Monday, 22 September 2008
Giving into our narrow minded Judeo-christian codes I went to buy some clothes as going "sky clad" is apparently wrong. Buying clothes always gets me in a bad mood, everything about seems designed to wind you up. Here's why it's rubbish:
Men's clothes are boring: I had in mind a look in the way off Regency Dandy meets member of the Memphis Horns going to a wedding. What do I get loads of rather dull casual t-shirt and jeans.
Size matters: I know I should do something about my waste size but yesterday I could get things to fit that way but the legs were too short. Why can't they stock clothes that fit.
Grovelling on the floor: why are the socks for tall people on the bottom shelf and yet stuff for short arses are at the top.
15 minute Classic: Why do so called "classic"chinos (for instance)change style every season?
Oxymoron: I saw a pair of trews refereed to as "luxury" yesterday they cost £9.98!
No Logo: I don't want a t-shirt with "Kansas state athletics union 1973" on it , honestly I saw one pre-distressed retro hoody thing which said "back street rodeo" on it which is just filth.
Anyway after an hour I came away with one pair of trousers and a death wish for the whole rag trade. Luckily a chat to the guy in Gosh and browse round the new Oxfam book shop near the British museum improved my mood that and some falafel.
My restored good mood was almost wrecked by opening
"Observer fashion Supplement by Tank"
now none of what follows is new but this magazine was the most crass worthless piece of tat I've read in a long while.
After a brief introduction that paid lip service to the downturn in the economy the glib self obsessed vacuous fashion world got back to encouraging an orgy of spending.
First up a Chanel watch for "£12,625" or as the last census would put it half a years wages for the average Briton. This sort of stuff goes past obscene into new levels of depravity. Most people would have to work 910 hours to earn enough to buy this watch.
But of course the rest of the mag is full of 1,000 pound hand bags, dresses that also cost a grand , motorcycle jackets that don't keep your kidneys warm (or safe!) that cost more than a motorcycle.
This in a magazine produced by a newspaper that had a comment piece slagging of plutocrats for having 150 million pounds yachts!
Plus all the models look ill they have that bruised eye make up druggy look that's been popular for a while. I can never see how this sells clothes; I know the look of these mags is aimed at women and isn't about sexual attractiveness to men but how is looking sickly anything to aspire to?
Do women look at these pictures and think that could be me I could look great if only I had my face done up to look like I'm victim of domestic abuse who's spent the evening sobbing in the doorway of Dixons, that would be just the thing for Libby's wedding?
Satire Proof:The design team have obviously never watched Zoolander as one spread of an Asian model made me laugh out loud ,as the model has her plait sticking upright in all the shots (like a surprised small mammal), I was half expecting a shot of her clashing together a tiny pair of cymbals.
The whole thing was a piece of utter trash a catalogue of hollow venial crud. Looking good, having fun with clothes is one thing but this sort of consumerist fashion is pathetic amoral tat and the fact that so called intelligent creative people spend any time producing it should make them shamed to their £755 Louis Vittuon calf length porn star heeled boots.
Meanwhile on Oxford street Primark was heaving and Top Shop store security were chasing an incredibly fast running girl down towards Centre point.