The beleaguered art of fashion criticism

[Hiddenaway]

http://www.thestar.com/living/fashion/article/1142174--fashion-week-the-beleaguered-art-of-fashion-criticism

"There are several forces at work here.

Design houses that receive unflattering reviews can be vindictive, banning the offending journalist from their shows. This is serious. Unlike movie and theatre critics, who can pay for a ticket on opening night, a fashion critic has only one chance to see a collection live. Even restaurant critics can wear a disguise and dine unnoticed.

Givhan says watching a fashion show, even on a live video stream, dilutes the experience. “Fashion critics need the co-operation of the design houses,” she says.

Thus, some fashion commentators have found it prudent to curry favour, soften their criticism and continue to receive their invitations to the shows.

A second issue is that reduced print-media budgets have resulted in fewer fashion critics in the bleachers at fashion shows and more bloggers taking their places — often young women untrained in the craft of criticism. And general interest magazines and newspapers — the very ones now contracting their coverage — as Givhan observes, have always been “the best place for a critical conversation about the fashion industry.”

Moreover, the ranks of fashion-show critics who will write honestly and damn the consequences is thinning."

I found this article rather interesting, albeit nothing particularly surprising, I thought I would post it.

[Faust]

Lots of truth there. Although, funnily enough, Cathy Horyn has stated the exact opposite - she's been amused at being banned from some shows (Armani) when she can see the photos/video a few hours later. So, she didn't seem to be bothered.

There is lots to say here. But the basic premise is - does the public care for fashion criticism? I'd say the answer fundamentally is "no." Fashion, SZ notwithstanding, is not a serious topic for conversation. Fashion is escapism and frivolity and an occasional juicy scandal - entertainment, in short, and the public understands that. In such a millieau - do people really care what the critics has to say if what they are discussing is not serious? Isn't the death of art criticism more important?

Bloggers are mostly kids with rich parents who trot around the globe snapping pictures so both they and their parents can pretend that they are doing something for a living. Bloggers are happy to be at a fashion show, go to parties, and get an occasional piece of designer clothing - to live the glam life. Bloggers also satisfy an incredible, almost primal, voyeuristic urge of the public by putting their life on display (voluntarily, mind you!). When it comes to fashion, most people just want to be told what to wear to be cool. If the Sea of Shoes chick posts a pair, there is an immediate impact on sales - that's a fact, ladies and gents.

Lastly, well, thank god for SZ, if I may say so myself. And for SZ magazine. At the end of the day, with the forums and the magazine (and other projects in due time) we aim to build a corner of the fashion universe where we don't have to play by fashion's rules. But we can only do it together. Please understand this. The bigger the forums/magazine, the more power we can wield, the more the fashion industry will take us into account. It already does, believe me.

[radial]

Amen to that

[Johnny]

I agree with everythign you say Faust with one caveat, although it may not actually be a caveat since it may not be inconsistent with what you say/think. SZ and SZ mag i nparticular are essentially homages to a set of favoured designers. There will be a critique of their work in some cases but not critisizm of it. So this type of publication sits outside the realm of what could reasonably be called "fashion critisizm". I don't think you can get away from the fundamental truth highlighted in the article that "critics" need the busines to co-operate.

[Faust]

You are right in a way that we probably won't got out of our way to publish something negative. First, we are a semiannual publication. Second, if we don't like something, we just don't talk about it. A couple of points - I don't know if you've seen the magazine, but even in the first issue we have covered "non-SZ" designers, for lack of a better word. And we will continue to do so. Second, we don't do advertorials. We aim at editorial integrity, which in this day and age is already a lot to ask from a magazine. And that's why the reader's support, as opposed to advertising, is so important.

With regards to SZ - I have criticized Ann's work myself and Rick has come under fire too. Not to mention BBS, M.A.+, Augusta and so on.


Critics need the business to co-operate less and less due to the Internet (see Horyn's quip about not being invited to the shows). What the business has gained in the last ten years is the importance of advertising. They can just advertise the shit out of the brand which can weight against a bad review. But only a handful of brands can do it.