In the beginning there was beauty

Anyone involved in social media I'm sure would agree that posters and banners as an advertising form is becoming less and less relevant (don't want to quite jump on the word "obsolete" yet) as a marketing medium in terms of their impact and becoming more and more a form of art. Referred to as "visual pollution" in the late 90s their visual beauty is an issue that is becoming increasingly important.

How much I was going to miss the five storey tall slip clad models gracing the walls of Sao Paulo only became apparent when they introduced a ban to public advertising - the city looked like a wasteland of skeletons, often exposing slums that had been buried behind the walls of perception.

Luckily it was not long until Brazil, the country with one of the top three amounts of international advertising and visual marketing awards in the world, was allowed to bask in the glory of its public visual genius.

Apart from the miraculous disappearance of beggars at every stop in certain areas of Sao Paulo during the election period as well as an incredibly unusual possibility to be able to breathe and not want to itch your nose until they bleed inside out upon arrival from the airport, which forces you to drive past the (now clearly cleaned) polluted rive, something else really struck me in Sao Paulo this time. Something I can vaguely recall having registered in bits and pieces, held in images as I passed them by but never really registered as a whole.

Much like the clean slate allowing new, more thought through, beautifully designed posters to grace their yellow, half ripped off older cousins on the billboards, the walls of the tunnels and streets of Sao Paulo bear a beautiful platform for the graffiti artist of the city.

And I mean graffiti ARTISTS. Whole murals that are clearly commissioned, beautiful and intricate historical depictions of the landscapes, historical processes or simply strange creatures and beautifully painted abstract objects are visible across the city and delight the dreaded "transito" which gets you stuck in the car for hours upon hours to get only a few meters further (OK I'm exaggerating).

What has now become Banksyfied, lifted and glorified in museums, has been done for a while here. Unlike in most cities I've been to where names and thin, hip-hop type illegible writing is etched without imagination as a signature of protest is the predominant coloring of graffiti "stained" walls, those are quite rare. Here it is all about real art. About a block away from where I am staying, having seen it every day of every day I have stayed in Sao Paulo throughout my life - for all that time, I never managed to actually stop the car or walk that block to actually see and touch the Anglo-Brazilian mural that is, as I discovered in shock, 28 years old, had its own circuit surveillance cameras and lighting at night and guess what - it was sponsored by the British Council.

Beautiful. A real treasure of the city, which I am privileged to be able to share with you here through the lens of Lua L.

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

Click on people's faces in the photo to tag them.

Blue white check Alexander McQueen dress
Brown and black Prada "sweets collection" suede heels
Brown Diesel bra
Givenchy tights
Pearls bracelet
Lira Leirner tartan bracelet

Moving image vs art film - Sean Rogg and The Wolf at the Wapping Project

Image courtesy of PurpleCloud on flickr

I'm ashamed to have to admit to have to introduce a new portmanteau in order to explain the condition of my brain when it comes to names, aka The Failure of Brain Cells which Remember Names, becoming Brellrenail. I quite like the uglyness of that word as it expresses the failure and incapacity for said brain cells to hold in information that has not been written down or remotely visualized, particularly names that they cannot clearly connect with a facial visual. It sounds like the name of a dragon to be conquered by the strength of determination.

You may have noticed I tend to speak of my brain cells in third person format when I am ashamed and do not want to take responsibility, much like children do. I shall try to avoid that. But not this time.

Brellrenail never fails to fail me

This is why I can't remember artists or writer unless I have actually stalked them a bit and bothered reading up on their life on Wikipedia or the beloved 16 volumes thesaurus that used to be in my possession. To cut a long story short and avoid further musings on the capacity of my brain cells et al, I shall swiftly move from my least favourite subject that is Biology to a slightly more interesting subject.

The Wapping Project and .. um...

It was quite a while ago that I was invited by Bert, the designer of Yorkshire Pearls, to see the opening of "Between the Dog and the Wolf" - an installation by Sean Rogg. I had heard of the Wapping Project before but due to aforementioned Brellrenail I am ashamed to say I had not remembered Sean Rogg despite the fact that I have a lurking hunch that I have seen his work before even though I do not remember where or whether it was just something similar - a by-product of being schlepped from gallery to gallery and exhibition to exhibition throughout my life. It gets a bit blurred when you're a teenager who is more interested in stretching and dazing like a lion in the sun. However, I do appreciate that blatant overexposure to the art world now, as it seemed to have lodged itself somewhere in my brain - without names, of course.

Bert of Yorkshire Pearl and two lovely ladies - one wearing a Missoni dress, and Laura Bettinson

Laura Bettinson of the music group Dimbleby & Capper is wearing a beautiful Yorkshire Pearl bracelet and an awesome bag by Toft Alpaca.

Lira Leirner the Portmanteau is wearing a Givenchy headscarf and black Yorkshire Pearl bracelet, a blue Fiorelli satchel and blue- green leather pumps, black silk Zara cardigan, green H&M top and black layered linen skirt.

Boundaries of media and art

Some of the bigger issues that has always been present in the discussions of my household of yonder were the boundaries of the usage of certain medium to classify as art. This was one step away from the obvious and typical, almost tedious bickering about what constitutes an art object (I'll get back to that - my view is very simple). I was lucky enough to be around when my mother was exploring the merging and cross usage of different media in her art work (one of her awesome films was shown at the Tate Modern Photo Film program earlier this year), and my first job in the UK whilst studying was that of being an assistant to a film art curator (Manuel Saiz). It will therefore, I'm sure, come to no surprise to you that I must point out I am quite biased and partial to a show of film installations, especially when they are as grand and penetrating as Sean Rogg's installation at the immense industrial cellar of the Wapping Project was.

Moving image vs film art

An issue I have personally always had with film art was the separation of "moving image", which to me is essentially a painting with a strong sense of time and action, from that of an "art film", which is closer in its categorization to being a directed and dramatized piece, which involves manipulation and purpose to a greater extent than the former. The latter certainly has a greater entertainment value and is ever so slightly favored by me since I studied film among other subjects and have no qualms with admitting I like being entertained and admitting that I respect it to be an admirable form of creation to be able to know how to entertain well. This does not mean I don't value the former, as I do as long as it doesn't go on for too long without a certain degree of change (yes, I'm sorry, I am from THAT generation).

Image taken from Sean Rogg's website

Sean Rogg, between the Dog and the Wolf

Sean Rogg, interestingly enough, provided one of each. There was the moving image piece "WOOD", which is portrayed in the brochure as follows:

"[WOOD] tests the audience's belief that in certain parts of rural Sweden an old traditional law still stands. If a child under the age of 18 commits a serious offence and is convicted of the crime, he or she is NOT sent to a correctional facility. Instead, state firemen show up at the child's home and ceremonially burn the house to the ground. It is hoped that by being made an example, other parents will keep control of their children's behaviours. The system seems to work as a house is only burned once every 12 to 15 years."

The essential Criminologists' point of view
Being interested in criminology as I am I of course immediately considered the real reasons for the immense dark figure (meaning non reported but still very much happening) in this - first of all, it's only for "serious" crimes, which excludes pretty much everything except from murder, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm. Secondly, this rule only applies if the child is CONVICTED, which will most likely happen even less when taking into account the rule applies in rural areas only where everybody knows each other and liked parents are most likely given the benefit of a doubt, leaving a minuscule percentage of witch hunting style conviction which probably only takes place when the family itself is actually taken to have been responsible for bad parenting.

I do have to say that it seemed to be strange paradox to observe a group of firemen working WITH the fire, working on CREATING and ENHANCING the flame beast, fighting with it against the house that they were bringing down in joint force.

Image taken from Sean Rogg's website

The second film called WOLF was my favourite. In the film two children play off each other in ever accelerating, stoic competition of violence and destruction of materiality. It creeped me out and certainly continued where The Village of the Damned (shudder) had left off in cementing my fear of children who stare at me too much and my general dislike of children anyway, but as a piece I had to say it was intriguing, poignant, wonderfully awkward and truly, truly beautifully shot to an extent that it reminded me of the camera work of Chris Doyle when he collaborates with Wong Kar Wei (on none other than each and single one of his pieces) - that's about as high a compliment any cinematographer can receive from me, by the way. Once again, for a portion of the film, there was a fascination with the burning down of a wooden house after the stoic destruction of interior possessions, which seemed to be a preparation, enjoyment but also futile.

The third was most like a moving painting and I didn't see the entire film as I got bored (sorry). Here's what the brochure says about it, clearly disagreeing with me on which was the best (and most austere) film.

"In the most austere of the three films [hmm I don't think so], WONDERLAND, the filmic sense of foreboding is focused on wind ripping through trees. Rogg taunts his viewer with the promise of a tornado while he seems to sit at the eye of the storm."

The Wapping Project Space

On my way in to view the pieces I got asked to do an interview about the space and exhibition for a TV show on a Korean Channel called KBS (once I get the link for the actual coverage I'll let you know), which was pretty cool. The highly finished modern space in which heavy and industrial machinery were placed was right up my alley as they managed to perfectly balance the raw and soft finish of the place. I wasn't impressed with being asked to pay £3 for a tiny slice of cake at a stand (which didn't belong to the restaurant) and pretty much told them to f- off especially because I really fancied that slice of cake and had been eying it up over two hours. As so often before, it wasn't about me not being able to afford it, it was the principle of standing my ground against ridiculous pricing and rip offs. Outside the building itself there was a wonderful glasshouse which served as the book sale in the middle of a greenery, which I really loved. There were also some very funky bird nesting houses scattered upon the height of a massive tree, making it very difficult to take a decent picture.



I will try to take a couple of tools and tackle the mountain that is my brain in order to ensure the victory of Sean Rogg's name in the battle against the dragon Brellrenail and create a tunnel that leads through it to reach the oasis of long term memory, the Oasory because his work is certainly worthy of having a spot there.

Teach a woman to net the work and work the net and she'll have plenty of fish

Restructuring already established sayings can be found across history and this one is particularly close to my own philosophy. Implied in the quote that Bono seems to not quite understand is that teaching instead of giving, working instead of taking is what really matters (usually). It was not that different an issue when I got invited to the Glam Network party to celebrate their office move.

They invited and encouraged networking, a word I heard a lot during the few hours I exchanged business cards for business badges, discussed fashion and snapped the big and mighty of the blogging world. Now, I have never been a fan of neither the word nor the concept but realized that I simply had to change my attitude towards the word, take it apart and re-jumble it in order to realize its true meaning and it became a word that represented several layers of success - as a blogger, at least. And the fisher does not go amiss here, either.

NETWORKING results into success on several levels

Work in Net - Working in internet language. That means whatever I do when I have a "real life", I remember to prepare myself to translate this into net- friendly language. As a blogger this means I take pictures and at least conscious mental notes on the event, situation or fashion piece at hand.

Netting the Work - Finding writing work just like a fisher grabs fish with a net. Work relates to material to write about on my blog and opportunities to write for others in equal measure. The smallest slip through and sometimes you find rubbish - but it is still a piece which helped you built your muscle. And every now and then you may find an antique or quirky piece to work with, which you wouldn't have if you'd been fishing with a rod, focusing on a single fish. However, the most important aspect is to get as much as you can - not greedily, but steadily and openly.

Work the net - Networking through social media and understanding your niche, blogging is not about competition - it is about interlinking. To do so organically, the aspect of this is to get online personas, namely people with an online presence no matter how small, to love your work (see above) and link to you. And vice versa, of course.

Networking - Last but not least, actually networking in real life. I simply ignore the negative implication of not becoming friends with people you talk about work with. That is mainly because in fashion, we love what we do, and it's not a business. When I'm talking to someone about their website, I am genuinely interested as a reader and contributor. I don't just want your card although I do love collecting them. And when I give you my business badge I give you a present - something you can wear, enjoy and engage with, not just a link.

To cut a long story short, equipped with my new view of the word, I happily joined the party and met some seriously wonderful people, including some friends, some new people and some faces to already known online personas whilst nibbling away on the mozzarella and tomato as well as the picking the strawberries from the cakes - I could always justify it by saying I was obeying Charlotte from Stylecartel's orders to "EAT EVERYTHING" in case anyone asked me.

Bloggers who you should check out (no, seriously):

Marian Kihogo
A gorgeous, very tall woman, a stylist and fashionista extraordinaire!

The Clothes Whisperer
My muse - must I say more?

The Very Simon G
My male muse haha. Cool guy, has a nice eye for high street fashion.

Style Cartel
Stories from the fashion world and an awesome woman who I owe a lot (not money wise, support wise).

Yorkshire Pearl
A fabulous designer whose collection will be in the London Fashion week soon!

Butters the Fashion Dog
The most famous fashion Pomeranian in London!

Anastasia Duck
Slick logo and slick blog. The guy behind it is hilarious.

I am LDN Magazine
Interesting stories to follow, and a lovely writer to go with it!

Style Canteen
With her thorough posts, always a good read!

Freak DeLuxe
Lifestyle, beauty, fashion - what more do you need?

Snappy Lifestyle
Lovely images from all over to feast your eyes on.

That Grapejuice
Insanely stylish couple of boys, who are surprisingly shy. When I took a picture one of them backed away, prompting me to say "Yes, that's right, I'm trying to take a picture of the door". Urban news and interviews with the high and mighty.

Suicide of a Capitalist - Fashion gets to you, but blesses the child who's got her own

It's 4am and I'm still working and have been since 8am. One of my family members saw that I was still online due to the unfathomable necessity of having my work placed in the realms of the big I. However, being the poet they are (and cleverly knowing that pissing me off this late at night doesn't lead anywhere), instead of heaping me with the unavoidable, familiar family "I'm worried" discussion, which tends to strain said relationship, they sent me a clip that said it all.

It was the lyrics to a Billy Holiday song.



Them that's got shall get/ Them that's not shall lose/ So the Bible said and it still is news/ Mama may have, Papa may have/ But God bless the child that's got his own/ That's got his own

Yes, the strong gets more/ While the weak ones fade/ Empty pockets don't ever make the grade/ Mama may have, Papa may have/ But God bless the child that's got his own/ That's got his own

Money, you've got lots of friends/ Crowding round the door/ When you're gone, spending ends/ They don't come no more/ Rich relations give/ Crust of bread and such/ You can help yourself/
But don't take too much/ Mama may have, Papa may have/ But God bless the child that's got his own/ That's got his own

Mama may have, Papa may have/ But God bless the child that's got his own/ That's got his own/ He just worry 'bout nothin'/ Cause he's got his own

Suicide of a Capitalist

This is quite poignant on several levels. I love this song, but I associate it most with the film "Enron - the smartest guys in the room", which was one of the cornerstones of my dissertation (it's a long title, sorry) "Cinema and Financial Amorality - A theoretical dissertation on Film Representation and its impact on Financial Amorality, Public Awareness of it and the Relationship of Cinema to the Great Depression and the Credit Crunch - a Case Study Comparison of the Films 'It's a Wonderful Life' and 'Boiler Room'". The song is used in the opening credits alongside a scene in which Cliff Baxter, one of Enron's CEO's, kills himself close to the trials.

As you can imagine, this gives the song a very snide, capitalistic and awfully selfish slant, which are fully justified in that environment. However, I find that unfair towards the song, as the implications are certainly more than the simple finger pointing the film has employed the song for.

Independence
It also discusses an aspect which I feel is much more related to my own situation, which is that of wanting to be independent. Known for its capitalistic morality, which is a deeply lodged assumption in the song, Billy Holiday sings in her rough beautiful voice about "having" being a position to strive for. Not once does she mention work but clearly outlines their background, which increases the song's deeply capitalistic ideal. Ironically, the song implies the relief of worry when one "has their own". What has never ceased to amaze me (read any good biography) is how family members throughout history have tended to believe that financial help in a financially tight situation will ease the worry of whomever that 'generosity' is bestowed upon. However, such is certainly not the case. In fact, the worry heaps fourfold in any normal human being (yes, I'm judgmental of freeloaders who are cool with being such).
1. "How can a relationship possibly be healthy under conditions of expectations of gratitude?"
2. "How hard do I need to work and how much do I have to succeed in order to justify and gratefully convert the opportunity and investment to it's full extent? Am I providing a high enough ROI, in whichever terms?"
3. "When I'm nice, I want to know for certain that THEY know it is NOT because of money, but because I enjoy their company. How can I prevent that awful oil swimming on the surface of the relationship when money is involved?"
4. "I can't possibly spend a single penny on anything beyond survival needs. If I did, it would be like betrayal"

Fashion is capitalism
That last point is the one which applies to fashion lovers the most. Fashion is, to a great extent, about consumption of goods and more importantly, about ENJOYING that investment. In order to do so, money must be earned. You can see where this is going. However casual, sometimes a mere side effect or even necessary evil, that capitalistic need of the fashionista to OWN and SHOP, the participation is certainly unavoidable in a culture as consumer focused as fashion. My point is - there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you achieve it based on your own merits, your own hard work and the knowledge that there is NO aspect whatsoever which would allow what has been acquired to belong or have to be justified to anybody but myself. This is the only psychological situation in which I can truly release a big chunk of worry, which still doesn't cancel out the debt of the cost, time and emotional investment in the upbringing of little Lira to Lira Leirner.

Most people involved in fashion, however, I do not see to be such. They work hard, and they create and share, even in the form of image, a written piece, a carefully crafted piece, and are truly involved in the community. I have nothing but respect for them. I have found myself in the position of being able to create, and I am lucky. Yet, I still need to kick that nagging other habit, that of consumption and the joy of holding a perfect, freshly cut leather piece of architecture, purely designed to grace and carry me, which is so difficult to ignore. I may be trying to commit capitalist suicide, but hopefully I'll come out at the other end as a Phoenix.

Yes, I may work hard, and yes, I have a wardrobe bigger than most boutiques and a shoe collection that could rival the fictional one of Carrie. But my dear family, as Billy says herself: I "have my own", I am without worry. Fashion is capitalism, but I can see it changing.

Knowledge vs Intelligence - Defining expertise in the world of fashion

The 10000 hours rule
One of my favourite concepts is that of Malcom Gladwell's 10000 hour rule. You can become an expert in anything when you practice 10000 hours. However true the concept of abundance of ideas and quantity leading to quality might be, I am not certain whether the same applies to fashion style. Sure, expertise is needed in the craft of creating a dress, or in a situation when actual knowledge is involved for instance as someone who is meant to analyse trends. However, does this rule also apply to taste?

Knowing yourself is having good taste
I've done some research and it seems everyone disagrees with each other on this point. 'Fashion consultant' Robert Pante from the 1980s, calling himself an 'expert' after a few years of being involved in fashion, suggests that although taste is born, with a 'right' and alert attitude anyone can copy and consciously measure their style into being tasteful. However, I'm sure many readers will agree with me when I say that this is utterly cringey. The idea of taste and style is to be yourself, not copy, and make "it" work in a way that fits you as an individual best. In many cases just copying someone's outfit that might have suited that person perfectly, most likely won't suit you.

However, I have come to realise that taste comes from knowing yourself, which is a form of knowledge that increases with the amount of hours one spends on actually getting to know the way in which the self interacts with fashion and combinations of pieces. Experimenting, making mistakes and stretching your fashion use to the max does seem to improve the knowledge of oneself and results in an increased awareness of what one can pull off, what looks good on oneself and what is - for your own individual body and type - good taste.

Copying or interpreting?
Where do the boundaries of expertise actually blur, though? When can someone working in the fashion industry actually be called an expert? A great example for this, and what set off the chain reaction of thoughts on this subject were the DIY tights made by the lovely blogger The Haute Pursuit who openly establishes her consumer and amateur stance as a down-to earth girl with fashion sense. 'Inspired' by Cecilia from KeepItFvncy, she copied the idea of Miu Miu prints by skilfully creating tights using similar designs and is utterly open and proud about it. Curiously, its result were a lot more tasteful in the context of her style than the commercially perfect, neat lines of the Miu Miu pieces themselves would have been. My question now is - as an individual, who has spent hours and hours coming close to the 1000 hour rule on fine tuning herself (as it should be) paired with a talent, which must also have been honed in unmentioned hours - can she be counted as an expert despite her 'consumer' presentation?

Despite its certainly fun and talented application, there is a substantial itch that needs to be addressed and although it may not be a particularly important point for a consumer, it always will be an itch for anyone who is a creator of fashion - that of uniqueness. Here I go back to the idea of expertise in fashion - taste is to know oneself because the self is unique. However, as the wise designer Rosario from El Ultimo Grito has once said, ( immortalised on a badge by Stuart Bannocks) - value hirarchy of creative claim is based on either being better or having done it before everyone else. If you exclude cultural attachments and social status that comes with official titles 'blogger/ consumer' vs. 'big-name-established-designer' and look purely at the fashion pieces in the used context themselves, this applies here - the tights look definitely better and in terms of finish and application as well as the placing of the idea on tights and sheer fabric with a rock glam finish rather than on a solid coloured, thick black suit. On the other side of the spectrum of this argument I have come across Lou Lou Magazine from Canada today, which claims to be an 'expert in shopping'. This is, I can assure you true in the sense of the word, but sounds strange as the concept of 'expertise' carries a business, logical attachment as opposed to a the fashion equivalent of 'good taste', which is a lot harder to use as an official status claim. Intelligence has always been harder to prove than knowledge.

It all boils down to value
As in so many of my articles it all boils down to value. Expertise, in its textbook sense of knowledge accumulated in quantity, doesn't apply to the consumer fashion industry in as much of an extent (only through a backdoor way to establish taste) as does the hirarchy of value and contextual and visual intelligence, which is born, not learned as is knowledge and skill.

When Branding gets out of Hand

Brands. In essence a name, a brand has almost as much character and social attachment, stands for as much content as does the name of a human being. In fashion and design, a brand name is marketed to convey quality, when it is in fact conveying fame. What is actually happening is that we accept that they are famous FOR being of a certain quality, almost implying that non famous brands are not entitled to use the word "label" or "brand", socially speaking, until they are actually known. This doesn't change with quality or craftsmanship. Many unknown creators and makers may create high quality garments but are still regarded to be of lesser value because the "label" isn't famous. Originally, the fashion label was only meant to be a signature of the maker. However, I have come to accept that I am brainwashed and actually enjoy and toil in the social as well as stylistic, immediate classification and implications that come with being the wearer of a certain brand. Yes, I admit I'm brainwashed, and I admit that because these social stigma have been taken on within the fashion world, they do, in fact, mean what they imply.

However, there is a tipping point. Being too popular excludes the exclusivity as we have seen with Louis Vuitton bags. Perception changes, even if I can still differentiate between the spoilt teenager who is using a vintage tote she inherited from her grandmother hence carries it with a flair of entitlement, to the horde of Londoners that wear their fakes with a sense of "Well, it's just a bag and I like that it's brown". Good point, but it does change one's perception of the brand.

There is also a tipping point in a different direction, which is that of pushing the brand too far from their own lines. In order to stay abreast nowadays, big fashion lines and stores need to be able to stock and provide the entire range of products. Chanel is no longer just about the perfectly tailored tweed two piece casual suits, but about sunglasses, bags, shoes, jewelery, anything you can think of. However, when do brands go too far? It is difficult to tell because in many instances, actually having ventured that far out of their original concept and interest was so welcomed by brand mad fashionistas that it has gradually become part of the brand's spectrum.

One instance, however, is that of what has been reported by styleite.com as an idea by Christian Dior to brand contact lenses. Am I alone or does this just seem utterly tasteless? Then again, we buy branded glasses and having contact lenses from one brand may find buyers interested in showing off they bought labeled, hence "better" contact lenses than the "normal, unlabeled ones". You know, those which may, in fact, have been created by experts, and not a fashion house.

Along these lines, not long ago, Chanel decided to bring out a limited edition of transferable tattoos of the brand, slightly shaking their elegant image marketing it as a "rock punk edge" (independent.com) to the label, which I personally think was PR bullshit to cover bringing out a gadget. A very popular one, sure. In fact, it looked pretty hot. That does not, however, make me think this is really acceptable.

At what point does the wearing of a label that we pay very big sums of money for actually become a simple form of advertising? Isn't it weird that we pay to carry the stigma and connotations of a brand when we should actually be paid for doing so since it is, in fact, advertising? As a result of this train of thought I think that the limit I would like to imagine marks the end of acceptable forms of branding is when the brand is either applied to our own body or used in a "gadget" that is a necessary form of support such as glasses and hearing aids, rather than worn as a stylised and chosen product. But that's just my opinion.

A rant about unfair sizing in fashion - We're not all models!

Fashion Foie Gras took it upon herself to state what I'd been thinking for a while now. The last week I've come across at least three articles that stated news of magazines so and so featuring plus size models, always including outraged comments such as "They aren't plus sized, they are normal. That just makes me feel fat." I quite agreed with whoever wrote that post (can't find it anymore! Sorry!) but wondered if the industry was shooting themselves in the foot by calling perfectly healthy, relatively thin women (in a normal, not fashion sense) "plus sized". I wrote a long comment but then decided that it was worth real consideration and a real and thorough reaction.

As Emily from Fashion Foie Gras then unfolded to me and her other readers, it all made sense. Industry standards put the "plus size" down to a ten from a 14, clearly in order to promote themselves for making "plus size garments", but at the same time not actually increasing the range. That's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, people will actually be trying these on. That's like telling a kid that pickled cabbage tastes like chocolate in caramel. It will get excited, come along and even put a first spoon into their mouths, only to of course spit it out. What were they thinking?!

I can really identify with Emily's frustration although from a completely different angle. As some of you know, I started up my fashion line because I COULDN'T FIND ANY DRESSES THAT FITTED ME! Yes, sure, I could pop down to Primark or some other crappy high street store that works with loose fitting stretchy polyester, and, if I'm lucky, cotton, to get some flimsy, badly finished dress from horrendous ethical conditions, but I didn't want to!



I wanted the perfectly fitting, real material, detailed, perfect length dress. I will never forget that time I had found a gorgeous dress in a store, which I won't name and shame, but was not high street. Everything was great except it was a little too big, so I asked for a smaller size. They got it for me from the petite department. It was the exact same dress, not a similar one, it had the same name etc so I tried it on and it was perfect. However, the dress was a third more expensive than the one size up. I thought it was a mistake and asked them to change it but they simply said that because it was petite, it cost more. I was so outraged that not even the manager would budge that I pretty much told them to F off (but politely) and refused to buy it. I could afford it, but that was not the point. In principle, a petite dress is LESS MATERIAL. It takes a shorter amount of time to sow it. Now why do I have to pay more for that just because I am not a generic 6 foot tall model type person? Talk about discrimination! In fact, so few are aware of this particular issue, they even confuse "petite" with simply meaning small, hence size two for people that are 6 feet tall. See, I'm tiny:



Unlike Emily, the other reason was that I didn't have money to burn in petite stores and it was actually cheaper to make it myself - and more fun. But now comes the other point I want to make:

Normal women are pear shaped. I don't have the patience to look up a study that confirms it because I KNOW that most women are pear shaped. Most designers use generic sizes because they have to "think about everyone" but in fact, this just excludes the majority, pretending that the majority of women aren't pear shaped and in fact have two sizes. By that I mean - bust 8, hips 10 etc, which then means that something doesn't really fit. When will designers realise that they should create designs that acknowledge this? I love wearing dresses, and when I ask my few female friends why they don't, I usually hear that they just don't fit them (same problem I had) because the top would look too loose and the bottoms too tight, so they prefer buying a top and a skirt in the respective sizes and matching it - now why would I want to spend heaps of poundage on something that doesn't fit either way?



The other issue is that I am tiny (5 feet one inch! And I insist on the extra inch). Just trimming the bottom of a dress doesn't do the trick. I have normal proportions, my back is shorter and so are my arms, to match my legs and the rest of my body. On my own, I look normal. Sounds like a given, right? Nope. Only very few even design for petites and the ones that do, for some reason, design mainly for old ladies.

So, in response to Emily and her passionate rant, my rant comes from the opposite spectrum but includes all the same arguments. Models are only a tiny percentage of the population. Are you designing for them or for us? Seriously. What am I meant to do, cut up my legs and infuse some sticks? Heels help, but they don't change my proportions, do they?

For me personally I can at least say that this rant is almost a bit old. It is still offensive, but as I can actually create whatever dress I actually wish to possess, in my own size, I don't really have much to complain about any more. We should all just go back to tailoring, I think. They had it right all along with their individually crafted clothing.

What bugs you about the fashion industry and their sizing system? I've created a poll, what do you choose?