The Queen covers Schön!

This cover really speaks to me. The pearly and furry white appeal to my own dress sensibilities while age and vulnerable strength have been issues I've been mulling over these last days. Furthermore, she is closing her eyes, but sternly and trusting, perhaps in a slightly disapproving slant - I detect no fear nor uncertainty in her features, closing her eyes - and I on some level wish were my eyes; not in ignorance but avoidance that does hence not imply bliss- to what is happening to beloved Great Britain that is so destructive, that I am looking at with wide, pained eyes.

A truly deep and composed cover, Schön! To view the rest of the magazine online, go to where the "Energy of Nineteen" guards the pages of beauty for us.

Trends and the Direction of Collective Creativity

When I was a kid and discovered the answer to philosophical questions I had never discussed with anyone or read about - merely by sitting and thinking on my own and thinking myself incredibly clever when partaking in sharing said knowledge only to discover in many cases that others had thought much the same centuries and centuries ago as well as that most "grown ups" already posessed the knowledge of said answer. The difference between them and me, I always thought, was that they were taught and told what I had discovered on my own - mere knowledge of something cannot equal the discovery of the same.

Unfortunately, the reality is different, and knowledge amounts to the same level of recognition as discovery - "That's what Aristoteles said" irks me when actually, it's what I discovered myself, no matter how many centuries later. Similarly, I'm sure, as is the case with many an argument I make, including, most likely, this very one you're reading.

When at the brink of completion of a few pieces for a collection finds me discovering other designers having gone in the same direction, I must humbly step aside and deal with the "that looks like something I saw before I saw yours" even if the creation of the latter was not in the knowledge of the former. As you may have noticed in the previous post, I have hinted on the comparisons between Lira Leirner pieces and recently strutted London Fashion Week runway pieces. I'm not going above my head and pretending my pieces are the same, but when you've researched and put into details, fabric, silhouettes and storylines into pieces still in development or almost finished and then see a painfully near enough version strutting down the catwalk in a higher finish, it stabs.

However, I cannot say I'm the only one. Copying is a fickle subject in fashion, where does "trend" go over to plain copying? Does following a feature even if started by a certain brand result in "trend" or "copying" despite differentiating interpretations?

For instance, this season I've seen the thin yet sturdy material version of last season's Miu Miu power dress feature across several collections.

Miu Miu dress with "that" bow on uncountable covers

Valentino Haute Couture Paris Spring 2011

Burberry Prorsum, Autumn/ Winter 2011/ 2012

Is this a trend? I personally think, in this instance, because there are many ways to tie a bow yet it is this particular way that I had not seen around last season apart from in "that" Miu Miu dress that any other designer that uses this way of tying a bow, a few seasons later, is copying. I will forever refer to this style of bow as the "Miu Miu power dress bow".

On the other hand, there are incidents which make me feel bad for the designer whose collection came after - because surely, being within the same season, copying could not have taken place but merely a kindred direction of creativity which I prefer to identify as a trend. For instance, I could recognize an affinity between the lopsided cowl necked gown with asymetric angular skirting of Christian Dior with Maria Grachvogel's black and simpler silhouette, both of which are cringely similar. Unlike with the Miu Mu Power Dress Bows, however, I can see that is merely a direction creativity, a conciousness of seasonal features shared that are identified as trends. Similarly, along the line of these thoughts, I excuse myself for having come up with features and ideas alongside those I've witnessed on the runway this season and wish that I will escape the fate of being accused of copying merely because my creativity is hindered by the costs of production and grand public awareness.

Christian Dior Paris Spring Haute Couture 2011

Maria Grachvogel London Fashion Week Autumn/ Winter 2011/ 2012

Getting back to basics - Perfumes now to define countries?

I had a conversation with my best friend Nelly who had just found out that Lithuania has commissioned a perfume named after the country, after watching a Colbert Report.

The fact that too many runaway celebrities think themselves so incredibly nice smelling that they find it appropriate to have perfumes created based on their own smell, which always seems to contain more personality descriptions than smell descriptions and are always a mix of alcohol, sweat and an additional scent... orange for "perky and fresh", rose for "sweet and cute"... that's annoying enough.

Don't get me wrong, the creation of a perfume after your own personal taste has been part of the perfumery business since the very beginning... but the idea is that it stays personal. Just yours. Marketing certain smells is plain weird and I think we have lost the sight of, like Colvert points out, how weird it is to be able to say to someone "Wow, you smell like Britney". Has anyone else noticed that more often than not, the perfumes are named after dancers, who presumably smell of sweat most of the time? Who wants to be associated with someone else's smell anyway?

And now there has been a nightmare introduced and I pray to Chanel that it does not turn into a trend. Bottling up the "essence" of a country's smell is a sure and fire way to creating hierarchies of perception and increase, or worse, reinforce preconceptions about a country.

“For Lithuanians to identify themselves with this perfume, we’ve added the smell of wood fires that can be associated with pagan rituals, as well as moss and wildflowers.” (National Post)

In comparison to that, smelling like another human almost seems normal. But still, it would be fun to pick out the bad smells one associates with a country and wonder what they'd be like in a bottle because who is to say an entire country smells of a single smell anyway? Nelly started with "fish and greasy chips for England" but there's the smell by the cliffs of Dover, the smell of inner country mustyness and rain, and personally, always the smell of loud cars in London. Where can that be tied down? The only consequence, surely, is that the results become narrow and nationalistically perceptive, which is the opposite of what a perfume should be.

Let's go back to the original concept idea, which is having your own smell that is a mix of your shampoo, soap, hand cream and environment.

You could also create your own perfume. Although the mix of smells made my sensitive tummy go yonder when I went to visit a perfumerie in South France, I am sure other would thoroughly enjoy creating their own smell, which is actually cheaper to do than the perfume I actually use (Penhaligon's Elizabethan Rose) and have been using since I was 13.

I came across this Virgin experience day (check it here) where you can create your own perfume for less than £50! That's pretty cool. Just make sure you don't attach personality traits to the smell or feel like hiring a marketing director and distributor, and we're good.

Journalists in shock - Roitfield leaves French Vogue vs BBC covering for police brutality

As the fashion world is shocked and going into jitters at the news of "the end of an era" - the resignation by Carine Roitfield from French Vogue, I myself am still caught up in as story that is actually shocking. Hmm, let's see... someone (sure, that someone is very fabulous) decides to leave their job. Oh blood and horror. She seems pretty happy about it and it's not like she's dying, she'll still be doing her projects we can see. Have a look at the following, and muse about the situation we live in, where police brutality is covered up and justified by the BBC. Now that's a story that should "shatter the reality" of any journalist. Having said that, I wish it was Ben Brown leaving his job, not Carine Roitfield.

To start you off in the "get your priorities straight" journey, have a look at this interview. What follows, is my letter of complaint to the BBC, it's the first one I felt I needed to make.



In the interview Ben Brown conducted with Jody McIntyre there were so many points that this actually fits into several complaint categories - bias, offense, and standards of interviewing.

There are so many things wrong it's difficult to know where to start, so I'll go through it step by step.

1. The topic of coverage, which was an interview with a VICTIM of police brutality, was not addressed in any of the questions. The entire interview was conducted in the manner as if the person being interviewed had in some way something to answer for.

2. Instead, Jody McIntyre was repeatedly posed leading questions on the assumption that he must have provoked the police to attack him even after clarifying that he had in no way done so and even clarifying to a clueless interviewer that he is physically incapable of having done so.

3. I am deeply annoyed by the fact that throughout the interview Ben Brown is not bothering to take into account the very straight forward and clear answers by Jody, which rendered following questions ridiculous. What kind of biased, unprofessional and bullying idiot asks someone with cerebral palsy, who just TOLD YOU that he can't operate his own wheelchair, whether he "threw rocks at the police"?!

4. If that weren't enough, implying that "rolling towards the police", which considering they were everywhere would be a) not an act of threat in any way and b) not exactly something he could have avoided - rolling in any which direction, aka "moving from the spot" would have been in the direction of police.

5. Questioning his belief as if they had anything to do with the incident was particularly annoying considering, may I point out once again, the issue at hand was POLICE BRUTALITY. Unprovoked. I do wonder whether that method of questioning would have been applied to, say, Camilla and Prince Charles, to wonder why they were there, and how their beliefs could have had anything to do with provoking anybody to an attack and that it may just have been their own fault?

6. The interviewer was insensitive and rude. Instead of reacting to the clear answers being given to frankly ridiculous and irrelevant questions, as I pointed out earlier, answers were clearly not listened to or acknowledged and in some points an apology would have been in order - for example when Jody points out that he can't "roll" towards anything due to his condition, Ben Brown's reaction seems to imply a wordless "whatever", which I must say makes him look like an idiot.

7. Throughout the entire interview Ben Brown did not once acknowledge the fact that police brutality is out of order - the issue actually at hand. The line of question was merely to establish that what the police had done was appropriate while it doesn't take a lot to realize that not "even" shouting or rolling would justify tipping someone with cerebral palsy out of their chair and dragging them across the street.

8. I've seen this clip a while ago and waited with my complaint because I was hoping to see a swift and immediate apology by the BBC. Instead, I have watched a meager attempt at defending an inappropriate approach to interviewing a victim as "equality of treatment" by Kevin Bakhurst. Would anyone ask a victim of rape whether they might have provoked the attack, repeatedly, even after the victim had pointed out that it was physically impossible for them to do so? Treating people EQUALLY does not mean treating them the SAME. It means treating them with respect and a genuine interest to finding out what actually happened. None of which was done in this interview.

9. I have in the past respected the BBC and their ways of reporting but have been ashamed to say that their coverage of the student riots have been atrociously one sided and biased - and this interview is the pinnacle of the entire coverage. However, I am still hoping that the BBC will come to realize that they need to distance themselves from poor interviewers such as Ben Brown, who not surprisingly covered a lot of the riots, in order to regain their respect in many, many reader's view.

10. I am still waiting for an OFFICIAL APOLOGY from the BBC and hope that if Ben Brown cannot see the error of his atrocious approach and resign, that he shall be sacked.

11. I am happy to see that the outcry against this interview has been so widespread and hope that the BBC editors will apologize for condescendingly implying that a widely spread and appropriate outcry against a dreadful interview where, I am sure, many reasons were given in each complaint had Kevin Bakhurst bothered to read them, is merely a herd of sheep following the crowd without realizing what they are talking about.

12. Where is the "hard hitting", "firm" and "equal" interview with the police officers in question? At the end of the clip itself one can see another officer pulling away the officer in question - very clearly showing that even police officers were very aware of the immoral and unnecessary brutality happening. Is the BBC really covering up for this violence against humans, while painting unarmed minors in a broad brushstroke of rioting, which may I point out is directed at BUILDINGS and not humans? This is what was being done in this interview, and without a formal apology, this is the line the BBC is taking.

13. The only person so far who has had an inkling of decency so far is commissioner for London Deborah Glass from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and I truly hope the BBC will follow suit with an apology and the resignation of Ben Brown.

Why the law isn't always right

It really shouldn't have come as a surprise to me that the meager two page spread on White Collar Crime that I came across in my first year of Sociology within a, I distinctively remember, 60 page depiction of all forms of absurdly dated theories on street crime, made me very, very angry. Angry enough to kick start a now eight years openly personal anger, which at times can get irrationally obsessive.

The earliest memory I have of deep set moral outrage following the manipulation of numbers was when I was dragged as a ca. 10 year old to sit in the hallway while a certain family member, to whom I am no longer in contact, discussed how to best avoid tax with his accountant. The door was open, and they really should have known better.

Every fashion blogger I know also harbors an unspoken other, often more intellectual, entirely separate set of deeply rooted interest. This manifests itself in the form of their job, which is in many cases fully unrelated, or in their area of study. In my case, this is white collar crime. Throughout my childhood from before I was even in kindergarten to ca. sixth grade, I read three four books a day. But they weren't exactly children's books... they were mainly detective, spy (and fantasy) novels, most of which I wasn't allowed to read due to the ageist censoring system of my local library, which I managed to avoid merely by striking up a weird competitive friendship with the librarian as a result of making my rounds there daily.

Once I got to the teens, I had moved onto philosophy and bone dry published sections of the German bylaws and legal system. Yes, I was 13, 14, 15, 16 and quite frankly, some of it went straight over my head. But that didn't hinder me from carrying around a small version of Das Deutsche Grundgesetz (The German constitutional law) in my wallet for years, and I'm sure I still know some passages by heart. It was only much later that I realized how weird that was. In my environment, the fact that I was reading instead of smoking in a corner of the school yard looking bored and classified Leonardo DiCaprio as a wanker made me weird, so the technicalities and details of what exactly I was reading didn't really make me that much weirder. I just read whatever interested me, as one does.

After studying Sociology in college in Cambridge and then in Goldsmiths where I managed to find a way to include white collar crime in every essay I could chose a topic to, I worked as a content and marketing manager for an international accountant for two years, keen to see the other side and never ceasing to make notes as I went along. Needless to say, I despised my colleagues (with two, three exceptions) who embodied some of the worst traits of humanity I have come across in the five countries, eight cities and numerous boroughs I've lived in. And no, I was never secretive about what my intentions were, even my boss knew of my interests and in no way did this hinder any of them from speaking loudly and frankly about their views and doings.

PA sourced from The Independent

Whenever I brought up the topic in any (appropriate) conversation, even with sociologists, I would receive reactions ranging from an amused, condescending smile to offhand silencing "I simply don't care". Trying to explain, to make people understand how big the impact of white collar crime really is and my utter despair at people simply not caring that a single white collar criminal had stolen more than the top fifteen most wanted at most any given year yet never make it onto the list was a lonely endeavor for ca. seven years until the downturn kicked the public in the head. My final year dissertation, in fact, focuses on the reaction of the public, in which I state that a moral panic would be most likely the only way to truly get the public to realize what was going on.

That same year, recession struck.

It had been building, but it truly struck a few weeks after I handed in my final year dissertation, after the summer months and I remember the day like yesterday that I first saw the replacement of B with W in "Banker". With mixed feelings as to the realization of my statement, I saw the effects of a moral panic slowly rippling through the media, yet still with an immense restraint of opposition oozing from the conflict of interest that had so rarely been in place for any of the previous relentless moral panic that the British media rid like two horny horses on Prozac and Viagra. In the last decade only can count, from the top of my head; teenage violence on the rise, pedophilia, and worst of all, islamophobia. A few decades ago it was Aids and homophobia, and the British media roots in moral panic, racism. How confused the British media must be, the white collar workers knowing that - truly - they have finally come across one of their own. Of course, that can't be. When you look closely, it's still very distinctively blamed on an OTHER. THE BANKER. We don't like to identify the inherent thirst for greed and trust exploiting advantage taking that is inherent in certain fields and areas of professions more than others.

Now, I am proud. I am glad. Because the single worst realization I have come across is the classification of crime, and that was also the sentence I heard most throughout my discussions with the accountants and sales consultants. "It's legal. What do you care what the impact is?" I care, because I know it SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL. And I also know that it is only legal because the only people who know of its legality are THOSE IT BENEFITS.

White collar crime is only a crime if the law defines it as such. IF THE LAW DOES NOT, it is NOT a crime. Sounds obvious, right? Well, it's not. May I refer to the expenses scandal? Just because it was LEGAL to claim thousands for a duck pond with public funding while the country is in debt, did not mean it was RIGHT. This has always been the most difficult point for me to bring across because quite rightly, it is difficult to set a limit if it is based on such an ambiguous and personal entity as "morality" and "common decency". To some of us, the implications and wider impact are immediately obvious.

When one major company can avoid to pay the majority of its taxes because it can afford not only to pay the equivalent of a dinner allowance to a strategist accountant but also to set up whatever the situation requires in order to avoid said taxes, do you really think THE GOVERNMENT suffers? Think again. With every SINGLE major company that can afford to not pay, the tax needs to be somehow found elsewhere, namely increased and spread across those who cannot even afford to pay for an accountant, let alone set up offshore accounts or ensure their wives live in Monaco. Spread like a sticky layer of dust over Ryveta, the single tax avoiding rich jerk gets extracted in far wider impact from those hundreds to whom the "few" quid actually matter.

Image by Amelia Gregory from Amelia's Magazine

For instance, as @Anticuts points out, "TAX DODGE BY OWNER OF OXFORD ST TOPSHOP WOULD HAVE PAID FEES OF 32K STUDENTS". That's thirty two thousand students. And that's merely a few billions, which that one specific individual would not even be able to grasp or ever spend but is merely shifting because HE CAN. It doesn't take a genius to realize this might be legal but is wrong.

To some of us, the implications and wider impact are immediately obvious, especially since more people have opened up their minds to see that just because it says "democracy" on the package doesn't mean the contents aren't fake meat. Does anyone else still remember that the original concept of democracy was based on the system of voting ON A SUBJECT? Voting for someone who coordinated the process was merely a means to an end, which, oh surprise, has been twisted into entailing more power. "We're here to represent you" is no longer good enough if it is clearly followed by "You fell for MY bluff, now deal with my decisions". In Switzerland the public still gets to vote on major subjects. The rise of student fees would have been one of the issues voted on. Yes, this system comes with complications but in essence, it holds the idea of democracy to its roots.

Now, unlike what many of us believe, Tories and accountants know exactly what they are doing. It's not a case of bad apples, they know what benefits those in power and those who are rich and are quite aware of which measurements need to be taken in order to make sure the system whereby this order is stamped upon remains. Make no mistake about it, and saying that "the bottom 25% get to go to uni" is a thinly veiled sack of crap for those who like to swallow easily. You really think they don't know the increased debt of the highest public university fees in the world will put "those 25%" off? Do you think it'll put off those who can afford it anyway, who also tend to be the ones who can afford to get drunk and stoned throughout university while everyone else is working? I can see so many say "Why can't they see... why can't they understand... why can't they realize..." Oh, they do. They just think it's totally OK. It's exactly what they want, to not have the university system be accessible to anyone but those who are either prepared to really suffer for it or are rich. Please don't tell me you believe the "it will benefit the poorest", because it does not.

Now, as I am writing this, I am starting to hear of those "condoning violence". In many ways, I am finding this very ironic because what is being done is in fact a very understandable response because the introduction of 80% fees increase for the second time within a decade can only be described as an extremely violent impact on many, many people's lives. Much like the "criminal" is only what is defined by law to be but does not mean is right, the violence debate applies. One of the issues I discuss in one of the many essays I wrote during the University degree I would not have been able to afford were I a few years younger, was the question of fear being disproportionate to the actual rate of violent crime. In fact, at the time of writing, violent street crime had decreased over the years while the fear of it had increased. Similarly, the fear (or dare I say ANGER) at having a banker round down the third decimal of any given transaction and hereby making millions while you barely notice, people just didn't care. Although I can understand that, I don't accept it.

After I got mugged on my street during which my head was repeatedly smashed onto concrete so that I passed out for the first and only time in my life and had to go to the hospital with a concussion I got asked whether I still thought white collar crime was worse than violent crime. You have to ask?! Of course it is! Violent crime is immediate, I know it's happening and the tangibility of it is by far less infuriating than knowing that merely because it is legalised by those who benefit from that act being legal, there are cuts where there shouldn't be and increases where they aren't afforded. I know from experience that I am alone in this, but these past few days have made me feel a lot less alone, and for that I am thankful.

There's one thing I still don't understand. Whatever happened to those who used to vote Labour that voted conservative this time round? Are your memories really THAT short? Is anybody really surprised at the fact that THIS happened? Of course we saw it coming. And the riots were only a matter of time, and as proud as I am, I am also frustrated and I don't think we should accept the decision that has been made. There must be a way to reverse it, and I'm sure we can achieve it if we continue or at least aim to have it reversed by the opposition when voted back, before it actually gets implemented.

If you're interested in this topic you should read Amelia's Magazine's Sir Philip Green and his Topshop billions get the UK Uncut treatment.

Alexander McQueen Coat Sold Out at £28,660 - Wrong or Art?

As day-night, week and end merge into each other unrecognizably, it is difficult to battle within the constraints of accepted forms of measurements such as the idea of 24 hour regularity, divided up into the realms of accepted divisions of life. As I have to work in a "normal" environment tomorrow, I should be sleeping now. Instead, I find my fellow workers asleep and myself very much awake and browsing the pages of the world book from the click of warmth in bed.

And then I came across the coat on netaporter.com. Instead of pressing the usual "low to high" button I misjudged the mouse click and pressed the reversed only to come across a £28,660 Alexander McQueen coat that has been sold out. So I'm wondering... is this a one off? What could possibly allow a piece of wear to amass such levels of value?

As I was arguing earlier on, and McQueen certainly is great proof, fashion can be art. And in this case, for that price, surely the coat is no longer utilitarian but a collection piece, historic, intricate and detailed. More an object to be admired, framed if possible, than worn as an everyday piece of clothing.

The question remains, however... is this a one off? You tell me. Because art, as far as my personal value is concerned, needs to be unique. And I don't mean limited, I mean unique. That's where fashion as art gets it wrong, and the distinction should be clearer, allowing the artists to escape the stigma of utilitarianism. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter. In fact, it's an art unto itself, but not what I am talking about here. What do you think? Is £30K an apropriate amount for this coat?

Taylor Momsen doesn't shock me

Across the fashion world online I've been made aware of a cover that I would normally never even know exists, as I am sure most girls everyone seems so worried about wouldn't either (refer to roughly the 99% I outline below).

The argument is that she is only 17, having people wondering "where her parents are" and how any magazine could be OK with sending out a message like that to "young confused teenagers". The message being that wearing stripper heels, sheer tops and underwear with some guns is cool (and shouldn't be).

Now... um. Am I the only one not bothered by this? I'm a pacifist (considering some of the people I've seen being upset about this cover are not) but there are much younger girls handling guns in cinema left and right, and it's merely a role. And yes, I know that a role is different to having a girl being photographed as herself in guns.

Chloë Grace Moretz as Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl in Kick Ass

Natalie Portman in Leon the Professional as Mathilda

No, it's not a good message to send out to teenage girls, but it's not like she's the first one. As a teenager you take "inspiration" in what resonates with you. A cover more or less makes no difference, especially one on a magazine I didn't even know existed (sorry) and that I'm sure the MAJORITY of teenage girls don't either. I think people forget that any teenager who actually knows or would pick up that magazine would be resonating with that image already. Yes, it's reinforcing and that's "not good", but I do have to say growing up with these tough young female roles in popular culture and thinking they are mega cool didn't make me any less of a pacifist and I do think helped me be a the woman I am today. No, it's not hypocritical because there's a difference between reality and fantasy and guess what, even teenagers know that. We have to stop holding all teenagers accountable for the daftness of 1%.

On my way home yesterday I saw a poster that pointed out exactly what I keep thinking when I see a scandal such as the above being blown out of proportion. 99% of young people in London are making a positive and real contribution to London community.

I don't find Taylor Momsen's cover very cool or inspiring. I find it quite bland, actually (especially in comparison to these other two I've shown). And I think it's impact or importance would have been a hell of a lot less if so many hadn't been so close mindedly outraged by it and spread the image across the internet. You're just helping spread the message, in case you hadn't noticed. And by the way - young girls are much more likely to see the image ON YOUR BLOG (yes I'm talking to you fashion bloggers), than actually see the magazine itself. I don't mind having it on mine because I know only a certain type of teenager will actually like it, and that won't change with or without this one cover.

Sample Sizing - Let's start a revolution

Most of you know I am tiny. I am five foot one (and I insist on the one!) and not exactly thin but still a size UK6. In fact, that's how the fashion line Lira Leirner started in the first place - I could never find things to wear that fit me.

However, Lira Leirner has evolved and explored and is no longer a petite only dress hub but includes a range of sizes, styles and different garment types. The sizing issue in the fashion industry is one that will always be very close to my heart, though.

Now I've been planning a collection of 28 pieces (so far) and have it drawn up and ready to go. However, that's where I came across a hurdle I could not jump myself on my own.

What should be the sample size of my collection? Unlike other big or medium designers, I can't afford to make a collection which exists merely to be looked at on the runway on models. I need to actually sell this stuff and I don't remember models being exactly rich or falling in love with pieces they've worn during work enough to buy them.

My point is, creating an entire collection to FIT MODELS and then to be merely looked at by buyers, PR's, journalists. stylists and bloggers is something only the rich and mighty (or those with a loan) can do. I know it's a vicious circle, but why are we meant to create stuff to fit people whose job is to fit into whatever it is we make? How about we use a better size and the circle becomes the same but on a better scale?

I want to go with a size that won't require TOO MUCH pinning that it would effect the garment but is also a size that fits those who would actually buy the pieces. Surely the fashion industry can "understand" and like a piece just as much when it's a few inches bigger?!

I am thinking a size UK8 or UK10 / US6 or US8.

This, I know, is still relatively small but I think is also the widest used size.

Please help me and tell me your thoughts on this matter by commenting below or sending me a tweet with #NewSampleSize. I do want to stick it up to the man but am I shooting myself in the leg? Which size would you suggest I use?

I'm going to count the votes, so make sure to leave a concrete size either UK or US. I created a poll as well to make it easier, please vote!

THANK YOU!!

Image of Chrystal Renn taken from Adventures in Heels, image of skinny model (gross) taken from Komo News

My Habbit is Not a Hobbit – How to Calculate Your Carbon Footprint

Shopping locally, by Kayleigh Bluck

I have to honestly admit that I don’t really THINK about sustainability in my everyday life. I even recycle without thinking because it is such a natural process to me. You don’t consciously think about why you drink tea from a cup and not from a bowl or why you pee into the toilet and not into the basin.
I think you’re only truly sustainable when it’s a part of your way of life, just like a diet is pointless unless you actually change your lifestyle and habits. In keeping with this, I came across a test with a perfectly relevant name: “My Habbit“. You can check out your own carbon footprint and you might be surprised at how easy it is to change really small habits.

Whilst taking the test it visualises your carbon footprint in the form of a strange and creepy semi-alien computer-generated human body. Proportionally distorting a human’s body parts in order to visualise your disproportionate use, you work your way through the different stages of sustainability. For instance, if you use a lot of electricity, you head starts to look more and more like a skeleton. The more meat you eat, the fatter your belly gets. Electricity and gas expands your hands, travel expands your feet until it looks like an almost bursting balloon. Mine looked pretty normal at the end, but it still had suggestions for me to better myself. But how did I even come across this test?

“So, a guy came into the office today to borrow some of our paper, which was recycled and said ‘So are you trying to save the world or summin?’ (sic) to which I wanted to start replying but by the time I said ‘Um..’ he said ‘Then stop driving!’ I obviously replied ‘I don’t drive’ and he said ‘Oh’ and walked off. What’s the dude hassling me for?”
This is a snippet of a conversation I had during dinner today, where it transpired that me being a vegetarian and not having a car actually makes me “pretty green” according to a test my partner had taken during the workshop he held at the “Sustainable Futures” exhibition at the Design Museum. I was immediately intrigued. This may have been mainly due to the fact that I was fairly certain I was going to come out of the other end of the tunnel with a result to be proud of (aka something to show off about).

Shopping locally for fabric, illustrated by Naomi Law

I already knew some of the reasons that were going to be to my advantage. I work from home, which means that in average, I use the underground only once a week for meetings or events in town. I have only travelled by plane once in the past year (last November, in fact), which is highly unusual and mainly down to the fact that work has happily consumed all my time. Either way, I knew it was going to make me look good in the test. I walk to the shops, and buy most of my food and fabric (I am a fashion designer) in the local market where things are mainly locally sourced. I’m very lazy when it comes to anything that is essential to life such as sleep, eating and washing. That’s only of advantage because I own a lot of clothes, which means I very rarely have to actually wash any of them. My washing machine is extremely underused.

Furthermore, since we’re on the subject of big white goods, I don’t own a dishwasher or tumble dryer or any such machinery. I recycle everything from paper snippets to plastic to glass to fabric. I would say “tins” but I don’t really use them. As I mentioned before, most my food moves directly from the bowl of vegetables of the farmer’s table into my Longchamp shopping bag into my vegetable drawer. Another point that I knew was going to help me look good in this test was the fact that I’m a vegetarian. Apparently, that makes a difference although I’m still not quite sure why. Surely any food needs to be transported, worked on? Do feel free to enlighten me if you know.

Returning to the subject of technical items, I don’t watch TV. I have a TV set for watching a DVD every now and then, but I usually prefer to work, and the TV is of course unplugged when I don’t use it because otherwise it makes a very annoying humming noise when it’s on standby. I unplug my printers, sewing machines, hair straighteners etc when I’m not using them.

People who don’t live with me would never believe it, but I’d rather look like a couch potato wearing three jackets (I’m at home, right?) than turn on the heating unnecessarily. In fact, the heating is completely switched off until the temperature drops below 10 degrees Celsius for more than a week, which doesn’t make me very popular with my housemates.

We were given some free sustainable light bulbs when we last switched gas and electricity companies, which we use throughout the house and half of the fluorescent light bulbs we have in our office have burned out and we are too lazy to replace them.

Shopping for clothes, illustrated by Zarina Liew

This one is a big deal, but not a topic that gave me any extra credit during the test. About 80% of my wardrobe (including my shoes) is either second hand, vintage or passed on in some form or another through eBay, TK Maxx, in the form of presents from family and friends, inherited pieces, charity shops etc. This does not, however, mean that I don’t indulge my fashion sense, as a quick peek into the style section of my website will confirm.

I don’t listen to the radio, I don’t have a CD player or stereo because I have all my music on my Mac and iPhone – who knew being this non-nostalgic about music, could turn into a blessing?

We have an agreement with our landlord who sends round a gardener every two months. Officially, any carbon footprint they amass during their work is technically not mine, so I am not counting it. The grass is yellow from the few days of “heat” this lame English summer had, but I don’t really see that as my responsibility and as far as I can tell, I don’t think the gardeners ever water the grass – they simply cut it even shorter and dryer and pick up the leaves.

Some of the questions in the test were difficult. For instance, I had to look up which type of light bulbs we actually use. They cleverly adjust the optimum “habit” you could have at the end and suggest ways in which you can better yourself, even if your carbon emission is as low as one could realistically imagine.

However, there were aspects of importance that were not quite taken into consideration. A big issue, which could tip someone’s carbon print (especially among us fashionistas and fashionistos, eh?) is our shopping and consumption habits beyond mere primary necessity (food). Do you buy online? Are your purchases shipped or flown from overseas or do you make sure buy locally? Do you shop in chain supermarkets or local markets? How much stuff do you own? Do you buy from Primark or second hand? Do you buy per trend and season or do you invest in pieces that you have worn for decades? Do you tend to consume actual objects such as electric equipment, decorative items, clothing or something altogether different?

Using recycled paper, illustrated by Emma Block, using recycled paper!

There are also questions relating to your profession that are not taken into consideration at all. For instance, the test asks you whether you use a printer at home, but not whether you use a printer at work. How much paper do you use and waste, knowing you’re not paying for it? I’ll forgive them for not asking office-related questions, though, as this could get very detailed and complex. But what about mobile phones? No sign of their impact.

Having an iPhone, which I use for work, means I charge my phone up a lot more often than, say, someone who works in a shop and turns theirs off for most of the day. As anybody who owns an iPhone knows, as much as we love them – the battery of the iPhone is abysmal. It needs charging ALL the time. Surely the test should be asking about the different phones one has, the same way they asked about what type of TV I own? On the other hand, I charge my iPhone via my laptop – this means less electricity is used. You can see, the questions can be quite endless, but an essential acknowledgement of such basics would have improved the test.
Many of my friends and colleagues are writers or need to write in some form or another. When you do your writing, do you do it online or offline? That sounds like it would make no difference, but it does. Here’s a good illustrating example, which has astounded quite a lot of people when I’ve mentioned it.

Energy in the kitchen, illustrated by Gemma Randall

One of the questions in the questionnaire is how often you boil the kettle. Did you know that every time you do a search on google it uses as much electricity and power from the mighty google servers as it does to boil a full kettle? A question in the test, if I have had any say, should have been “Do you look up the tiniest question on google rather than trying to think that second longer in case you remember?” Do you maybe have a real life dictionary (oh wonder and glory), which can help you just as much? Yes, one should consider the production cost of making said book, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume it’s a vintage book, which still holds perfectly updated descriptions of most words we know. If it doesn’t, you can STILL use Google, Wikipedia or an online dictionary. But not doing so would immediately reduce your carbon footprint more than you think…

I am a great believer in the fact that until something is accepted as normal, it has not really been overcome. Until it is, the obstacle of integration is not complete. I feel this is the way with sustainability. I grew up with it, so it was quite strange for me to see what fuss people made about being sustainable – it was new to me. Once people embrace it as part of their lives, it will be a lot easier. You hear campaigns telling you to “be aware” and “do your part” as if most of these acts weren’t perfectly logical. I disagree. Sure, some people just don’t admit to perfectly basic knowledge being obvious, and need those hints and tips, and none of us are perfect and continue to be educated. However, the obsession of making recycling something to be conscious about is not going to help. Only once it’s truly and easily integrated into our lives in a manner that is natural to participate in will sustainability really be standard practice.

(This article was published on Amelia's Magazine)

Harvey Nichols Hosts a “Classy” Dinner

Last week Lucy Yeomans and Sophia Neophitou hosted a private dinner at Harvey Nichols in celebration of the newest courtesy book to join the ranks of historically and culturally poignant behavioral books – “Classy – Exceptional Advice for the Extremely Modern Lady” by Derek Blasberg. With his impressive fashion based background ranging from publishing for Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, W, V Magazine, Interview, The Sunday Times and Conde Nast’s Style.com and a collection of a fashionistas with a wide fan base, this book is setting itself out to be a must-read even if it is to chuckle at silly quotes or more innocently, to read up a few stories of rags to riches to red carpet (quite literally) and dream that “modern” American Dream.

Burping may bring you glory according to Jonathan Swift’s “Tale of a Tub”‘s Aeolists (if one would like to consider themselves as a fool reader), and the oldest English courtesy book dating back to the 13th century, the “Book of the Civilized Man” by Daniel of Beccles outlines that “If you wish to belch, remember to look up to the ceiling.” So burping can’t be quite wrong, right? Right? Uh…

I’m sure we can come to agree that despite the amusement and historical factor of these books, when it comes to such social constitutions as fleeting as social manners, it is quite pivotal to have a regular update every few centuries or so (at the least). In many cases, they will help future generations understand not only the details of etiquette, but also the implications such etiquette have about the culture and understanding of what was deemed higher society in general.

With his firm belief that “At the end of the day, even the unclassiest girls can become classy” one does wonder whether there has been an adjustment to the understanding of the word and meaning “classy”. Yes, we saw that Lindsay Lohan can look ladylike on the cover of Vanity Fair before her stint in jail, that whichever childhood or background you come from, you can “get to the top” where you’ll be perfectified by a horde of stylists, make-up artists and hairdressers. Does that mean class? Perhaps not, but for the sake of a fashion based book with the assumption that looking classy (plus having your manners roughly in check) means you are classy, let’s say yes. Derek Blasberg provides a handbook with quotes and secrets from “all the socialites”, and may be confusing fame with class, but maybe this is the new definition of the word or the new understanding of what is deemed high class today.

However, pulling in the extremest examples that overshadow all the hard working and well mannered people working in fashion isn’t entirely fair. Take Anna Wintour for example. Do you think she should have a peak into what this book promises to be? Do you think she really needs to? Would you classify her sharp but real tongue to be “unclassy” or does it suddenly not matter because of her position? “Classy” sounds to be a very fun book to read where, I am sure, the structure, hierarchies and real rules of today’s fashion culture will come across if the words aren’t taken by their literal meaning and am even more certain, will provide a an actual insight to this mad world we call the fashion industry.

Apart from the fact that modernity is strictly speaking a historical time frame that was taking place around the time of the Industrial Revolution and that the late 20th was, technically speaking, post-modernity, one must go with the given lingo even if I do think that the “Extremely Modern Lady” Derek Basberg is referring to might actually be the the “Extremely Post – Modern Lady” since the extremely modern lady is actually one from the last century as, one could argue, is the concept of the “American Dream”, which underlies the rags to riches storyline. But of course, this doesn’t sound as good, so I’m going to put aside such technicalities for now and celebrate the star studded launch, most namely Alexa Chung in that beautiful leather skirt outfit (see how quickly I abandon all reason and argumentative tendencies just to celebrate fashion?).

From left to right: Alexa Chung; Roland Mouret; Alexa Chung; Derek Blasberg; Richard Nicoll; Derek Blasberg

Back to the point, here are the nitty gritty detail of where you may purchase the discussed book: The US No. 1 Bestseller ‘CLASSY’ by Derek Blasberg is exclusively available at Harvey Nichols for £9.99

(This article was published on LDNfashion.net)

We Love the Power - the shift to consumer driven technology

Do you realize we're the last generation who grew up, at least part of their childhood, without internet, mobile phones or even - o shock and horror - without iPhones (or blackberries, for you PC people out there)?

This became incredibly apparent when I started getting panic attacks imagining being without constant access to the internet whilst comfortably lodged at my grandmother's house the coming month, who very impressively uses email like no other, but still enjoys the non-comfort of a dial up connection on a ten year old PC laptop (they're so sturdy, aren't they, those android things). This was eased when I found out that installing wireless will be able to be done in a jiffy. Problem sorted.

However, the revelation remains, and it's a scary one at that. I have come to rely on the fact that I can leave my house and still be connected. I know this sounds incredibly obvious, but think back ten years. Do you remember the maps, address books, slight panic at 5 minute lateness of friends, racking the brain for that name of that actor of that film... Yes, this was not long ago. Now, I rely on the fact that all this does not have to happen. That I can be in control, never lost, save time, always in reach of knowledge via Google, Wikipedia, eBay and other applications (the use of which has risen to 13million downloads this year. Seriously). That I am never alone. And that my bag is a lot lighter and emptier, leaving space to carry an extra pair of flats so I keep the usage of my Prada heels to a minimum. And most importantly, that I am independent from the help of anybody else. The dependency is based solely on a single object.

Given that, I started to look up some facts (I am a journalist geek, what do you want?) and it's astounding. "Looking up facts" involved scouring - you guessed it- the internet but luckily also involved getting invited to the Primrose Bakery to a panel discussion of the new "Hip to be Square" Motorola flip out phones.

Remember how I was talking about "ten years ago"? Scrap that. Think back merely TWO years ago. The use of smart phones has risen to 20% of all phones in the UK from 1% last year. No, this isn't a joke. I thought it was going to be a number around that of 70%, which is being predicted is what the use of smart phones is going to rise to in the next few years. And there I was, in my relatively small world of fashionistas in London, thinking it was representable of people in the UK in general. Still, that is quite a scary number to observe.

As Victoria McManus, the UK Marketing Director of Motorola pointed out, the phones we use are no longer merely about fashion. Or functionality. If it were about functionality only we'd still be walking around with those adorable android Nokia sets. Remember them? I left mine outside in a thunderstorm by mistake and found it dripping water from its speakers. It was a sad day. "It's about how smart your phone is as well as about how fashionable it is" says Victoria, and I agree. It's not just about making phone calls, it's about the applications and how far you can rely on that single object to make you look as good, communicative and intelligent as possible.

Since I'm an eBay addict if ever there was one, the eBay app obviously graces the front cover of my application listings on my iPhone. For those of you equally as interested in facts and statistics as me (knowing they are never really what they seem, but still impressive) 9mil people in UK downloaded the eBay application. I had a strange mix of surprise and "I knew it"- sensation when I was told by Ruth Szwszkowski, the spokesperson for eBay Europe, that more eBay apps were downloaded in the UK than anywhere else in Europe. It made me chuckle, and a bit worried to know that I am one of the people in such a large group.

And then another reason transpired as to why applications as we know it are so popular in comparison to android applications as created by the makers of the respective objects (technically they're both android, but let's ease the distinction and say they're not). "Androids development and creation is guarded. Applications as we know it can be done by anybody. The technology becomes consumer driven, the balance of power is inverted. Consumers can now make or break a brand." Peter Cross, the Managing Partner of YellowDoor made the most poignant point of the evening.

It truly outlines the psychology of the popularity of the democratic power of technology that has been introduced. Because don't we bloggers know it better than anyone else... we love the power. And we're here to take it.

Lanvin, Zara and H and M, OH MY

The High Street has been a jungle of joyful news today.

There's Lanvin, who I have mixed feelings about. On one hand their creative director is the guy who thinks the ONLY thing women care about all over the world is being thin (The Real Runway). This still bugs me but on the other hand Lanvin is the brand that has brought me these shoes as you may witness on my feet on the right to this text. However much I appreciate his clothes, seeing that smug snob saying "We're not going public. H & M is going luxury." didn't go down too well. Even if it's true, saying it with a smug little smile and a bow tie doesn't make it better.

Is it just me or is that offensive on many levels? These are the things I read into this statement: 1. H & M is not luxury (we know that, but bare with me) 2. Lanvin is not for the public 3. Lanvin is not lowering itself to the public 3. Lanvin doesn't care about making it more affordable 4. Lanvin is gracefully "helping" a brand become less public 5. All other collaborations such as Jimmy Choo were lowering themselves by going public 6. It's not "dress for lees", so does this mean the prices will be high? 6. Being "public" is bad 7. Being "public" is lowering your brand

Seriously. I could go on. But judge for yourself. In the end of the day, I know where I'll be come rain or shine, on the day of the launch. Right there, holding the hand and force feeding the tiger and bear (that is the tiger's sidekick H&M) with his delusional "it's not for the public". I am curious to see what all these implications mean and whether I will actually like their collaboration. I will make sure to let you know.



In other news much more joyful to my love for online shopping habits and Zara, they have finally launched their online shop! Oh hooray and joy! The Lion, the one that is secretely scared of the jungle, has launched a head front attack and will hopefully be as welcomed in our arms as Dorothy's. I know I myself will enjoy my freelance breaks on said page. I remember a while ago trying to go to a Zara online shop and landing on their "Home shop" full of bed sheets and other such tingle and tangle that I wasn't interested in. I do think that even us fashionistas can be "understood" based on which their favourite high street store is. My style, if generalizing, can be classified, I think at least currently, as "Edgy Chic", for which Zara is perfect for to get the basics, at least. To cut a long story short, get you butt over to the new online Zara store!

Where woodland creatures meet fashion

Unlike my fellow bloggerati friends, I had not been able to make my way to the Wolf and Badger opening I was invited to a while back based on the stupidity of being a dress (and therefore summer) obsessed fashionista who will not acknowledge that summer is over until my garden turns into a pool of frosted brown leaves and my legs turn blue. As a result I found myself in close proximity with my bed and cursed the dress between sneezes and sobs.

Anywhoo, today I have finally managed to find myself an afternoon where I had errands to run in the claustrophobic vicinity of Bond Street, allowing me to catch five flies with one trip, two of which were located within the halls of yellow. I was extremely curious as to what Wolf and Badger was truly about as I had mainly been shown images of people who attended ranging from rich ladies full of botox to my gorgeous friends - informative stuff, but not really anything that gave me a proper insight to the shop itself. I had also been a grateful subject of Wolf and Badger's twittention (portmanteau: twitter attention) including sending me get better cheer up images and tweets and #ff me as a favourite blogger. It is probably quite an understatement to say that being interesting to the brains behind a project and concept I truly identify myself with and would love to be involved in with my own designs is beyond flattering.

Most of the Portmanteau's readers are writers in one form or another, so I am going to have to explain this differently. Do you ever read a post and think "This is brilliant" but also "Damn, this is so good I wish I had written this"? Well, that's how I felt about, for instance, the white coat as you may witness and admire in the images below.



"ENVY" is surely applicable here, although probably not in the consumerist sense Selfridges is most likely trying to imply.


With pop - up shops popping up a plenty, as the name implies, the London fashion scene has been witness to a lovely dose of quirky experimentation that allows the commercialism of brands to be surpassed a little to allow for alternative return on investments. I am therefore a big fan of pop up shops and believe that the true creative spirit behind a conglomerate or commercial designer house comes through.

Although I love attending events and meeting and snapping fashionistas, fashionistos and PR's in their element, it was quite soothing to be able to have a look at the much celebrated place on its own. No muss, no fuss, no claustrophobia. And no queues to play with the interactive installation where your blowing is what impacts how much the swallows on the screen overhead would be blown across the screen.

I conclude with the stating of the fact that if you thought Wolf and Badger was awesome, quirky and cool, I think we've seen nothing yet and will be looking forward to everything they get involved with. I may not be signing up to Louis Vuitton or Benetton press releases, but I will be signing up to theirs. That's how awesome they are.

Knowledge vs intelligence - The conflict of the saint and the artist

In the past couple of weeks or so I have gone through an emotional upheaval quite fitting in juxtaposition to the euphoric beginnings and sunny introduction to the fantastical reality of beginnings. If 'fantastical reality' is wanting to let you shout 'oxymoron', you'd be quite right. However, not in the sense of contradicting understandings for as you shall see during the course of my argument, it is truly real, but in the original portmanteau of the Greek words sharp and dull. In fact, in it's sourced meaning, I could argue the juxtaposition to be based on the oxymoron of reality of beginnings in that it is painfully sharp yet dull.

The sharpness derives, in this procession of events related to my own experience, from the affinity and taking a shine to the sense of importance and discovery, a sense of importance in uniqueness, appreciation of not the work or object but the concept of being first, that of discovery and merit based on discovery rather than what fills said discovery. I suggest that even more so than happiness, it is greatness, which drives great minds. For we remember many great authors, scientists and philosophers for being the first to publicize a point made, no matter how that same apple may have fallen upon a thinker setting in motion similar thoughts centuries after. The knowledge and drive for genius and to be known stretches beyond the mere contentment with goodness or even greatness of craftsmanship, intelligence or beauty, it strives for individuality, differentiation, and most of all, for being first.

Naivety of knowledge and conceptualization of such knowledge can be truly liberating in the process of thought and creation. It matters not how many generations of humans have learned to grasp the conceptualization of self, for instance, every time it is discovered new, without outside help, almost as a switch of connections of neurons. That, I believe, cannot be dismissed as a lesser discovery for lack of timely births and century choices of sperms and eggs to create, that is, for lack of control over which century one is born in as well as the unfortunate coincidence that one has thought thus before. One should not dismiss the naivety of unknown historical or literate knowledge at the presence of intelligent thought. I have discussed this previously in closer proximity to fashion in my article "Knowledge vs Intelligence - Defining expertise in the world of fashion".

Naivety is an interesting word and an interesting concept. One might quite like to decide that naivety is an attribute unwished for, but I have come to realize that depends on what kind of picture you'd like yourself to be painted in.

In the contextualization of the dualistic view of tough vs. soft, me desperately avoiding the latter, naivety seems to evoke a reaction of protectionism, motherhood and general puppy-with-three-legs-reaction that is extremely unappreciated despite its well meaning intentions. The concept of naivety does not seem, as it should, to create the realization of sharp, unadultered interpretation of, may I suggest, an intelligent observer, but is merely belittled to that of lacking knowledge of what is perceived as reality and in the worst yet most caring cases, in need of protection when reality is often clearer to the naive than it is to the knowledgeable.

On another note, creativity derives from naivety with a much stronger sense of conviction and drive as it does from that of tutored and shaped mind. In fact, creativity in par with productivity is best observed in the reclusion of the creator, the insolvency of interaction or interference. Surely it must be understandable that to interfere a sensation of discovery, genius and uniqueness with an unnecessary and uncalled for tutorial of historical knowledge is hindering in the productivity of creation. The afterthought, dare I suggest the portmanteau afterknowledge, may have to be professionally derived from historical and contextualized fact, however, it should, in the best of circumstances, not appear in the process of creation as a catalyst force of unproductivity and negative stimulus. The easiest, and often most naturally adapted form I have observed in the greatest minds and creators, is that of necessity for loneliness. And that, in turn, requires a necessity to abandon the want to be good to others. Creativity requires for one to be truly selfish in the process of creation, to believe in the possibility of greatness in order to achieve the highest possible form of drive and productivity.

As Iris Murdoch points out in relation to her book "Under the Net", the want to be good and the nesessity to be creative is in recurrent conflict. I thoroughly identify with the statement that there is a conflict between the artist and the saint and I believe it is so because of our necessity for loneliness in order to avoid the negative stimulus of historically contextualized knowledge helping screen the brakes of production and creativity.

Images are snapshots from the BBC program "In their own words: British Novelists - 2. The age of Anxiety (1945 - 1969)

United Colors of Benetton is back with an attitude

United Colors of Benetton play quite their part in my life. As a child I was taken on a yearly trip and anything that fitted me I got given in every color until I had outgrown it again the following year. My wardrobe itself looks a lot like a Benetton display, things are organized by color and I own EVERYTHING in every color, be it bags (Longchamps in every color), tops, coats, gloves, scarves, shoes, jumpers - you name it. If it's an important item, I have it in all colors. Everybody who knows me knows that I am all about color coordination - sometimes I coordinate a bit too much. But that is my thing, so United Colors of Benetton and Pantone are very high up in the companies that I like.

Furthermore, during my Sociology and Cultural Studies degree I wrote a major piece about several of their advertising campaigns that were so controversial and therefore struck a very happy note in my "Stick it to the Man and hate stereotypes" perspective on things. They focused on three different cycles: difference, reality, and that of free speech and the right to express it.

Throughout the years their campaigns have received extreme reactions either way - the clean imagery depicted taboos Oliviero Toscani identified with a stabbing grace, calling to attention an outrage rarely paralleled by a fashion house so innocent in the actual creation and design.

Wars at Peace

Religion

Cycle of life and death

Racial difference

Benetton have also been constantly supportive of causes such as the fight (strange word to use here, no?) against domestic violence, food for life, aids awareness and many more. I'm sure you also remember the disputed images of death row candidates pointing out the humanity being wasted and apes making us re-think humanity in general.

Domestic Violence

Apes


Death Row

One of their masterpieces, I personally think, is the following image taken by Therese Frare and based on the "Pieta" by Michelangelo an image that "changed the world" to raise awareness for Aids

(Please click on the respective images to get taken to their source pages)

It has therefore pained me on several levels to see the colors of Benetton wash out - both in terms of the colors used for their collections and the surely pretty and colorful, but morally washed out images of pretty models frolicking happily in the washed out colors that were only colorful when put together.

You can therefore imagine my delight when I was invited by Kristin from The Clothes Whisperer to the re-opening of their Oxford Circus store, which she was asked to photograph as the event photographer (say a woop for the whisperer!) and encountering at the entrance a wall with neatly folded cashmere jumpers in the strong colors they once were. However, I don't think Oliviero Toscani has been called back, unfortunately. A small touch of "FUCK YOU" was still making me smile - two of the mannequins had adjustable hands, both of which had their middle finger out. I wonder if anyone else noticed...

Showing us all the middle finger

"Long time no seeee!"

Freak DeLuxe andStylecartel

These cupcakes looked pretty but they weren't very good

Colors, colors everywhere

"Everything is awe to the some!"

Too much prettiness for a single picture - Emily from Fashion Foie Gras being her radiant self and the fabulous Butters taking a break from her Louis Vuitton Neverfull while her mommy (The Clothes Whisperer) was working

Freak DeLuxe snapping the location style

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most colorful of them all?


Freak DeLuxe snapping more location style

Models. 'Nuff said.

I loved this guy's vest

One of my favourite outfits of the evening. Check out that combo!

An outfit very much Portmanteau approved. Matched to perfection.

Legs drooling alert

Jumpers to my taste

Colorful midget between models. United.