FashBlog.com

This question is something I’ve often asked myself, especially as I shift through stuff in limbo between useful life and being donated to charity. With so many across-the-board options these day, it doesn’t seem like there are set styles, does it? If you’re like me, and have always tended to buy mostly classic or traditional items, you may be even less tempted to get rid of clothes. That led me to wonder, just what is the life span of designer fashions these days?

I remember the nuns in grade school warning us to not fall into the buying trap. Their view was, since the industry depended on constant change to survive, they played on the insecurities of women, which was wrong. (But they could talk; their wardrobe was already decided for them at the time.) Anyway, I decided to check out a fashion magazine from the past to see what, if any fashion-forward ideas were still applicable. So, I located the October issue of Harper’s Bazaar, with Mary Kay Olson on the cover. My goal was to decide if I had come across any of the advertised clothing in the last few months, and if any of the jewelry or accessories still seemed applicable these 200 or so days later.

Well, like so often when I look at one of those high-glossy publications, my eyes blur in about 7 minutes. This is nothing against Bazaar; it happens with all of them. I find myself so caught up in their presentation of models, photographic techniques and settings that the clothes take a back seat.

First, the models are so perfect and arrogant. I want to scream “This isn’t reality!” That doesn’t take into consideration that many look provocative for no apparent reason, like I mentioned before here in February’s Fashion Magazine Savvy article. Case in point, for a Dolce and Gabbana ad, three models pose ridiculously with two totally naked men, and in a Cesare Paciotti ad, a gal rides her exercise bike wearing only a top. Does anyone ever suppose that perhaps we’ve evolved from all of this nonsense? The one and only ad that actually uplifted me was Banana Republic’s…not just because they used a cute model with normal makeup and just a slightly wild hairstyle, but due to the shocker that she was actually smiling, like real people do. (I guess marketing folks were all asleep in Psych 101 when it taught that humans have an immediate and instinctively positive response to smiles.)

Anyway, I never did see those hugely wide pants that were being pushed this winter. I did not witness elbow length gloves on even the few fancy events I attended, and I failed to notice odd looking knee socks and gloves like Prada was showing, even during a visit to Manhattan. I loved the look of the shoes that boasted gems up the length of the heels, but didn’t see those around, either. The magazine cautioned that pendants were out, as was mixing gold with silver. And, women should forget small clutches, hobo bags and small post earrings…

Hmm…Does anyone have a clue as to who decides these things? In my humble opinion, earring style and size depends on a gal’s face shape and hairstyle. Further, if she opts to one wear a simple heart charm on a chain, I doubt that makes her a fashion loser. Many ladies are not about to let unknown sources (who are trying to make money) dictate their choices, and if given a choice, would rather not juggle a huge clutch purse while trying to get hors d’oeuvres at a business meeting or event buffet.

It’s doubtful that my question will ever be answered-or, if such an answer is even relevant. What was never accepted by the average population can’t go out of style because it was never really in style. Classic styles have the longest lives because they aren’t attention getting, but still allow versatility. It’s at times like this that I remember Princess Diana; that kind of fashion is timeless. Those nuns were right; what’s truly “fashionable” changes only slightly from year to year. The fads come and go. Don’t buy into them or you’ll really date yourself.