The first real hot ticket in Toronto this year, in my opinion, was the @Style panel discussion, part of the international event Social Media Week.  You had to get up pretty early to grab a spot on the RSVP list – naturally I’m a lark and signed up on 5:30am on January 29th, third on the list, seconds after Susan Langdon tweeted about it for the first time.

Four speakers, invited by Jyotika of exshoesme, brought four very different perspectives to the effects of social media on fashion.  At first I was a little skeptical – other than Cherie Federau of Shrimpton Couture, none of the speakers are bloggers – and even Cherie is primarily an online retailer, not a blogger.  So what sort of insights could an audience populated mostly by fashion bloggers expect?

–

The first speaker was Susan Langdon of the Toronto Fashion Incubator (full disclosure – TFI is a sponsor of Final Fashion).  Susan introduced the new Social Media Guidebook (available here) that the TFI commissioned, and that I had a small part in contributing to.  The guide is made for fashion entrepreneurs who are unfamiliar with the current social media landscape and want to be able to use the tools available to help their brand. I haven’t seen the book in full yet so I can’t comment on it other than the brief overview Susan gave us; while the bullet points seem a bit jargon-y (what the heck does authenticate even mean?) the interviews with many interesting bloggers and entrepreneurs would be well worth the cost of admission.  The questions I answered for the guide were good ones and I gave very candid answers.

–

The second speaker was Cherie Federau of Shrimpton Couture.  I was looking forward to hearing Cherie speak the most – the scribbly notes in the moleskine above are from her presentation (I don’t own a mobile, and I don’t live-tweet, ever). Of all of the speakers, I identify most closely with Cherie – not only do I admire her as a tremendously successful online entrepreneur, she is also enthusiastic and genuine with a great sense of humour.  Cherie is self-taught by trial and error (like me) and abides by a similar philosophy of relating to people online – essentially, be open to the world, stay on top of your correspondence, be a decent human being, and be true to yourself. Cherie’s talk offered the most real, applicable advice to living and working online.

–

The third speaker was Dr. Alexandra Palmer, costume curator of the Royal Ontario Museum.  She began her presentation discussing buttons on 13th century jackets – and I was wondering what the connection was (because surely it wasn’t to buttons on mobile phones).  Over the course of her talk, her insight became a bit clearer – that the application of technology to fashion is what makes new fashions possible – for instance, the development of stretch fabrics made the innovation of pantyhose possible, and pantyhose in turn made it possible for women to wear miniskirts in the 1960s.

However, when it came to the application of social media technology to fashion, Dr. Palmer seemed dubious of the advantages – she expressed cynicism that the greater speed and dissemination of trends could do anything for the development of modern fashion, that somehow the overwhelming preoccupation with speed represented a sense of loss and “waste” to her. She drew some thoughtful parallels between social media and the development of the Jacquard loom, the first computer, which put many weavers out of work. She also discussed a bit about how technology is affecting the modern retail business – such as how prolific communication makes retail innovations like pop-up shops possible.  Another revelation on retail was about how shopping for clothing is so dependent on tactility – and how now bricks and mortar stores are being used by customers to try on clothing, and online stores are used to find the best price.

During the question and answer session at the end of the talk, I was able to ask Dr. Palmer whether she had any insights on how the invention of the printing press effected the fashion industry, and whether there are any parallels from that period of history now.  Her response was somewhat surprising to me – though she acknowledged that printing sped up the trend cycle, she dismissed that the technology of printing had a significant effect on fashion, which seems unlikely. Now I am more curious about this than before. Dr. Palmer is an esteemed historian and I have enjoyed reading her admirable work on costume history, but on media, she seems uncharacteristically uncurious.

–

The fourth and final speaker was Lisa Tant, editor-in-chief of Flare Magazine. Lisa is the only EIC of a fashion magazine in Canada who is a prolific tweeter with a significant following online. She can seem surprisingly unguarded on twitter sometimes – just over a week ago she got some flack for “Sobbing to think that a 13 year old gets a front row seat to cover couture. No justice in this world.” which she obliquely alluded to in her presentation by saying that its best to avoid being “cute or sarcastic” on social media. I couldn’t help but find it a bit ironic that Lisa Tant would be telling a room full of fashion bloggers about social media the very next week – seating assignments really do seem unfair sometimes – and wondered if I could think of a slam-dunk question to ask her, but somehow I couldn’t.

Watching Lisa Tant speak, she seemed much more lucid and insightful than she appears on Twitter, which I think does reveal a limitation of micro-blogging. The major message I got from Tant’s talk was how magazines are concerned with the broader strokes of culture and celebrity – while what is important for bloggers is a sense of individual personality. Flare can be commended for recognizing the work of Tommy Ton before he became a phenomenon – but for the most part it seems like the publication is concerned with using the existing momentum behind individual brands – such as Lady Gaga and Perez Hilton, to drive the growth of the Flare brand.

This supports my own conclusions when it comes to the new-media vs. old-media discussion – that mastheads are becoming less valuable than individuals. Flare as a brand is not only hampered by its very corporate-ness (unsupportive Rogers policy tries to discourage the use of social media), it is more and more dependent on the brands of individuals to drive its own brand. Online, Tommy Ton is a bigger brand than Flare – and his fans will follow his work whether its under the Flare masthead, or Style.com, or on his own site.  I think that editors and old media say that the holy grail online is speed (Tant says “readers expect immediacy”) but the real prize we’re all after is actually an individual brand (Tommy often posts photos months after they are taken).  I think Tant knows this whether she says it or not – her own personal influence is getting pretty close to equal in numbers to that of Flare’s – I would even argue that it is more valuable in qualitative terms to Flare, and especially to Tant herself.

–

All in all it was a terrific, thought-provoking morning, and the various perspectives provided some fascinating contrasts. If you attended, what did you think? I’m up for a discussion.

Last year, things changed so unexpectedly in life and the world, it seems a bit foolish to go making predictions for this year.  But that is just the kind of fool I am.  So here it is.

Fashion weeks have lost their relevance and will die off. This is a pet prediction for me and so far I have always been wrong, but this time may be the charm.  My reasoning – the law of fashion is that popularity is the predictor of death for any trend.

To say that fashion weeks have grown popular is an understatement – its a freakin’ 300 ring circus out there.  In New York City last season there were over 300 shows, both offsite and at the tents, in a week.  How many shows out of that number were actually directional enough to warrant fashion coverage?  What fashion media outlet has the personnel and resources to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially when so many of them have to attend advertisers shows whether they are newsworthy or not?  Its a juggernaut that is often more despised than anticipated by the fashion community, and if they had the collective will to strike, they probably would – but they won’t, with a superfluous surplus of bloggers typing away in the tents.

Beyond that, there are now fashion weeks all over the world, each vying for the attention of local media.  In Canada I’ve already lost count of all of the fashion weeks.  Toronto Fashion Week and Montreal Fashion Week – perhaps Canada has the talent to sustain two quality weeks, barely.  But two fashion weeks in Ottawa, two fashion weeks in Vancouver?  What for?

When everyone is doing it, the value of each fashion show is reduced.  Runway has lost its exclusivity and therefore its meaning.  The time is ripe for a market correction, and I would look towards the fashion forward to lead the way.

This year we have seen some powerful designers drop out of New York’s Mattel Fashion Week.  Betsey Johnson.  Vera Wang. Other designers have opted to scale back their shows and tighten up their invitation lists.  If the big name designers can’t hack the bottom line, it stands to reason that the upstarts will hesitate to make the leap of faith.  Showing can be a death knell for a designer with a lean marketing budget.  This past year in Toronto I saw two designers fold right after showing at a fashion week – Arthur Mendonça and Janet Hill – whatever PR they generated is rendered worthless and evaporates.

Clever designers will figure out other ways to get their names out there and make sales – whether it is focusing their resources on connecting with buyers and media directly or broadcasting to the world via the internet, there are so many inventive options for the entrepreneurial out there that the idea of showing at any fashion week seems unimaginative and old fashioned.

What about the media?  Mass layoffs are happening at magazines and newspapers. The rumour mill has it that IMG will not be as generous with media passes for bloggers this time around. Invitations for the big shows will be fewer and fiercely fought-over.  It will be a test for the PR industry to sort out which media outlets have the relevance to make them seat-worthy.

These are all pretty obvious observations.  What is my prediction?  I predict that besides the flagship fashion week in New York City, North American fashion weeks will struggle to find enough talent willing to show.  That the big name designers (and upstarts) who choose not to show will stand a greater chance of surviving the recession.  Only once the value of fashion weeks has been corrected by the market will the cachet of the runway show recover.

Do you have your own prediction about the future of fashion weeks?  Are you a fashion week believer and think I am all wrong?  Discuss, dissert, or discredit me now.

This macro-economic shift is registering some interesting changes in fashion and language that I think bear remarking upon.

1.

Depressionista?  I Object! Finally someone speaks out over the rampant misuse of the so-called-suffix “ista” – this time used in the service of Wal-Mart, the “Hot New Store“.  The use of fear to incite a stampede of consumerism is a low point for fashion blogging.  Dare I coin the word PRopogandista?

I have been reading a lot of “Recessionista” posts that exhort people to purchase more cheap stuff, with nary a mention of the thriftiest of lost arts, mending.  Mend not Spend!  Extend your wardrobe for nothing.  The feeling of pride and satisfaction is far greater than the rush and regret of shopping.  Try it.

2.

Speaking of words past their due date, NOW announces “The End of the Hipster” which provoked a lot of discussion on the internet, and presumably in real life, before everyone suddenly lost interest on Thursday afternoon.  There is a lot of distancing language being used by the Hipster Spokespersons in the article.  This is the kind of revulsion only the collapse of a recent fashion can inspire.  While I welcome the new post-ironic age, I’m already anticipating the Hipster Revival of 2010.  Also worth checking out is the fashion spread (dare I utter the word Hipsterista?).

Ok, I took the quiz to make sure, because I suspected I may in fact be a hipster.

Are you a HIPSTER? My Result: You wish! OK, you dress like a hipster, act like a hipster and listen to hipster music. But you just don’t have the whole package. Sorry, keep trying. You are not a hipster. Quiz School Take this quiz & get your result

I think it was my proclivity for the East End of Toronto which did me in.  What’s your score?

It is here! FASHION Magazine’s online popularity contest, recruiting bloggers from across the country to post about the shopping and the style sighting in their towns.

With representation in every region, it is a wonderful opportunity to take a look at the state of fashion blogging in Canada. Also, a perfect chance to evaluate for ourselves what makes a stand out shopping post, and maybe raise the bar when it comes to that often overlooked art.

I have to say, I am very pleased with all the finalists. Many of them I have already met in fashion blogland.

Some are familiar favourites – Isabel from Belleville, Kim from Calgary, and Craig from Vancouver. It is a treat to see their faces and learn a bit more about them. Others are new to me – Lana and Meghan from Winnipeg, Terri from Vancouver, and Connie from Toronto. I always enjoy discovering new fashion bloggers. As you can tell I am very partial towards my colleagues.

Of the ones who don’t already blog, several are already professional fashion writers. Overall, a terrific selection which makes voting difficult. Of course Isabel and Kim get fave raves from me for being such lovely friends of Final Fashion. The rest I am judging on the merits of their posts.

So how are the posts? I myself am not a shopping blogger, and the few times I have attempted the craft were just enough to show me that it is far more difficult than it looks. Here are the major criteria:

• Title. It should give a sense of what is in the post, and bonus points if it is clever.

• Photo. A great photo can elevate even a mediocre post. A mediocre photo can sink even the most carefully written post. The photo should be at the very least, clear. If it is also well composed, it can stand on its own. If it is also clever, its a sure fire winner no matter what the text says. If it is pulled from a designer’s website, shot through a store window, or photographed by the model herself, it is a vote-killer. Bonus points for illustrations.

• First Sentence. The blank text box can stump even the most seasoned blogger. The first sentence should grab the reader by the collar and pull them into the post.

• The Post. How long? It should be just the right length. If you are writing about a dress, a paragraph or two will do. One sentence is probably not enough. A wall of text is impenetrable and unnecessary – the paragraphs should be no longer than a few sentences to keep my attention.

• The Tone. This is fashion writing, so you can get away with all sorts of alliteration, rhyming, and other cute conventions that wouldn’t fly in, say, Macleans. In fact, most of those who practice the art of fashion writing like to take it over the top with just enough irony to cut through the syrup. Just remember this is for FASHION Magazine, not the New York Times. Be positive, think of your words as little air kisses flying their way through the ether. Also, take it easy on the exclamation points. Bonus points for candour and personality – take a hint from Auntie Fashion.

• The Find. This is the whole point, the shopping post’s reason for being. If I have already heard of your discovery, why would I read about it? A great shopping post should be about unearthing an undiscovered gem, bringing attention to a recently-forgotten item, or at the very least provide a new insight on a familiar item.

Take a look at the posts on FASHION’s website, and tell me what you think. There were a few that were very good, and several that felt a bit self-conscious. There were also some fabulous examples of flowing filigrees of fashion flippancy which were so much fun, I just had to quote a few.

“A unique twist of yesterday combined into these fashion forward pieces is a result of a creative collision that will have everyone asking where you got your one and onlys.” Natasha from Saskatoon

“The band at the waist and darts at the hip create a form-lovin’ cut, while the exposed darts that drip from the neckline give this prim dress its dash of funky flair.” Nadine from Halifax

“The boutique emulates Paris in its music and decor, while retaining the friendly, relaxed atmosphere of Guelph’s culturally rich downtown.” Heather from Guelph

“Funny thing is, their indispensable presence in the fashion scene is still unknown to the grand public! What? Vintage shoes, drinks and snack still a secret? Spread the word ladies! Let the never-ending, exhausting search in thrift stores be over. After all, we feline creatures always need to be fabulously pawed-up!” Magali from Montreal!

Vote! You can do it once a day. Afterwards, come back and tell me who your favourites are.

I have had a rough week. It was not a bad week, just excruciating.

Some nice things happened. Ray and I celebrated six years together. I saw a funny comedy show and laughed a lot.

Some crap things happened. I had a bad freelancing experience at the start of the week. The bad feeling still has not worn off.

The same old stuff happened. Did a regular job for a good client. A lot of admin stuff this week. Tried to keep up with Rags and Mags.

Some peculiar things happened this week too. It wasn’t any one thing, and I don’t want to talk specifics either. There were three events throughout the week where I made mistakes of varying degrees. None catastrophic; but all of them were hard to deal with, and my own actions made them worse.

Now I am looking back thinking I won’t do it that way again and wondering why I have to learn things the hard way so often?
…

Six years ago I was very socially anxious, entering fashion school. Wrong clothes, clueless and I knew it, intimidated by the other girls. I spent a lot of time alone in the library, methodically working my way through the fashion section, working in the dark archives by myself, worrying, and generally avoiding human contact.

I have changed. Now I am perceived as very outgoing, and I am. I like meeting new people, I enjoy the occasional party, I have made many friends that I am so grateful to have. I have found lots of opportunities, and tried many, a few with success. I have achieved a level of confidence I have never had before, and sometimes I even go too far and get arrogant in my ignorance.

While I am still a very flawed human being, I have managed to learn some things in the past few years. Just enough to give me hope that I can continue to improve with effort. These are all basic lessons, mostly learned by doing the exact opposite.

1. Other people are human beings. They all have inner lives, feel things, eat food, sleep, think, try, struggle, make mistakes, get lost and confused, escape, suffer, strive, thrive. We are all alone, together.
2. I am no big deal. Most of the world does not care about or even notice what I do or what I say, and that is okay. It is often a good thing; my gaffes go mostly un-noticed.
3. Make mistakes. It is the only way I can get experience, there is no easy way. Success rarely comes the first time. Try anyway.
4. Be confident. Accept myself, be myself, enjoy myself. Never rely on the approval of others.
5. Make an effort. There is no such thing as perfect; but it is important to strive for the best.
6. Be positive. Focus on what I can offer, not what I can take. Be creative, not critical. Cultivate enthusiasm. Pursue happiness.
7. Patience. It takes time to find my voice, it takes time to develop the confidence and skill to be audacious. It takes time to get to know people. The good kind of success takes perseverance.
8. Trust my instincts. I tend to over-think all sides of a situation. Yet I get my best results when I remember to listen to my intuition.
9. There are no limits. There are always more opportunities, there are always second chances. Things always change.
10. Keep it real. Be honest. Eat well. Sleep well. Take care of my surroundings and myself. Be good to the ones I love. Be thankful.

Simple lessons. A bit of common sense. Yet it took all my life up to now to discover and appreciate all of these insights. My life is better than it has ever been, even with all the ups and downs. I am more sure, less overwhelmed. I have a greater sense of perspective.

I just finished Michael Pollan’s The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World. Subtitled “A Plant’s Eye View of the World”. Pollan shows how plants go out of their way to use animals to propogate their own species, suggesting that we are just another seed carrying dupe in the grand plan of plants… like corn. Pollan’s book was a powerful one, expressing perceptions I have not encountered before.

There has been some interesting discussion happening, about how fashion seems to be failing a little. Well, interesting to me, this is Final Fashion. Sitting here in Paper Denim and Cloth and American Apparel, I got an idea.

There is a cotton conspiracy. The profligation of denim and t-shirts is destroying the diversity of clothing around the world. This democratic fiber dresses almost everyone regardless of social class or location. And throughout history, cotton seems to have even convinced us to senselessly exploit our own species to reproduce its jeans.

Cotton gets foisted upon us in an ever-more continuous barrage – instead of two seasons, fast fashion gives us new variations on t-shirts and genes every week. The appearance of diversity is nothing more than an insistent flogging of the same thing. Like the way a flower goes out of its way to attract a hapless bee to spread its pollen, fashion goes out of its way to find new ways to sell us more cotton.

Evolutionary domination is fleeting; once one particular plant becomes a monolithic monoculture it becomes vulnerable – whether it loses its resistance to parasites or disease… or it overwhelms its environment.

It is not just fashion that seems to be imbalanced these days.

motor oil Prada, originally uploaded by Marc Johns.

Surfing along, I discovered illustrator Marc Johns though Sarah L.

He does a lot of brief, serious drawings. A series done on post-it notes is particularly charming, but this is the one that made me laugh out loud.

I imagined a Prada gas station. A place where the price of gas that day is not listed on the sign. Where the attendants are dressed all chic and won’t help you. Or maybe they are robots.

I bet that is where this lady fills up.

Maybe it would look something like Prada Marfa. But with pumps. Maybe the pumps are shaped like pumps! Or not.

Photo by Chacal la Chaise

Maybe if Prada sold gasoline, drivers would be bragging about paying top dollar for gas.

Every season is a little bit different – and of course, I am not talking about the clothes.

1.

Cathy Horyn sees an industry transitioning between old ways and new values, when she reflects on the real importance of fashion shows. No, she is not talking about the clothes – “…is the show and our almost compulsory attendance really about something else, about preserving distinct power bases in the face of their rapid erosion?”

There is a reason why Horyn is the reigning voice of reason in the voyeuristic void of fashion journalism. She cuts right to the bone.

In the tent, we don’t just watch the models and the clothes; we watch the faces across from us, picking up clues from who is sitting where and what their faces betray. In the media lounge, we don’t just focus on reviewing the runway – we study eachother, we see who is working and what they are working on, who is talking to who, and always keeping an ear cocked for anything worth overhearing.

In a small tent like the one in Nathan Philips Square, the clues of change are laying in the open for everyone to notice – and if you need confirmation, check Google. The big news? The newspaper and magazine writers are blogging harder than the fashion bloggers. NOW Magazine, the National Post, FASHION Magazine, Fashion Television, Flare Magazine, and others were doing it daily – posting that is – if not show-by-blow live-blogging it.

It seems like the past few seasons of blogger infiltration (infestation?) have inspired established sources to step up their game. With more more people, more equipment, more photos, and paycheques, the professional journalists had their chance to show that they can do it faster, shinier, and more extensive than any blogger.

Now that the hurricane has died down and we can count the survivors, we can also see the evidence of what got posted and what did not, and maybe who came out on top, if anyone did.

I think L’Oreal Fashion Week itself was a clear winner; a hot frenzy of coverage connected designers of all levels to the attention of everyone who reads the news and checks the magazines.

The readers and watchers receive a mixed bag of benefits and bombardment. Fashion mediaphiles like myself were treated to more stories in their feeds than we had time to read – and some were exceptional – I found myself glancing through a lot of information with less interest than usual. It wasn’t just because I was attending – I didn’t see all of it and I was curious for other perspectives – it was a combination of time, duplication of information, and a certain unsatisfying lack of insight that happens when the post button gets pressed too quickly.

The quality of blogging fashion week is not measured just by stopwatch and quantity. I love to read a considered point of view, a level of observation that transcends a recording, a soundbite, an immediate reaction. A story from someone who experienced it.

So I am trying little media projects, striving for something a little different. Like the Haiku Review and Rags and Mags.

For Final Fashion, I try to post only when I have something to say or show. I am not here on the internet to compete with anyone, only to offer what talents I have towards this thing called fashion.

2.

At the Fashion Week Drake Salon, a few fashion week survivors were treated to something fascinating – a panel of insiders candidly discussing the week with eachother and an intimate audience. There were many empty seats in a very small space – apparently fashion week is fatal for most people. Still, this was a moment that I thought many of the designers who showed this week should have been listening, taking notes and asking questions. There were very few.

Many of the panel’s most fascinating moments were the contributions of Barbara Atkin, Marlene Schiff, and David Livingstone.

The most strong impression on me was left by Barbara Atkin. She rejects all the usual excuses from the Canadian Fashion contingent. She is so right – merit speaks for itself. Being Canadian is not an alibi. Canada is a small country in the world, and yet we have produced a few world class fashion designers; and it wasn’t because the designers were Canadian, it was because they were talented, persistent, and borderless.

Bitching is so over. Complaining does nothing. If the scene sucks, its our responsibility to learn from our mistakes and our choice to make it amazing. It is possible to create a scene we are proud of. I see a lot of smart people around me who are striving towards something amazing, and every time I see them they get closer and closer.

These are not the only thoughts that I am processing right now. L’Oreal Fashion Week for Fall 2008 was an inspirational one for me. It is going to change how I approach the months leading up to the Spring 2009 collections.

I want to bring more new ideas to every season. I love to see fashion move forward.

I have an abiding curiousity on how good design gets defined. We all think we know it when we see it, but really, what is a good fashion design and who has the authority to decide?

Having watched far too many seasons of Project Runway lately, I find the plight of the judges an interesting one, not to mention the online judging of the judging. Things can get heated and seem a little ridiculous. Both the Biddell-boosters and the Lucian-lovers accuse eachother of a lack of knowledge and taste. The odd angel of peace might suggest that it is different strokes for different folks, but is it really?

Being immersed within to the idea of fashion, I can not help but look at every outfit I see and get a visceral sense that what I am seeing is either right or not right. I seem have to developed this peculiar instinct a great deal and I am obviously not the only one. They call it taste – but what is it?

Paul Graham’s essay Taste for Makers expressed something I had struggled to articulate for a while.

Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it’s not true. You feel this when you start to design things.

As in any job, as you continue to design things, you’ll get better at it. Your tastes will change. And, like anyone who gets better at their job, you’ll know you’re getting better. If so, your old tastes were not merely different, but worse. Poof goes the axiom that taste can’t be wrong.

Relativism is fashionable at the moment, and that may hamper you from thinking about taste, even as yours grows. But if you come out of the closet and admit, at least to yourself, that there is such a thing as good and bad design, then you can start to study good design in detail.

It is interesting that he says that relativism is fashionable, because there are certain aspects of good fashion that have nothing to do with good design. Graham goes on to list the attributes of good design that are easy to define and hard to disagree with.

One tenet, “Good design is timeless”, shows where good fashion diverges from good design, which Graham describes this way:

Aiming at timelessness is also a way to evade the grip of fashion. Fashions almost by definition change with time, so if you can make something that will still look good far into the future, then its appeal must derive more from merit and less from fashion.

Recently I linked industrial designer Philip Starck’s talk at TED, where he discusses the purpose of design.

Because there is different types of design. The one, we can call it the cynical design, that means the design invented by Raymond Loewy in the ’50s, who said, what is ugly is a bad sale, La Laideur se vend mal, which is terrible. It means the design must be just a weapon for marketing, for producer to make product more sexy, like that, they sell more, it’s shit, it’s obsolete, it’s ridiculous. I call that the cynical design.

After, there is the narcissistic design; it’s a fantastic designer who designs only for other fantastic designers. [laughs]

After there is people like me, who try to deserve to exist, and who are ashamed to make this useless job, who try to do it in another way, and they try, I try, to not make the object for the object but for the result, for the profit for the human being, the person who will use it.

Watching Starck talk through the lens of fashion makes me laugh. Certainly good fashion can be both cynical and narcissistic, and not even useful. I think it is valuable to view fashion through the lens of other types of design, because at a basic level all great design has to serve the needs of human beings – but as the black sheep of human design disciplines, fashion’s first responsibility has nothing to do with deserving to exist. I think it has to do with timing.

When it comes to fashion, I think most people develop and exercise their taste on a garment-by-garment basis. It is up to those who have developed a credibility for their sense of taste – usually professional editors or designers – to evaluate entire collections and by extension the designers, though some of us like to stretch our taste muscle by trying. The spread of street-style has encouraged people to evaluate fashion by the composition of an outfit.

Still, I think there is a lot to be said for isolating a single garment as a taste test. After all, garments are the basic component of all fashion, and most people purchase their clothing one garment at a time. I am no math genius, but I am certain that the combination of every choice of garment, whether to wear or buy, with each choice weighted by the relative level of taste of the chooser, could probably be assembled into a reasonable equation that would make some sense of whatever good fashion is at the time.

Having had the privilege to work with designers as they develop and edit their collections, I often have the opportunity to discuss what makes a garment work or not. I have a little theory which I use to help me evaluate a garment which I think is both measurable and an indicator of taste. It is sort of an inverted triangle.

1. The most basic and important attribute of a good design is feel. This means the fabric, and also to a certain extent the fit. No matter how beautiful or ingenious a design is, if the fabric is rough, stiff, or cheap-feeling, if the garment feels too heavy, awkward or challenging, it will most likely never make it out of the closet and will have failed as a fashion. I think the idea of “quality” is inherent in the feel of a garment. In a store, I always touch before I look. I think this is something that most people do reflexively. The amount of awful-feeling clothes out there shows how many designers ignore the basic senses of their customers.
2. The next most important value is colour. The right or wrong colour can make or break a design – even if the garment feels terrific, the wrong colour will still keep it from being worn. Owning these first two attributes are enough to build a very successful company on – i.e. American Apparel or J.C. Penneys.
3. Timing is the third most important value and the one aspect that is most dependent on taste to be properly identified. It is hard to really be able to tell definitively if a design looks “now” or not unless you have trained your eye and your sense of taste for a long period of time. Being able to design garments that have these first three attributes is a recipe for success. If a designer is a household name, you can be sure that they understand the power of feel, colour, and timing.
4. The last item on my little checklist is the design of the garment. To me, it does not matter how clever or innovative a particular choice of seams and trims might be, unless it addresses the first three items on the list it is narcissism of limited value as either fashion or design. There are very few designers in the world who manage to master feel, colour, timing, and design, and the ones who do become legends.

How do you judge the value of a fashion design?  Is good fashion subjective?

The fashion industry’s fourth wall is collapsing.  Marc Jacobs left a comment addressing a post on Cathy Horyn’s blog about an incident of facial expression at the Louis Vuitton show (scroll down to number 40).   Could this be the beginning of the end of the designer mystique?

Horyn’s next post responded to Jacob’s comment and amended her previous statement.

It might not seem remarkable, but that little exchange makes public relations the monkey in the middle and has implications for how the fashion industry, and really, every industry, is changing.

I noticed the other day that Kanye West has a blog now.  Whether it is him or his staff hitting the post button is not important – West has figured out that on the internet, getting your version or vision out there is your prerogative.

Especially if you are a celebrity.

Or a fashion designer.

Or a journalist.

Or…

I expect to see a lot more participation on the internet from some perceptive, talented, and even famous people out there.

The internet is an extension of your nervous system that connects you to other people’s nervous systems.  It is both personal and universal.  It collapses time and space.

It is incredible!

Now is a good time to invest.