Death Knells on the Way for Cheap Fashion?

Robin Givhan, fashion writer for the Washington Post, covers an interesting turn of events in fashion - the formulation of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

Givhan reports:

The end may be near for easy access to cheap, unauthorized knockoffs of designer clothes. Capitol Hill has taken up the cause of fashion.

New York Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer -- in a dark suit, red tie and pale blue shirt -- and Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- in a dark suit, red tie and white shirt -- took the stage Wednesday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, along with designers Narciso Rodriguez, Nicole Miller, Richard Lambertson and others, to champion the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

[...]

For designers, knockoffs have always been an aggravation. They cut into sales, tarnish a brand's luster and knock the wind out of young designers trying to establish their identity in the marketplace.

But seeking out a bargain basement version of a designer frock has always been considered a frugal shopper's right. Perusing the wares of street vendors for a fake Marc Jacobs or Kate Spade bag is part of the tourist experience in New York. And scouring department stores for the prom version of a one-of-a-kind Oscar gown has become a seasonal tradition.

Back in the days when the world moved at a slower pace, the impact of knockoffs was more modest. There was more lag time before high-end designs trickled down to the world of copies, homages and send-ups. By the time they did, designers had reaped whatever profits they could from their original work and had moved on to the next trend. Hoi polloi were welcome to the season-old designs. Besides, the masses were never going to spend a thousand dollars on a designer day dress or a handbag.

Now, the Internet gives knockoff artists nearly instant access to designers' most recent work -- long before it ever reaches stores. Super-fast and cheap manufacturing in places such as China make design piracy especially efficient and lucrative. And now that designers themselves are launching their own less expensive lines and licensing their names to mass merchants, their customers are no longer limited to those with vast sums of disposable income. They are looking to appeal to everyone: Bergdorf customers to Kohl's shoppers. Imitation is no longer flattering; it's a direct assault on a designer's bottom line.

Hmm...I'm kind of torn on this issue.

On one hand, I understand and sympathize with designers. I mean, after creating a wonderful design rife with personal touches, it would be gut-wrenching to walk into a knockoff imporium and see my dress hanging there. And some things are blatant copyright infrigement.

However, as a budget concious shopper, I am a bit worried about the implications of this band. I rely on stores like H & M and Forever 21 to give me fashionable wardrobe updates for under $100 - if they are forced out of business by a wave of lawsuits (like the ones currently leveled at Forever 21) what would be their replacement?

While Target has the right idea about designer tie ins (getting expensive designers to do a low end line for their stores), I feel like someone has to draw a line about claiming artistic rights - after all, a sheath dress is a sheath dress...so I worry about classic designs being staked out as a "classic design."

I know I am not trying to live in a world devoid of cheap hobo bags!

Legislating the Fantasy

No one could ever accuse the modeling industry of being realistic.

From the overly campy, bordering on costumey couture offering to the emaciated silhouettesthat make their way down the runway, to the actual price of couture offerings, fashion and reality are happy to exist upon separate planes.

Despite criticism from most laypeople about the price of clothing to the size of models, the fashion industry was seen as something outside of our collective ken - a self-governing entity that has completely unconventional approaches to how they created and displayed their wares.

All that changed in August of 2006, when the death of fashion model Luisel Ramos (attributed to complications from anorexia nervosa) rocked the fashion industry, and led to widespread calls for reform. The government of Madrid has since set a minimum body mass index for all models who walk the runways, much to the chagrin of certain designers and prompting a wave of media attention toward the fashion industry.

Last Friday, Robin Givhan provided an excellent follow-up piece to the washington post, detailing the "efforts" of the fashion industry to raise model awareness of eating disorders. She goes on to state:

"A PowerPoint presentation on the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia is not the solution to getting rid of sickly thin models. Nor can the answer be found in a crudites platter. As one model agent put it, the industry needs to start at the top of the pyramid. If there's no demand for skeletons on the runway, there won't be any skeletons.

I find her statement completely true. While in general, the last thing America needs is more legislation, people are dying for someone else's unrealistic standard of beauty.

My friend Edina is a fashion designer in New York. We had a conversation about fashion a while ago that put somethings into perspective for me. Edina had made a comment about almost being finished with her sample clothing, and I asked if she was going to model any of her fashion. She laughed, and with the my-god-how-dense-can-you-be tone she has perfected, stated, "Honey, I can't fit any of the sample clothes. Those are for the models."

I asked her why she would make clothes she could not wear, expecting to hear some spiel about working to fit a model's shape. She instead told me "Fabric is expensive. Smaller clothes are cheaper."

While I am sure it is not that simple for the major couture houses, Edina's explanation made sense. Sometimes, a lack of resources dictates what you present and who you use to present. However, the fact that designers have accepted size 0 and 00 as normal is a bit disturbing.

Givan goes on to say:

The fashion industry has to ask itself: Why do we want to be represented by a model who the average person would suspect is sick? Why shoot an advertising campaign using a model that women would pity rather than envy?

The fashion industry likes to point out that a lot of these models are naturally super-skinny because of their metabolism, age or genetics. So what? Pear shapes are natural, too, but the industry has no trouble rejecting them.

The industry needs to think of models as women -- not as girls, mannequins, coat hangers or any of the other terms typically used to describe them. Think of them as women, and perhaps that's what they'll more often resemble.

Another valid point made. Flipping through the pages of Elle magazine this month, I found that the fantasy had lost quite a bit of its luster. I remember looking at the two or three outfits profiled in their pages, and noting how the model didn't seem to fit the clothes. Some clothes (like wrap tops and dresses) are designed to accentuate womanly curves - so why don't the models reflect that? Dresses with detailing in and around the chest look ridiculous hanging against a 32AA bust.

Maybe the fashion industry would benefit from learning to create a range of fantasies, as opposed to rigidly defending one waning ideal.