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.

Luxury and Economic Recession

I recently finished writing my senior thesis for the Global Studies department at UCLA. The thirty-five page paper is entitled, Luxury and Recession: How the Fashion Industry Defies Global Economic Downturns. Because I have been working on this paper for the past 6 months, this blog has not been updated until very recently. Now, I have lots of new material to share, and I hope to make many posts throughout the summer months. Since I have spent so long thinking about how economic recession (something we seem to be hearing way too much about these days) and luxury are inexorably intertwined, I thought I would write about it here as well.
Despite the fact that high fashion has always been directed towards the world’s wealthiest customers, many luxury companies have direct historical ties with recession. Some fashion houses have even rose to fame specifically for how they handled their affairs during hard economic times. Right before World War One, a man by the name of Paul Poiret dominated the fashion scene in Paris, creating dresses for women that used large amounts of colorful, expensive fabrics which blurred the lines between art and clothing. When war broke out, these fabrics became scarce and his outfits became impractical for the generation of women who now needed to go to work in factories and in the fields in order to support their family while their husbands were at war. Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel perceived the need for a more simple and refined style, and she presented the world with the little black dress, which was easy to move about in and used far less material than Poiret’s ornate gowns. By adapting to difficult times, Chanel gave women their first “staple” item of clothing, and created an outfit and a fashion brand that has not gone out of style for nearly a century.
Twenty years later, during the 1930’s German Occupation in France, paper, cardboard, and other sorts of packaging became scarce and many materials became rationed for use in the war. Hermès, one of the few fashion houses that did not close shop during World War II, used the only color of packaging material that they had available: vibrant orange. Hermès used it for boxes and bags and almost overnight it became the house’s signature color, and it is still used to this day.
Again, almost fifty years later in 1978, Miuccia Prada took over her grandfather’s Italian luggage company and showed the world how design could defy economic downturn. Prada wanted everything that came out of her shop to be new: new in design and new in concept. In the early 80’s, the world was still recovering from the economic damage brought on by the OPEC Oil Crisis, and Prada perceived the need for a high fashion bag that met the needs of women of the times. She began looking at other materials besides the traditional leathers, which had been stigmatized as excessive and lavish by previous fashion houses like Chanel and Hermès, whose opulence did not seem to have a place during the economic downturn. She instead turned to a nylon parachute fabric, which was light and durable (and far less expensive than leather, crocodile, or silk) and she created the first high fashion backpack. At first, critics were skeptical at the deviation from the usual notions of luxury, but the nylon backpack ended up being a huge success and turned Prada into a household name. Since then, she has used the nylon fabric to create purses, messenger bags, wallets, and luggage, all the while keeping the fashion house as reputable and prestigious as her competitors.
It is always difficult to do business in a troubled economy, but for the fashion houses mentioned above, innovation during a time of crisis proved to pay off. This should be a lesson for designers and fashion houses today - remembering that creativity and originality will be handsomely rewarded, even during a recession.

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.