Laughs. On the lame scale that definitely was a 10 but I thought I'd add a bit of nerdy humour to soften up the words to come. Anyways, recessionista and depressionista are not really recent additions to our vocabulary, it's been bandied about for quite some time now but I strongly feel we could do without the incessant use of them. Now I know this is not zen-like to have a rant about words no less, but it just irks me how people seem to be carelessly mouthing them with increasing frequency since October of last year as if it was THE trend to jump on before it went out of fashion. I'm not sure about everyone else but I personally feel that the fashion world or whoever it was coining these 'catchy' terms to describe a woman who keeps up with the trends fashion-wise despite the economic hit faced by most people is simply silly and outrageous. Recessionista? Depressionista? C'mon, I think it's insulting to try to spin a serious situation and make it sound so flighty and hip. It's not hip that Citibank is laying off tens of thousands of people nor was it cool when IBM let go of more than 50K employees. Hell, even the people at Google are having to downsize 100 employees.
A look at the American consumer spending for the holiday season of '08 shows that people are really feeling the pinch of the world economic slump. And for the fashion industry, there are designers with plans of forgoing fashion week and going back to basics by holding collection unveilings at their headquarters/office/design space, inviting only potential buyers. No more of the whole celebrity-centric hoopla as these designers also need to cut costs. FYI, celebrity attendance at designer shows are not entirely an altruistic gesture of support, because said celeb just looooves that designer. There are perks offered to have that celebrity's stamp of approval. Fame sells and a picture snapped of a famous celeb's face in the front row of your runway show.....KA-CHING, it's quite the money maker. But now, I guess many figure the payoff is not as lucrative or cost effective.
To me, a person who is fashionable is simply a fashionista. It doesn't matter whether you can afford to spend thousands on couture pieces or you shop at Salvation Army, if someone thinks your look is great and is in keeping with the trends perpetuated by the tons of fashion magazines, then you are a fashionista. Coining the term recessionista/depressionista to describe someone who still manages to be fashionable in lean times by scaling back on the Diors, Marc Jacobs, Gucci, Prada and DKNY is basically implying those who previously wore ONLY couture or high end brands could qualify to be called a fashionista. Gimme a break. I have seen completely horrendous items on the runways and on the bodies of Hollywood starlets. If simply dressing in known brand names that costs more than the hosehold income of 100 families in Darfur gives you the privilege of being a fashionista then I don't aspire to be one.
I think in recent times we women as a collective have aided in this skewered view of what makes a woman fashionable. I'll admit, I do wish I owned more designer handbags and could afford to splurge on a pair of Christian Louboutin but I don't believe wearing couture labels from head-to-toe defines a trendy person. I don't find it wrong to follow trends, hell, I bought into the Gladiator shoes hype, maxi dress hoopla and found an excuse to work leggings into any and all occasions throughout 2008 and still even now but I did not get my Gladiator sandals from Dior nor did my maxi dress come from Gucci and I certainly didn't get expensive leggings designed by Ms Lohan. This whole ridiculous creation of 2 words that basically describes women who are keeping trendiness alive by going low budget or designers suddenly racing to come up with 'affordable' collections (AND THEN acting as if it was some genius brainwave that deserves a nobel prize), is sickening to those who have been doing so waaaaay before the economic woes began (hey, as one of my old post suggests, I'm all for diffusion lines by high end designers but if your price point only begins at USD100, it ain't budget). It is insulting to suddenly suggest that cheap is chic too. Cheap has ALWAYS been chic, some people were just too snooty to notice is all.
A look at the American consumer spending for the holiday season of '08 shows that people are really feeling the pinch of the world economic slump. And for the fashion industry, there are designers with plans of forgoing fashion week and going back to basics by holding collection unveilings at their headquarters/office/design space, inviting only potential buyers. No more of the whole celebrity-centric hoopla as these designers also need to cut costs. FYI, celebrity attendance at designer shows are not entirely an altruistic gesture of support, because said celeb just looooves that designer. There are perks offered to have that celebrity's stamp of approval. Fame sells and a picture snapped of a famous celeb's face in the front row of your runway show.....KA-CHING, it's quite the money maker. But now, I guess many figure the payoff is not as lucrative or cost effective.
To me, a person who is fashionable is simply a fashionista. It doesn't matter whether you can afford to spend thousands on couture pieces or you shop at Salvation Army, if someone thinks your look is great and is in keeping with the trends perpetuated by the tons of fashion magazines, then you are a fashionista. Coining the term recessionista/depressionista to describe someone who still manages to be fashionable in lean times by scaling back on the Diors, Marc Jacobs, Gucci, Prada and DKNY is basically implying those who previously wore ONLY couture or high end brands could qualify to be called a fashionista. Gimme a break. I have seen completely horrendous items on the runways and on the bodies of Hollywood starlets. If simply dressing in known brand names that costs more than the hosehold income of 100 families in Darfur gives you the privilege of being a fashionista then I don't aspire to be one.
I think in recent times we women as a collective have aided in this skewered view of what makes a woman fashionable. I'll admit, I do wish I owned more designer handbags and could afford to splurge on a pair of Christian Louboutin but I don't believe wearing couture labels from head-to-toe defines a trendy person. I don't find it wrong to follow trends, hell, I bought into the Gladiator shoes hype, maxi dress hoopla and found an excuse to work leggings into any and all occasions throughout 2008 and still even now but I did not get my Gladiator sandals from Dior nor did my maxi dress come from Gucci and I certainly didn't get expensive leggings designed by Ms Lohan. This whole ridiculous creation of 2 words that basically describes women who are keeping trendiness alive by going low budget or designers suddenly racing to come up with 'affordable' collections (AND THEN acting as if it was some genius brainwave that deserves a nobel prize), is sickening to those who have been doing so waaaaay before the economic woes began (hey, as one of my old post suggests, I'm all for diffusion lines by high end designers but if your price point only begins at USD100, it ain't budget). It is insulting to suddenly suggest that cheap is chic too. Cheap has ALWAYS been chic, some people were just too snooty to notice is all.
