3 posts tagged “style”
All this hype about Sean Avery and his "internship" at Vogue has seriously made me wonder what a real intern does.
You know, the fresh-out-of-college (or perhaps still in college) twenty-somethings dying to become the next Anna Wintour, or the Devil Wears Prada gal, who would do anything just to have a taste of the high-fashion magazine world. Even if that taste means running around New York City (or in my case London) dropping off clothes, running silly errands, and getting coffee. I've been a fashion intern. In PR. It's not all glamorous like shows such as The Hills make it seem. Or as fabulous and involved as Sean Avery's diary explains:You're kidding, me. Senior staff? Meetings? Actual insight? Assistants, let alone interns, hardly get this privilege. Plus, he is a guest editor for Men's Vogue. Okay. I get it. He's a famous hockey player. Professional. In his late twenties. But a blurb in New York Magazine mentions,I jumped right in. First up was a creative meeting attended by the magazine's senior staff, which gave me a broad look at upcoming shoots, potential covers, and which writers, editors, and photographers were covering which stories.
I seriously doubt that him being awarded such luxuries as an intern, so unlike other Vogue interns, means he's doing a "stupendous job." Frankly, I think it means he's just "well-connected" and is good press for the magazine and its internship program (especially after Devil Wears Prada, the book and the movie, that divulged...well sort of...the harsh reality behind high-fashion glossies).To be afforded such responsibility can only mean he's doing a truly stupendous job as an intern.
Truly, why should he have an up on all the other fashionistas dying to have the job, too, who have the same credentials he's claiming -- a sincere interest in fashion and clothes -- if not more qualified ones, like an education in the subject (and professional writing experience). Everyone who loves fashion, it seems, wants to work at Vogue, because like many people say, it's the "bible of fashion." And who doesn't want to say they've worked on the Bible? The industry has a glamorous, party-life facade, but what's underneath it all is overworked young people in a drama-central atmosphere. I want to know: is it worth it?
Finally, New York Magazine broke the ice and spoke to some real Vogue interns, who essentially revealed that all Sean Avery is getting is special treatment. He got his own desk (and assignments!) when all they got was a cramped, shared space, a list of unrealistic requests and insane amounts grunt work -- expected to be performed in stilettos.
Who are we supposed to believe?
If you have any stories about your personal experience in the industry, speak up! Let's hear 'em.
I heart the New York Times. Their news, their magazine, and well, their fashion coverage. And while yes, coverage from runway shows is all fabulous and glamorous, truly it's their behind-the-scenes looks into the industry that totally get me. Especially during a time like now, when the economy, well, sucks, and things like fashion seem frivolous and unaffordable. Even more especially when movies like Sex and the City come out - movies that make us (or is it just me?) want to buy, buy, buy. But a closer look at my wallet and bank account make me realize that all I should be doing is save, save, save. Through all this I start to contemplate - how is the industry still thriving and putting on outlandish shows every season, and in-between seasons, and still coming out ahead, alive? Or are they even taking a hit? Perhaps it's our own wallets, not designers and retailers, that are crying silent tears.
Relieved, in an article published last week, the NY Times broke it down for me. And crazily enough, over the past ten years, luxury goods, in general, have nearly DOUBLED in price. Their first example, the Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Speedy 30 - now priced at $685, in 1998, was in the $300-range. Luxury shoes used to be in that range, too, but now, $300 for a nice pair of leather pumps seems more like a steal! No wonder the fashion industry is still thriving. Even taking inflation into account, these prices are higher and more extreme than ever. Profits, I presume, are following suit.
But wait! Don't get discouraged! Here is the fantastic news. Amidst all the increases prices in gas, food, drinks, designer fashion and shoes, mainstream fashion is actually being priced more reasonably, as in, cheaper than it was ten years ago:
"Today, shoppers pay the same price for a basic Brooks Brothers men’s suit, $598, as they did in 1998. The suggested retail price of a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans, $46, is about $4 less than it was a decade ago. A three-pack of Calvin Klein men’s briefs costs $21.50, only $3.50 more than in 1998. ... Even some items that may seem more expensive today, like a $75 Ralph Lauren polo shirt (which cost $62.50 in 1998), are really not, because their prices have risen more slowly than inflation."
So what does this mean? Well, the rest of us who aren't exactly in the market to purchase designer clothes (even when they are marked down to varying degrees for all the sales right now) are in luck! We can afford $9 dresses from Steve & Barry's or even the designer lines from Target. Even if we do want to splurge on something we don't typically buy, there are sites now like LabelSpree and HauteLook that make higher-end and designer clothing relatively more affordable.
While we may not be on the waiting lists for Carrie's SATC movie shoes, we can be in line at Steve Madden buying the knock-offs. ...And still afford dinner and drinks after the spree!
The founders of cheaper-than-Old-Navy department store, Steve & Barry's, recently described in a NY Times article their retail phenomenon as the "Google of fashion."
Relating a department store to the scope of a company like Google implies that it's the go-to place. That it's the go-to brand for anything & everything fashion, in the sense that one might describe Google as such for tech-savvy and web applications. All right. I'll play along. There can be a "Google of fashion" ... but is it really Steve & Barry's? Aren't they getting a little ahead of themselves? I mean, yes, you can't beat a fab dress for less than $10. And they do offer exclusives, like Bitten, the celebrity collection from Sarah Jessica Parker, fashion's ultimate it-girl (well, in my opinion anyway). They're hitting price-points lower than Wal-Mart's. But are we hitting the bottom of the barrel for fast-fashion? (Fast-fashion meaning, in a sense, quickly manufactured knock-offs of runway styles. Other retailers might include: H&M, Zara, MNG, etc.) You can't truly expect to be wearing your $8.98 tube dress for more than one spring/summer season...do you? Think about it: how long do cheap and "fast" Forever-21 tops last? Any that I've ever owned unravel shortly after purchase. Is S&B much different? And if we aren't wearing their clothes months after we buy them, if that lasting quality is not present, is the store relateable to the likes of Google?
Google is everywhere. Accessible to everyone. Apparently, there are about 300 Steve & Barry's in the country. But one of the country's fashion capitals -- our lovely San Francisco -- has disparaging access to this fashion house. There's only ONE here (granted, they ARE opening three more in the South Bay to supplement the additional two in the East Bay).
All this cheap-fashion-is-"it"-fashion makes me wonder if perhaps the meaning of fashion, of style is changing. A majority of shoppers are now taking pride in how inexpensive their clothes are instead of how pricey. Can we make headway and show people that price does not equal quality, and that high-quality can actually be found at a bargain? Let's hope so.