Isn't Fashion Supposed to be Out of Touch?

People were understandably upset when Vogue India, in one of its first issues, did a multi-page fashion spread which featured ordinary Indians - people who earn about $1.25/day - sporting $10,000 handbags and $200 bibs.

The editor-in-chief breezed past objections to the tasteless display, saying "We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world." (which begs the question of what exactly they were doing, eh?) She also seems deliberately obtuse - or just idiotic - when she says the pictures were supposed to prove that "fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful." I mean, these people won't earn the cost of a Birkin bag in their lifetimes, so how exactly is fashion not a rich man's privilege?

But my question is: why is it any crueler to put a ridiculously expensive piece of leather on a starving Indian farmer than a starving 12-year-old American girl who dreads hitting puberty, or a 15-year-old who hasn't had her period in over a year?

Bono can do a line for GAP, sure, but that doesn't mean that high fashion is any less superficial or out of touch.

The Blair Witch Project: Model Edition

I don't watch America's Next Top Model, largely because a) I don't want to but more because b) I really, really don't care for Tyra Banks' semi-coherent histrionics.

America can't get enough of aspiring model documentaries these days (I wonder if they're just an excuse to look at pretty girls) and in that vein is Vogue.tv's new ModelLive, which at least openly admits to being an advertisement in webisode form.

It doesn't remind me of Banks' sobfest, but rather of LonelyGirl15 (Remember that online sensation?). Any moment now I expect an expose on how those girls are all paid actresses and the entire world of high fashion is just a cult invented for the purpose of...oh yes...making money...

Watch Episode 1 (of 577) of LonelyGirl15. Then click over to Vogue.tv and you'll see what I mean.