Fashioning a New Future: The Olsen's Debut Menswear this Fall

It’s been a while since I’ve been excited about Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. While I loved watching them on television when I was growing up, I’ll admit by the time New York Minute hit theaters, I had lost interest considerably. Just goes to show you should never close the book on anyone completely (especially a pair of billionaire corporate moguls) because here I am, loving them once more. And I’m not the only one.
The Olsen’s fashion labels, Elizabeth and James and The Row, are gaining acclaim in dozens of fashion magazines and on sites throughout the net; a shocking feat for a celebrity-backed fashion line trying to grow its business amidst an economic crisis.
Fashion editors, store owners, buyers, and fellow designers are all heaping praise onto the twins for their womenswear collections. And why not? They're superb. But, I’m even more excited for the menswear collections, which debut in both lines this fall.
GQ’s August issue focused on Elizabeth and James, the twin’s less-expensive contemporary line for the young, modern customer. Of the new menswear line, GQ writer Will Welch says, “it’s actually good. Like, really good.” The line is minimalist with a worn-in feel, focusing on items like modern-fitting blazers, chunky sweaters, and wool pants that can function for both casual and dressy occasions. “Menswear is new to us, and we’re still learning,” Ashley says. “But we’ve worked every single day since we were 9 months.”
Details Magazine, on the other hand, reviewed the upcoming menswear line for The Row. While both Olsen’s are involved in the fashion brands, The Row is largely Ashley’s project, and she has become the de facto head of the label. The Row is a more luxurious fashion brand, designed for an older client who doesn’t care so much about “fashion” necessarily as they do about quality and attention to detail. It's a more quiet luxury, if you will. With prices ranging from $230 for a t-shirt to $3,200 for a cashmere overcoat, the clothing won’t be for everyone to buy for themselves, but will certainly be for everyone to appreciate. “Menswear right now is very fashion-forward,” Ashley says. “I want to get back to the roots of what guys wear every day. I just really enjoy making beautiful, wearable clothes.”
And what’s next on the agenda for the Olsen twins? While Mary-Kate still plans to focus on acting, Ashley says that she plans to cement herself to the fashion industry for a while. She told V Man magazine, “I’ve been transitioning from acting as a kid to doing something that I’m choosing for myself – to be a part of the fashion industry. That’s what I really want for my future.” And the future is bright. Not only is Ashley going to keep designing for her fashion lines, she would like to start looking into brand building, and aspires to own a holding company someday. She says, “brand-building is what I love more than anything. It’s everything I’ve learned up until this point [and] I have a different understanding of what works for a brand and what doesn’t.”
Personally, I can’t wait to see how the Olsen’s fashion lines expand over the next year, and I plan on checking out the clothes in person at Barney’s New York, the first chance I get. I’ll also be keeping my eye out for any more news about a new luxury group headed by the talented Olsen's (as it's my ultimate career dream as well).

The Slow Demise of Real Couture

The new season of The Rachel Zoe Project aired on Bravo last Monday, and already the world’s most famous celebrity stylist is running into some trouble. The show opens with Zoe in January 2009, just days away from huge award shows such as the Oscars and the Golden Globes, and Zoe doesn’t have enough gowns for all her clients – A-list stars such as Cameron Diaz, Anne Hathaway, Demi Moore and Eva Mendez. And the problem doesn’t stem from a lack of competency from the Zoe team, but instead from the lagging economy. Dealing with restricted budgets, designers have literally stopped producing haute couture gowns, in favor of pieces that have mass-appeal and stand a chance of selling amidst the financial downturn. The decline of couture, however, has a history reaching back much farther than the dawn of this modern economic crisis.
Many people today are unaware of what the term haute couture really means anymore. Often times the word couture is mistaken for “fashion” in the general sense, and then brands with deceptive names, such as Juicy Couture, propagate the misunderstanding. In reality, couture refers only to the construction of exclusive, custom-fitted clothing, made to order for a particular individual. Whether it is a man’s suit or a woman’s gown, the creations are always made from the highest quality materials and sewn with tremendous care and attention to detail. Furthermore, designers seeking to officially join the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture must also have a workshop in France which employs at least 15 people full-time and they must present a collection of at least 35 looks for both day/eveningwear to the Paris press twice each year.
With all of the requirements, it easy to see why many fashion houses have closed down their haute couture departments. While producing couture does lead to a more prestigious image for the brand and provides more exposure for the designer, the time and money spent making couture (and producing two additional fashion shows each year) often greatly outweighs the aforementioned benefits. Once upon a time, Versace, Lanvin, Pierre Cardin, Pucci, Feraud, Nina Ricci, and Yves Saint Laurent all showed couture collections. Today, none of them do, leaving the labors of creating true couture to only 15 fashion houses (11 French, and 4 foreign correspondent members), the better-known ones being Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Armani, and Valentino.
While it is easy to focus on the designers who have stopped producing couture fashion lines, one has to wonder if they are not simply shifting to meet customer demands. Dana Thomas writes that during the 1950’s, over 200,000 women in the world wore couture, as it was expected as a part of everyday life for rich, society-women; by contrast, a mere 200 women buy haute couture today. With suits that cost upward of $25,000 dollars and gowns which start around $100,000 dollars (one-of-a-kind, custom-fitted Chanel wedding dress at $200,000) it is easy to see why even wealthy customers prefer to buy ready-to-wear. More than that though (as the ultra-rich population has really only grown in the last sixty years), haute couture has become a bit passée. Thomas quotes French-film actress Leslie Caron, who said that she “stopped buying couture, because, frankly, it was considered really old-fashioned… You can’t wear hats anymore, you can’t wear gloves or a bra, and you look really old-fashioned if you wear couture dresses.”

Sure, haute couture may be a little old-fashion. Yes, a bit impractical. And of course, terribly expensive. But the fact remains that modern fashion originated from couture, and if fashion detaches itself completely from its roots, then where is this industry headed? No longer will fashion be about design, creativity, luxury, and quality – instead it will be entirely about what sells and what does not. So, go ahead and poke fun at fashionistas as they complain about losing their frivolous and expensive clothing, but let’s see how you feel when your favorite actors and actresses trade in their haute couture for Juicy "Couture" tracksuits at the next big awards show. Joan Rivers wouldn’t even know where to start.

It’s not cross-dressing if it’s made for men!

Tonight, on my way home from the gym, I decided to stop by Border’s. It was very impulsive, since I have literally five books stacked in the “to-read” pile on my nightstand and it is still a little early for October issues to hit the stands, but when I noticed the new Details magazine sitting there on the shelf, I was delighted to see my trip was not a waste.
After arriving home and changing clothes, I plopped down on my bed and started to skim through in my usual manner: fashion first, cover story second, short/interesting articles third, and the rest I would save for later. With this method, it is clear to see how one of the first things that caught my attention was a one page feature on “10 Rules of Style” provided by Victoria Beckham, formerly known round the world as Posh Spice. In it, she talked about why guys should avoid tight jeans, designer logos and trying too hard, and overall, I agreed with everything she had to say. The thing that stuck out to me though is when she proclaimed, “Men who wear skinny jeans won’t be wearing my jeans. I don’t think jeans should be tight around their bollocks.”
When I read that, my brain highlighted “MEN” and “MY JEANS”. I certainly would hope not! If Vicky doesn’t like men to wear their jeans tight, I can’t imagine her liking them sporting women’s jeans, even if she is responsible for designing them. Further investigation revealed that next month, Beckham will be adding onto dVb Denim by Victoria Beckham, with a brand new menswear line. Online, I even discovered some pictures of husband, David Beckham sporting the first pair of dVb jeans for men. As a reigning style icon for women in Europe and the United States, it makes sense for her to extend her denim brand as far as it will go – but how many men are willing to buy clothes from stores initially geared towards women’s apparel? Apparently, a lot of companies are trying to find out. On two very opposite ends of the fashion spectrum, two formerly “women-only” brands, Chanel and Forever 21 (see, it is possible to use the two in the same sentence) are delving into menswear too.I first noticed the Chanel men’s collection in November 2007, when Karl Lagerfeld’s cruise collection for men under the Chanel label was reviewed in British GQ. The article notes that, “Coco Chanel never turned her hand to making clothes for men, but Karl Lagerfeld is showing an increasing fascination with the challenge” - a fascination which apparently did not die, as you can now scroll through a couple of looks for men on the Chanel website (two of which are posted here). I actually saved the article because I really liked the seersucker cashmere blazer and I hoped that one day, I would peruse a Chanel boutique for some clothes for myself. Forever 21, on the other hand, was another story.
In May of this year, I was unwillingly dragged into the Santa Monica Forever 21 by a female friend who was looking to save money and find a less expensive version of the MaxMara dress she actually wanted (which didn’t happen). So as she searched, I wandered off, all the while trying to avoid pushy bargain hunters and masses of synthetic fabric falling off the racks, and then I saw it – a sad little corner of men’s clothes. It was as you would expect: lots of tee shirts, sweatshirts, some jeans, a poorly made blazer, etc. And as I looked through the merchandise, I couldn’t help but think, “What self respecting man would ever buy his clothes here?” If I am shopping high-street, give me GAP or Zara any day! And by the absence of men looking around, it seems as if the general population agrees with me.
So what is it about women’s brands suddenly catering to men? Is it okay as long as the label is good and the clothes are chic (and ultimately, expensive), or is it something that should just be avoided all together? I can’t help but wonder if Victoria Beckham’s brand will succeed along reigning denim brands like Diesel and 7 for All Mankind, both of which don’t have any “girly” stigma attached. I guess ultimately we will have to wait and see, but I don’t think I will be the first in line to grab a pair.

Fashionable Donations: A Trend towards Giving

John Locke once proclaimed, “Fashion for the most part is nothing but the ostentation of riches”. While many fashionistas today would argue with this proclamation, declaring that fashion is also about beauty and creativity, the general population would most likely agree: especially when they are staring at a $4,000 Gucci handbag sitting in a window display. For the average consumer, most elements of high fashion are regarded as superfluous and unnecessary. On the other hand, these same consumers would most likely agree with Sir Francis Bacon, who once declared: “In charity, there is no excess”. Everyone likes to believe that they are doing something to benefit the world, and donating to charities is one of the easiest ways for people to gain a sense of philanthropic satisfaction. So what happens when a world of extravagance and excess collides with one of humanitarian cause and relentless giving? Recently, the answer seems to be a line of new and trendy merchandise sold at diverse prices, which also fulfill a person’s desire to give back to the world. By combining the influence of fashion and the goodwill of donations, designers have made “giving back” a trendy movement; one which is benefiting both fashion houses and world charities alike.
The most notable combination of fashion and charity today is of course (PRODUCT)RED, a project started by Bono and Bobby Shriver, to raise awareness and money for The Global Fund. Companies like Gap, Emporio Armani, and Converse have branded some of their merchandise with (RED) labels, and they all donate a percentage of the revenue created by selling these products in their stores. The money is then used to purchase anti-retroviral medication and distribute it to impoverished countries in Africa. Giorgio Armani, one of the world’s leading fashion designers, signed on with Bono’s RED campaign in September 2006, when he created a new line for men and women to be sold in all of his 124 Emporio Armani stores across the globe. Armani is contributing an average of 40% of its gross profit margin from its (RED) merchandise directly to the Global Fund. To date, (RED) has contributed 49.8 million dollars to the Global Fund and has provided 1.1 million people with treatment for HIV/AIDS, 2.8 million with treatment for tuberculosis and 23 million with treatment for malaria.
Not only have (RED) products clearly helped people in the world, but it has also done something for fashion. (PRODUCT)RED has created a whole new collection of looks, most notably for Armani’s new designs. In developing his collection, Giorgio Armani teamed up with Ghanaian contemporary artist Owusu-Ankomah, whose art is featured on the clothing, accessories and packaging. The shining red African pictograms give the line something new and different, and they are meant to represent positive, hopeful symbols for the future of Africa; however they simultaneously work as a fashionable status symbol for consumers, as a simple cotton crewneck retails for $85 and a men’s calfskin messenger bag for $395. Armani also collaborated with Julia Roberts to create a bracelet for men ($195) and women ($175) that appears in the line as well. Giorgio Armani says that, “Julia has helped create a beautiful accessory for both men and women, which will also be a visible reminder of the part that we can all play in fighting AIDS in Africa.” Evidently, supporting noble causes has not made designers or fashion companies any less noble in their already-innovative fashion apparel, and other superstar designers are catching on to the new trend as well.
Marc Jacobs and Ralph Lauren are two of America’s hottest designers and they are also devoting a portion of their profits to aid the charitable causes of their choice. In the summer of 2006, Marc Jacobs created a line of fashion tees which retail at $35 to raise awareness about skin cancer. The t-shirts feature celebrities like Victoria Beckham, Heidi Klum (which I am sporting), Naomi Campbell, Hilary Swank, and Marc Jacobs himself posing nude with witty messages like “Protect the Skin You’re In,” “Protect Your Largest Organ,” and “Save Your Ass” covering their private parts. All of the proceeds from these shirts were donated to NYU Interdisciplinary School of Medicine Melanoma Cooperative Group in memory of the late NYU physician Jessie Rubin. The 2006 line of nudie tees reportedly raised about $60,000 for the Melanoma Group, and they still remain available in all Marc by Marc Jacobs stores. Meanwhile, shoppers looking to support a different cause can shop Ralph Lauren’s Pink Pony Collection, which has raised over $300,000 for the National Breast Cancer Center. Lauren explains that, “in poor and minority communities, medically underserved populations suffer disproportionately from cancer because they lack access to basic, quality health care. The Pink Pony Campaign reaches out to these communities and strives to make a difference.” The Pink Pony Collection features apparel for both men (e.g. the $75 Classic Polo) and women (with items ranging from the $45 Tank to the $498 Hooded Cashmere Sweater), making the items a must-have for consumers of any age and any gender.
Even fashion house and mega-million dollar corporation Gucci has decided that charities are a worthy cause for their huge profits. Renewing a program that started in 2005, Gucci once again decided to hold “The Gucci Holiday Campaign to Benefit UNICEF” in 2007. From November 15th through December 31st, Gucci donated 25% of the sales from the special holiday items, personally crafted by Gucci’s Creative Director Frida Giannini, to UNICEF. In addition to the special holiday campaign, the company came out with a special “Gucci for UNICEF” Indy bag that will be sold in stores until December of this year. Just like the rest of the UNICEF items, 25 percent of the revenue generated by this bag goes directly to UNICEF.
Gucci may be the most well known luxury brand to commit themselves to charity work, however they are not alone. Cartier too partnered with eight celebrities in order to design a product in which a percentage of the proceeds will be donated to charity. Their concept is the LOVE Charity Bracelet, and each celebrity has created a different color piece, representing a different charity that will be supported . A few examples of the best-selling bracelets are Sarah Jessica Parker’s blue UNICEF bracelet, Rosario Dawson’s red Youth Aids Bracelet, Liv Tyler’s deep pink Breast Cancer Research Foundation bracelet, and Scarlett Johansson’s baby pink USA Harvest bracelet. The 18-carat white gold with cotton cord bracelet is sold at $475, $100 of which is given to the corresponding charity. Visibly, both Gucci and Cartier’s commitment towards different charities demonstrates that even on the most lavish and extravagant level, charity and fashion still fit together extremely well, and that the classification of members of the fashion world as “superficial, uncaring, label-whores” may not have to continue into the new age of fashion trends.
To end, I want to note that while integrating politics and fashion may have been something to avoid in the past, today it is nothing less than essential. We have made a movement in fashion trends where people do not just want to wear new clothes; they want their clothes to express something about their personality. Many believe that consumers are only buying these “charitable” items so they can participate in guilt-free shopping, and others believe that fashion houses are actually profiting more by donating a small portion of their profits than they would if they did not have these campaigns at all. However, I believe the old proverb to be true: “Charity looks at the need and not at the cause.” Does it really matter if fashion houses profit and consumers have a false sense of philanthropy by purchasing these items, as long as people are getting the help they deserve? True, one could just go donate 2,000 dollars directly to UNICEF instead of purchasing the Gucci handbag, but would UNICEF get all of those donations if it were not for Gucci’s campaign? Probably not. So while this trend for charitable giving might come and go as fast as neon pleather or shoulder pads, I think we should embrace this one while it lasts, because finally the fashion industry may have gotten something right.