From its bizarre combination of resort-wear and guerrilla gardening (hoeing in Donna Karan wedges seems like a great way to twist an ankle) to its gushy coverage of "wwoofing" (working without pay on an organic farm), November Vogue does a great job of portraying environmentalism as a fun hobby for rich people with time on their hands. Perhaps most egregious is Sally Singer's piece on hiring consultants to help make her apartment in the Chelsea Hotel more environmentally friendly. She laments that it's hard for her to save energy because "I receive no water, gas, or electricity bills." And her cleaning lady "cannot understand why her beloved long-handled dust mop must make way for a cut-up organic T-shirt on a bamboo stick." But somehow, Singer pushes through. After all, she says, "at yoga class, they tell you that if you breathe correctly, your virtue will be contagious and the world will begin to change" — and surely, if you write about your virtue in Vogue, other rich people will make their cleaning ladies scrub the floors with T-shirts too. Be the change you want to see!

The cover hearkens back to 1991, the last September issue of Vogue we could find that had fewer than 600 pages. For comparison's sake: Last year's had 796, 2007's had a record-breaking 840. And 1996's had 700.

Do you think the advertising crunch and the precipitous decline in consumer spending might make Vogue do something a little different, a little out-there, a little untested?


Why, no!

Charlize Theron, this month's cover subject, has graced Vogue a total of four times — in October, 2000, October, 2004, October, 2007, and now again in September, 2009. In the last three instances, the South African actress was photographed by Mario Testino.


But that's not the only place in the magazine that had us rubbing our eyes with déjà vu. As other bloggers have pointed out, the Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott-shot editorial with Natalia Vodianova as Little Red Riding Hood from this September's Vogue bears a striking resemblance to...


A Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott-shot editorial with model Doutzen Kroes as Goldilocks, which was published in the August, 2007, issue of W.


The Natalia Vodianova spread for Vogue is called "Into The Woods."


The Doutzen Kroes editorial for W is also called "Into The Woods."


Both the editorials even boast creepy masked soft-toy molesters.


Grace Coddington, the fashion editor for this shoot, can sometimes be a little derivative for my tastes; in recent years, we've seen her turn The Wizard of Oz and Romeo and Juliet into editorial spreads that didn't add much to their source material. "Into The Woods" fits perfectly with that trend.


Natalia's absolutely wretched 'do in those pictures is not a fluke: this issue's full of deeply bizarre hair. You took one for the team here, Liya Kebede.


And in this shot, it's as if you can see Karlie Kloss thinking, "Really, Guido Palau? Really?"


I, for one, am getting just a little bit sick of seeing this particular photo re-made. This, David Sims' version...

...owes as much to an interpretation from last September's Vogue by Patrick Demarchelier, featuring model Catherine McNeil...


...as it does to the Richard Avedon original, with Jean Shrimpton, from the September, 1965, Harper's Bazaar.


Dodai already did an excellent LOLVogue! on the rest of David Sims' editorial. Karlie Kloss has apparently wrested the Vogue showjumping title from Caroline Trentini. The St. Louis teenager has an astonishing three editorial appearances in this issue — four if you count an Annie Leibovitz portrait of her, which runs alongside a short profile of Karlie by Sally Singer.


But what's amazing about that Leibovitz shot is just how much it looks like another portrait the legendary photographer recently took of a young starlet.


I'm referring, of course, to the photograph of Miley Cyrus that Annie Leibovitz took for the June, 2008, issue of Vanity Fair. Karlie and Miley are photographed with the same dampened hair, the same skin that's lit extremely pale, and the same red lips on a nude face. They even share a similar pose and both are shot against the same backdrop. The fact is that even though Cyrus and Kloss were roughly the same age when when they were photographed by Leibovitz — Cyrus was 15, Kloss, who only turned 17 earlier this month, would have been 16 — this photo is certain to draw less ire. That says more about our culture's parallel impossible expectations for the few young women who make it in the entertainment business than anything else: we demand that our pop stars remain forever young, and we expect our models to impersonate adult women from the time they hit 5'9".


Steven Meisel has a 16-page editorial with models Liya Kebede, Karen Elson, Coco Rocha, Sasha Pivovarova, and Viktoriya Sasonkina. It's shot in and around Manhattan's Essex House hotel and styled by Grace Coddington.


Something about the spread, though, suggests this was one of Meisel's autopilot days.


This shot, by Meisel for the February, 2009, issue of Vogue, has a different color palette than the "In The Mood" bicycle picture, but the quirky period styling, the models' poses, and the hats, all nonetheless echo it.


This shot, of Viktoriya Sasonkina, from September's Vogue is lovely.


Until you remember that Meisel shot Sasonkina for last September's Vogue Italia in virtually the same pose, and practically the same dress, in a nearly identically-themed 40s editorial.


Liya Kebede, in the September Vogue spread, looks divine.


And "In The Mood" really hits its stride when it starts playing with the murals in the background. Coco Rocha looks like she could be jumping out of that painting.


And I love those creepy hands.


But again, it's hard not to think of Meisel's old Vogue Italia story, with Sasonkina.


Probably the best editorial of the bunch in this year's slimmed-down September Vogue is Steven Klein's offering, "Take Cover."


Karlie Kloss and Caroline Trentini star as two futuristic gals about town.


They are armed and they are dangerous. And what's more, this editorial mercifully does not appear to be a direct re-shoot of anything else.

Fresh ideas: how novel.


Earlier:Harper's Bazaar: Talking About That "Recession" Thing Is Just "Really Annoying" Now
LOLVogue: I Purmd Mai Hare!

The September, 2007, Vogue, which sold 13 million copies, weighed nearly five pounds, and its 840 pages made it the single largest magazine ever published. Seven-hundred and twenty-seven of those pages were ads. When publisher Tom Florio exhorts the magazine's advertising sales team to "sell Vogue the brand like it's never been sold before," you feel it: this is what things were like when economic growth and consumer spending were lockstep in one upward trend, and magazines like Vogue could reliably put out Our Biggest Issue Ever, every year.

You feel it when Grace Coddington reports that Wintour, in killing shots from a lavish 1920s-themed spread, has "just thrown out probably $50,000 worth of work." You feel it when Wintour, having seen stills from an editorial with a color-blocking theme, orders a re-shoot, with different models, different clothes, and a different photographer. (No sum is supplied for the cost of that waste of daily rates, studio rental, and catering.)

You also feel it when Wintour is filmed with her deputy, Sally Singer, at a retailer luncheon the magazine has convened. Retailers are nervous about certain of the things they've seen on the fall runways, and they rely on Wintour as a kind of emissary to the design world; when Singer prompts her boss to share their "good news," Wintour tilts her head and reports that she has spoken to "Mrs. Prada" several times, and that she has agreed to "reinterpret" certain of her runway looks in a more wearable silk-mohair blend, instead of the wool-mohair she had shown on the catwalk. The assembled tableful of executives from Saks and Bergdorf's practically coo with appreciation.

After that decree is handed down to such a happy reception, Burt Tansky, the president and C.E.O. of Neiman Marcus, starts to ask Wintour a long question about delivery schedules. Designers, it seems, are making late and infrequent deliveries, which retailers feel cost them sales; customers want what's new right now. Tansky uses the phrase "demand outstripping supply" several times. It is a shocking moment: it's as if the incredible glut of oversupply, the $3,000 handbag bubble that rose through the market during the years of easy credit and burst last fall in a mess of steep discounting and steeper layoffs, had risen up, taken over Tansky's body, and thunderously demanded to be fed.

Wintour's response is equally shocking: given her magazine's role in pushing the culture of consumption, the culture of "aspirational" consumerism and "It" bags, one might expect Wintour to tell the titans of retail that she will speak to these tardy designers and tell them what's what. But instead she dresses down Tansky, giving him a politician's non-response about how she "hears what he is saying" and that it boils down to a problem of "editing." She says some of the younger designers have trouble editing their collections down, and she will see what she can do. Never mind that "editing" is almost the exact opposite of Tansky's concern; Wintour gets up from the table and leaves. And one is confronted with the surprising sense that, whether or not she knew it at the time, Wintour was on the right side of that issue.

There are a number of surprising things about The September Issue, which I finally saw last night. Although Wintour comes across as fairly warm and forthcoming, the camera cannot hide her staff's authentically fearful reactions to her presence; when Wintour is perusing photo spreads with her art director, she moves slowly and deliberately down a long bench, looking at photos one by one. When she approaches a young assistant who is lingering over, or perhaps just straightening, one of the shots, Wintour, without moving a muscle, says quietly, "Excuse me." The girl jumps out of Wintour's way like she's been bitten, and Wintour continues down the line of pictures without breaking stride.

Apparently, there also must be a rider in Patrick Demarchelier's contract about being able to shoot in beautiful locations, because we witness the production of one of those terrible, jumping, grey-background editorials of which Vogue is so very fond, and it doesn't take place at Milk Studios. Demarchelier, Caroline Trentini, Coddington, and the rest of the team are whisked away to a beautiful modernist house on a wide-open expanse of land; in the living room, a grey backdrop has been hung, and what emerges is a shoot which gives no inkling of its geographical origin. The location fees alone for that shoot boggle the mind.

The adversarial but respectful relationship between Grace Coddington, Vogue's top stylist, and Wintour is also explored. While other fashion editors crumble under Wintour's reproach — Edward Enninful says after a styling critique where Wintour rejects nearly every look he has put together that he wants to kill himself — Coddington fights, both in her editor's office and via backchannels. (She's always using the documentarians to try and find out how her spreads are faring — gaining pages, losing pages, or holding steady — in the layout room.) Wintour seems to respect Coddington all the more for her willingness to scrap; it's as though, like a good boss, she wants to be challenged.

When cover subject Sienna Miller steps into the scene, an instructive juxtaposition between celebrities and models is created. (We also see Raquel Zimmerman, Caroline Trentini, Coco Rocha, and numerous other no-name girls, do their thing; during a couture shoot in Paris, Zimmerman carefully eats a fruit tart the size of a saucer, while a distressed makeup artist looks on in preparation to re-perform her handiwork.) Sienna is full of life, giddy and excited and seemingly fun — also a canny business woman: she makes sure to introduce her designer sister, Savannah, to Wintour and the Vogue team — and the models are more subdued; there's a care taken in their movements. When a source makes the argument that women like Sienna got the idea to be models because they saw the supermodels of the late 80s and early 90s take over the fashion world, and grew to covet Linda Evangelista and Christy Turlington's beautiful ubiquity, it's hard not to agree. Sienna poses and jumps and mugs for the camera like an actress trying to look like a bombastic 80s model, as if by sheer enthusiasm she could will a beautiful picture into existence, and consequently her shots take all manner of Photoshop trickery — fake backgrounds, a head from one shot Frankensteined onto the neck and shoulders from another — to finesse. Raquel and Coco know just how to move a hand or a shoulder to set off the lines of the garment, and they work at it until the shot is just right. Coddington says at one point that she wouldn't care if she never saw another celebrity again in her life; and after seeing the focus that Raquel brings to that couture shoot — which ended up in the October, 2007, issue — you can't help but kind of agree.

The film is a well-studied evocation of all the hard work that goes into producing a magazine; unfortunately, the beauty and editorial sides are a little under-represented (we briefly see a spread featuring the makeup artist Pat McGrath in the layout room, and Wintour spends one scene looking bored while a junior editor goes over story ideas for the issue. "We're focusing on the eye, because I think eyes are a real concern for all women, they're the first thing that starts to really show age, even girls in their 20s worry about their eyes," says the editor. It's like watching a need being manufactured.) Wintour emerges as a surprisingly insecure. "Just because you like to put on a beautiful Carolina Herrera dress or a pair of J Brand blue jeans instead of something basic from Kmart doesn't mean you're a dumb person" is the kind of pre-emptive defense that says more about the defender's perceptions of the attack than anything else. "People are scared of fashion — because they're frightened or insecure, so they put it down...There is something about fashion that can make people very nervous." The idea that people only hate what they do not understand — implicit in which is the idea that there are no valid grounds on which to criticize Wintour, her magazine, or the fashion industry, just hurt feelings — is about the oldest trick in the book. And it comes off like Wintour, with her intellectual heavyweight family, is shadow-boxing. Who seriously pretends these days that appreciating good design and being smart are incompatible? Wintour's eagerness to defend herself on the issue is telling.

Vogue editorial image via Luxx at The Fashion Spot

Yesterday morning, the Council of Fashion Designers of America held a private town hall style meeting to discuss the future of fashion week — but the meeting soon mushroomed into a general debate on the serious issues the industry is facing. And nothing is off the table. The entire industry superstructure — how fashion is produced, shown, and sold to the consumer — was hotly debated by everyone from Anna Wintour, to Francisco Costa, to Diane von Furstenberg.

CFDA president von Furstenberg made the case for change by drawing attention to the disconnect between the shows — which receive so much press that customers would probably buy items from the collection then and there — and the actual produced goods, which don't reach stores for another six months. By then, the hype may have gone flat — or as Jack McCollough of Proenza Schouler put it, "It's on blogs; magazines pull straight from the runways; and by the time it's in stores, it feels sort of old." Von Furstenberg ventured a solution in a split fashion week: "Maybe there can be a Fashion Week that says trade and another one that says shop?"

Other designers have decided that sales are the enemy. Donna Karan fingered early delivery dates — the well-known problem of winter coats arriving in stores in July, which is, if we're talking this so-far dreary summer, about the time you might start thinking about buying a new swimsuit — as a motivator for stores to mark down in-season clothing, hurting margins on the items most likely to actually sell. "The consumer has been trained to buy on sale," said Karan.

"Everyone had been too greedy, and everyone thought the party was forever," said von Furstenberg. "We wanted more merchandise, and more of this and more of that, and expect 20 percent increases every month, and at some point it just became too much of everything. I realized that what we all have to do is reduce the offerings and create the demand."

Elie Tahari said his company has seen success since it started making smaller, but more numerous, shipments of in-season goods to retailers. "It's about shipping clothes that you can buy and wear right away," said the designer, who compared discounting to "a virus."

American Vogue's fashion news and features editor, Sally Singer, laid blame at the inelastic production structure. "There's been an overproduction which has led to the 40 and 60 and 80 percent off. If we produce less, the consumer will have more confidence in the product."

But Anna Wintour's proposed solution really takes the cake. The Vogue editor stood up to offer, "Could someone lead a committee that would make ground rules for retailers of when the discounting starts, and then all the retailers can agree to it?" Von Furstenberg interjected that that was illegal — in fact, if the big department stores had any such agreement, it would amount to price-fixing and collusion, an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. "Is that something we can change?" asked Wintour. "We have friends in the White House now!"

Von Furstenberg stressed that none of the proposed ideas will be in effect for the shows this September — she is looking for solutions that can be put in place by September 2010. So which will it be? More frequent deliveries sounds dangerously close to the kind of permanent-new-collection madness that swept us into this mess; some of the big houses already do 12 collections a year. Restricting the volume of clothing produced is a sure-fire way to artificially inflate sell-through rates, but to what end would a successful business actively seek fewer customers when it has enjoyed more in the past? What nobody was apparently willing to address was that fashion became, during the long recent boom, simply too expensive: there are not enough good designers willing to make a beautiful dress that costs not a few thousand dollars but a few hundred dollars. True designer fashion will never be available at Wal-Mart or H&M prices, but why can so few people manage to make a dress that a member of this country's middle-class could actually, in a good month, splurge on and wear with enjoyment? Sales are not the enemy: sales are the message that what designers are doing is not working. And idle talk about lobbying the Obama administration to create loopholes in the nation's competition laws doesn't further anyone's business interests.

Betsey Johnson, for her part, supports von Furstenberg's idea of a more consumer-driven fashion week to vacuum up some of the hype away from the trade shows. "I would love to show at Madison Square Garden!" she said. "I wish Fashion Week for the public can be like Christmas, and maybe we'll put up green and pink lights everywhere. I could completely have my showroom open to the public. I could run around that week. I could celebrate in the stores."

As the New York Observer notes, her statement was met with silence from the room. A pity — I'd go to Johnson's public show in a heartbeat.

CFDA's Forum Debates The Fashion System [WWD]
At CFDA Town Committee, Wintour Proposes Discount By Committee; DVF: "That's Illegal!" [NYObs]

"We tend to, when we pull something in to photograph it, have an exclusive," Sally Singer, fashion news and features director for the magazine, tells The New York Times. Because even though the country is in a recession, it's important for Vogue to show readers stuff they can't actually have. It's aspirational! And Singer claims that Vogue has consistently offered a mix: "We've always shown a wide range of price points and lower-priced items," she said. "As long as Anna Wintour's been at Vogue, from her first issue, she had jeans on her cover with a Christian Lacroix top. She's always had a high-low sensibility."

But while there may have been some steals, we all know the magazine ultimately focuses on the pricey items — remember the $64,300 24K-gold mink coat?

While including more affordable items makes Vogue seem less tone-deaf, no one buys the publication to see a hat from the Gap. (Or to read stories about rich women forced to live frugally). Their strength lies in showcasing high fashion, and high fashion is pricey. But don't worry. Vogue still does what Vogue does best — reserve its pages for expensive shit. Stephanie Clifford of the Times writes:

Rest assured, the index section for July includes a $145 folding beach chair and a $449 croquet set. Though the section itself may say recession, the sensibility does not.

We're left wondering which is more more insulting: For Vogue to pretend to care about our wallets? Or to ignore budget all together?

Vogue, High Fashion's Bible, Dips Into the Discount Realm [NY Times]

Earlier: Very Vogue Recession: AKA, The Terrible War Against Rich White Women

• Funny, this picture of Amy Winehouse looking "healthy and stylish" still looks off. British label PPQ is bringing the troubled singer's long-rumored fashion line to fruition — if you count PPQ "providing all materials and doing the design," as anything like having your own collection. [This is London]

• Here are about 500 words on how Michelle Obama sometimes lets the press know what she is wearing, and sometimes doesn't. [WWD]
• Designers at Sao Paulo Fashion Week have agreed to cast a minimum 10% quota of models of African or indigenous South American descent. Last year, only 2.3% of the models — 8 girls out of 344 — were non-white. The quota will be enforced by a hefty $120,000 fine. [BBC]
• In more news from the annals of New York real estate envy, Sally Singer, fashion news and features editor of American Vogue, lives in an eclectic apartment in the Chelsea Hotel. [The Selby]
• Pat McGrath, one of the sweetest and most talented makeup artists around, was in New York to publicize Dolce & Gabbana's new makeup line, which she helped develop. What McGrath would like most, however, would be the fountain of youth in a pill, or her own, namesake line, like François Nars, Laura Mercier, and Bobbi Brown. One of those things just might come true, in a just world. [NY Times]
• Since Gisele and Tom got married and became 78% more boring, voilà: your new model/quarterback couple is Hilary Rhoda and Mark Sanchez of the Jets. [P6]
• Complicated modern woman Miuccia Prada: "If you compare with philosophy, [fashion] is frivolous, but frivolity may be something good, something that is part of our lives, so I don't dislike it and what I like is the mix, that in your life you can have serious things, [and] more frivolous ones...Beauty is not something that is contrary; it is the right of everybody." [CNN]
• Thierry Mugler earned a kind of fashion comeback when Beyoncé chose him to design the costumes for her current world tour. And why not? Cinched waists, severely cut skirts, and padded shoulders are everywhere now. While Mugler has no plans to re-start his label, which he had already sold to Clarins long before he quit designing in 2000, this profile explains just how a ballet dancer from Strasbourg came to fashion prominence, via driving a van around Afghanistan and living in the Haight-Ashbury in the late 60s. Interesting start for a man who's made all his money from perfume since 1992. [Telegraph]
• "I don't like most perfumes," says Nicole Miller. Which is why she had to make another one of her own! Perfectly logical really. [WWD]
• And Armani, too, has a new perfume. His scent pays tribute to his muses. [WWD]
• How does El Museo Del Barrio in New York raise funds? Why, by getting Isabel and Ruben Toledo to tutor students from Spanish Harlem in art, and then auctioning their work — "portraits of Latin icons like Salvador Dalí and Christina Aguilera," reports Style.com. Also, by throwing a kick-ass party where Gloria Estefan took the stage. [Style.com]
• Burberry, which moved into the space vacated by New York magazine on Madison Avenue, will turn on its big neon sign next Thursday. Designer Christopher Bailey and CEO Angela Ahrendts will fly in from London for the vernissage. Neon signs of this type aren't normally permitted in that part of Midtown, but because of New York's iconic sign, now dismantled, Burberry has a rare opportunity to grandfather its own in. [HintMag]
• Oh, how cute. The Daily Mail have an anonymous fashion mole. Today, s/he reveals that — gasp — models aren't paid very much (but do get to meet a lot of the rich menz, which we of course totally love, since we're all privileged alphas doing this to snag hubbies anyway) and are often required to change their names. For practical reasons, such as our agencies not wanting four "Jennifers" on their books. Shocking. [Daily Mail]
• Aeropostale's profit for the first quarter grew a whopping 81% on last year. Sales were up 21%, and same-store sales jumped by 11%. [The Street]
• First quarterly profits at Gap Inc. dropped by 14%. [WSJ]
• Aquascutum's chief executive Kim Winser has resigned after the rejection of her bid to buy out the company. [WWD]
• Designer denim sales are one thing that is not going soft in the current economic climate — high-end jeans sales grew by 2.3% in the quarter just ended. [LA Times]
• Brooks Brothers luggage: launching just in time to take to Southampton for the opening of the summer place. What a relief! [WWD]
• Linda Morand, who runs this website — probably the best compendium of 60s fashion magazines out there, and the members who scan and post to it care about identifying models to boot — is to be one of the producers of a two-hour television tribute to the supermodels of the last six decades. The idea is to make it an annual event, and impanel judges of industry prominence to induct models into it. I can't lie; I would probably watch this. Especially if it turns out better than the Vogue/VH1 Fashion Awards. God knows I've happily killed far more than two hours on MiniMadMod60s. [PR Newswire]

It's not in dispute that the fashion industry is in some dark times right now; what are as-yet unanswered questions is just how bad things are, and what that will mean for future patterns of consumer spending.

On the former point, The Atlantic's Benjamin Schwartz takes a dire view indeed, calling the most recent New York fashion week "a splendid relic" and quoting liberally from F. Scott Fitzgerald's Depression-era essays on the free-spending, free-spirited, bull-market 1920s, and what the period meant. (Whether Schwartz's blithely generic line, "The current collapse, universally labeled within the fashion world a depression," and inclusion of data about the layoffs of just under 2,000 people at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus are strong enough factual support to bear the weigh of Fitzgerald and his Jazz Age elegies is questionable; if and when we see California close its borders and tens of thousands of hoboes camp out on the Washington Mall, then we'll know for sure if this downturn merits a comparison in absolute terms with the Great D.)

But Schwartz's article gets a lot of things right, too. He's mostly on point with the queasy timeloop of fashion, wherein collections are presented six months ahead of the season for which they are designed, made of fabrics ordered six months earlier, and financed with the proceeds of the collection which had, all the way back then, just left stores. If anyone wondered why last September's collections seemed so deaf to the sudden financial crisis ringing through the land, that was why. Similarly, the glut of unsold product that clogged the department stores last fall — and which caused Saks and others to break the rule about not discounting new stock before it had been in store two months — was all there because buyers had ordered it the previous February, when no-one foresaw the crisis, the ensuing recession, or the cataclysmic correction in consumer spending they would bring. (I don't think that, as a result, this February runway models "halved their catwalk fees" out of the goodness of our hearts, as Schwartz's odd locution implies — and the per-show rate he quotes, $20,000, is typical only of models named Naomi Campbell, anyway — it was more like designers cut rates on the girls they were paying at all, cut payment-in-trade on the girls they never were paying to begin with, and we all ate it. But that's a small misunderstanding of an industry subsection that is itself willfully obscurantist.)

Exactly how bad things are — F. Scott Fitzgerald bad, or survive-and-reorganize bad — aside, what to do about the fall in consumer spending has advertisers and magazines thinking furiously. As W magazine reported, the luxury market reached its peak in 2007; unusually, the luxury-goods sector has been hit harder than retail generally, and was down 23% last month. Counter-intuitively, publisher Nina Lawrence sees this as evidence of a "luxury renaissance." In this view, aspirational consumers are down for the count, leaving the very wealthy to enjoy the perks of membership in what is once more a very exclusive club.

Others, and Schwartz is among them, see a place for the aspirational consumer still — but that new ways of reaching her are being found. Sally Singer, Vogue's fashion news and features director, wore a year-old doubleknit cashmere Halston blazer, a J. Crew sweater, and "very old" Devi Kroell ballet flats to the first day of fashion week, and speaks of "conscientious consumption"; ergo, says Schwartz, "this idea of buying so-called investment pieces resonates more deeply today than it did even six months ago." Julie Gilhart, Barneys' senior vice president and fashion director, says, "If I were a consumer now, I'd really want to buy pieces that count, that last; the customer is in no hurry. She should be choosing these things with great care." Singer reminds us that "things that are very expensive can be very expensive for just the right reasons — because they were made beautifully by someone who really gave a lot of care to the design and by people who were fairly paid along the way to execute something that was rather difficult. Those prices that often seem high are fair prices."

Singer edits the Vogue "Views" section, which this month leads off with an exclusive story about Christopher Kane's new position as creative director of Versus, Versace's relaunched, lower-priced line. The Kane-designed "gladiator heels" in the accompanying photograph cost $3,400.

Karl Lagerfeld would support Singer's view. As he tweeted yesterday: "Guilty feelings about clothes are totally unnecessary. A lot of people earn their living by making clothes, so you should never feel bad."

Chanel is a privately held company, so of course it's impossible for any of us to actually know what else besides honest middle-class livings for garment workers is financed by the cost of a $2,000 purse or a $4,000 dress.

The entire idea of "investment" dressing is actually pretty dubious, writes Lesley M. M. Blume, at The Big Money. It's nothing more than a marketing term designed to separate us from our hard-earned cash, says Dana Thomas, the author of last year's De-Luxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster. "They're just changing the slogans. It used to be, everyone deserves a little luxury and a little splurge. Now that no one can afford the splurge, the business executives are all scratching their heads and saying, how can we repackage this again? So now you're buying 'quality things that last forever.' "

Investments are, after all, supposed to hold or rise in value — but this season's $1,600 purse depreciates as soon as it leaves Bergdorf's, like a new car burning off value as it leaves the lot. Only a few luxury items can actually fetch comparable prices when sold second-hand (as-new Birkin bags can actually rise slightly in resale value, since Hermès controls the $6,000-and-up retail market with extraordinary artificial scarcity, closed three-year waiting lists and all). But when the resale boutique commissions (or eBay and PayPal fees) are taken into account, the "value" of a Birkin — or any fashion item — depreciates, often precipitously. "Investment" is a weasel word in fashion, and it's a disappointment to see The Atlantic repeating an advertising term uncritically.

Whether Singer and Gilhart are sincere in their belief that, as Singer puts it, "the world does not need more things," it's true that both work for companies that make their living by stoking the fires of consumption. (Cathy Horyn nailed Vogue's particular blitheness when she wondered at its "peculiar fascination for the ‘villa in Tuscany' story" this January; you would also do well to remember last September's $64,000 gold-dipped fur coat by Fendi, which is of course designed by Karl Lagerfeld. "Value" indeed.) I'm not saying that these industry figures, and others who share their sympathies, can't and won't lead us into a new, more sustainable era of fashion; I'm just saying I'm wary of anything that, at least for now, still has the feel of a cannily adjusted marketing strategy.

Fashion in Dark Times [The Atlantic]
A Luxury Renaissance Is Upon Us [The Cut]
Luxury As An Investment? [The Big Money]
Karl Lagerfeld's Twitter [Twitter]

Earlier:
When A Fashionista Turns On Fashion
Fashion Week: The Party's Not Over Yet
New York Times Bets Against Anna Wintour, American Vogue

• Sienna Miller is going to be the face of a new Hugo Boss fragrance. When was the last time you remember Sienna Miller actually acting? [WWD]

• In further crossover tales, newly minted TV host Coco Rocha, who's jumping between walking in shows and filming them for an E! Canada documentary this week, says she's glad she doesn't have to talk to celebrities because, unlike industry people, they don't know who she is. Also, she thinks her red hair makes people treat her differently. "I think people are more scared of me. They think I'm evil." [The Cut]
• The Costume Institute's spring exhibit will be all about the model as a fashion muse and the evolution of beauty standards for women. [Guardian]
• Event co-host Kate Moss's muse status has already translated to the art world: a set of Banksy portraits of the model, done in the style of Andy Warhol's iconic Marilyn Monroe silkscreens, are going to be auctioned in London. [Telegraph]
• Speaking of model muses, Japanese model Tao Okamoto's haircut inspired Philip Lim's runway hairstyle. She shot his look book and he was taken with her. [Elle]
• Meanwhile, Michelle Obama inspired the hair and makeup look at Baby Phat. [WWD]
• If you're taking any New York taxis this week, the video screen of asinine weather and real estate information ("Buy A West Village Condo For Eleventy Million Dollars! Someone From Corcoran Explains Why!") you immediately poke at furiously to turn off may contain images of Cynthia Rowley's fall collection. [WWD]
• Male model Cole Mohr shot a fashion week video for New York. He goes backstage and tells fellow model Tyler Riggs, "Say something meaningful! We're on film!" Riggs pulls a face and replies, "It's better to destroy than create what is meaningless." Then he thinks a second, lights a match, and says, "I am why the ozone layer is fucked up." And this is why I cannot hang out with male models. [The Cut]
• The New York Times has been to the tents and sees only Doom and Gloom (with sides of Sturm and Drang). Representative line about a drag queen: "Having spent two decades capitalizing on the froth thrown off by both boom and bust economies, he was also well acquainted with the uses of sobriety." And Twitters about Marc Jacobs' hair get at something existential. [NY Times]
• PPR, the megaconglomerate whose luxury holdings include Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci, and Bottega Veneta, saw flat revenue in the fourth quarter of 2008. But luxury sales for this year have grown by 8.1% on last January. Emerging markets like China saw Gucci sales increase 42% in 2008. [Financial Times]
• Also weathering the downturn passably is Uniqlo chairman and CEO Tadashi Yanai, whom Forbes just named Japan's richest man. $6.1 billion is a lot of $30 cashmere sweaters. [WWD]
• The Italian apparel sector has formally requested aid from the government. Auto makers and homewares manufacturers were included in a stimulus package approved last month, but not fashion or textile companies. One large company, IT Holdings SpA, has already seen its luxury division (owner of the brands Gianfranco Ferre and Malo, as well as licenses for Cavalli Sport) teeter into bankruptcy. [Reuters]
• Dress Barn projects a second quarter loss. [WWD]
• PETA supporter Tim Gunn says designers "Hhve a responsibility to know about [ethical issues surrounding fur]. If you're going to use fur, you at least need to know which sources are less abusive than others...I would never use anything from China. What people don't tell you is that it's most likely dog. And they call it something else and they make it look like something else." Fur cannot be used in the Project Runway final collections, interestingly. [Reuters]
• Even Anne Slowey's dog is fasting this fashion week. [Elle]
• However, this story about how Slowey missed the first few days of shows because her 85-year-old mother in Indiana needed help converting her analog TV for digital signal is very sweet. [Observer]
• UK Vogue features editor Harriet Quick says Posh's new dress collection is good. (It's hard to imagine how a set of Roland Mouret rip-offs could be bad, exactly...) As if to highlight her unoriginality, the story is illustrated with pictures of Posh's dress presentation side-by-side with pictures of Posh wearing similar outfits in years past. [Daily Mail]
• Luckily, she wasn't taking inspiration from Cartier: the French jeweler is suing QVC over the similarity of several watch designs in their Joan Rivers collection. [WWD]
• American Vogue's fashion news and features editor, Sally Singer, is a Berkeley- and Yale-educated former book editor who certainly reads more contemporary fiction than you do. She also skipped several grades, wrote a letter to Andy Warhol when she was 12 asking for a job at Interview, and has sewn her own clothes since she was in middle school, because her family's budget didn't stretch to the kinds of garments she saw in the fashion magazines she scoured growing up. She seems friendly, well-adjusted, and entirely non-sociopathic. It is a heartbreaking paradox of this industry that some of the smartest, funniest, and most culturally engaged women you could ever meet, somehow, once they get together, are responsible for creating the lobotomized morass that is the women's media. [Mediabistro]