Comments

The language you speak in this post is the language of daylight, the language of logic.

Fashion photography appeals to the language of night, the language of dreams.

Unfortunately for the fashion industry, most women do not purchase apparel in their sleep!

Posted by Tom Guarriello at February 21, 2005 12:42 PM

I have always found those style magazines offensive... and it's not just the size issue. The cost of those clothes is obscene. I go shopping at boutiques and am continuously amazed at how much money they want for trendy clothes that aren't even made that well. I believe there is a huge market for woman like me in their 40's who want to wear the latest styles but don't want to pay a fortune for them or don't want to feel unattractive because we're not a gaunt size 2.

Posted by Carrie at February 21, 2005 2:13 PM

Fashion houses, public relations departments and brands all think they have to pander to make a woman love them, they all think that if they look a certain way, say a certain lovey-dovey comments or give a woman a "price off" whe will love them the most. Fashion houses, public relations departments and brands all think that if they make a woman look a certain way, tell them "just wear this, drink me, or put this lipstick on" you will get the life you've always wanted. Fashion houses, public relations departments and brands all feed off of women's desires to get more out of life, feel like they belong, are enough and that their ideas, body and feelings are validated. Fashion houses, public relations departments and brands treat women like girls, because most women haven't figured out who they are yet and are willing to let external things define them. It takes two and I'd like to help marketers and women take responsibility for themselves. It takes two. Both need an identity and neither should pander. Both should add to each others life, not emotional slash the other's. It takes two, it takes work and it takes knowledge. It takes two.

Posted by Wendy at February 21, 2005 3:41 PM

People apparently buy the size 2 look or the fashion free enterprise system would change radically. There are some "full size" women's images, magazines, et. al out there too.

Most of my family is lean and lanky so the look is normal. The fashion game seems to be a fantasy endeavor - so beautiful, tall, easy to drape fabulous clothes on - may always win out.

Posted by John at February 21, 2005 7:22 PM

Tom, we are not obsessed with size 2s. This is about the designer placing their work in the best possible context on camera. Your complaint is like getting upset about the iPod commercials on TV because everyone there can dance. I cannot explain women's (and men's supportive) anger about the fashion industry. But you do have to decide to wear something. Even if I only fold over three corners per 400 pg magazine, I have a better idea of what to shop for. And I'm only a 14 after the stomach flu.

Posted by Elizabeth Grigg at February 21, 2005 9:00 PM

Tom, I haven't seen the issue, but I can picture it vividly. I absolutely agree with you. There are a select few in the fashion industry trying to create the next hip trend (which I will never understand). The other thing that blows my mind is a recent article in a magazine(??) about people wearing designer jeans. We're talking about jeans that cost well over $100 a pair. Now I consider myself a jeans person, but I would never shell out that kind of money for denim. What's wrong with Levi's?

Posted by Tim at February 22, 2005 12:13 AM

I agree, utterly ridiculous. Fortunately/unfortunately, this is a trend that is extending to men. Look at the average men's magazine these days-- they sport guys with 2% body fat, super-cut abs, giant muscles. The fashion industry has done a good job of making women feel insecure (and thus want their products to compensate)... now its our (men's) turn.

Posted by AJ Hoge at February 22, 2005 2:30 AM

Hey John, lean & lanky is terrific, M or F. Emaciated with hollow-eyed stares is another kettle of fish. (In male terms, I'd not have, in my exuberant youth, been caught dead dating any of these young women. And if that brings me agro, at least it's the truth.)

Posted by tom peters at February 22, 2005 6:50 AM

Tom, this is yet another example of women's penchant for SAYING they want one thing (independence, validation of their true selves) and actually RESPONDING to another. I think at a certain level women have a great sense of comfort and security in feeling that they aren't thin enough or pretty enough (and at nine months pregnant, you can imagine how far across the living room I flung that magazine on Sunday morning). Because I will bet you that, like me, women will do their best to work even a small element of what they saw into their wardrobes, even though it has no direct relation to their actual lives. Because size 2 = haute, hip, sexy; size 10 = frumpy.

Funny how men are embarrassed by the half-naked pictures of buff men on the covers of magazines like Men's Health, yet women almost demand skinny-yet-voluptuous women on the covers of theirs.

Posted by Marita Connor at February 22, 2005 10:41 AM

I guess they're appealing to female vanity. But although I've met some awfully vain females (is every unmarried-and-available woman in San Francisco full of herself????), I've also met many who are down to earth, comfortable with herself, and NOT a Size 2 (for one: my wife).

Not being a woman, I can only imagine two responses to this NYT fashion mag: 1) jealousy - "ooooh, that top is so cuuute, I only wish I had HER body." 2) infuriation - "you can imagine how far across the living room I flung that magazine on Sunday morning".

Let's talk Wal-Mart. You've seen their ads, right? Their models are their associates. Real people. The women are usually not bulimic skeletons with skin on them, and the men are usually not 2% body fat. It's not the secret of their success, but it sure appeals to their customers in a way that NYT fashion mag doesn't. (Madison Avenue people, take the hint, please. Or at least travel across the Hudson River to see how the rest of America lives.)

Posted by Ron at February 22, 2005 11:45 AM

At the end of the day it is designers putting their clothes on the "best" possible hangers (that's all that those models really are). Sure it's alienating to the everyday woman but the everyday woman can't afford those clothes anyway! Those that can can also afford personal trainers, personal chefs, stomach-stapling etc etc etc…

The problem arises when the every day woman views these portrayals as reality. But if you regard that fashion world as the pretentious drama that it is, you can be grounded in the fact that those are by no means standards to be upheld on the every day plane.

Posted by Kishawi at February 22, 2005 11:59 AM

Ok I could write for days on this!!!!! I am certainly not a size 2-more like a size 16-18, and I spend a fortune on cloths each year. I used to shop at Saks Fifth Avenue they had a very nice department for bigger women called salon Z in Boston. In fact anyone I have ever met that is larger than a 14-16 and needed good business suits shopped at Salon Z in Boston. Last summer Saks decided that women with large waistlines that spend fortunes on cloths did not count!!! They got rid of Salon Z in Boston- and I believe the NY store may be the only store that has one. Women over 45 do buy everything and I know few women that have gone through menopause that haven't increased their waistline and for the most part they certainly do not buy size 2's. I, along with hundreds of other women sent emails and letters to the CEO of saks to let him know about his foolish move to substitute Salon Z departments with trendy size 2 departments. I go no response (GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE)??? There is now only two stores that a larger women can go to for good business suits in Boston-Marina Rinaldi and ST. John. Otherwise you gotta go to NY!!!! I do not get it either!!!

Posted by Ilene Fischer at February 22, 2005 2:05 PM

The thoughts of such designers (and photographers) are less deep than you all think (and I know what I´m speakin about): first of all it´s a question of money and....TIME! If designers have no passion to their job (and believe me, working as a designer in a big company can kill your passion throughout the years) they are deeply dependent on reaching the tough time-goals. If you are producing such a magazine, you got your sales people selling adverts, and you build your magazine around these adverts. All in all it´s bullshit, cause the quality and credibility of the magazine is very very low. Tell them, hey: make the best women-magazine in the world; crawl into womens head, and find out what they are thinking (and how) and designers (with passion) might be able to. But this is not the way magazines are made today. Sadly...

Posted by Ingmar at February 22, 2005 2:20 PM

Ingmar: How many of these womens fashion magazines are designed by women? And how many of those women designers live outside Manhattan? Hmmmmmmmm?

Posted by Ron at February 22, 2005 2:28 PM

RON: Don´t you think it´s a women or location problem - it´s not. Men can make the best women-focused magazine, and women can make the "playboy". Designers (women and men) are usually trained to do and think things they perosnally have anything to do with. It´s all about PASSION (and enough room for your FREE thoughts). Don´t you think so?

Posted by Ingmar at February 23, 2005 6:08 AM

I'm a guy. Guys usually don't know what women want. Some guy even made a movie about that.

I was thinking that guys might be the ones designing a magazine full of living skeletons, because that kind of woman turns them on. Of course, different things attract different people; one person sees a hot babe, another sees an insecure anorexic. Who knows . . .

If a fashion magazine causes women to turn red, throw things, and angrily finish that bag of chocolate, then I really don't think that magazine is serving their interests. And it doesn't matter if it's designed by men or women.

You wanna know what will be most useful for her to use, and love using it? Either ask her, or better yet, have her as one of the designers. Even better, have a whole lotta "hers" as designers. Somehow, people (men and women) with passion will find a way to make a "WOW!" fashion magazine, instead of a "%&$*" fashion magazine. Now whether the publisher will put out that mag, or insist on the human stick figures, is another thing . . .

Posted by Ron at February 23, 2005 2:27 PM

Americans (men and women) are smart, sophisticated, determined, resourcefull, creative, innovative but sometimes oh so gullible.

Posted by Michael White at March 4, 2005 3:39 PM