Karl Lagerfeld cemented his “Prince of Darkness” image today by revealing to Metro Paris that he thinks Adele is “a little too fat”. Kaiser Karl said:
“The thing at the moment is Adele. She is a little too fat, but she has a beautiful face and a divine voice.”
Naturally, most of the Internet is up in arms, because while it’s perfectly acceptable to say someone is “too thin” these days, calling someone “fat” just isn’t on, is it?
What do you think? Is Karl a big ol’ meanie, or is he just stating the obvious, as some commentators have argued?
Karl Lagerfeld’s collection for Net-a-Porter went on sale today, and as you can see, the models shown above managed to throw some particularly LOL-worthy shapes in honour of the occasion, bless their hearts.
What about the clothes, though? Well, the collection is described as having “a fashion-forward edge”, and that right there is more than enough to have set the fashionistas of the world almost wild with excitement, and to almost prompt The Fashion Police to declare a state of emergency. (We haven’t yet, though: we’ll let you decide whether or not it’s warranted.)
The KARL line (it’s an ALL CAPS brand, by the way, our keyboard didn’t get stuck there) contains everything from shoes to dresses to little KARL-esque collars, and the prices run from $25 (for a canvas bag) to over $1000 for a leather jacket. The cheapest items, however, are already sold out, despite only having been on sale for a few hours, so if you were thinking that people wouldn’t want to buy a canvas tote with KARL Lagerfeld’s face on it, you were wrong, and how dare you underestimate Uncle KARL?
Anyway, we’ll stop talking now, and let you start. What do you think of the collection? Will you buy any of it?
(Click here to see the collection in its entirety.)
In a bid to prevent racegoers dressing like they’re going to a nightclub – or to the circus, depending on your point of view – Royal Ascot organisers have decided to tighten up on the ol’ dresscode. As of this year, female racegoers will have to wear:
1. Hats, as opposed to fascinators. (in the less formal grandstand, hats OR fascinators will be obligatory: they were previously optional-but-recommended.)
2. “Modest” skirts or dresses – i.e. hemlines must be just above the knee or longer.
3. Tops with straps: no strapless tops or dresses allowed. Or else.
Men, meanwhile, will be expected to wear waistcoats and ties inside the enclosure (no cravats, you peasants!), and suits and ties in the grandstand.
So, in conclusion:
What do you think? Are you pleased to see a return to “standards” with a strongly-enforced dress code, or do you think people should be free to wear whatever they want, regardless of the circumstances?
(For the record, we’re all for the dress codes, if only because at least people know where they stand that way. And let’s face it: a lot of people just don’t have a CLUE how to dress themselves. You can tell purely by the number of people who find this website after searching for the words “Can I wear jeans to a wedding?” And we just know that if you give them an inch, they’ll turn up in an adult onesie one of these days, bleating, “BUT IT’S SOOOO COMFY!”)
So, we have to be honest: our main thought when we hear of another Target/designer collaboration is always, “Hey, Target! Open some stores in the UK, ‘kay?
Our second thought in this particular case was something along the lines of “pop socks with heels? Really?” We’ll be scarred for life now. Or for the next five minutes at least.
We’re sure you’re more interested in looking at the photos than hearing our thoughts, though, so we’ll let you get onto that. We DO want to hear your thoughts on this collection, though, so feel free to leave them in the comments box once you’re done with the gallery.
Jason Wu for Target goes on sale on February 5th, and will available until March 6th, only not really, because we all know there’ll be a crazy, end-of-the-world-is-nigh style stampede for it, as women fight each other in the aisles for another piece of mass-produced fashion. Will you be part of the rush?
Oh dear… French clothing retailer, La Redoute had to apologise today after committing a faux-pas of the “naked man inadvertently left in the background of photo of innocent children playing in the sand,” type. The image above (shown in its non-censored version under the jump: we need hardly point out that it’s not safe for work…) appeared on the brand’s website until earlier today, when it was, unsurprisingly, removed, and a Twitter apology issued:
Which translates as “La Redoute apologises for the photograph published on its site and is taking steps to remove it.”
They have yet to apologise for the fact that the shirt shown on the child second from left bears the logo “EnjoyHolydays”, but then, who knows, maybe they were ACTUALLY referring to days which are “holy”?
The first Versace for H&M collection has only just dropped, but it’s already time to start thinking about the next one. And actually, you might want to start queuing for the next one too, if you really want some of it: these pieces will go on sale in H&M on January 19th, and on eBay for twice the price shortly afterwards…
What do you think of this collection? We LOVE the little baby doll nightie (at least, we’re assuming it’s a nightie: you never really know with Versace, do you?), but the rest is giving us uncomfortable flashbacks to the 90s, and as much as we loved Cher’s look in Clueless, we’re probably not going to be lining up to emulate it. (We mean that literally, y the way: The Fashion Police don’t queue.)
(The identical pose kinda gives them away, doesn’t it?
As our regular readers know, The Fashion Police aren’t fans of the phrase “real woman”, which is generally just used as another stick for women to beat each other with, implying, as it does, that if only women with “curves” are “real”, then those without them must be… imaginary?
We have no hesitation, however, in declaring that the models shown above, in images from the H&M website, are NOT REAL WOMEN. Because they’re not. Literally, we mean. The heads are real, sure. The bodies, however, are computer generated, with H&M simply sticking the model’s heads onto the same body using the wonders of Photoshop. (Which seriously has a LOT to answer for, if you ask us.)
A spokesman for the chain admitted: “It’s not a real body, it is completely virtual and made [by] the computer. We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on [a] computer.”
H&M say they do this so that the focus is on the clothes, not on the models.
“This is not about ideals or to show off a perfect body, we do this to demonstrate an item of clothing. This is done for all clothing, not just for underwear, both male and female clothing,” said spokesman Håcan Andersson.
Good to know, H&M. Because here were we thinking that if not even a model is deemed “perfect” enough to wear these clothes, what chance would the rest of us have? We were also thinking that it’s no wonder so many women have hangups about their bodies and appearance in general, when models are either airbrushed to the point where they’re completely unrecognisable, or aren’t even real women to start with.
We have long believed that it’s not “size 0″ models, or celebrity role models which are the true enemy of self-esteem: it’s Photoshop. We’ve also always said that what’s needed in fashion is a much wider variety: a variety of shapes, sizes, races, ages… you name it. If all of that is not yet possible, however, a good start would be for brands to use ACTUAL people in their advertising: or to at least make it clear when they’ve chopped off the model’s head and stuck it onto a fake body.
