Disturbing Designer Behavior

A recent comment from ash2i got me thinking about designers duping us into blowing our dough. On 3/16/09 at 5:14 PM re: When Fugly Is Fun, she wrote:

Grrr, sometimes I really hate the fashion industry. I read recently that several designers were quoted spouting some version of the following in response to how they are dealing w/the economic shitstorm: “I am trying to design something women definitely don’t have in their closets so that they are forced to buy a new piece to ‘update’ their wardrobes.” In essence they want to push the envelope, not for artist reasons, not for the actual awesomeness that could come from trying new things, but for money.

Grrr is right dollface. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I don’t think the Fashion Industry has EVER placed the interests of those who keep it in business – the consumers, i.e US – before its own financial solvency. When we have money to burn, we pay attention to what’s on the Industry’s radar, and shop accordingly. But as soon as the money well runs dry, what’s In according to Fashion is – if it’s not realistic for our respective budgets – Out according to us. See, the Recession has made one thing all-too-clear for the Fashion Industry, and that’s who’s really got the power. It’s not the designers. It’s not the mag editrixes. It’s the consumers. It’s you and me.


The designer who copped to making clothes women feel ‘forced’ to buy needs a serious bitchslap to the face, but that’s neither here nor there. What ash2i referenced reveals the laughable extent to which the industry takes itself seriously. Talk at me till you’re blue in the face, beotches, tell me how much I need the latest thing you’ve concocted, con me into thinking I’ll be less attractive until I own it. I won’t budge. I don’t care how trendy or how practical it is or how fab it looks and makes me feel: If I can’t afford it, I’m not buying it. You want to force it into my wardrobe? You put the money in my checking account.

Recession-Proof Fashion certainly has some allure, as does anything built to last in an industry that made its fortune off fleeting Trends of its own invention. Take the Butter By Nadia Signature Wrap Dress, for example. One Dress, One Size, Countless Possibilities, the website purrs as you enter. And really, as you browse the twenty or so odd ways to wear this one item, it’s hard not to be convinced. It even looks fun to play with. It’s kind of like a jersey-knit toy. A jersey-knit toy that costs $246, that is.

If I didn’t heart shopping and just wanted a practical, multi-functional dress, I’d seriously consider purchasing this garment. But spending $246 on one item takes me out of my favorite game. Even if you like ten of the twenty ways to wear this dress, the thing isn’t ever going to look like ten different dresses; it’ll look like ten different versions of the one dress. If you shop secondhand, you know that with $246, you can thrift your way to eight to ten different dresses in different styles, colors and materials if you so choose. Not that anyone needs that many (riiiight .

My point is that if you looooove shopping, a one-shot deal just doesn’t cut it: It takes the fun of getting there out of the equation. Once you get sick of the Miracle Dress (inevitable, obvs), you’ll end up buying something new to take its place, and you’ll have spent more money in the long run. Recession-Proof my ASS.

Fashion can dangle the bells and whistles in your face. But it can’t change the fact that, at the end of the day, it’s all just stuff: stuff you might want, stuff you probably don’t need, and stuff this Industry can’t ever force you to buy. Ultimately, how you spend your money in the worst of times (and in the best of times, for that matter) is up to you. And ONLY you.

Let’s close with a certain designer’s perspective on the current economic sitch: “‘It’s scared me to death,’ designer Nanette Lepore told MarketWatch, referring to the current economy. ‘I have to work and think harder.’”

Working hard and thinking hard.

What a novelty for the world of Fashion.