Friend Friday: Copying in the Fashion Industry (is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?)

This week's Friend Friday topic is "Copying in the Fashion Industry." The topic is especially timely because their is currently a Bill, entitled the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, for consideration before Congress.  And the rumor is - the bill will likely pass.

As you all know, I like to begin each "Friend Friday" with a bit of a history lesson, so let us flash back to the 1930s for a moment.  Yes, the 1930s.

The Fashion Originators Guild of America was established in 1932 by a group of American fashion manufacturers who were alarmed by the number of copies and cheap knockoffs entering the marketplace.  This 1936 Time Magazine article illustrates that copying was definitely a prevalent problem in the 1930s. The article states that: 

"by the early Depression years it had gone so far that no exclusive model was sure to remain exclusive for 24 hours; a dress exhibited in the morning at $60 would be duplicated at $25 before sunset and at lower prices later in the week. Sketching services made a business of it; delivery boys were bribed on their way to retailers." 

Members of the Guild worked together to monitor retailers and keep track of original designs. If it was discovered that a particular retailer was selling knockoffs, they were "red-carded" and boycotted by Guild members. The only catch? The protection of styles did not extend to dresses priced lower than $16.75 wholesale (the minimum established price of most Guild member dresses).

According to the original rules of the Guild, retailers were allowed to establish for themselves which dresses were copies and which were not. As long as a retailer did not sell copies of high-end dresses, members of Guild would continue working with them. This began to change in 1936, when the Guild issued a new "declaration of cooperation" to retailers, stating that retailers could no longer sell ANY dresses considered to be copies, regardless of price-point, and that the Guild's professional shoppers had full authority to determine what was/was not a copy. As illustrated in the Time article mentioned above, this led to the Guild frequently clashing with its partner retailers:

• In April 1936, a Guild investigator visiting Philadephia's Strawbridge & Clothier Department Store came upon a dress she determined was a copy. She demanded that it immediately be removed from the floor and that she be told the name of the manufacturer. Store managers disagreed; they did not feel the dress was a copy, and therefore refused her request.  Per Time Magazine, "two days later all Guild manufacturers received a small pink card informing them that the department store had been guilty of DEFINITE REFUSAL TO COOPERATE. As penalty, Strawbridge & Clothier's orders were no longer to be filled."
  
  

• The article goes on to say that "Within a few days much the same thing had happened at Bloomingdale's in Manhattan and at R. H. White Co. in Boston, which is owned by Filene's. All three stores are members of Associated Merchandising Corp., which was founded by Lincoln Filene in 1916 to give leading department stores throughout the country a Manhattan centre for style and market information, later engaged in co-operative buying. By the middle of last month all but four of the 20 members of Associated Merchandising Corp. had been "red-carded" by the Guild." 
  
  

  

  Lincoln Filene

• This finally culminated with Wm. Filene's Sons Co., the grandfather of Filene's Basement, suing the Guild for conspiracy in restraint of trade in March 1936. "Filene's complained that the Guild was seriously interfering with its spring showings by prohibiting manufacturers from shipping orders made even before the store had been red-carded. General charge was that Guild members had "conspired" to monopolize the dress industry and to maintain their monopoly by blacklisting recalcitrant retailers and laying heavy penalties on manufacturers who broke the rules." 

Although Filene's lost the suit, the damage was done. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission charged the Guild with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and issued a cease-and-desist order. The Guild fought back but ultimately lost the case when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1941.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the former head of the Guild, Maurice Rentner, went to Congress and argued that, without copyright protection for designers, the fashion industry would flounder and die. Congress did not respond to his lobbying, and the industry has flourished for decades.

Nevertheless, the subject of fashion copyright and intellectual property laws continues to come up again and again.

Johanna Blakely's Copyright Flow-Chart

In 2006, a bill called The Design Piracy Prohibition Act was brought before Congress. It did not pass.  In 2007 a modified version was again brought before Congress.  It too did not pass.  A new version of the Act was introduced in 2009, with several designers, including Narciso Rodriguez, Thakoon Panichgul, Jason Wu, and Maria Cornejo, lobbying in support of the bill.  It too did not pass.  (Click here for an interesting read on the potential negative effects that could have occurred if the bill had passed in its original format.)

Today, this Bill has been reintroduced as the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act.  It is backed by both the "Council of Fashion Designers of America" and "The American Apparel and Footwear Association."  According to ApparelNews, the new bill proposes a copyright-protection period of three years and eliminates the former requirement of registering designs with the Library of Congress.  It also includes at at-home sewing exemption.  

The text of the proposed law states: 

“In the case of fashion design, a design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if that design is not substantially identical in overall visual appearance to and as to the original elements of a protected design; or is the result of an independent creation.”

Although signs seen to indicate that the Bill will pass this time, opponents argue that both U.S. manufacturers and aspiring designers will suffer due to the constant threat of litigation which will hang over their heads as a result.

Expert Johanna Blakely goes into great detail discussing the harm the bill could do here.  If the bills passes she fear that "consumers will pay higher prices (someone has to pay those legal fees) and they won't have the same access to the plethora of knock-offs that allow them to participate in global fashion trends without paying aristocratic prices."

Ultimately this leads to the question: in the long run, will the bill do more harm than good?

Keeping that in mind, let's look at today's Friend Friday questions:

1. Which side do you take: copycat designs are a way for the average consumer to stay current and wear runway styles without breaking the bank OR Copycat designs take business from the designer and cheapen the value of their work. Explain.   

I think that we are talking about two different types of consumers here: the people who can afford designer pieces, and the people who can not.  My belief is that, ultimately, a designer will lose little - if any - business due to copycat designs.


Most of the individuals who shop for designer-inspired pieces at the H&M, Forever21 and Zara's of the world could not afford to purchase the "real" thing. They can afford the low-end mass market pieces, not designer pieces.  Therefore, a designer would never see a profit from them.

You can't lose something you never had to begin with.

Meanwhile, there will always be individuals who are ready, willing, and able to pay a considerable premium to own the "real thing" instead of imitations.  Who knows, they may also buy pieces from a retailer like H&M here and there, but they will also continue to buy the real brand name.  Going back to the topic of conspicuous consumption for a second: the "real thing" gives status.  The imitation does not.

As for cheapening the value of their work? I don't think so. I believe copycat designs help define fashion trends.  A particular item is often deemed fashionable precisely because of its high rate of copying.  That is when it becomes a "trend."  

Every person - whether they are a musician, actor, entrepreneur, artist, author, or plain old stay-at-home-mom, is inspired by something.  Designer's are no different.  Their inspiration might be in the form of a vintage magazine, an old museum or newspaper archive, classic films, vintage patterns, or the current runway collection.  It might be in the form of grandma's old dress.  But the great designers take that inspiration and create something completely new from it.  

These designers create something new, ultimately renewing the industry over and over again as one trend dies and another is born.

Note: There is a big difference between copycat and inspired-designs, and flat out counterfeit pieces. Counterfeit pieces are illegal and should not be sold.

2. Sometimes we do things, even if they are unethical or illegal (downloading music for free, watching full movies on YouTube). Do you think it is unethical for a designer to copy a vintage piece, make it current and sell it?

It depends on your definition of "copy."

If you mean copy, as in fully reproduce, with no alterations at all, and claim as their own design?  Yes, it is unethical.

If you mean copy, as in reinvent?  Absolutely not.  As I stated above, I think vintage pieces are a great source of inspiration for designers.  

What if the person who invented, for example, stiletto heels, leggings, the pinstripe suit, the first pair of jeans, the brassiere, or the tank top had copyrighted their ideas?  What if no one had ever been allowed to reinvent those?

3. Would you buy an items that is a very well done copy of a runway garment if it fell within your budget? 

Possibly. It depends on the item.  I would never buy it if it was a counterfeit reproduction.  But if it was a well-made, "inspired-by" design, why not?  ABS dresses fit this category.  So do dresses by Faviana.  

However, I am more inclined to buy a piece that is inspired by a runway garment than one that is a blatant copy. Like, say Forever 21 pieces.  They tend to be really, really is guilty of a lot of UNinspired copying.




Then, of course, occasionally the opposite happens, and an A-list designer copies someone lesser know:

4. According to the fashion laws, at least in the US, apparel design is seen as too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection. Would you think this is detrimental to the industry or beneficial.

Ultimately, I am of the belief that it is beneficial.  The fashion industry has thrived for decades without this type of copyright protection. 

In July of 1947, Leon Bendel Schmulen, of Henri Bendel department store-fame, told the New York Times that copying was “no danger to the business” and a “natural consequence of fashion.”  He even went on to say that "[b]y the time a design of ours is copied in the cheaper dress lines, it’s probably time for it to go.”

That is pretty much in line with everything I've typed here so far.  I believe the existence of low-priced retailers like H&M helps spur designer innovation, segment the marketplace, create trends, create demand, and actually increases the reputation of top designers.  No one wants to copy a designer that isn't respected. 

Professors Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, both counterfeiting and intellectual property law experts, believe that the success of the fashion industry relies on "induced obsolescence."  This theory suggests that in order for the fashion industry to keep growing, customers must become bored with the current trends and buy the next big thing.  The cool kid doesn't want to wear what everyone else has - they want something new.  Earlier this year, they told the New York Times that copying is what helps create these new trends: 

"The interesting effect of copying is to generate more demand for new designs, since the old designs—the ones that have been copied—are no longer special. The overall result is greater sales of apparel. We call this surprising effect the “piracy paradox.”

They also state that the philosophy behind intellectual property law suggests that there must be evidence of systematic harm throughout any industry looking to protect its intellectual property, and in the case of the fashion industry, there simply isn’t enough harm across the board.  Instead, as I've shared above, the lack of copyright actually seems to be helping the industry.

Why have so many A-list designers started to knock-off their own creations with retailers like H&M (hello, Lanvin!), Target, Topshop, and even Kohls?  Simple: so they can expand their own clientele and brand by offering a variety of products at vastly different price-points.  If they believed offering these items would hurt their brand they wouldn't do it.

Most recently, a European Union funded study out of the UK suggests that even counterfeit reproductions are *gasp* harmless to the industry!  If we are not taking into consideration that other ramifications of producing and/or purchasing counterfeit items (child labor, funding terrorism, etc.), then it appears the negative impact is negligible.  Unfortunately, in the case of counterfeit items, the additional ramifications I listed above are extremely serious.

Ultimately, there are some serious offenders when it comes to copyright infringement.  Counterfeiters, but that is already illegal.  And companies like Forever 21 who really specialize in some blatant rip-offs.  But intellectual copyright has to do with protecting a whole industry, and in this case, the industry doesn't need protection.

Note: Raustiala and Sprigman are both opposed to the new Bill.

5. Own up… share the things in your closet that is a knock off. You know those things you got in China Town, on the streets of New York, or where ever.

I have two.  A Louis Vuitton Monogram Audra bag and a unknown PRADA knock-off.  And you know what? They both suck.  I bought them when I was a poor college student visiting New York.  


I was so excited that they took me into the "secret" back room that I bought 2 bags because I felt like I was in some special club.  Too bad I can tell the difference between the bags I bought and the real thing - after that trip, they never left my closet.  But I still think getting invited to the "secret room" was exciting.

Hey - at least it didn't come from the secret knockoff garbage bag!

To see what other bloggers are saying about this topic, click here.

For more info on ModlyChic's Friend Friday series, click here.

All images from Google Images.

Friend Friday: Conspicuous Consumption (or keeping up with Joneses)

Conspicuous consumption: the lavish spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth as a means of attaining or maintaining social status.

The term "conspicous consumption" was coined by economist Thorstein Veblen back in 1899 when he wrote the "Theory of the Leisure Class".  In that thesis, Veblen explains that the excessive spending habits of the leisure class were directly tied to their desire for social esteem. Living in a wealth-based status-system it wasn't enough to simply have money, you had to show it - be conspicuous about it.
 

Although Veblen was really the first to "name" the habit, it actually dates back much, much further.  Conspicuous consumption has been present for a millenia, but there are certain events that have spurred excessive conspicuous consumption throughout history.

Increased international trade during the Renaissance resulted in a massive jump in imported fashion, food and luxury goods. The increased availability of these goods, of course, led to excessive consumption.  By the 14th century many European governments had instituted sumptuary laws in an effort to curb this.  In theory, these laws were in place so encourage restraint in spending and to help boost the economy.  However, the laws also dictated how someone should dress based on their rank and status.  It was an effort to stop commoners who had made money from dressing "above their station" and jumping to a higher class.

Okay, not the same type of Sumptuary, but I liked the photo!

Over the years, increased advertising spending has also significantly impacted conspicuous consumption.  According to Richard Robbins' "Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism", the goal of the advertisers was to "aggressively shape consumer desires and create value in commodities by imbuing them with the power to transform the consumer into a more desirable person."  And advertise they did.

According to statistics, in 1880 only $30 million was invested in advertising in the United States.  By 1950, national spending on advertising had risen to $5.7 billion. The discovery of the advertising potential of television doubled annual spending to $12 million by 1960.  By the 1970's that figure reached $72 billion worldwide and $38 billion U.S.!

Would you buy from this shady group of people?

Ohhh yes. I'd buy whatever you're selling, sir.

Today, with the advent of internet advertsing, that figure has grown to astronomical figures.  In June, the Los Angeles Times reported that this year's advertising spending worldwide should reach $451 billion with U.S. spending estimated at $145 billion.  This means there are a lot of companies out there telling us what to buy in order to become a "more desirable person."  Is it any  wonder, then, that conspicuous consumption is a concern?

Now, on to today's questions: 

1. Do you think fashion blogs are often just conspicuous consumption? Are some?  Yes and no.  I believe that there are some fashion blogs out there, yes, that only promote conspicuous consumption.  Blogs that are essentially advertisments for certain products promote this.  Bloggers that encourage never wearing an item of clothing or shoes twice promote this.  Blogs that have no editorial content and exclusively feature the latest "it" items promote this.  Those blogs do exist, but, they are also few and far between. In my opinion they are also narcissistic and simply a walking advertisment. 
   
   I believe that the majority of fashion bloggers stay away from this type of behavior.  Sure, we are all (likely) guilty of promoting some consumption.  I know I am.  However, we are all consumers.  If you wear clothing you are a consumer.  But we can chose HOW we consume.  I believe conscious consumerisim is OK.  Excessive consumerisim is not.
   
   Fashion bloggers have responsibility to balance any consumerisim they promote with ways to offset their environmental impact.  Many do this by promoting vintage and thrift shopping.  Many promote DIYs.  Many promote repurposing or refashioning clothing.  Many challenge themselves to wear what they alraedy have in new and unique ways.  Many promote self-imposed buying bans.  Many promote cleaning out your closet and donating unused items to charity.  Many swap clothing.  Some promote green lines like Stella McCartney and edun. I think the majority of bloggers engage in some of these behaviors and stay away from promoting conspicuous consumption.
   
   
   Furthermore, I often wonder which blog is considered to be more conspicuous - the one promoting F21 items, or the one promoting Chanel, D&G, Marc Jacobs, etc.?  The items on the F21 blog will certainly cost less.  However, the items on the luxury blog will last much, much longer.  Which one is then promoting more conspicuous consumption in the eye of the critics?  The blogs promoting spending more by purchasing quality and staple wardrobe pieces, or those that promote spending less by buying more affordable items?
   
   
2. As bloggers do we have the obligation to explain our personal financial status, how we pay for the things we showcase, if we have debt, etc... I think your personal financial status is private.  It's no one's business except your own (and any family members who may be impacted by it).  I think bloggers have a responsibility to share if items they showcase are provided by retailers.  As a human being, they also have a responsibility to act responsibly.  This means don't bankrupt yourself because you are running a fashion blog!  That is about it, though.
   
   I don't understand the mentality that just because a blogger has A, B and C, that means a reader MUST buy A, B, and C.  Yes, bloggers introduce me to items I like.  They may become items I want to buy.  But that doesn't mean I have to own everything that blogger owns.  I am responsible for my own spending habits, not the fashion blogger whose page I may be reading.
   
   
3. Critics often say that fashion bloggers should use their money to support more worthwhile causes than clothing themselves in a different outfit daily. What's your reaction to this?  How do those critics know what these fashion bloggers support?  Being a fashion blogger doesn't exclude you from being charitable.  Being fashionable doesn't exclude someone from being charitable. 
   
   Critics can't dictate how much of someone's budget goes to spending versus bills versus charities.  That is all an individual choice.  I work for a non-profit.  I am on a Board of another.  I donate to a number of charities, including my own place of employment.  I also donate my time.  I - like many other fashion bloggers out there - also donate clothing back to charity a few times a year.
   
   Everyone needs to wear clothes.  Unless they are a nudist.
   
   Since we already have to spend on clothing, why can't it be clothing that is featured on a fashion blog? 
   
   
4. Since you started blogging, do you spend more money on fashion and beauty products?  Right now the answer to this is "no" but I am still new. :)  Honestly, I don't envision my spending changing because I am blogging.  If anything it may have increased slightly when I started to follow fashion blogs.  However, I also began going to vintage and thrift shops when I started to follow fashion blogs.  I began to dabble in some DIY projects.  And I really re-evaluated what was in my own closet.
   
   I may be spending slightly more, but I am now purchasing quality pieces that will last for years to come instead of the lastest fad that will come and go.  Being a conscious consumer means being aware of these types of things.  My own spending habits have become lest wasteful and more purposeful - albeit more pricey.  Isn't that a good thing?
   
5. Life is about more than what money can buy. What are the things that top your list of what life is all about?  Edited to say: Eeekkk... I just realized I neglected to answer the most important question!  This is fairly straightforward:
   
   First is the people I love - friends and family alike.  It doesn't matter how much money you have - the memories you create with and have of the people you love are what is priceless. 
   
   Second is being passionate about something.  I am passionate about a lot of things, and each of them makes my life more full. As Angel of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame said: Passion is the source of our finest moments. (yes, I am quoting vampire here)
   
   Finally: being true to yourself.  Never compromise who you are for the sake of others.

What are your thought's on this topic?  Do you think fashion bloggers are being unfairly targeted as conspicuous consumers?

To read more responses to ModlyChic's Friend Friday series, click here.

For information on how you can join, click here.

Friend Friday: Size (and don't call me a fatshionista)

Last week was the first time that I participated in ModlyChic’s Friend Friday series. I really enjoyed sharing my thoughts on “Blogger Privacy” and was looking forward to learning what the topic for this week was. I was absolutely elated when I found out it was "Size."

This is a topic that has already come up on my blog a number of times. I shared some of my own thoughts early on when I wrote "Size 14 is Not Fat Either – It’s Invisible." Then, just this past week, this post about a Cosmopolitan Australia photoshoot featuring sisters Courtney and Laura Wells really led to some great discussions in the comments. When I found out what this week’s topic was I decided to hold my own responses to those comments for this post.

This isn’t a new subject by any means, but it seems like lately it has really dominated the news. According to this recent New York Times piece by Ginia Bellafante, the shift “dates to last fall, when Glamour ran a small picture of a 5-foot-11, 180-pound model comfortably exposing her paunch. So unusual was the appearance of belly fat in this context that the magazine received thousands of letters and comments, most of them roaring with support."  The response was so great, in fact, that they began featuring more plus-sized women and printed the photo of Lizzie Miller again in their most recent issue.

A few month’s after the Glamour photo generated buzz, Lane Bryant caused a stir with their television ad for Cacique, its lingerie line.  The ad, starring model Ashley Graham, was labeled as too risqué by ABC and Fox due to "excessive cleavage." There was ample cleavage in the ad, yes, but the product being featured provided more coverage than what you'd see in a typical Victoria’s Secret spot.  The problem was the plus-sized model.  Both networks eventually aired the ads in some form, but not until Lane Bryant accused them of being "sizeist."

 

This past January, V Magazine featured five plus-sized beauties in a story entitled "Curves Ahead" in its size issue.  Meanwhile, the popularity of Mad Men has resulted in the stunning Christina Hendricks gracing numerous magazine covers, including the July/August Health Magazine I just picked up.  In July, the New York City location of Saks Fifth Avenue announced that it is piloting a program that will have them selling a limited number of plus-sized clothing with high-end designer labels:

“After recent review, we concluded there are customers who desire designer clothing in sizes that are not currently available in our stores. To meet their needs, Saks Fifth Avenue has worked with certain well-known designers, and for fall this year we will offer some designer brands up to size 18 in select Saks Fifth Avenue locations.”

Most recently, Robert Duffy, the business partner of Marc Jacobs, broke the news via twitter that Marc Jacobs would be designing a plus-sized line.  Although there are other high-end designers out there who have some plus-sized offering, like Rachel Pally and Dolce & Gabbana, Jacobs would be the first major label to make a significant impact in the "plus-sized" world.  Sounds like good news, no?

The New York Times article I mentioned above is entitled "Plus-Size Wars."  Although the title refers more to the roadblocks between supply and demand for plus-sized clothing, the true war zone can be found in the reader comment area.  Here are just a few worth noting:

John: "Anything larger than a size 12 should only be made in sweatpants material."

mark in Minn: "Turn off your ac, get sweaty, put down the remote, stop drinking gallons of soda pop, and go outside."

JB: "Should we really be encouraging people to stay fat in our society by tacitly  approving it by giving them more choices of what to wear?"

Sherry: Personally, I hate that society would glamorize or promote acceptance of obesity.  If you can't find clothes to fit you - exercise, eat right and hopefully lose weight... I hope the fashion industry continues to struggle trying to dress the overweight, success would only mean enabling bad lifestyle choices.

I think those are a perfect lead-in to today's questions:

1. Should someone's size stop them from fashion blogging or having a voice in the community?  Absolutely not. Size should never keep someone from doing anything, least of all fashion blogging. Despite what the fashion industry might try to tell us, being fashionable doesn’t start with a size 00 and stop at size 10/12. 
   
   Regardless of your shape OR size, your voice has a right to be heard. The fact of the matter is, no matter what size you are, there will always, always, be other women out there who can relate to you. So why wouldn’t you add your own distinct voice to the conversation?
   
   
2. In your opinion, can the term "curvy" and "plus-sized" be used interchangeably when it comes to fashion?  In my opinion, terms like these are a part of the problem. Curvy.  Plus-Sized.  Straight.  What exactly do these terms mean? In the fashion industry, models are either “straight-” or “plus-sized.” How on earth can there only be two categories for the endless shapes and sizes women come in?  The day he announced Marc Jacobs upcoming line, Robert Duffy even admitted he doesn't like the label "plus size." Then again, we all know that what is considered "plus size" to the fashion industry is not "plus-sized' by real world standards.
   
   Then, there is the blogosphere.  I admit I like to use the word curvy. I use it because I relate to it. I have an hourglass figure. I am a US size 14. And I am curvy. So I use the word curvy. I also use the word “plus-size” because it’s the real-world standard for a size 14 and above. I’ve seen other “plus-size” bloggers out refer to themselves “curvy fashionistas.” And I absolutely abhor the word “fatshionista”.  Ick.  I know it's supposed to be cute, but it has an extremely negative connotation to me.  Why bring more negativity to the fold?  There is enough negativity around this topic without that label.
   
   Personally, I prefer terms that describe shape. If I tell you I am a size 14, what picture does that paint? Do you have any clue what my figure looks like? No. But if I tell you that I am an hourglass, apple, pear, etc. you at least have some idea of my shape.
   
   On the flip-side, in the real-world, someone can be plus-sized and not be curvy. Someone can also be a size 0 and have curves.  Look at Scarlett Johansson.  She has some seriously dangerous curves on her, but she is tiny.  In addition, a Size 12/14 may be considered plus-size by industry standards but is average by statistical standards. 
   
   
   So – to answer your original question – no, the terms shouldn’t be used interchangeably, although they often are.
   
   
3. Many people make the argument that catering to plus sized women would promote being overweight as "okay". What do you think? Should more designers be catering to plus size women?  The comments I quoted above illustrate exactly this phenomena, yet I think this argument is as ridiculous as the argument that size 00 clothing promotes anorexia. There is a different between being plus-sized and being obese.  Being healthy is what is important - you can be a size 0 and not have an eating disorder, and you can be plus-sized and be in perfectly good health.  The same is true for the reverse.  Just because someone is thin doesn't mean they are healthy.
   
   People carry their weight differently.  They have curves in different places.  They are different heights.  I am 5'8 and a size 14.  Most of my weight is in my T & A.  Actress Liv Tyler is a Size 14 and 5'10.  In all likelihood, we are both probably healthier than the 4'9 person who is also a size 14.  Probably.  But we all deserve to have something to wear. 
   
   
   There is such a stigma nowadays about being “plus-sized" and the fashion industry often makes it worse.  For example, I absolutely abhor some of the things that come out of Karl Lagerfield’s mouth.  When he learned of German magazine Brigitte’s decision to use “ordinary” women in their fashion shoots he said their decision was driven by "fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television, saying that thin models are ugly".
   
   Wow. 
   
   A 2009 LA Times piece states: "When Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld, who spent most of his adult life battling a serious weight problem, created a capsule collection for H&M in 2004, the newly svelte designer was incensed that the retailer manufactured the collection in larger sizes. "What I designed was fashion for slender and slim people," he said. And in an interview in the March issue of Harper's Bazaar, he sniffed, "The body has to be impeccable . . . if it's not, buy small sizes and less food."
   
   Again, wow.  Is it any surprise so many plus-sized women feel invisible when some high-fashion designers think like that?
   
   The fact of the matter is there is a demand for these pieces. Numerous survey results have indicated that the average size of an American woman is a 14. Yet any plus-sized woman can tell you that the availability of Size 14 and up clothing is limited - and designer pieces in size 14 and up are SEVERELY limited.  Think needle in haystack limited.
   
   The stigma surrounding plus-sized clothing lines doesn’t come from the worry that such a line would promote being overweight, or that their would be a lack of demand.  It comes from a worry that it will cost the company too much to produce.  The NYT piece explains that the development of a plus-size line would be more costly because the design and production process gets more complicated as proportions and body ratios change with increased sizes. Perhaps this is true, but I would argue that not all 0-2-4-6-8-10 women have the exact same body type.  They don't come from one mold.  They just have much MUCH more to choose from. 
   
   
   There is no doubt about it: the plus-sized market is commercially viable and largely untapped.  There is demand, but little supply.  It's a starving market waiting for a designer like Marc Jacobs.
   
   
4. Should the mainstream fashion industry be showcasing more plus size models?  Women are diverse.  We come in all colors, shapes and sizes.  The mainstream fashion industry should be showcasing models that represent these different types of women.  It seems that this is already happening with greater frequency, and hopefully this trend will continue to increase. 
   
   The beautiful Crystal Renn (a plus-size in the modeling world, but not in the real-world) walked the runway in the Spring/Summer 2011 Chanel resort show (perhaps Lagerfield is slowly changing his opinion on the subject).  Mark Fast's decision to use UK Size 14 women during London Fashion Week to showcase his creations was met with both applause and condemnation.  One of his stylists and his creative director quit as a result of the move, while others lauded the runway show.
   
   
   I am a huge fan of the Marc Jacobs-designed AW10 Louis Vuitton collection and loved the images from the catwalk show.  The line itself is extraordinary, and the models were different shapes and sizes. I was STUNNED to read that models Laetitia Casta, Karolina Kurkova and Adriana Lima are generally considered too plump for catwalk work. Seriously?!  Too plump?
   
   
   Maybe the mainstream industry shouldn't just focus on featuring more plus-sized models - maybe they should also focus on creating realistic standards.
   
   
5. For you personally, how do you view your size, the struggle with it through the years, your ideal size, etc.  Again, this is something I have already addressed before, both here, and here.  In brief: I am happy with my size 14 body.  I know my body type can be categorized as everything from plus-sized, fat and big-boned to curvy, voluptuous and womanly.  It all depends on who you ask.  But I am a 34 year-old woman, not an impressionable young girl.  I am healthy, self confident and I have a positive self-image, so none of the characterizations and generalizations about size mean anything to me.
   
   
   I also think it is important to know your body, and to be aware of what works for you and what doesn't.  That in itself will make you more confident.  I don't have an "ideal" size.  I just want to be healthy.  As I've said before, I wouldn't mind losing a few inches here and there, but I do eat healthy, and I do work out regularly, and it just isn't happening.  My metabolism doesn't want to cooperate with me.  So I accept the size I am right now, and if I lose some inches down the road, that will be a nice surprise.  Regardless, my size doesn't define me. Size doesn't define anyone.

Final thoughts: at the beginning of this blog entry I mentioned that there were some great reader comments on my earlier post on Courtney and Laura Wells.  Here are two of those comments to reflect on:

Fashion Butter: "What makes me sad in all of this mess is that us women seem to enjoy picking teams about everything just to tear each other apart. This mentality extends far beyond the plus size/skinny debate, I have noticed that we can be very quick to negatively label other women when it comes to almost anything in life - friendships, relationships, careers, raising children, etc. In a perfect world, I wish that we could all be a little more self-aware and be more supportive of each other."

A Brit Greek: "...We all have it in us to be judgmental and are quick to fire an opinion about everything you have mentioned, it's a shame the media doesn't help much either - by labeling, criticizing, telling us what they think is right half the time. We're all unique individuals, no-ones perfect!  "Those who have not yet accepted their own imperfection are the first ones to judge and criticize the faults of others...""

Applause for these two ladies, please.

And I leave you with this quote from Sophia Loren:  

"Nothing makes a woman more beautiful 

than the belief that she is beautiful."

All images courtesy of Google Images.

Friend Friday: Blogger Privacy (and a question of Anonymity)

Do you remember the last time you saw a high fashion shoot where the model's face was completely obscured?  No?  

It's an unusual approach, to say the least.  A faceless model and a faceless photographer. 

Yet this is exactly what you will find in Italian fashion brand Patrizia Pepe’s AW 2010/2011 Ad Campaign entitled “Who is Patrizia Pepe?”

The campaign captured my attention for a number of reasons.  It is unique.  It is whimsical.  It is curious.  It is beautiful.  And it is anonymous.  

It is the campaign's anonymity that truly resonates with me.  Most of you know that I have decided to keep this blog anonymous for a number of reasons (last discussed here).  I have decided to revisit the topic here because this week's edition of ModlyChic's "Friend Friday" is all about blogger privacy! 

1. Do you think privacy is something we should worry about as bloggers?  I think privacy is something everyone who is on the internet needs to worry about, not just bloggers.  People who use social networking sites like twitter and facebook, flickr, etc. should also be concerned with exactly how much information private information they may be making available to the general public.
   
   
   
2. Do you use your real name or a pen name? What was behind that decision? When I decided to start my own blog I knew that I did not want to use my real name.  Why?  Have you ever googled yourself?  I have.  I have an extremely unique name, so if someone google's it - they find me. Right away.  The search doesn't yield a ton of info. about me.  However, it includes where I work and other details.  Details I don't want to share with everyone who might come across my blog. 
   
   Instead, I thought long and hard until I was able to come up with a blog name that I felt would describe not only the blog - but me as well.  That is how "Beautifully Invisible" was born.
   
   
3. How much personal information do you reveal about your life beyond the blog?  The internet is a funny thing. It's very nature encourages us to reveal and to feel safe doing so. But we have to be responsible about what we reveal.  I reveal what I consider to be non-descript things about my personal life.  I've revealed that I recently went through a breakup.  I reveal the way that made me feel.  I've revealed places I shop and the city I live in.  I've revealed that I am a fundraiser and I've revealed a number of my interests.  I probably reveal even more random facts via twitter, and I know I'll reveal more as the blog grows. 
   
   However, as I said, I try to keep these "reveals" non-descript.  When I think about my favorite blogs I realize that i feel like I "know" each of the authors, even though we have never met.  I hope that my readers get a sense of who I am through the way that I write and through the things I DO reveal, but they don't have to know every last fact about me. 
   
   I think that people who DO know me in "the real world" could easily figure out who I am from reading my blog.  There are enough clues to my identity that are spread throughout various posts.  However, at this point I hope I can still be interesting enough to my readers without revealing all.
   
   
   
4. What will you never reveal?  Right now I don't think I would ever reveal my real name and where I live/work. Everything else can be revealed in snippets, within reason.  Perhaps if my name was a bit more common I wouldn't be as hesitant to reveal my identity one day, but as of now its extremely unlikely!  That being said - I don't plan to keep it hidden from friends that I make via the blog.  I just don't plan to share it ON the blog.
   
   
   
5. As bloggers, we have to an extent made ourselves 'public' figures. But still there are things that are intimate to each of us that does not need to be known by anyone that stumbles across our blog. How do you determine what is appropriate for public consumption and what is private to you?  This goes back to what I was saying above about posting non-descript things.  I think it is important that your readers have a sense of who you are as a person.  It makes you more real to them, and it helps you connect.  Some people may not care that I am sad because of a break-up, or that I may not be feeling well, or that Jon Bon Jovi is one of my long-standing crushes.  Yet each of those things gives you some insight into ME.  Yet, they could just as easily be about someone else.  An example of what is private to me is WHY my ex and I broke up.  That is something private that is between us.  If it's something that impacts another individual in my life - it won't be posted here. 
   
   Ultimately it's all just a judgement call, isn't it?  Some people are more comfortable sharing than others, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Each person - be it a blogger, facebook-er, or tweeter - has to decide for themselves what they are comfortable sharing.  What is "personal and private" to one person may be "public domain" to another.  Every person has to decide for themselves.
   
   

I think that I am in a different position than a LOT of the other fashion bloggers out there in that, since this isn't a personal fashion blog, I don't have to reveal my face.  Blogs like mine that tend to focus on editorials and photography lend themselves to being a bit more private.  No one is going to recognize me as "Beautifully Invisible" when I walk down the street in Cleveland.  The same can't be said for personal fashion blogs, and I would imagine that in itself adds a whole other layer to the question of blogger privacy.

What about you - what are your thoughts on blogger privacy?  How much do you share?

Note: This is my first contribution to ModlyChic's Friend Friday series.  If you are interested in joining, or for more information about how it works, click here.

Photoshoot Details:

Patrizia Pepe AW10/11 Ad Campaign

Model and Photographer: Unknown