From glamorous gowns to slimming LBDs, fashion is a notorious maker of illusions and fantasy. And in these departments, the fashion magazines rarely disappoint with their displays of the rich, famous, beautiful, and airbrushed. Exquisite pieces you wouldn’t pay fifteen grand for even if you had the money. Ten thousand dollar bags you wouldn’t buy even if you could. Even the “price upon request” items that will never be made, let alone priced.

The glossies just aren’t the same these days, are they.

As more of their readers have turned recessionista, the superfluous, luxurious, “conspicuous” fashion media has been faced with a tough question: Acknowledge “these economic times” and adapt to them, or deny, deny, deny.

As of the March issues, it seems that editors are still torn over this dilemma. As a flip-through of Elle and Harper’s Bazaar reveals, the March mags were a heavy stack of mixed messages — from recession guilt and helpful bargain advice to escapist fantasies and “please keep shopping” desperation.

Shall we?

Harper’s Bazaar welcomes us with a black and white page reading “You can always count on FASHION to lift your spirits.” A single red box in the second column reads “under $150.” But on the same page? Sarah Jessica Parker — immortalized as the Blahnik-worshipping Carrie Bradshaw — and Diana Vreeland, one of the most famously spendthrift fashion editors of all time.

A dozen or so ads later, the Editor’s Letter declares that “The days of the ‘excessory’ are over.” Instead, we are told, Nina Ricci’s new handbags offer “minimal hardware and maximum heart-racing glamour” via a pearl-toned alligator handbag. All for the bargain-basement price of $9,600.

Elle was on the more rigid side of the spectrum. Following a few stilettos, animal prints, and a special message from Bono, Elle’s Letter takes on a less conciliatory tone — passive aggressive, even. Fuming over a recent snub from Caroline Kennedy, Elle finally turns to the more obvious matter at hand about halfway through: “We know you’re feeling broke…but you still gotta look good!” The antidote is “tricky-chick” bondage dresses, jackets, and jumpsuits.

Flipping through the pages, however, one can’t help but ask: Does Elle really know we’re feeling broke? Eye-popping hues, exotic prints, and Swarovski-studded stilettos bring us the height of ’80s excess by Page 178.

Harper’s, on the contrary, stays pretty true to its word. Editors’ picks really are under $150, followed by “best buys” such as Fendi neutrals, red-soled sandals, and a gem of a sleek Ferregamo clutch. Halftime ends with a pair of brilliant but baffling YSL wire sandals for $2,395. But if we wouldn’t see them here, where would we see them?

Articles are on similarly opposite ends of the spectrum. Elle features a Jessica Alba puff piece, and yet another rant about “successful women [who] feel the need to blather on about their children in the workplace.”

Harper’s weighs in on recession dressing through “Cost Per Wear” investment pieces [editor's note - check out E.S. issue #3 for our take] and an interesting article by Lisa Armstrong. “The fashion thermostat,” Armstrong tells us, “has been reset. The overpriced, the overstyled, and anything that doesn’t take into account what women really want won’t survive.“

Except, that is, on the final pages of our fashion magazines.

Recession anxiety disappears completely at the end of our page-through. Elle offers one edgy spread after the other, and Harper’s Bazaar gives us — well, the bizarre — with model Catherine McNeil on a leisurely tour of New York with a giant bunny rabbit. Credit crisis or not, fashion magazines wouldn’t be fashion magazines without a few stunning editorials. And those editorials wouldn’t be so stunning if it weren’t for the quality that all glossy readers are secretly looking for: fantasy.