Stuck Inside of Target with the L’Eclaireur Blues Again
Why so blue, FashionWeekOnline? Is it because some knuckleheads are saying Paris Fashion Week is “not for regular people”?
Scintillating pop-quiz question: Why do writers who don’t like fashion, write about fashion? (Answer below!)
Why do fools fall in love?
And why is this article called “Paris Fashion Week 2013 Blues”?
Oh, we guess it all started with this article by the good folks at the San Francisco Chronicle, who are the latest super-courageous souls who have dared to buck tradition and take up the lance versus the runways now happening in Paris, in what can only be described as the seasonal valiant charge, that comes as predictably as the rain and so isn’t so very exciting to begin with, we realize, now that this sentence is over.
But why, you ask? Why get annoyed by this?
For one thing, the shows referenced aren’t what most think of as “Paris Fashion Week” proper at all. No, as you the knowledgeable fashion reader knows, these are actually the “haute couture” shows.
Which means, yes, the noble San Franciscan scribes are correct that this is not the nice, familiar stuff we might see on the rack at JC Penney or Target. Not that there’s anything wrong with either of those stores. (Have you seen the Levis selection at JC Penney, lately? Pretty awesome, actually. And Target seems to have better stuff than Macy’s half the time. Editorial opinion.)
No, “haute couture” (which cleverly translates to “high fashion,” those being the French words for “high” and “fashion,” respectively), is more of designers creating a bit of fun visual art, for the very bold few who really want to have fun with it. Think if it more as “designers talking to designers.” Or “designers talking to those who like fashion, and — you know, maybe think it could actually be fun.”
But as we know, most writers online are trying to get ad clicks from enraged readers who want to gape and guffaw in between their other fixes of anger-tainment in the form of articles filled with pointless political bickering or the rage-a-halls of nightmarish sites like Jezebel or Gawker, and hey — there’s really nothing wrong with that, ultimately. Everyone has to make a buck, right?
Except that there seems to a trend of “dumbed down” writing out there that’s just a bit scary. We recently saw a “major motion picture” (yep, that major) with Christian Bale where a character said: “You seem to be something of a prodigal student.”
(“Prodigal” presumably meaning “prodigy” … as in “mad skills.”)
Except “prodigal” means “spendthrift” — as in “likin’ to spend mad money” — something else entirely.
But did anyone proofread, copy edit, or otherwise fact-check that basic bit of grammar, anywhere from conception to revision to production? Apparently, this sort of accuracy is (to borrow a term from fashion), somewhat out of vogue.
What’s the point, SFGate writers?
You are correct that no, haute couture isn’t for everyone. And no, it isn’t for “better” or “worse” people.
It’s for people who like fashion.
And if you don’t like fashion, you could always write about, say, nachos.
We love nachos!
p.s. We have to admit, the little Iris van Herpen raptor-on-the-shoulder is sort of funny. And please excuse all the typos in this article. See? We’re not so smart.
(Photo: Benjamin Girette)