This excerpt of the New York Times’s review of Balmain’s fashion show in Paris today caught our attention for its insinuation that even the highest of high fashion can still be disposable:

Yet, even without any fashion innovation, Balmain has still caught a vibe. A taut pantsuit, with its short jacket resting on the derrière, the designer’s signature short party dresses with sharp shoulders and, above all, the gilt trip will feed the greedy maw of fast fashion — and give a lot of young women just what they want for right now.

Usually “fast fashion” is taken to mean cheaply-made clothes from H&M, Forever 21, and the like — the fashion equivalent of a Big Mac, not a Kobe beef burger. But if a design is so trendy, so recognizably “this moment,” couldn’t that be equally short-lived in the closets of people with the deepest pockets? Discuss in the comments!

We have gained a ton of respect for young model Coco Rocha for writing this insightful, articulate essay on just how ridiculous it is that at size 4, she’s been accused of being too fat for the runway in respected publications like The New York Times and the New York Daily News.

Let’s let Ms. Rocha have the floor:

I’m a 21 year old model, 6 inches taller and 10 sizes smaller than the average American woman. Yet in another parallel universe I’m considered “fat”… This was the subject of major discussion this week and the story that was spun was: “Coco Rocha is too fat for the runway”.

Is that the case? No. I am still used and in demand as a model. In fact I find myself busier than ever. In the past few years I have not gained an extreme amount of weight, only an inch here and there as any young woman coming out of her teenage years would.

But this issue of model’s weight is, and always has been, of concern to me. There are certain moral decisions which seem like no brainers to us. For example, not employing children in sweatshops, and not increasing the addictiveness of cigarettes. When designers, stylists or agents push children to take measures that lead to anorexia or other health problems in order to remain in the business, they are asking the public to ignore their moral conscience in favor of the art.

Surely, we all see how morally wrong it is for an adult to convince an already thin 15 year old that she is actually too fat. It is unforgivable that an adult should demand that the girl unnaturally lose the weight vital to keep her body functioning properly. How can any person justify an aesthetic that reduces a woman or child to an emaciated skeleton? Is it art? Surely fashion’s aesthetic should enhance and beautify the human form, not destroy it.

We are in awe of Ms. Rocha’s poise and grace in responding to such heartless and baseless criticism, and we hope others listen to what she’s saying.

The U.K. Telegraph took issue with V Magazine’s “Size Issue” this month, questioning whether the theme was merely “a publicity stunt”:

It includes a photo shoot with heavier, semi-clad models proud to flaunt their curves. The debate over plus-size models enflamed last year when Mark Fast, the fashion designer, decided to use size 14 models at London Fashion Week. At the same time, the popularity of Crystal Renn, the size 14 model, suggested that curvier models were becoming more acceptable.

Do you think the fashion world should use more plus-size models? Is it a welcome tangent to the size-zero debate? Or perhaps you think this photo shoot is just a publicity stunt? Which would you rather look at?

The headline and last question reveal a bit of journalistic bias on the part of the Telegraph, in our opinion. Curvier beauty ideals aren’t contrived — it’s simply not true that thinness has been universally prized throughout human evolution. Including plus-size models in magazines is about accurately representing the fact that plenty of women of size also want to dress fashionably and fashion rags are now beginning to respond in kind to that desire.

For more about the ethics regarding plus-size modeling, check out this post about Mark Fast and another about blogger backlash over Glamour’s similarly minded plus-size fashion spread.

“According to some religions, violence in support of your passionate beliefs is right. According to others it is wrong. But from my point of view one of the biggest problems with using these kind of tactics is that you legitimise the use of them by your opponents. … Violence (against property or people) breeds violence. Once you step outside the legal framework you lose all protection for yourself.”

– Guardian columnist Bibi van der Zee on animal-rights activists who engage in property destruction and other acts of violence against human beings to protest violence against animals.

Thoughts?

As the Copenhagen climate talks draw to a close, it’s worth noting how much our culture has come to value the merits of green – both because people truly care about the Earth, and because caring about the Earth has grown so chic. But the actual rules of green living are surprisingly hard to navigate, not least of all when it comes to choosing clothes.

Do you want to save the animals or the planet at large? Do you focus on your outfit’s origins, or its afterlife? Do you submit to the harsh realities of the food chain? Or do you fret about the death of cows and bunnies while the planet weeps over your petroleum-based pleather?

– Boston Globe columnist Joanna Weiss in her latest op-ed, “The plight of the green fashionista.”

Antonia Zerbisias, a columnist for the Toronto Star, remembers one Christmas 30 years ago when she received a fur coat from her husband — “a beautiful dark ranch mink, with a detachable hood,” she writes.

This was before the era of PETA, and she says at the time it was a responsible choice:

For Montrealers, fur was de rigueur, a necessary bulwark against the killing cold.

What’s more, in my hometown, the fur industry, which built Canada – for better or worse, depending whether you were a beaver, an aboriginal or the Hudson’s Bay Company – and employed thousands. There was even “the fur district,” with lofty old factory buildings filled with giant sewing machines. In the streets below, men would scurry with racks loaded with skins or finished coats.

That area is dead now and, like Creed’s in Toronto, most of the companies are gone.

But still, according to the Fur Institute of Canada, the industry contributes $800 million to our GDP and employs 60,000 trappers (including 25,000 aboriginals), with another 5,000 in farming, manufacturing and sales.

These days she’s nervous to wear the coat for fear of being splattered with red paint by renegade activists, but she’s held on to it for all these years, revealing that she’s “spent thousands to clean it, insure it and store it.”

To us, it’s a shame not to wear something that’s been in your possession for so long. Do you have anything in your closet that you’re afraid to wear, whether for similar concerns of public backlash or other fears of ruining or losing it?

Many of you may have already seen W magazine’s horrifying cover featuring Demi Moore, which is being roundly decried as “the worst PhotoShop ever.” The flesh missing from her retouched hip likely means someone’s head will roll at Condé Nast.

The airbrushing of her hip is so bad, it deflects attention from the fact that her waist, arms, and face have likely undergone a digital transformation as well, if recent candid photos are any indication. But what makes it even crazier is that it’s completely unnecessary. Ms. Moore recently turned 47 and looks almost unbelievably flawless — not just for her age, either.

Between W magazine’s gaffe and Ralph Lauren’s blunder, public trust in the reality of published photos has been completely eroded; they might as well be paintings at this point. E.S. readers, does this latest chop job bother you? Or are we desensitized to this kind of distorted body image by now?

You may have caught wind of SELF magazine’s huge screw-up over the summer, when the magazine airbrushed several dress sizes off of September cover girl Kelly Clarkson. Later, the magazine refused to apologize for feeding a photographic lie to its health-obsessed readership, claiming “our picture shows her confidence and beauty.”

But if blogger outcry and organized letter campaigns didn’t make the SELF editorial board listen, maybe this will: The issue was its worst-selling of the year, moving only 220,000 copies and causing the publication to miss its base rate.

This news is notable in particular because the September issue is typically a publication’s biggest of the year in advertising revenue. If readers boycotted, that would make a lot of important advertisers very, very angry.

It goes to show: Never underestimate the power of the purse — especially when the purse-holders are tired of being lied to.

(via Jezebel)

Robin Givhan, the Washington Post’s longtime fashion critic, is known for her level-headed writing style that elevates what could easily be considered a frivolous topic by fashion’s non-believers. In her Sunday column, she addressed the on-going saga about size-ism in the industry:

Fashion doesn’t just reject the overweight and the obese. It also gives the average a hard time, too; it makes them worry about every cookie eaten at the end of a meal or every exercise commitment that goes unmet. Fashion is a test of willpower and determination. It is a measure of good fortune. It is a purveyor of status. It is a badge of honor for having outrun, outfasted saddlebags — unless, of course, they are floral-printed and made by D&G. Those who can indulge in fashion — and do — feel their prize is that much more valuable.

A moment in pop culture history comes to mind that underscores that value system. When Oprah Winfrey appeared on her talk show in 1988 looking startlingly thin after a liquid diet and wearing a pair of size 10 Calvin Klein jeans, she joked that because they were fancy designer jeans, they were really more like a size 8. The implication, of course, was a size 8 was an even better result.

In light of Donatella Versace’s recent comments about why she won’t do a plus-size collection, Givhan’s column is a timely read.

Fearsome Vogue editor Anna Wintour has some advice for her fashion devotees: It’s OK to shop in your closet. Even she won’t judge:

Anna Wintour can’t be photographed in the same thing twice (or three times) without one media outlet or other going berserk. “I usually wear the same dress twenty times,” she told us at last night’s God’s Love We Deliver gala. “I think it’s always fun to have something new, but it doesn’t mean that everything you already have in your closet has to be thrown out, you know? Recycle.” She wants women around the world to know: “It’s totally okay — I even recommend it.”

So what’s Anna’s favorite number to repeat, currently? “This black-and-white Carolina [Herrera] dress that I wear a lot — if you ask Carolina, she knows the one I’m talking about.”

If Anna says we should recycle, you know eco-fashion has gone mainstream.