties are a standard part of Nye’s iconic wardrobe. Nye’s voice is a familiar one and adds a serious tone to the presentation without getting too academic.

And what might we be wearing on Mars? Graham tells WWD the January 31 show will include sharkskin suits, metallic rainwear, and space-oriented formalwear. Wool and wool-blended tailored clothing and outerwear will also be presented, along with “space-themed dress shirts, neckwear, scarves, and accessories.”

Spaced-theme dress shirts sounds like something astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson might wear, but there’s no mention of his inclusion in the program. Maybe he’s out of town that day.

Mens week fashion shows don’t typically draw the level of attention that is found at the women’s ready-to-wear shows a couple of weeks later. Many designers have abandoned men’s week and include men’s fashion in their more popular ready-to-wear shows. Graham’s inclusion of a space theme and popular icons should help bring some attention to his collection from science fiction fans, a group few fashion labels consider in their marketing. Whether that group will actually go out and purchase the clothes, however, may require more motivation than Aldrin and Nye.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

The First Lady’s New Clothes

January 17, 2017

She’s not going naked. Probably.

The short version

Speculation is high regarding which designer might be selected to outfit soon-to-be first lady Melania Trump for the inauguration and its related parties. Normally, whoever is selected receives a noticeable market bump from the relationship. However, since December many designers have been saying they want nothing to do with anything or anyone related to the incoming administration. This raises the possibility that the new first lady may have to buy off the rack.

The core of the problem

Normally, dressing the First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) is a huge honor. Fashion industry reports show hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue going to designers who FLOTUS wears to special events such as state dinners. No event is more special than the inauguration and the formal balls that evening. Everyone in fashion is watching to see not only which designer the new first lady chooses, but how her taste in clothing matches up in comparison to her predecessors.

For most women, the task of getting dressed revolves around decisions such as which blouse isn’t stained and which pair of slacks aren’t too tight around the waist. For the first lady, however, the label in the clothing is often as important as the garments themselves. The first lady is, after all, a representative of the United States. Therefore, she is expected to wear predominantly American designers. This is going to be all the more true now given her husband’s rhetoric about things being made in America. While she might look good in a Versace dress, the backlash would be significant.

Equally important is how much the dress costs, which is something that could be a significant issue for the incoming first lady. More than a few president’s wives have been criticized for wearing garments whose price tags were dramatically out of reach of the average American. However, given her previous position as the wife of a billionaire, the new first lady isn’t especially accustomed to worrying about price tags. Expect significant backlash if she repeatedly wears dresses with high five-figure pricing.

Those are the normal problems with dressing a first lady. This year, however, there is a new matter: designers don’t want anything to do with her husband’s politics. The row started back right after the election when designer Sophie Theallet, who dressed Mrs. Obama on multiple occasions, penned a widely-publicized open letter stating that she would not dress the incoming first lady. Ms. Theallet said: “The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live buy.”

Since then, the number of designers speaking up about the issue has been significant, to the point that many are wondering who, if anyone is going to dress the first lady, or if she might end up buying off the rack. Since first ladies are expected to look their very best, custom-fitted clothing has been the norm for generations, but the lack of cooperating designers may leave this FLOTUS with little choice.

Who is saying no

Marc Jacobs
Derek Lam
Tom Ford
Timo Weiland
Philip Lim
Humberto Leon
Naeem Khan
Josef Altuzarra
Donna Karan

These are the most recognizable names on the list. Many other designers have declined to make a public statement. However, it is also likely that Alexander Wang and Jason Wu, both of whom dressed Mrs. Obama, would likely decline.

Who is saying yes

The incoming first lady isn’t without options. A few designers have stuck their necks out to say they will dress the first lady. However, there is no confirmation that anyone has been selected and no one has been seen entering or leaving the Trump residence.

Tommy Hilfiger
Diane Von Furstenberg
Sam & Libby
Marcus Wainright (rag & bone)
Thom Browne

It is worth noting that none of the designers state a dislike for the new first lady herself. Rather, it is the association with her husband’s policies that cause significant philosophical issues. Aside from all the controversy her husband creates every time he picks up a phone, this issue may determine whether the new first lady gets along with the social elite. All eyes will be on her this Friday. This first decision is extremely important.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

May Covers April Vogue

January 16, 2017

Because political fashion is a thing

The short version

British Prime Minister Theresa May is going to be on the cover of American Vogue in April. Photographer Annie Liebowitz snuck across the pond and took the PM’s pictures at May’s country estate. This is the first time any British Prime Minister has appeared on the cover of the American fashion magazine.

A little more detail

Vogue magazine’s editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, seems to be getting a little more politically involved of late. Just earlier this month she was seen leaving Trump Tower after a meeting with the president-elect. Now, the Guardian is breaking news this morning that UK Prime Minister Theresa May is going to be the cover girl for the April edition of the American magazine. This is kind of a big deal on two different fronts.

First, the April issue of Vogue is not its largest. March holds that title. There are a lot of people who only buy the March and September issues because that is when all the fashion labels buy multi-page ads for their upcoming seasonal collections. After that big issue, April comes in pretty thin and doesn’t get a lot of attention. Putting the PM on that cover could do a lot to boost sales, especially if there’s anything in the content that might prove controversial.

Second, this has never been done before and wasn’t the easiest thing in the world to make happen. Ms. Wintour was directly involved in securing the Prime Minister for the shoot. Rather than taking the pictures at 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the PM, they waited until May was out at her country estate known as Chequers. This avoids the controversy of an American company using the Downing Street residence for profit, and also made it easier to keep the photo shoot under wraps.

To capture the Prime Minister, Wintour sent the woman who is arguably the best portrait photographer in the US: Annie Liebowitz. Liebowitz is the biggest photographic gun in the large Condé Nast arsenal and her choice is significant. Either British photographer Nick Knight or Italy’s Steven Meisel would have been more convenient, and probably less expensive. In choosing Leibowitz, Wintour makes sure the pictures have a distinctly American tone to them, something not duplicated in any of the other Vogue brands.

As for why the British Prime Minister would even be a candidate for the Vogue cover, Americans need to understand that May absolutely loves everything to do with fashion. She is much more flashy about her appearance than, say, the late Margaret Thrasher was. She’s been known to wear leopard print to official functions and has even been criticized by some in the Conservative party for wearing very expensive leather pants. We are all more accustomed to heads of state keeping their attire quiet and unremarkable. May breaks that mold in a rather strong way.

Still, the timing here is interesting. America’s soon-to-be first lady last appeared on the cover of Vogue immediately after her wedding in 2005. The magazine has a tradition of featuring the first lady at least once during her husband’s administration, going all the way back to Helen Taft. The current first lady, Michelle Obama, has appeared on the cover three times since 2009. Yet, when it comes to putting her successor on that enviable place, Wintour is having some difficulty finding a designer who is willing to dress Mrs. Trump. Because the magazine’s relationship with designers is critical, it cannot afford to dress the first lady, or anyone else, in a designer’s clothing without their blessing. While Mrs. Trump will certainly eventually get her first lady cover, it could be a while. So, the British PM gets to go first.

Are we making too much of this?

Absolutely. If Ms. May wasn’t such a politically controversial figure herself, given that whole Brexit thing, and if the political divide in the US weren’t as ferocious, then this would certainly be a page-six, one-column story. Politically, however, the stakes are high. Being in charge of Britain’s exit from the EU isn’t exactly a great way to make new friends and the PM can use all the moral support she can get, even if it’s not from her own constituents.

Ultimately, this is a brilliant power move by Anna Wintour designed with one purpose in mind: sell more magazines. That’s her job and she does it better than anyone else. While other magazines have been in decline, the Condé Nast titles Ms. Wintour oversees have all seen increases in revenue. Now, she’s taken one of the least read issues of the year and made it a must-buy. Every other publisher is green with envy. Fortunately, green is a good color for April.

Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 01.13.2017

January 13, 2017

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know: 01.13.17

05:04:22 01/13/2017

Is Anybody Out There?

Here it is, the first Friday the 13th of the year. Of course, there’s trouble brewing as temperatures going into this evening sit right on the cusp of providing freezing rain or sleet and making everything a mess. Best guess at this point is that most of the mess is going to stay South of Indianapolis, but expect this evening’s rush hour to be a pain in the ass. Of course, why should traffic be any different from the rest of the day?

And that is why this is likely to be the last edition of 5 Things You Should Know, at least in this format. It’s too much of a pain in the ass for the few people who bother to read or view it. We spend at least six hours, often more, sorting through the news, choosing the right stories, and then selecting pictures. And for what? No one’s watching. On average, we have the same five people visiting every day. The past two weeks we’ve been asking for sponsors and gotten no response. Maybe it’s time to move on.

But did anyone notice?

Anyone who is plugged into any form of media the past twelve hours already knows that there was a ten-minute span yesterday when the C-Span feed was replaced with the feed for Russia Today¹. The switch occurred about 2:30 Thursday afternoon as Congresswoman Maxine Waters was trying to convince her more ignorant colleagues why the Securities and Exchange Commission is actually an important part of our government. The feed cut Ms. Waters off mid-sentence and went to music.

You’ve seen this story all over the media because Russia Today has been implicated by US intelligence as participating in the Russian effort to interfere with and influence the presidential election. Could this have been more of the infamous hacking over which everyone has been arguing? Probably not. The private company that owns C-Span released a statement saying that it was much more likely that the error was due to a routing problem.

The question that is on my mind is how long it took before anyone actually noticed that there was an interruption? It’s not like C-Span is the highest-rated network in the country. Most the people who watch it are hard-core political nerds and reporters desperately looking for something resembling a story. If Russia wants to really undermine faith in our political system, perhaps they should consider hacking the feed for the inauguration next week. Although, once again, would anyone notice?

Applying a little lube

We know Congress is about to screw us. They said when they were running for election that they were going to screw us and for some stupid reason we voted for them anyway. So, we should not be surprised by the fact that Congress is about to make it easier for them to repeal the Affordable Care Act². Assuming the House of Representatives votes along party lines, which is what they’ve been doing the past six years, they’ll change the rules today so that repeal bills can pass through the Senate without chance of a Democratic filibuster.

This is the type of action that you might think would be illegal. After all, the Consitution created the allowance for a filibuster so that the minority party could at least give the majority party a chance to think before they did something stupid. However, Republicans don’t like to think and they certainly don’t want to give the American people time to rally around a filibuster and express their disagreement with what politicians are wanting to do.

The rule change does not require a presidential signature. Once both bodies have approved the change it goes into effect. Be sure, this is all about making it easier for the rich to avoid paying taxes and to eliminate things such as Medicaid expansion and subsidies to help pay for health insurance. This bill is nothing more than the lube being applied before we all get screwed. This is the Congress you elected. Don’t act so fucking surprised.

Fashion isn’t so profitable

We’ve talked frequently before about how fashion retail tends to be in a tailspin. Now, it would seem that at least some designers are getting caught up in the downturn as well. Bibhu Mohapatra, the New York-based Indian designer who has often dressed Michelle Obama, filed for bankruptcy this week³. Fortunately, this does not mean that the colorful designer is going out of business. Rather, the bankruptcy protection allows the company to restructure its debt and continue operating.

What this underscores is just how difficult it is for an independent label to survive in the current fashion climate. Mohapatra is one of a handful of small labels that operates on both sides of the Atlantic and has a reasonably strong following. However, with the general climate in fashion going toward more casual wear and a fast fashion model, designers like Bibhu find themselves in a position of having to alter both their aesthetic as well as their business model if they hope to keep up.

This also puts a light on how dependent small designers are on department stores. Mohapatra’s collection is available largely through upper-end retailers such as Bergdorf Goodman and Saks Fith Avenue, both have which, like many fashion retailers, have struggled to maintain their clientele. The struggles at the store trickle down to the designers whose operations are too small to open their own storefronts. The debt restructuring should make the small brand more attractive to investors. We know LVMH has been doing some shopping and the brand might fit well within that conglomerate.

Trying to find something different

Hedi Slimane seems to be having some difficulty finding where he fits best. The former creative director at Yves Saint Laurent, who left suddenly without explanation last March, was probably hoping that another label would want to take advantage of his often controversial design habits. They didn’t. While there were plenty of transitions throughout the fashion industry last year, none of the major labels even expressed an interest in Slimane. So, he has decided to become a photographer, instead⁴.

Now, to be fair, this isn’t totally an out-of-reach move for the now former designer. When he was at Saint Laurent, he would sometimes step behind the camera to shoot the brand’s campaign himself. However, we should also note that his doing so largely copied that same habit by Chanel’s Karl Lagerfeld and neither of them manage to actually impress anyone who knows anything about fashion photography. At least Lagerfeld has some experience behind him whereas Slimane has none.

So, here goes the designer into a crowded field of people who know a lot more about photography than he does, banking largely on the recognizability of his name to make up for a lack of talent and experience. What we’ve seen from him so far is a very high contrast black and white style that falls flat and fails to show any real imagination. While I never really liked Slimane as a designer, I don’t think photography is where he belongs, either. Perhaps he should enroll in a community college somewhere.

And finally …

All good things must come to an end, as we know, and often times those ends come without much fanfare or appreciation for what was accomplished. Many people retire and find themselves sitting alone on park benches talking to the pigeons while wondering if anything they’ve done in their life is worthwhile. Joe Biden will not be one of those people, however. After nearly 50 years of public service, the last eight spent as the ultimate sidekick to President Obama, Biden finally got some recognition yesterday in the form of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, with distinction⁵.

Almost immediately, video of the moment when the vice president realized what was happening went viral. Somehow, despite existing in an atmosphere where nothing seems to ever be secret, the president and his staff were able to surprise his friend with the nation’s most prestigious non-military award. I’ve no clue what Joe thought was about to happen, but he was clearly caught off guard and had to turn away and wipe tears from his eyes as the president made the announcement.

While vice presidents generally come and ago without much notice or notoriety, over the past eight years Joe Biden has become the nation’s favorite grandfather figure and his BFF relationship with the president has inspired thousands of memes and points of humor, which the pair have played up much to everyone’s delight over the past year. What we don’t want to overlook, however, is that Vice President Biden would be deserving of this award even if he wasn’t so chummy with the president. His is a record of incredible service and when he boards the train back to Deleware next week, we’re going to miss him very much.

And that’s it. We’re done. I have no idea what’s coming next, if there’s anything coming at all. What I do know is that the lack of response we’ve gotten to this format requires I take a step back and consider some form of change. I thought there might be value in cutting through all the mass media bullshit and fake news. Apparently, I was wrong. So, we’ll take the weekend off, re-evaluate what seems reasonable, and perhaps come back with something new. Or not. Either way, good luck and have a good day.

Art / Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 01.09.2017

January 9, 2017

04:42:27 01/09/2017

https://youtu.be/Y1dUZDI66As

Have we mentioned that we’re looking for sponsors for 5 Things You Should Know? We’ll say your name, and more. Contact us.

A lot of news, but is it art?

Welcome to another Monday. Temperatures are still cold out this morning, but by mid-afternoon, we might just make it above freezing for the first time in several days. This is the beginning of a warming trend that will see central Indiana near 60 degrees by Thursday, but with that comes a reasonable chance for rain every day except today. By next weekend it will be cold and wintery again, so enjoy the warmer weather while you can.

The weekend managed to conjure up a fair bit of news for this morning. McDonald’s has sold most of its business in China and Hong Kong to investors who can help them grow. Turkey claims they’ve killed more than 40 ISIS fighters over the weekend, and the Friday’s Ft. Lauderdale shooter is likely facing the death penalty. Yet, it’s an award show that seems to be getting all the chatter this morning. Let’s look at our 5 things you should know and see if we can figure out why.

But first, the weather

We tend to look at the weather in terms of local forecasts and are typically thankful when everything is benign and quiet. A little bit of snow in the wrong place can be a real problem with it hits in the South, such as it did on Friday and Saturday last week. But what you might have missed was a massive winter storm that hit Europe over the weekend, leaving at least 20 dead and closing businesses and services across much of the continent¹.

Those of you familiar with European geography know that, like the US, Southern Europe rarely sees a touch of winter. The Greek Islands are a popular winter tourist destination because they tend to stay warm. The same is true for Southern Italy. Yet, both are frozen over today and have a heavy blanket of fresh snow, closing ferries, ports, and schools. Overnight temperatures in Northern Europe reached as low as -22° F, which contributed to many of the deaths. Many of those dying are homeless and immigrant people with insufficient shelter.

At the same time, however, the Western US is getting hit with a storm of its own. Hundreds of homes have been evacuated in Nevada and in Northern California police are rescuing people from cars as the strongest winter storm to hit that region in 10 years pummels them with more water than they can handle². This is on top of the more than six feet of snow dumped on the Sierra Nevadas in the past week. What you should know is that this is normally a high desert region that sees less than eight inches of rain a year. They’re looking at a very rough start to their week.

Death of a diplomat

People in Iran are mourning the death of Former Iranian president Akbar Rafsanjani who died Sunday at age 82³. This is important because Rafsanjani, who was a political moderate, played a large role in the election of Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani and was a force within Iran for supporting the current nuclear agreement between that country and the West. Without Rafsanjani, Rouhani faces considerable objections from Iranian hardliners in favor of ditching the agreement and developing Iran’s nuclear program.

Given the rhetoric toward Iran from president-elect Donald Trump, many moderates and Middle Eastern academics feel that Rafsanjani’s death could not have come at a worse time. With political instability on both sides of the nuclear agreement, fears are high that the whole thing might fall apart without Rafsanjani’s voice working to keep both sides calm. Any political misstep on either side now could have catastrophic results.

In a country that has often been isolationist and protective, Rafsanjani was a rare voice of reason who advocated not only stronger ties with the West but closer relations with Iran’s Middle Eastern neighbors. A three-day period of mourning has been declared and the former president’s funeral will be held on Tuesday.

Using trucks as weapons

We may soon begin seeing a more diligent inspection of trucks on city streets as, once again, a truck has been used as part of a terror attack, this time in Jerusalem⁴. At least four Israeli soldiers were killed and 17 people wounded as a Palestinian driver rammed his truck into a crowd at a popular tourist attraction. This is the deadliest single attack in the region which has seen a considerable amount of violence over the past year.

This time, however, the US has a direct role in the causation for the attack. Tensions in the region have been high based on president-elect Trump’s statement that he plans to move the US embassy to Israel to Jerusalem. Palestinians have warned that such a move would have dire consequences, which has many wondering if this was merely a warning of what might be to come should the president-elect follow through on his promise.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is blaming the so-called Islamic State, however, given that organization’s recent use of a truck at a market in Germany that left 12 dead. The truck driver was a Palestinian man from a nearby neighborhood known for being home to other terrorists in the region. Security cameras show the truck barreling through the streets at a high rate of speed toward a group of soldiers, and then backing up rapidly after hitting them. The driver was shot dead by other Israeli soldiers surviving the attack.

Ending the program but not the controversy

Following the death of Tilikum, the orca that killed a trainer at Sea World back in 2010, Sea World San Diego has announced that it is ending its Killer Whale show⁵. The final presentation featuring trainers interacting with the giant mammals was held yesterday afternoon. Sea World says it plans to redesign the large tanks and open a new orca exhibit in the spring that is more of an educational experience. Visitors will see how orcas eat and interact with each other rather than with a trainer.

Don’t think this is an end to the controversy surrounding the Sea World program, though. Tilikum died at an estimated age of 36. While that might seem old compared to the life of your family pet, orcas in the wild have been known to live well over 200 years, with some estimated to live another century beyond that. The effect of captivity on the giant animals dramatically shortens their lifespan, no matter how well their care might be.

What you should know is that Sea World parks in Orlando and San Antonio will continue their orca shows through 2019. Attendance at all Sea World parks has fallen off since the documentary Blackfish criticized the conditions of the orcas at Sea World, specifically Tilikum, saying that captivity makes the massive mammals more aggressive. Sea World has also announced they are laying off some 320 people across its 12 parks, none of which are likely to affect the orca programs.

And finally …

The first big awards show of the new year, the Golden Globes, was held last night and, as one might expect, the tabloids and entertainment news is full of chatter about who won what⁶. Now, before anyone busts a gut, we can tell you that the musical La La Land took the lead with seven awards, which definitely brightens its chances going into the Oscars. Tracee Ellis Ross, took the award for best actress in a TV comedy for “Black-ish,” the first black woman to win in that category since 1992. Emma Stone won for best movie actress in a comedy or musical, and Billy Bob Thornton won for best actor in a TV drama.

What has tongues wagging fiercely this morning is Meryl Streep’s acceptance speech after winning the Cecile B. DeMille award, where she called the president-elect a bully and challenged the press to hold those in power accountable. What is getting the most attention, however, is when she said, “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. And if we kick ’em all out you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”

That comment set off a firestorm about athletics not being the arts. MMA supporters especially took exception, given the word “arts” is in the title. Stop and think about it, though. We don’t called anyone a football artist, we call them “players.” We call those who participate in MMA “fighters,” not artists. Just so we’re clear, the Fine Arts always have been, and continue to be painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry extending to dance and drama. Modern modifications include film, photography, and other visial elements, but they do NOT include athletics. Those are sports. Don’t get confused.

And that’s all we have time and energy for this morning. Being a Monday, I’m sure there will be a lot happen throughout the day today. We’ll watch it all and we’ll be back in the morning to sift through all the nonsense. Enjoy the warming weather if you can and we’ll back tomorrow.

###

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 12/23/2016

December 23, 2016

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should KNow 12/23/16

https://youtu.be/QzanwGzbS7I

Festivus for the rest of us

Good morning, and Happy Festivus for those of you who celebrate that particular holiday. Today is the day you get to make your annual complaint. Just don’t make it in my direction because I’m not listening. We have rain moving into the Midwest this afternoon while to our North a major winter storm is developing that could interrupt holiday travel for a lot of people. Wherever you are, please be safe when you’re on the road.

There is a lot to discuss this morning. Uber has moved its driverless car fleet to Arizona after the California Department of Transportation revoked the registration of its 16 vehicles. JetBlue removed some rowdy passengers from a flight carrying Ivanka Trump. And A Lybian plane presumed to be hijacked has landed in Malta. That situation is ongoing and at this point we don’t have enough details to elaborate. Let’s get into our 5 things you should know.

The Tunisian driver in the German market incident is dead

Early this morning, police in Milan, Italy reported that they had shot and killed the man believed responsible for driving a truck into a crowded holiday market in Berlin earlier this week, killing 12¹. Anis Amri had been the subject of a European-wide manhunt, though as of last night Berlin officials said they believed him to still be in that city. Amri pulled a gun when stopped at a routine traffic stop in Milan and was killed in the subsequent shootout.

While attempts to actually connect Amri with the terrorist organization are questionable, the Islamic State has taken credit for the attack in Berlin, which may be part of a broader plan to boost its visibility. Early yesterday, Australian authorities said they foiled a plot to attack multiple locations there on Sunday². The five ISIS-inspired terrorists had planned the attack using explosives, knives, and guns for high profile locations in Canberra, Australia’s second-largest city.

At the same time, there are reports of a list of churches in the United States that have been targeted for attack by the group as well³. National Security Administration officials question whether the list has any authority to it or if it is just rhetoric in an attempt to disrupt holiday celebrations. Security across the US is already heightened after the attack in Berlin, but no credible threats have been identified.

The nuclear arms race may be back on

After decades of deliberate attempts at reducing nuclear proliferation, both Russia and the United States now seem poised to start up the nuclear arms race once again⁴. First, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin stating that strengthening his country’s nuclear capabilities should be a chief military objective in the coming year. President-elect Donald Trump quickly fired back with a tweet saying the United States needs to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability” until the rest of the world “comes to its senses” regarding nuclear weapons.

Sounds a bit scary, doesn’t it? There are a couple of things on this topic we need to keep in mind. First, the nuclear arsenals of both countries is getting old. Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties of the 1970s pretty much put a halt to any new nuclear weapons development. As our nuclear stockpile begins to age, there is some danger in radioactive material leaking from corroded containers. Plans have been under discussion for some time as to how the US might upgrade its stockpile without violating existing treaties.

At the same time, however, one has to consider the possibility that Putin was merely baiting the president-elect. If so, it would appear that the trap worked. Mr. Trump’s proclivity toward tweeting before thinking was an issue all through the campaign and this may well be another occasion where someone on his staff shows up today attempting to walk back the gaffe. Either way, there is plenty of reason to be concerned. Talk about nuclear weapons is not a joking matter and taken very seriously by leaders around the world. Any attempt at a new buildup would likely face UN restrictions as well as a Congress not terribly excited about funding such a project.

Worst year in history

If you’re thinking that 2016 has been the worst year ever, you may be correct, at least for the murder rate in Indianapolis. The murder of a man who opened his door and was immediately shot was the city’s 145th homicide. Murder number 146 came late yesterday as police found a man in the 4500 block of East 37th Street who had not only been shot but then set on fire. These murders make 2016 the deadliest year in Indianapolis history⁵.

All this comes on the same day that police chief Troy Riggs announced his resignation and at the end of the first year of Mayor Joe Hogsett’s administration. Hogsett ran in 2015 on a campaign of reducing violence in the city. However, despite aggressive efforts to bring the rate of violence under control, homicides have continued to rise. Officials are blaming everything from poverty to substance abuse and mental illness. Chief Riggs said in a statement on Thursday that the fundamental cause remains the fact that too many people are settling arguments with gunfire.

Nationwide, FBI statistics have shown violent crime to be decreasing across the nation. However, in the Midwest both Chicago and Indianapolis have defied that trend with homicides in both cities setting new records each year. Officials in both cities have struggled across multiple administrations without finding an answer to the problem, leaving certain parts of the cities as dangerous as war zones.

Forcing women to work

The president-elect’s transition team is having some difficulty finding artists and entertainers willing to perform at inaugural events next month. Just yesterday, Canadian singer Celine Dion released a statement adding her name to the list of people who have told the president-elect “No, thank you.⁶” This puts her on the same list as Elton John, Andrea Bocelli, and Garth Brooks, among others.

After all the many declines, inauguration planners were happy to announce yesterday that the Mormon Tabernacle Choice and the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes would be performing⁷. Neither addition is surprising as both have performed for inaugurations before. To some extent, their presence is pretty much old-hat.

Wait just one minute, though. It would seem there is some dissension among the ranks of the Rockettes. Pheobe Pearl, one of the Rockettes, wrote on her private Instagram account yesterday that, “Finding out that it has been decided for us that Rockettes will be performing at the Presidential inauguration makes me feel embarrassed and disappointed.”

It’s no secret that an overwhelming number of New Yorkers voted against the president-elect so the dissent isn’t surprising. However, the Rockettes are owned by the Madison Square Garden Company and a union boss responded to Ms. Pearl’s statement saying that any dancer who didn’t participate in the inauguration event would find themselves unemployed. Needless to say, that stance has not set well with the Broadway community nor social media. Something tells me this situation isn’t quite over.

And finally …

We end this week saying goodbye to Franca Sozzani, the editor-in-chief of Vogue Italia who passed away at her home yesterday with her son by her side⁸. Franca had been editor of the magazine for 28 years, taking on that position the same year Anna Wintour took the lead position at US Vogue. Immediately, memorials began pouring in from fashion’s most notable names expressing their condolences. Ms. Wintour described her as, “warm, clever, funny, and someone who could give the Sphinx a run for its money when it comes to keeping a confidence.^9”Jonathan Newhouse, Chairman and CEO of Conde Nast, the parent company of all the Vogue editions, said in a statement: “France was one of the greatest Editors who ever make a magazine. She was by far the most talented, influential, and important person within the Conde Nast International organization.”

More than just an editor of a fashion magazine, however, Franca Sozzani was a photographer. She was the daughter of a photographer and had an unquestionable passion for photography that was evident in how she put together her magazine. She championed hundreds of photographers over the years, most notably Steven Meisel. She was constantly on the look for emerging photographers and established and supported multiple programs to give those photographers a chance to show their work.

Make no mistake, she was demanding and set a very high standard for the photography that graced the pages of her magazine and even in its more expanded online galleries. Having that small Vogue Italia logo in the bottom left-hand corner of a photo was an incredible achievement, a statement to the world that the toughest of photo editors approved of your work. I am fortunate enough to have that logo on 18 photographs. We normally don’t include those images with our other portfolios, but for the next few days at least we’ve put them all online in memory of a fantastic person who pushed us all to take better pictures. You can see our Vogue Italia portfolio here.

We are once again out of time and space. We hope you will enjoy your Festivus activities and that you will join us again tomorrow as we try to find 5 special things you need to know for Christmas Eve. Don’t forget to subscribe, please. We hope you stay warm and dry. Have a great Friday.

Long Read / pop culture

10 Reasonable Predictions For 2017

December 22, 2016

Some bets are safer than others

Making predictions are always a messy gamble. If you play it safe, your predictions look obvious. If you reach of the extreme you increase the chance of missing, which never looks good. Yet, making predictions for the new year is a bit of a time-honored tradition. Okay, maybe not the smartest time-honored tradition, but hey, you’re the one sitting here reading this stuff, so I’m definitely not alone in the equation.

Typically, predictions stay pretty narrowly focused on a specific genre. There are all kinds of digital media predictions for next year and the number of financial predictions, most of which disagree with each other, is myriad. I’m taking a more global approach this year in an effort to keep it interesting. I mean, how many years can I rehash the same fashion predictions of designers shifting houses and mergers and acquisitions? Oh, and in photography, Canon, Nikon, and Sony will all release new cameras. Yawn. We know those thins are going to happen so let’s look at things that are perhaps not quite so certain.

At the same time, I’m not going to step too far out onto any tree limb. I’ve chosen predictions that are corroborated to some degree by at least one other source if not more. This increases the likelihood of the prediction being correct, even if it seems out there a little bit.

I’m not putting our predictions in any particular order. They’re rather all over the place and trying to rank them feels less than genuine. Any one of them could end up being a huge story over the next year, or no story at all. We’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?

The End of Globalization As We Know It

When the Berlin wall fell back in the 80’s, about the time many of you were born, everyone cheered the new openness and the concept of sharing everything and one new, giant world where we could all travel with ease and share common values. We would be citizens of the world, not the US or UK or any other specific country. It was a nice dream and it might have worked were it not for religious zealots bent on taking over the world. Terrorism fueled our fear of immigrants and caused us to guard our borders more carefully. Global recession caused us to question a shared currency and economies where one country’s foolishness can bring down others. Then came global hacking of critical networks.

Now, we feel nothing is safe and as a result we are pulling back. We see this in the British exit from the UK. We see the fear in populist elections not only in the US but around the world. The fear has countries looking for ways to cordon off their section of the Internet, protect their networks from theft or the kind of DDOS attack that took down much of the Eastern United States earlier this year. We are pulling back fast and even if there’s not a physical wall between the US and Mexico, we’ve already started erecting other walls in terms of policy that put us fully in protectionist mode.

Globalization awaits a death sentence in 2017. At the very least, it’s looking at a lengthy prison term until we figure out how to get along.

20% of activities will involve at least one of seven companies.

That list consists of Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent. Everything you do, from buying groceries to shopping for blue jeans is going to involve the technology of one of those companies and the greater majority of the time you won’t even know it’s happening. Technology has permeated every part of our lives. We’re not just talking about the Internet here. Financial systems. Appliances. New home construction. Every last bit of it involves some form technology from at least one of those companies.

Where we will feel this transition the most is in the information arena. While social media is already a pervasive source of news, both real and fake, increasingly we’re going to see those same interfaces distributing far more personal information. For example, a simple connection between your Samsung appliance app and your Android phone could pop up a message on Facebook when your cookies are ready to come out of the oven. Or maybe your child’s school sends you a tweet when weather cancels school for the day. Already, Amazon can let you know seconds before the UPS delivery shows up at your front door.

Seven companies control the bulk of digital information and data being transferred from one place to another. These companies are larger than many of the governments around the world. They do what they want and are largely immune to any legislation that might be levied against them. The more I think about it, 20% may be too conservative a number. We’ll wait and see.

Separation of friends along ideological lines

One of the casualties of this past election season has been our friends list and who we follow on social media. We were passionate about this election and many of us were surprised when people we thought we knew, people we otherwise respected and thought were reasonable, expressed support for the political opposition. We unfollowed. We unfriended. And then we blocked. Social media users everywhere reported the destruction of their lists and the frequency with which they had to remove yet another name of what had been a long-term friend.

Now that the election is over, all is forgiven and we’re adding those people back, right? Nope, absolutely not. In fact, we’re still very much on edge about the whole matter. Those who lost are still angry about losing. Those who won are still aggressive about rubbing it in. We’re not friends anymore. That’s not going to change this year, and possibly not any year from here on out. We no longer trust those long-term friendships, not even the ones we held since high school.

Ideological divisions run deeper now than they did a year ago. We’re less likely to agree to disagree because the things over which we disagree matter too much. We don’t want to be friends with someone whose racism rose to the surface three months ago. We don’t want to continue a relationship with people who are willing to judge an entire religion on the actions of extremists. What we have seen this year is that too often those ideologies result in actions we cannot dream of supporting. So, we’ll keep weeding out our friends lists and unlike other post-election years we won’t be making up. Those friends are just gone.

More vegan & vegetarian menu choices

2017 could be a huge year for food on just about every culinary level imaginable. We’re seeing new restaurant concepts popping up in cities such as Indianapolis where food hadn’t been that big a deal before. More people in rural locations are caring about the quality and source of the things they eat. Even small town groceries are changing the stock on their shelves to reflect changes in our eating habits.

Where I think we’ll see some of the biggest changes in 2017 is in the number of vegan and vegetarian menu choices. There are a couple of reasons for this. As much as I thoroughly enjoy being carnivorous, meat prices continue to rise as maintaining production facilities free of diseases seems to be increasingly difficult. I actually saw a roasting hen for which I would never have paid more than $4 or $5 priced at $12 before Thanksgiving. Hell no, I’m not going to pay that price, and chances are a lot of other people are going to, at the very least, cut back on their meat consumption as well.

At the same time, more young people are taking up a pure vegan or vegetarian lifestyle and no, it’s not just a phase. As a result, there is a significantly larger audience looking for meatless options, whether because of price or because of preference. Expect restaurants to take notice of this opportunity and respond accordingly. What we will notice at first is the number of new places opening specifically to serve a vegan/vegetarian clientele. After all, these kids like to eat out. A lot. What will slip up on us, though, is an increase in vegan menu items at traditional meat places, especially fast food. It’s no secret that fast food powerhouse McDonald’s has been testing vegan and vegetarian menu items for a while now. 2017 may well be the year someone finally gets it right.

Streaming video on demand completely takes over

Stop and think for a minute about how many streaming video on demand accounts you have. Netflix. Hulu. Amazon. Those three are likely a given. Oh, but don’t forget HBOGo so that you don’t miss Game of Thrones. And then there’s that Showtime on demand subscription. When all is said and done, you may well be spending just as much money on SVOD services as you once did on a cable package. They add up quickly.

What we’re going to see in 2017, though, is a complete domination of entertainment by various SVOD services. Even the networks are starting to get in on the act with CBS offering its own subscription service apart from needing any kind of cable account to access live shows. Yes, this has your cable company a little frightened, but it’s not something they haven’t seen coming. This is one of the reasons AT&T wants to buy Time/Warner. This is also one of the reasons Comcast and NBC are joined at the hip. Content producers on every level are making deals and acquisitions with streaming providers as fast as they possibly can. By this time next year, you likely will be able to watch any show, any where, any time through a streaming service.

This streaming thing applies to more than video, though. Increasingly over this year, you’ll see more muscle put behind music streaming services, especially through three of the Big 7, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Don’t be surprised if by this time next year they’ve gobbled up smaller services like Pandora and Spotify. If you want to listen to music non-stop it will cost you $10 a month, or you can start buying CDs again. Yeah, they still make those. There could be a backlash against streaming at some point, but I don’t think it will happen in the next 12 months.

Mergers & acquisitions will rock the choice landscape

AT&T and Time Warner. Verizon and Yahoo! and possibly CBS. Mergers and acquisitions are positioned to be one of the biggest areas of business growth, gaining a strength and ferocity they’ve not seen since the late 1990s. What this comes down to is big companies have not been able to develop the technology to keep up as quickly as smaller companies. So, it makes sense for the big companies to buy the smaller companies. This makes the technologies available to a broader audience, increases the services of the larger company, and positively affects the bottom line. Everyone’s happy, right?

Wellllll, that’s not always the case, especially when it comes to technology and media acquisitions. When Rupert Murdock bought the National Geographic magazine, for example, there was wide-spread concern as to whether Murdock’s political ideology might affect the objectivity of the famous magazine. With pending deals such as the AT&T/Time Warner merger, not only does the Securities and Exchange Commission have to look at how the merger affects competition in the cable industry, they also have to consider whether the deal might limit access to content developed by Time Warner’s many creative holdings.

No matter which directions those decisions go, however, mergers and acquisitions are going to be big in almost every industry imaginable. Now is a great time to be an M&A attorney, to be sure. However, if you work at a mid-size company doing work that isn’t highly specialized (such as sales), I’d be sure to keep that resume polished and up to date.

Subscriptions become a really huge thing

Over the past year, I’ve seen plenty of marketing jokes about the dollar shave club. Those jokes are likely to fade into oblivion this next year as subscription services for a variety of products are poised to take off in a major way. Among those who are likely to be big winners are food and conglomerate personal toiletries. Think well beyond the dollar shave club. For $3 or $5 a month you can have everything from vegan toothpaste to organic deodorant along with brushes and combs. At the same time, you’ll be ordering specific food packages personally designed not only for your taste, but emphasizing locally-grown foods, and sustainable desserts.

What fuels this dramatic growth in subscriptions is the fact that the number of people who actually enjoy shopping is diminishing. Our lives are busier than ever and if we’re not working double shifts we’re maximizing our time with friends. The one thing we don’t have time to do is shop even for basic things such as toothpaste and snacks we can binge at 3AM. Subscriptions are an easy answer to that. We give the provider a list of personal preferences and they send us packages at predetermined intervals, all of which is conveniently billed to your credit card.

I’m anxious to see just what services show up with subscription services once they see that the trend has taken off. Will there be taco subscription services? Or maybe we can sign up for regular dress shoe upgrades. I’ve already seen ads for a service that provides one entirely new outfit a month. The foundation has already been laid. Just wait for it to explode.

Lower tax rates, fewer deductions

The last big tax overhaul was 1986 in the middle of the Reagan administration overseen by then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Now, the Republicans are back in control and are ready to do the same thing again. Lower taxes, especially for corporations, were a big part of Republican campaign promises and now it’s time to make good on those promises. Wall Street is pretty much depending on some dramatic cuts and possibly the complete elimination of the inheritance tax, all of which would bouy stock prices.

The downside here is that there are likely to be fewer deductions and individuals and families might even see reductions in the earned income credit. Republicans have opposed raises to that credit the past few times it has come up but have compromised to get bills signed. Now that they don’t need to make that compromise there may be a number of deductions that are completely eliminated in order to pay for those cuts in corporate taxes.

While cutting taxes would seem to require a cut in spending, though, don’t expect that to actually happen. Much of the budgetary spending for the next several years has already been determined by contracts that would be even more expensive to renegotiate. So, it could be very interesting to see how the tax cuts affect the budget without adding more onto the national debt, which is another extremely sensitive topic in Washington. There are still a lot of people up there who don’t understand one can’t have a cake that’s already been eaten.

Your phone is your wallet

Credit and debit cards got an update this year with smart chips designed to make fraud much more difficult. Increasingly, though, we are less likely to have to pull our cards from our wallets at all. A mobile app from Google called Hands Free lets customers pay for stuff at stores without having to pull out their phones. Amazon is already testing their own hands-free technology with a special grocery store in the Seattle area. Plus an app being developed by Visa and Honda to allow drivers to pay for products without leaving their cars.

All this does require that you have a smart phone and that specific apps be functioning. What happens if you pull up to a drive-thru where you have no bars? I’m not sure. No one seems to want to talk about the inherent problems with this new cardless pay system. Hacking of personal data seems to be a high possibility, despite assurance from the big seven tech companies that each step brings with it increased security. The other downside is that this new technology eliminates the need for cashiers, so say goodbye to a whole bunch of unskilled jobs. The move also further marginalizes the poor and those whose credit is insufficient to have a bank account. As the number of stores with cashiers dwindles, where will these people have to go to buy food?

Advances in technology are wonderful and largely inevitable. What we have to do over the next year, however, is make sure that we are not leaving out those who lack the priveledges the rest of us take for granted.

A little more afraid

One of the most certain forecasts for 2017 is that we are all a little less trusting and a little more afraid than we were this year. 2016 showed us just how bad a year could be and how that even the best plans could fail in a colossal manner. Not only does 2017 not look any better, there are plenty of people telling us it could be worse. Given the amount of suffering and difficulty we’ve faced over the past 12 months, we are frightened about what might be coming next.

This fear is driving us in two different directions. On one hand, there is a new wave of activism coming, people who refuse to sit down and let the new administration roll over them and take away their rights. The success of the protests at the North Dakota Access Pipeline this year emboldened many people with its demonstration of how people can stand up to the government and win. Expect to see a lot more marching, a lot more protests, and a lot of requests for money to fund these campaigns.

On the other hand, however, people are more likely to guard their personal finances, to spend cautiously and carefully, and to minimize their personal risks. Expect banks to be more cautious in making loans, which could have a negative effect on the housing and car markets. We are likely to see fewer non-technology startups and people who have jobs are more likely to stay in them even if they’re not especially happy. When our global environment is this uncertain, we tend to be extremely careful about where we step.

That’s the end of our top ten predictions. If I had room to toss in a bonus prediction it would be that alternative energies are poised for a big boost this year, but there are some policy caveats that could derail that growth as well. I’m also concerned about US relations with foreign countries, especially China given its continued aggression in the South China Sea. My hope is that China might back down in order to prevent any disruption in trade, but that entire area of the world is very tentative as we enter the new year.

I’m still working on a separate survival guide for next year so be looking for that within the next week. 12 months can be a very long time and a lot can happen. When these predictions come true, though, remember that you saw it here first. Maybe. Unless you saw it somewhere else first, which would be very, very strange.

Fashion / video

Our 5 Favorite Fashion Films For 2016

December 21, 2016

A different way of looking at fashion

Custom film has become a major factor in how brands communicate their message and even establish some level of dominance. Part of a complicated, multi=-million-dollar marketing campaign, these films are stories unto themselves, dialogues that express a unique perspective on what it means to wear a brand’s clothing. The best frequently employ award-winning directors and several also include recognizable actors.

We’ve watched dozens of fashion films this year, but these five stand out. They go beyond just presenting a set of clothes. They capture our imagination and give us aspirations for how our lives might be should we wear these clothes.

What’s especially interesting is that almost all fashion films are presented without dialog. The viewer is left to interpret the story for themselves, just as we must ultimately interpret a brand’s clothes for ourselves. Labels want to send a strong message that the clothes don’t define the person. Rather, the person defines the clothes.

So here are my five favorites in no particular order. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy.

Christian Dior: Drift

Film by Vincent van de Wijngaard. A little stereotypical with the use of the LA Causeway, but still very well done.

Calvin Klein Jeans, Spring 2016

Featuring FKA Twigs and Kaner Flex

Gucci Stories: The Myth of Orpheus and Eurydice

This is a four-part modernization of the Greek myth that is quite interesting

KENZO: Snowbird

This award-winning film by Sean Baker was shot entirely on an iPhone

https://youtu.be/Bkgc6rqOc8w

PRADA: Past Forward

This very futuristic and esoteric film by David O. Russell is a beautiful piece of noir. Be sure to look for appearances by John Kaczynski and Sasha Baron Cohen.

12 3 4

Page 1 of 4

style

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

Defining The Situation

A Slow Progression

Fashion On The Ropes

Unpopular conclusions

Share this:

Like this:

Not every choice is a good one.

Share this:

Like this:

Monday’s news fuels Tuesday’s fallout

Share this:

Like this:

There are a few that will always stand out

Prabal Gurung

Calvin Klein

Marc Jacobs

Burberry

Antonio Marras

Missoni

Dries Van Noten

Christian Dior

Andreas Kronthaler For Vivienne Westwood

Stella McCartney

Share this:

Like this:

Rethinking the ethics of Photoshop is missing the point of Photoshop

The Short Version

A Bit Of Background

They Made Me Angry

What Does The Retouchers Accord Say

About that “fake news” line

The Image

The RAW image

First revision

Second Revision

Third Revision

Fourth Revision

Fifth Revision

So, where’s all the fake stuff?

The Proper Place For Fake Images

Conclusions and considerations

Share this:

Like this:

Still too busy to edit anything new

Share this:

Like this:

Found on the digital floor

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion powerhouse LVMH is on the prowl

The Short Version

A Little More Detail

Share this:

Like this:

A new movement is underway in the fashion industry

The Short Version

A Little More Detail

Share this:

Like this:

What we’re expecting from upcoming fashion weeks

The Short Version

What’s Going On

Share this:

Like this:

More misogyny from the White House

The Short Version

Wait, Haven’t We Been Here Before?

What’s The Big Deal This Time?

Answering The Question

Share this:

Like this:

Online shopping is where profits are found

The Short Version

A Bit More Detail

Share this: