NO, ITS NOT ECO

TIME magazine's current Style&Design supplement has a 1-pager called 'Going to Pieces'. It's all about the 'haute-bohemian trend..' encapsulated in '...spring's funky patchwork look...(and) shabby-chic style'. Examples are Dolce and Gabbana's '...very glamorous hippie-style patchwork chiffon gowns...' as well as '...Squint's reupholstered vintage couch (this I really like, by the way) and Etro's geometric pillows...'. Okay...fair enough, maybe.

What's not fair is the article's opinion that maybe this interest in patchwork is 'a nod to the now popular, eco-friendly movement' because, the article seems to suggest, this patchwork is the result of using cutting room floor scraps, ie, surplus. Huh? Where did they get that and how do they know this is all from surplus fabric? How credible is it that D&G's carefully constructed chiffon gowns are put together with scraps, not to mention Etro's cushions or the Louis Vuitton mother-of-pearl Tresor necklace (below) featured in the article?

Thanks to XUPINGZ for the image taken from here.

Even more galling is the inclusion, in this 'possibly' eco driven patchwork couture, of D&G's multicoloured python (yes, thats p-y-t-h-o-n, ie, animal skin) peep-toe boots

Image from teamsugar

and Miu Miu's snakeskin (there it is again) detailed leather handbag. Snake-skin put through god-knows-what sorts of chemical processing to attain multi (but certainly stylishly complementary) colours = a nod to anything eco....no chance (that's N-O).

Its irritating to read this type of journalism that uses terms like eco so wrongly and simply tries to free-ride consumer/reader interest in green living. Why not just write about this stuff for what it is -- patchwork fashion from mainstream couture designers? Why bring eco into it? Not only is it misleading but its fodder for all the cynical nay-sayers who keep telling us that eco-living and eco-fashion isn't credible/is a disguise for good old conspicuous consumption/is a savvy marketing tool etc etc. If TIME wants to write about the use of surplus fabric in fashion, then write about aGain nyc or Carol Young's Undesigned label. Current ranges from surplus fabric can be seen here and here.

Ain't no nod of the head here towards anything eco....more like a shake of the head. And while we're on the topic of shaking one's head: is it just me or is fashion od'ing on Agyness Deyn at the moment? Yes she's cool and hip but please, enough already. Someone point out to her the O-V-E-R in overexposed before its too late.

SHAME ON THE OLSEN TWINS

I've always found the Olsen twins a bit scary.

The whole look: those glassed over eyes, the smug pouts and almost-as-bad-as-Victoria-Beckham perpetually grim camera look.

The whole story: picture perfect twins start acting from inside moses basket and end up contolling their billion dollar tweeny based empire before 18. All they wear is 'in', all they touch is gold -- of course there are a few hiccups along the way like one of them had an eating disorder -- but thats a minor blip. They just sort of smug pouted that one out.

Anyway, you get the jist. These are 2 strange young women.

Now their glassy stares and perpetually grim are REALLY frightening because apparantly they are windows into the real goings-on: these girls not only wear fur, they use it in their 'lux' clothing line (The Row). So we have 2 women, icons for millions of young women everywhere who grew up with them, endorsing mindless cruelty, for the sake of fashion. And/or for profit.

PETA has rightly begun a campaign against them "Meet the Trollsen Twins" - Hairy Kate and Trashley. You can dress them up, watch a video of their hit show re-edited with fur killings interspersed, join the campaign against their actions (please do!) and watch a very disturbing video investigating the fur trade (definitely an R rating so beware). Some fur may be a by-product (whatever.) but this certainly is not.

Rich, successful, easily able to influence many young minds, and with so many choices for themselves and this is what the Olsen twins go for. Shame on them.