LIZ JONES: Fashion magazines are 'bullies'
Hot gossip: Lucinda Chambers, former fashion director at Vogue, spilled the beans on her former employer in a tell-all interview
In high fashion circles itâs frowned upon to air your dirty laundry in public. Theirs is a world where everything, including a pair of Marc Jacobs knickers that I once bought for £250, is dry-clean only.
So imagine the horror at Vogue HQ when Lucinda Chambers, the magazineâs fashion director for 25 years until she was unceremoniously sacked by incoming editor, Edward Enninful, gave an interview to an obscure website called Vestoj.
It contained a whole armoury of explosive nuggets, such as that she hasnât read Vogue âfor yearsâ and that, come September, she will be nervous that she will be allowed into a catwalk show at all: âIâm 57. Will I still get a ticket? Where will I sit?â
But the quote that really stuck out like one of Cara Delevingneâs hip bones was this: âFashion magazines cajole, bully and encourageâ people into buying things âthey donât needâ. Chambers explains how this is done. She once shot a âc**pâ cover with Alexa Chung for the June issue, placing the model-turned-designer in a âstupid Michael Kors T-shirt because heâs a big advertiser, so I knew why I had toâ.
At last! The scales (python, probably; fashionistas do love an exotic skin!) have fallen from our eyes, and we are being shown The World of Exteriors for what it really is. The âstupidâ Michael Kors sweater cost £455, despite being made of viscose. It sat above an awful skirt (£2,830). Kors was indeed an odd choice, given the reason Chung was on the cover in the first place was to showcase the launch of her own collection.
Before the sacking: Lucinda Chambers (right with Sarah Harris and Alexandra Shulman) Â at the Mulberry Winter '17 London Fashion Week show at The Old Billingsgate in FebruaryÂ
Trouble is, as a new brand, Chung presumably had no advertising budget, so her clothes didnât warrant a cover.
Those are reserved for the big spenders (Armani, Chanel, Dior) who pay the likes of Lucinda Chambersâs salary, and top up her income with freebies, parties, meals, discounts, holidays and bouquets the size of hippos.
She returns the favour with coverage directly commensurate to a brandâs spend: an inside page for Stella McCartney, say. We all know (I hope!) that photographs are airbrushed because models arenât âperfectâ. But what has been little explored is the subterfuge in what constitutes good taste, which makes you wonder why glossies hire stylists in the first place, given that these people are really shop assistants on commission.
More from Liz Jones Column for The Mail on Sunday...
Vogue editors might type: âGlittery plastic jewellery is having a moment.â And, âHow to wear a catsuit, NOW!â But they believe neither ridiculous statement. They are bullying us into thinking what we are wearing is inadequate. They are fulfilling the wishes of their organ-grinders.
I used to be of the opinion that if a woman wants to spend £1,800 on a Victoria Beckham bodycon, thatâs her choice, but Iâd been brainwashed. Iâd see a £350 shirt by Gucci and exclaim: âThatâs SO reasonable!â
Skewed thinking went thus: men buy Ferraris, football season tickets, Michelin-starred meals, so why canât we buy what we want? The crucial difference is menâs purchases make them happy. Fashion doesnât make us happy, because who can ever emulate Gisele in a black Dior Bar suit?
Fashion makes us poor - and not just high-end idiots like me, who think that if only I could afford a £505 Prada cotton top my life would be betterÂ
The models are the smart cookies: the second they get off the catwalk, they shed the emperorâs new clothes and emerge like butterflies in jeans, T-shirt and sneakers, looking more beautiful than they did in couture
And, much more importantly, fashion makes us poor. Not just high-end idiots like me, who think that if only I could afford a £505 Prada cotton top my life would be better.
Young women on the minimum wage, seduced by fantasies of a celebrity lifestyle, run up debts with Next and Very (the worst online retailer by far, with numerous tricks to get you into debt. In the spirit of research, I applied for £1,000 credit, and it was approved â" with my history!), and drowning in purchases that never quite live up to the hype.
Isnât it interesting to know Vogue editors are sniggering behind their Botoxed hands, thinking, âGod, I wouldnâ t be seen dead in an Armani trouser suit!â while telling readers âHow to wear it, NOW!â, coming up with ruses to make us think £3,000 is reasonable for a Jil Sander coat.
They cajole us into buying a frock we donât need by trilling âMeet this seasonâs hardest-working dresses: theyâll be your friends for lifeâ, when the reality is the buttons fall off, moths eat the hem, and then it GOES OUT OF FASHION!
The models are the smart cookies: the second they get off the catwalk, they shed the emperorâs new clothes and emerge like butterflies in jeans, T-shirt and sneakers, looking more beautiful than they did in couture. They spend all their money on real estate â" one thing that never goes out of fashion.
Â
0 Response to "LIZ JONES: Fashion magazines are 'bullies'"
Posting Komentar