Fashion: What's Wrong With Fashion Magazines?

"Seriously?!"

It has become fashionable (pardon the pun) to dissect the troubles afflicting print fashion magazines these days. The recession, excessive photoshopping, underfed models, the stale content of many magazines and of course, the Internet, are routinely cited as explanations for the overall decline in ad revenue and circulation. U.S.Vogue as the industry leader is getting more than its share of scrutiny and critique (much of it deserved). While many of the reasons cited may indeed be contributing factors, I don't think any of the analyses proffered to date are particularly convincing.

Granted, the problems currently afflicting the fashion industry as a whole and the fashion media in particular are hard to pinpoint with any accuracy. I do sense however that many women are fed up with the genre. I for one have loved Vogue ever since it entered my life at roughly age 9 and attribute my life-long love of fashion to its influence. But even I can't help but snicker at what passes for "insights" and "observations" from many of its contributors. I couldn't help rolling my eyes for instance when Plum Sykes recently lamented the cost of a custom Pucci gown: "(...) I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would own a custom Pucci dress (I didn't even own a non-custom one, they are so expensive)." (July 2009, p.104) Really?

The problem is that thanks to past Vogue articles chronicling her fittings for a bespoke wedding gown by Alexander McQueen or her fittings at her Savile Row tailor for a bespoke tweed suit to wear for a day of shooting at a friend's country estate where incidentally, the dress code called for couture-like attire for evening, her lament about the Pucci gown sounds a trifle insincere. I would have infinitely more respect for the piece if she had chosen to celebrate the experience rather than obliquely apologize for it. Is this really the best Vogue can offer its readers?

The tactics magazines typically employ to preach to the masses aren't particularly appealing either. Speaking for myself, I rather resent the heavy handed attempts at manipulation. Perhaps I would have an easier time accepting Michelle Obama and her many cardigans as a legitimate "style icon" for instance if U.S. Vogue had not so thoroughly turned me off by their relentless campaign to make her into one. It would help their credibility as a "style bible" tremendously if they dissected her fashion faux pas (of which there are many) as diligently as they trumpet her fashion successes (of which there are also many). Ditto U.S. Harper's Bazaar's attempts to cast Victoria Beckham as a legitimate "designer". The overall effect of these campaigns might be more persuasive if they were less contrived.

These methods of anointing style icons and dictating fashion trends date back to the days when traditional fashion magazines were virtually the only source of style guidance for women. Today, women are just as likely to get their style inspiration from music videos, foreign travel and blogs chronicling street fashion than they are from any particular fashion magazine. Even a site like Net-A-Porter which does an excellent job of mixing and matching pieces from various designers is a good source of inspiration whether you end up buying from them or not. Moreover, unlike fashion magazines who are heavily beholden to advertisers, there is no pretense to these sites: Net-A-Porter exists to sell you fashion. We get that and respect it. Along the way, they provide a tremendous amount of good style advice as well. It's a win-win.

As consumers, we've collectively emerged from well over a decade of hype and contrived glamour that has left us dissatisfied, disillusioned and more than a little cynical. We're in search of greater authenticity from our fashion brands and from the magazines that cover them. Isn't it time for fashion magazines to catch on?

Sincerely,

The Luxe Chronicles

Comments

[falasha regina]

Great Article! and I agree with you I would have to say one big problem with the fashion industry are the fads...not the fad clothing like parachute pants but the people who just say " I love fashion" so they can wear A&F and say because they spent money on it, it must be cool. It is all the rage. Great piece Thanks

[Helene]

Agreed John. But, I think that fashion magazines today are addressing a very different reader than Diana Vreeland and Carmel Snow did back in their day. First, fashion consumers are far better travelled, better educated and more affluent than they were then. They also are less likely to accept fashion dictates unquestioningly the way our mothers and grandmothers did. To a certain extent, Vreeland and Snow had an easier job than Anna Wintour does now.

Second, while I agree that excessive celebrity worship has dumbed down our cultural references, on the whole, more people travel today and have access to a greater variety of influences than ever before. I see hope in this.

As for your point about the business of fashion, again I agree but only to a point. The marriage of high fashion (as opposed to high street fashion) and finance is a difficult one, no doubt. This said, creativity unchecked by the realities of commerce isn't viable. I don't know what the solution is but I do feel strongly that design schools should be doing a better job of preparing their graduates for this aspect of the profession (courses on common business practices, intellectual property issues, basic finance and accounting principles, etc.). Fashion as an industry would be all the better for it.

As far as the current crisis afflicting fashion magazines is concerned, I do think that the crux of the problem is that they haven't done a good enough job of keeping up with their readers. There is a reason why street fashion has generated the engouement that it has. There is an authenticity to the genre that appeals to an increasingly cynical consumer of fashion, one that contributors like Plum Sykes and others simply can't relate to from their rose-colored Vogue bubble.

As always, I enjoy reading and responding to your thoughtful comments. Thank you.

Helene

[John Agee Paris]

All the comments here are pretty on target, but there's an even larger problem with magazines: there's absolutely no vision. Could you imagine someone like a Carmel Snow or a Diana Vreeland being an editor today? It would never happen.

There's a complete loss of romance in the whole enterprise of fashion. (Not just fashion, but moviemaking, retailing, dining, I could go on ad nauseum.) To this designer, three things have occurred which have served to lessen the "fabulousness" of the industry: the corporatization of the business (which has completely effaced whatever creativity existed), the appearance of retro (which has forced many brands to "reference" a period as opposed to creating something essentially new), and that damned red carpet (which has turned the industry into an exercise in product placement instead of serving the tastes of paying clients). What's the solution? Qui sait?

[Make Do Style]

The classical Hollywood period was a time when cinema gave much of America it's fashion. I think the problem today is no one is giving the designers a run for their money. It is a lack of competition for another area of life - hence an almost boredom magazine delivery. Are we tired of it all?

[Helene]

Agreed De barragan- I didn't raise the point because it has been discussed extensively elsewhere. Also, while the advertising conundrum has always been part of the equation, it interfered less with the magazine's credibility in previous decades. During Vogue's "golden years" under Vreeland for instance, it didn't seem to hinder the quality of the content.

Helene

[De barragan]

I think that you forgot a key issue. Advertising. The fashion stories or the articles are styled with the brands that are buying advertising pages: fashion brands or beauty brands.
There is no room for new talents or experimentation. When the fashion editor of a magazine is a consultant at the same time for fashion brands who are buying ads in the same magazine, one cannot expect authenticity.