If Vogue Readers Stop Shopping, How Will We Ever Cure AIDS?

Illustration for article titled If Vogue Readers Stop Shopping, How Will We Ever Cure AIDS?

Vogue, in case you didn't catch this, doesn't really spend much time trying to distance itself from the whole consumerism ponzi scheme. Like for instance, November's issue, aside from featuring a $4200 wood bangle bracelet and a story about this Vogue-sponsored AIDS benefit thing called, awesomely, "Shop Till AIDS Drops," contains a huge gazillion-page spread on the finalists for the Vogue/CDFA Fashion Fund awards, a competition I know about because seems to be covered relentlessly in Woman's Wear Daily, which is owned by Conde Nast, the parent company of Vogue, in which Vogue and this industry organization that is probably also owned by Conde Nast, give away $200,000 to one of ten up-and-coming fashion designers that Vogue has spent the past twelve months promoting so mercilessly that they already have their own Target collections, and therefore don't really need $200,000, but you know, it's all about generating more coverage by holding a fancy party to give fashionistas an excuse to wear the designers' clothes and, one imagines, get photographed wearing them in an upcoming issue of Vogue. So imagine my confusion when!


Right there on page 198, a story called "Why Less Is More." Less is more what? You'll wonder. Less is more AIDS? Turns out, less stuff can be more, well, less annoying?

Her, briefly, is what she has been getting by on, give or take the Courreges shift circa 1968 and a stack or two of striped matelot sweaters and tees: 1. Six navy jackets, including Balenciaga and Charles Anastase and a couple of boyish vintage blazers. 2. Ten pairs of lean jeans, dark and plain, that can pass for pants when required. 3. Four bags, with not a hint of It: black Hermes Birkin, Balenciaga brown leather saddle bag, and two Chanel gilt-chain strap classics. 4. A pile of ballet flats of varying stripe and persuasian 5. Two pendants, and a ring that belonged to her mother.

Um. Okay, to be sure, I know it is boring the way I always, like, pretend like this magazine is for serious when no one reads it or something, but this story seemed like a huge headfuck. Because if this lady's closet is minimalism, I know a few people who have a lot more acquiring to do. Like: JENNIE!



It was disgusting when celebrities and rich people just went to fancy black tie balls and hobnobbed with their own kind while pretending to solve the world's problems. Then advertisers decided to suck normal people into their twisted world of vapid consumerism under the guise of good works with Gap's Product(Red) and Baby Phat's ugly bracelets, etc., etc., etc. Vogue's 'Shop Till AIDS Drops' is the next logical step in this dysfunctional progression. Now we're being told that it's not enough to just consume— we have to consume in mass quantities. That's why I wear this snarky t-shirt with pride:


Of course, I still need to work out in my own mind whether making a purchase to protest gratuitous purchases was hypocritical.