A Wasteland of Quandaries – Vestoj http://vestoj.com The Platform for Critical Thinking on Fashion Thu, 04 May 2023 05:45:24 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.5 Dream Spaces http://vestoj.com/dream-spaces/ http://vestoj.com/dream-spaces/#respond Wed, 17 May 2017 15:40:04 +0000 http://vestoj.com/?p=8080 I’m nodding off in the taxi, my heart palpitating irregularly thanks to the coffees I drank early this morning while reviewing pricing formulas at a hotel desk. As I find sleep, trying to go inwards as my head falls into my angora scarf, I hear the voice of someone who is smiling too widely: ‘Isn’t she just beautiful? She’s got a stretched calf-leather interior, super-soft, and quilted lamb shearling throughout. I know… gorgeous.’ (There is the sharp crack of a new zipper.) ‘Hand-stitched here in Italy in the same atelier as Saint Low-Raw and McQueen… Selling super-well, especially with the Asians.’ They whisper the word ‘Asians.’ My head slams against the plastic car door, and I am horribly awake.

This is trip four out of the twelve markets I will go on this year. Twenty-seven flights. Outside the taxi, the air in Milan is thick and wet so we fold our sheaths of coats, scarves, and bags in order to make a graceful exit. Market is better known as Fashion Week. The online videos and Instagram stories overlook the commercial aspect of what resembles a parade of glamorous product sponsorships and celebrities. Independently of that fanfare (wherever it is) we do our jobs. We are the worker ants bringing the microscopic morsels of food back to the colony. Clothing Accountants. Buyers. We are, more specifically, buyers for a high volume e-commerce luxury retailer. Or actually, I am the buyer’s assistant. This means most things are said to me in this tone:

‘Don’t put my face in it.’

I lower the iPad. Before me my boss Aimee is staring at me intently, thrusting forward a hanger bearing a pair of chartreuse green track-pants with the words ‘Amour’ and ‘Boss’ embroidered in sequins across the knees. We have been taking notes and photos for three-and-a-half hours. The room is quartered by clothing racks, packed tightly by colour story, standing perpendicular to a wall of windows that overlook an overgrown field. It would be a less oppressive space if the walls were not black and the ceiling not so low. We are falling behind, especially because the salesperson we are working with has lost all motivation to help us. She is wearing a showroom uniform: a bottle green cardigan, tired white shirt and bouncy lavalliere bow around her neck. The deliberate sweetness of her uniform throws her bad mood into sharp relief. She keeps asking us if we want more coffee and running to the bathroom. She must not be on commission.

‘Is my face in it?’ Aimee asks. I look at the iPad, and see her scowl pop out just above the drawstring.

‘A little. Just the mouth,’ I reply.

‘That’s Look Five,’ she barks. ‘Write it down or we’ll forget… write it on the iPad.’

She’s at a loss for words and gesticulating. This is how we spend our days. Luxury clothing is sold in showrooms, to buyers coming from various stores, who sell it to customers. It’s a Russian nesting doll situation and it can be hard to tell who should be pandering to whom, though, somehow, I always end up feeling it should be me. This salesperson surely agrees since she is correcting all my colour names as I read the descriptions back to Aimee. It’s not bright blue, it’s ‘Turbo.’ It’s not pink, it’s ‘Arousal.’ Arousal is iconic, and they would prefer if we used that expression. Massimo would really prefer that. She gets flustered and runs off.

‘That girl has no sense of urgency,’ Aimee says disapprovingly.

The salesperson re-approaches, grinning widely, dangling a T-shirt with a phallic motif on it. Now we are excited.

‘That’s free money!’ is Aimee’s favourite expression, and she uses it here. It means something we can go deep and wide into. ‘Deep’ means we will buy a lot in quantity, and ‘wide’ means we will buy a lot of colours. For a long time we consider colours for the phallus, and which direction it should point. (Sideways is chic, up or down is crass.)

‘Can we have an exclusive colour?’ I ask. Aimee is pleased, and she gives me a praising look. The salesperson says we have to ask Massimo, but probably the minimum order would be quite deep and they would expect a marketing push from our end. Aimee reminds her that last time we received an ‘exclusive’ it turned up on Farfetch in several different stores, so we would rather they did the marketing push themselves this time. We talk about background colours, while I pull up our most recent sales report by colour. As with the last twenty exclusives, we choose bright pink. It is, after all, what the colour report says we should do. Recent research showed that most orders placed on our site were sent to large, new condo developments in rural areas in the U.S. We think of our customer as an urban creative: an architect or graphic designer for an up-and-coming firm in London or New York. The shared aspiration seems to be beneficial for both us and our real customer: the wealthy suburbanite.

The salesperson steps away to make a phone call and Aimee tells me that this brand is shit. She can’t wait to get out of here and on to the next appointment. She rolls her eyes. I have a flash memory of reading somewhere that brands were supposed to be ‘spaces for dreams.’

We make small-talk with the vendor’s manager, whose Airbnb host is refusing to deliver more toilet paper. Aimee makes sure to hit all the important points: budget, delivery windows, order deadline. She goes to the bathroom and I let the manager know we will not be meeting the deadline. She comes back from the bathroom much more energetic and they use hot words with one another while I finish typing maniacally. Hot words are indoctrinated during branding meetings and they indicate you belong here. We use them much like a mating-call. So Aimee makes sure to say ‘Disrupt,’ ‘SEO’ and ‘We really aren’t calling it a store, it’s more of a creation space’ to the manager, to which she replies, ‘Sustainable’ ‘Emotional pieces’ and ‘Our girl is really growing up with this collection, she’s just becoming so much more sophisticated (not old) and we want to really be responsive to that,’ and then we leave.

In the Uber Aimee texts our manager excitedly about all the free money.

I wanted to be a buyer because it sounded powerful: it indicated both ownership and curation. In reality most of my time is spent retyping product descriptions (‘yellow perfecto in stretch sugared lambskin with tonal top-stitching’) and lending a vague opinion about chic dick colours, carefully avoiding any strong statements. Instead of power what I have is ‘accountability.’ Accountability for the personal taste of strangers. Aimee would say it is the reverse: we only buy what the customer wants, so they are the accountable ones. I suppose we are co-conspirators. Aimee looks up from her phone, seemingly stunned.

‘Do you remember the tiny woman who was stealing everything off our rack at Wang?

With the short hair and the velvet pants? French?’

‘Yes.’

‘She died! She collapsed and died after a showroom appointment! In the bathroom!’

‘No she didn’t…’

I know this will weigh heavily on Aimee, who is a kind soul despite it all. The rumour lingers briefly for me, and I return to my thoughts. I’m thinking about the sleep I will have in a few hours. The other assistant researched that you can get a full REM cycle in ninety minutes and then handed me a large Dexedrine for when I wake up. According to him it’s what they do in the military, although that seems far-fetched.

‘We need to bid higher on Acne Studios on Google AdWords. When I searched it this morning we were the second option after Net-a-Porter.’ I blurt out, having suddenly remembered.

‘So e-mail Paul – he can place a larger bid when he gets into the office.’ Paul’s official title is ‘SEO (‘Search Engine Optimization’) Scrum-master.’ It’s a rugby analogy, meaning he is the organizer of our on-going battle for online presence. I send him a curt e-mail, resentful that I had to call it out.

As we approach the snake-encrusted door to our next appointment at Gucci, Aimee pulls me aside. A gaggle of other buyers who are changing from sneakers to heels with their hands on the brick wall are watching us.

‘I want to talk to you about the last Gucci appointment we had. I was really surprised that you undermined my selection to Sara when she asked you.’ I am caught off-guard by the public shaming and start babbling apologies. Aimee stares at her phone and says we’re late, we have to go in. I am still blushing when the girl from the front desk greets us and sits us at our table in the enormous velvet-upholstered red room. Even the walls and carpet are red velvet: it’s like being inside of an organ. I remember that we will likely be here for nine hours and feel nauseous. There are no windows, just dozens of racks of sparkly and lacey clothing lining the walls in schizophrenic colour stories. Aimee is trying to hand a cough-drop to a passing teenage fit model wearing a green lace full-length gown with an ivory bodice. The fit model, likely an Eastern European, refuses politely. Aimee says we have to make sure that we don’t see any clothes on that girl, since everything will look good on her, and it will throw us off.

While we wait for a salesperson, I pull out the iPad and we go over the analysis on a PDF sent by the merchandisers. What colours and silhouettes do we need?  She counts how many colours and fabrics we need to buy in the Dionysus bag, and notes with relief that price-point is not a determining factor in the bags department. However, we need to stop selecting so many colours of the Kangaroo-lined Princetown loafer. That silhouette is slowing down across the board.

Besides this glorified shopping list, we prepare by asking ourselves what the brand is going to accuse us of. Aimee asks me to pull up the report on off-brand styling to see if we are guilty with Gucci. (It is my favourite report as it compiles our worst online looks into a kind of photo blooper reel, with commentary from our manager to the stylists such as ‘STOP STYLING DRIES TROUSERS WITH LOUBOUTIN HEELS,’ ‘VETEMENTS SWEATSHIRTS ARE NOT DRESSES,’ ‘WHERE ARE HER PANTS?!’)

‘Wait no, I saw that this morning – show me the relevancy figures so I have them fresh in my mind.’ She gasps at the figure: only twelve percent above average likes on our Instagram for this season. Gucci has dropped several points within the brand relevancy matrix since I checked yesterday.

‘Ugh. Does that mean it’s going to become another markdown brand soon?’ Aimee asks herself. ‘I can’t deal with another one.’ We don’t control the Instagram. We recently hired an underground magazine from Copenhagen to run the social media content and make it look like we know things about music and culture. I heard they don’t print the magazine anymore, and instead work as a content factory for several brands. I liked the last presentation the editor gave when he said that our focus was now going to be on the daily life of the ‘Cool Everyman,’ giving up the polished ‘unnatural’ editorials of the past. We will, of course, continue to style the models in luxury clothing, only now they will be doing what is ‘natural’ to them: skate-boarding and participating in art installations in Miami.

I am hit with a wave of exhaustion as I stare at the massive wall of meticulously organized Dionysus bags. In the corner of my eye I can see our salesperson, Amanda, coming towards us with aggressive friendliness. My heart is palpitating off-rhythm again. How do we pull off these racks and shelves the two hundred styles that will appeal to the maximum number of affluent people for the maximum number of reasons?

How deep can we go into this collective space for dreams?   

Later, back at the hotel after an awkward and rushed dinner with a supplier, I take out the bottle of German energy drink I have stashed in the mini-bar. Everything still has a green fog over it, which is what happens when your eyes adjust to bright red for ten hours. After weighing entering orders against my ninety minutes of sleep, I decide to delay gratification and return to my laptop. Aimee is texting me from her room asking what orders are ready for her to review, and telling me that I should prioritize Versace. The order entry begins.

‘Large Black Prometheus Backpack in Varnished Goatskin.’ Style code. Colour code.

‘Medusa Head Necklace in Plated Stainless Steel.’ Style code. Colour code. ‘Medusa ring.’ ‘Medusa Bracelet.’ What is it with Italian brands and Greek mythology? My head crashes into my keyboard while typing up the list of Versace Medusa jewellery. I get up and pour the viscous yellow liquid into a plastic cup to continue my night of describing. Tomorrow, the order will get quantified. The next day it will get approved by the merchandisers. The day after it will get approved by the editors, who may suggest to add a runway piece. Then it will get sent to the brand who will ensure that we represented them well. Finally, the product will get made somewhere very far from where we go on market, and our customer will like it on Instagram having seen it on the Cool Everyman, and will buy it on sale at the end of the season.

As I get the kick from the Club-Mate, I remember reading about a parasite that moves through a remarkable number of hosts: a worm, a blade of grass, a bird, a cat, and its final host is a human person, transmitted while they pet their cat. The writer was impressed by the parasite’s amazing purposeful journey, in spite of having no consciousness. I’m still thinking about the parasite when Aimee texts me again to ask if the order is ready yet.

Lily Smith is the pen name of an assistant buyer based in New York. She has worked in the lower echelons of mass luxury retail for seven years.

]]>
http://vestoj.com/dream-spaces/feed/ 0
On Mercantile Liasons http://vestoj.com/on-mercantile-liaisons/ http://vestoj.com/on-mercantile-liaisons/#respond Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:49:26 +0000 http://vestoj.com/?p=7876

FASHION WEEKS ARE PECULIAR rituals stretched over ever expanding slices of the annual calendar in which fashion professionals prove their worth. They are like the Olympic Games of glamour: designers show off their ability to catch and direct the Zeitgeist, stylists their editing skills, writers and critics their wit in making all this colourful blurb comprehensible for the general public, even when the actual message is little less than the emperor’s new clothes. In this sense, writers are a fundamental part in the whole mechanism, and in fact reading show reviews is a regular and often enjoyable commitment in the self-reinforcing and exclusive routine of attending fashion events. In the morning, right before the action of the new day starts, it is with a mixture of expectation and delight that we read what Suzy Menkes, Cathy Horyn, Vanessa Friedman, Sarah Mower, Tim Blanks, Godfrey Deeney and all the other penmen who have made it to the upper echelons of the industry – for their sharp and insightful views at best, for the weight and circulation of the publications they are affiliated to, in most cases – have written about the previous day’s shows. It might be a way to understand a designer’s message, as in the case of a hardcore conceptual like Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garçons, while sometimes it is a way of making overtly and perversely obscure references more approachable, as with Miuccia Prada. As industry people delve into these daily offerings of critical flourish, everything is carefully scrutinised: from the length of the paragraph dedicated to any given designer, to the countless ambiguous phrases that force the reader into a game of guesswork as to whether a reviewer thought a show was, basically, good or bad. Reading between the lines is a perilous, if amusing, activity and it isn’t for nothing that every comma is evaluated and every adjective dissected, as if these often hastily composed reports were the offerings of an almighty and ancient soothsayer. Why do we do it? Well, it’s simple: we all – readers and professionals alike – strive for objective criticism, knowing all too well the many obstacles that prevent this utopian ideal from becoming reality.

Fashion houses, and the corporations that in most cases own them, have gained immense power in recent years, not least over the press. These glamorous Goliaths like to flex their muscles, and we, the critics, are constantly reminded of that – by our publishers, editors and by the many PRs and assorted gatekeepers who rule the game in increasingly insidious ways. Fashion, as an industry, survives because of commerce, and commerce is the result of carefully planned media exposure: everything that gets in the way, true criticism in primis, is seen as nothing less than danger, a menace to avoid at any cost. A case in point is the discrepancy between the frank and open, if studious and cautious, after-show talk and what actually filters through to the subsequent written reports. Fashion reporters have become masters of insinuation and understatement, and the subtle critiques that materialise often become nothing but passing frissons – background noise for corporations that have understood the value of column inches.

Like many of my colleagues, I am a freelancer. I would never trade the ability of choosing who to work with for a full-time job, yet as a freelancer my income depends on the pieces I write. In other words, I depend on access. This means that my stock and trade lies in cultivating relationships with fashion houses. These relationships are often based on consideration and frankness, on and off the record, but are not to be confused with friendship, though we are all in constant danger of doing so. Within this foggy frame, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep one’s own critical voice, but having an opinion is what actually makes you respectable, even in the eyes of your foes. Yet, the industry forces us to sharpen our critical tools only up to a certain point. Past that, there’s a wasteland of quandaries. Should I choose to write something that might upset a fashion house, and so sour the gracious relations I have built, I may well lose the opportunity to attend said brand’s shows or to interview its designer, and with it, my ability to do my job dwindles. Navigating the politics of fashion comes down to subtle manoeuvrings: on the writer’s side, about how to express a pointed opinion in a gentle way, and on the designer’s side about how to accept criticism as a stimulus, not as brutal backstabbing. In my career, I have met many designers who openly and willingly accept a bad review, just as I have met many bigwigs who take a good review for granted. Generalising, in other words, is pointless.

The real problem, however, is elsewhere. As a freelancer, I, on a daily basis, witness the strange intertwining of commerce and freedom that is the real poison of the contemporary fashion industry. There is a constant migration and osmosis between fashion houses and editors, writers and stylists, which can translate into some very shady business. Prominent newspaper writing, in fact, sometimes opens the door to the odd, well-paid bit of corporate text, or perhaps a commission to write the press release of the very same show you are supposed to review, which means a treacherous blur of ethical boundaries. A journalist with a sharp tongue and a good reputation might also be hired as a communication consultant for a brand, which makes things even trickier, ethics-wise. Similarly, on-staff magazine stylists often consult for fashion houses in more or less transparent ways, and editors know when to look the other way. Independent magazines often double up as communications agencies, allowing their publications to act as calling cards for their good taste and access while their mercantile liaisons wither away any potential to critically examine the business. Lavish press trips – all-expenses-paid voyages to far-flung and exotic locations in order to review a pre-collection or special event – are another perk of the job. Though nothing is clearly expressed in terms of expectations, it is highly improbable you’ll read much in the form of criticism afterwards. Our mild and gentle opinions are somehow secured with business class tickets and five-star hotels, and with the promise of a continued membership in fashion’s hyper-exclusive clique. Fashion is perilously seductive: it makes a five-star luxe lifestyle available to every top-class insider, even when they live on the dole. You get spoiled like a superstar, and the temptation to engage in foggy ethical deals can be overpowering. Moreover, as a system fashion has the unique power of turning an enemy into an ally – just think of the way bloggers, in just a matter of years, passed from being independent voices to trumpets of the most blatant and banal product placements. The fashion industry is a game in which we all play a part. Even this story, published in this magazine, is part of the very same game, whether the upshot is an editor relying on my voice to express frustration, or in providing me with an outlet in which to convey myself differently. We all want exposure and the power that follows, and en route we are rewarded with all from freebies to the admittance to a famous designer’s sancta sanctorum. Yet, the closer and more friendly you get to a house or a designer, the more difficult it becomes to compose an honest commentary.

Today fashion journalism is turning into, at best, decorative fodder or, at worst, astute product placement. Magazines no longer depend on newsstand circulation for their income, banking instead on advertising pages to pay for production and staff salaries. What’s more, the luxury industry also underwrites most newspapers today, yet staff members and editors-in-chief often overlook fashion, framing it instead as ancillary, secondary material. The frustration that this breeds in the many journalists who devote their time and wit to fashion is understandable, and an argument could be made about how further compromises to our code of conduct stem from it. The ubiquitous street style photographers outside fashion shows, for instance, are creating niche celebrities of behind-the-scenes professionals, and the shrewder among my peers often use their personal Instagram feeds or other social media channels for undercover advertising. In return they are rewarded with the latest threads as gracious thank-you cadeaux. This may seem harmless at first but the pervasive and shady influence that allows a journalist – and supposed free thinker – to be paid by a fashion brand to wear its clothing erodes not just the confidence our readers have in us, but also undermines progress and development within the industry at large. Another element worth mentioning is that we, the critics, are made of flesh and bone: we are not machines, and sometimes we fall in love – professionally speaking – with a designer. Excessive praise could lead to a perceived loss of integrity in the eyes of our readers, and the fact is that we sometimes simply make mistakes. However, as long as the industry overall is perceived as non-transparent, even simple mistakes make us all seem guilty.

That the contemporary fashion system discourages all forms of criticism is becoming painfully apparent in the cultural wasteland we have before us. Fashion today is mostly about communication, and instead of design innovation we have an endless postmodern pillage of old ideas, haphazardly reshuffled as new products in need of new marketing campaigns. True fashion criticism goes hand in hand with progress, because it’s only through questioning and debating that new solutions
and new scenarios are created, and that movement is ignited. But this aspect is in constant danger of being silenced: sometimes with big dictatorial moves (removing ads from a publication being the most blatant), sometimes through more subtle pressures like denying a reporter access to a show or a stylist the chance to borrow clothes for shoots. So let us not forget that criticism is an indispensable act, and an opportunity for any industry for self-questioning. Believing that everything is rosy while things crumble around you will only help accelerate the fall of the Empire – though that may well be what we need in order to start again. If the odd bit of criticism that we are allowed can ignite a reboot, we’re off to a good start.

Angelo Flaccavento is a fashion writer and regular contributor to The Business of Fashion, L’Uomo Vogue and Fantastic Man.

This article was first published in Vestoj On Failure.

]]>
http://vestoj.com/on-mercantile-liaisons/feed/ 0