The luxury fashion industry took a sharp blow following Financial Crisis ‘08 not because the rich stopped buying (they just slowed down a little bit) but because the people that were acting like they were rich, the ones cleverly squeezing the most they could out of that much, much narrower disposable income margin, panicked in the tumble. When you’re all of a sudden underwater on that McMansion, (you know, the one who’s value could only go up) you might give pause to blowing four figures on a handbag or the latest ‘it shoe’ you can only wear if you valet park.

From members only discount luxury site, gilt.com

Reuters gives an excellent analysis:

The world’s wealthiest consumers kept their taste for expensive goods through a global downturn, but their more middle-class compatriots still striving for the good life may take years to return, if ever.

Sales of luxury goods, such as designer clothes, fine jewelry and high-end handbags, slipped last year as conspicuous consumption fell out of fashion in the recession.

They explain the difference between ‘wealthy’ and ‘aspirational:’

Many in the industry view buyers of luxury goods in two different camps: those who are truly wealthy and those who sometimes shop like they are.

“The wealthy haven’t really changed their shopping patterns other than frequency,” said investment banker William Susman, chief operating officer of boutique firm Financo Inc. “It’s that aspirational shopper that we think has really shifted.”

Milton Pedraza, CEO of the Luxury Institute, said “aspirants” are generally shoppers with an average household income of about $150,000 to $300,000. They helped prop up the industry during the economic boom of the previous decade, many by living beyond their means. They cut back suddenly and dramatically after the financial crisis erupted in late 2008.

He said they will only come back fully once unemployment reaches 5 percent, a level he admitted could take five years.

And I’ll bet that 5 year figure is an optimistic one that does not factor in the possibility that the worst isn’t over and we might very well be on the verge of a double dip.

Still, some executives believe there has been a permanent change in the consumer psyche.

“It will be interesting to see five years from now what people say they don’t do anymore, or what they do differently as shoppers,” said Susan Lyne, CEO of Gilt Groupe, which operates a members-only website selling deeply discounted high-end goods. “I’d bet you it will be fairly profound.”

“You can talk to any hundred people on the street and they will tell you they think differently about buying full-price because they’ve seen so many opportunities to buy at a discount,” she said.

The steep markdowns seen in 2008 and 2009 caused many consumers to question the intrinsic value of certain pricey goods, said Coach Chief Executive Lew Frankfort. Now they look for better quality at a better price, he said.

“Consumers are smart and they have long memories,” Frankfort said. “I’m of the view that things have changed forever.”

The customers that can actually afford to pay full price to cover the overhead of glamorous showrooms on high rent streets staffed with armies of sophisticated sales associates (and security guards) are dwindling in comparison to those desperately striving for the appearance of such status. Not to mention the fact that even a lot of those who are flush prefer a bargain… that’s how many of them ended up wealthy in the first place.

All of this is part of the ongoing fallout as schrapnel from the ‘08 meltdown delivered some critical cracks in the hype chimera of the branded luxury logo industry.

“In fashion, one minute you’re in… and the next minute, you’re OUT.” Stephen Foley writes, Why American Apparel is Going out of Fashion:

It is impossible to say if there is a straight line from the salacious gossip – usually culled from the sensational lawsuits that the company attracts – to the financial peril in which American Apparel finds itself, but this much is clear: it is no longer the hottest place to shop. An equally bright and breezy foreign interloper, Uniqlo, is expanding fast on its home turf; H&M and Zara are buzzing with bargain-hunting fashionistas, hip to styles that change in those stores faster than they ever change at an American Apparel.

A fickle hipster clientele has moved on to other things? Never woulda believed it.

From Gawker.com

Foley cites Gawker media as AA’s thorn in their side. American Apparel’s PR department is no match for Gawker’s solicitation of the real story from former employees.

In regard to the recent article about Grooming, it is 100% true. Not only do they have it on paper, they also have a team from “corporate” who come to the stores just to see what we’re wearing. Just a couple weeks ago, a posse of power tripping nineteen year olds came in (literally everyone from this corporate fantasy land is a maximum age of 20) and made me go to the bathroom and wash my makeup off (and by makeup I mean a splash of liquid eyeliner and mascara and nothing at all hooker inspired). And then they scolded me for not being on the sales floor. Also, whenever we get considered for raises/promotions, we’re required to have our photos sent in for approval. My co-worker was recently denied a spot as Manager because she didn’t fit the company image. I have no idea why we continue to work there. And more importantly how are none of us involved in a lawsuit?

And it goes on and on, a litany of examples of an entire company of individuals riding the crest of last decade’s trend waves (and competing with each other to see who could do blow with the boss) with no clue how to evolve the brand into a post boom zeitgeist.

But the financial troubles go deeper. In-store sales are still running down 10 per cent, while the rest of the high street has tiptoed out of recession, suggesting a bigger malaise among shoppers.

Worse, the company jacked up its debt levels to fund its expansion just as the slowdown hit, and its failure to get back into profit means it will almost certainly breach promises to its lenders at the end of this month. London-based investor Lion Capital bailed the company out with a loan a little over a year ago; as it totters under the weight of $91.4m (£64.6m) in debt, Lion will have to decide if it wants to turn that debt into a share of the company, or put American Apparel into bankruptcy.

This is a company that has been built on the personality and creativity of Dov Charney. If his power is waning, there are plenty of critics who will declare that this is no bad thing.

I suppose I’d better invest in that lifetime supply of thigh high socks pretty soon. (the only thing I buy there. If I could find them anywhere else I would.)

Vintage clothing has only grown in popularity and desirability over the past few decades as a reaction to the erosion of quality design and construction in contemporary clothing. The mainstream of the fashion industry churned out more and more hype and branding attached to simpler, trendier and more disposable offerings. Thus, discovering the architecture, fit and design of clothing from earlier eras became a badge of underground anti-fashion cool that gained so much traction that it influenced many a marketing campaign for ‘authentic’ and ‘retro’ clothing artificially aged by armies of overseas workers. As the finite supply of wearable vintage clothing dwindled, boutique brands began remaking archival pieces for urban hipsters to add to their carefully curated collections of stealth cool and inconspicuous consumption. More mainstream brands are catching on, and now we’re starting to see the best of both worlds; the intricacy and design details of the past, updated with the best modern technology has to offer. Stephanie Clifford writes for the NYTimes, Will Last Century’s Styles Open Today’s Wallets?

Home page of Jantzen.com

At the swimwear company Jantzen, which introduced a heritage collection this spring, more updating was necessary. Take a maillot bathing suit, inspired by a swimsuit from the Twenties. Now, the bathing suit is a red one-piece number with a crystal band and a hint of a skirt. Then, it was knit from wool, weighed more than eight pounds when wet, and was meant for both women and men, said Lorraine Medici, vice president of marketing at Jantzen.

She continues:

Brands are combing their archives in the hope that old clothing styles with a classic feel will assuage consumer anxiety in shaky times. With some Americans feeling as if they can’t trust government, Wall Street or big business, the brands are betting their heritage lines will evoke memories of better times — and help pry open shoppers’ wallets.

“We’ve been through a very unsettling time, and it’s when people are discontent with the present that they really start appreciating or having a nostalgia for the past,” said Nigel Hollis, chief global analyst for the market research firm Millward Brown. “Marketers are seeking to tap into that.”

cast of AMC's "Mad Men"

This resonation with nostalgia is obvious in the runaway hit TV show, Mad Men. In a piece profiling costume designer Janie Bryant, Lauren Shuker writes for the Wall Street Journal:

With its fourth season debuting in July, the AMC show has not only reshaped television, it has also inspired the fashion world, popularizing the clothes of the era, from sharp suits to fitted dresses.

…Every single person on “Mad Men” wants Janie to make them something to wear in real life. She has made my wife a Chinese sheath dress.

…People have responded to the show by embracing a dressier lifestyle, especially men with a more tailored look—I love that. I always felt like it was the highest compliment that the show changed menswear more than women’s clothing, because men are much slower to change.

Why is this resonation and fascination with past styles so strong now, while back in the actual era of Mad Men wearing vintage was still an act of deliberate bohemian ostracization while the climbing classes clamored for the newest look. I wonder how the explosion of television channels and DVD offering and digital files over the past few decades has contributed to this phenomenon? Whereas in past eras costume designers had to do serious legwork to access historical sources and the only clothes one saw tended to be those on the street, hanging in store racks and shown on three TV channels, now most ordinary Americans exist in a quintessentially post-modern soup of countless images of individuals from earlier eras through re-runs and period shows. There’s only so much duping that fashion advertising hype can do; when one sees, inspects and wears clothing made the way it used to be, and sees it routinely sported by urban hipster tastemakers, it’s hard not to want that as an option.

And how about the possibility that slapped by the economic downturn, more and more people might be waking up to the consequences of the dopamine fueled pursuit of shiny new stuff in stores, and searching for a more pragmatic and streamlined alternatives to being the fashion victims retailers depend on? Take a look at this NYTimes Critical Shopper review of Nordstrom Rack:

An hour in at Nordstrom Rack and I was weary. Around me, in a basement space that used to house part of the Union Square Virgin Megastore, customers thumbed through oceans of clothes packed tightly on circular racks, rarely betraying an expression other than exhaustion. Here we were, underground, being moved from stack to stack by forces we couldn’t fully understand, and had little hope of escaping from. It was like a scene from “Metropolis,” or “Demolition Man,” or “The Mole People.”

Back to Clifford:

“Buying habits have pretty seriously changed from the crazy consumption of the previous decade,” Mr. Coe said. “It’s not necessarily about cheap — it’s about real value.”

“The days of frivolous spending or buying stuff that’s disposable have gone away,” he said.

Smart mega-retailers were way ahead of this curve. Often referred to as “the Steve Jobs of retail,” Micky Drexler of J.Crew embraced the philosophy of quality and longevity years ago, while still maintaining the awarness of the need for novel updates and twists. Tina Gaudoin writes for the Wall Street Journal:

Customers will pay more for well-made clothing. “What Drexler has come to understand is the biggest rip-off in retailing is designer goods,” Davidowitz says. Saks CEO Stephen Sadove “walks around saying, ‘We’re reducing price points.’ Sure they are. But also look at the reduction in quality. Customers aren’t stupid. Drexler sees this and thinks, ‘I’m going to have a higher price point, but it’s going to be a quarter of theirs and I’m going to offer better quality.’ That’s a real strategy.”

…“The customer can tell you a lot,” Drexler says. “They can give you feedback on fit and specs on operational issues even, but they can’t tell you what’s coming down the road. For that, you are always listening and learning, but when it comes to the fashion part, it’s having a certain creativity; it’s getting a sense of how the world changes.”

…Drexler says he is constantly paranoid: “I like when we’re doing well, but I also always worry about the mistakes.” Mistakes or not, fashion is a fickle business. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, much of his merchandise—the embellished T-shirts, the chunky costume jewelry that exemplifies J. Crew’s affordable-luxury vibe—is being broadly imitated by wannabe competitors (including two of his former brands), and so he must keep reinterpreting the brand, trying new, different ideas to propel growth. “Drexler knows that everyone is breathing down his neck, watching his every move,” Kloppenburg says. “It is the risk and responsibility of the brand to keep directing fashion.

While the likes of L.L. Bean may be mining their archives for inspiration, keep in mind that only those pieces that resonate with modern sensibilities are chosen for re-issue. There are plenty of high quality, well made vintage items that are left buried.

Other pieces, Mr. Carleton said, did not make the cut.

He uncovered especially odd items from the 1970s, an era he plans to draw from for the fall 2011 collection. Some of those oddities: an angora colic band that wrapped around the torso was meant to warm the lower back and a men’s Labrador parka that is “a pull-over-the-head piece that practically goes down to your knees,” he said. There is also a women’s Tundra sweater made of thick white wool with a tiny hood and odd black-and-yellow trim at the cuffs, and a face mask made of deer skin that “completely covers the face, including nose, chin, ears and throat.”

“We want to make sure we’re not producing garments that are going to make people walking around look like they just stepped out of an ice storm,” he said.

Dries Van Noten at Brownsfashion.com

As for that ‘cautious pause‘ in consumption, looks like somone has hit ‘play.’ Ruth La Ferla writes for the NY Times,

Fashion, they say, is an index of change, registering shifts in confidence and mood too subtle to glean from the rise and the fall of the Dow.

…The profusion of hothouse colors and patterns popping up on New York streets this month suggests a new buoyancy, as women shake off the constraints of a lingering recession and stock up on fashions more lively and vivid than they’ve seen in years.

Whereas the Dow is one number, up or down, black or white, the collective zeitgeist is way too multifaceted and nuanced to be reduced to that. And I’ll argue that while the street level view of what’s hot right this minute does, by necessity, have to be synched up with those by the minute shifts in taste, it’s a whole different scenario when one zooms out to the big picture, long term level.

Such bursts of zeal have given a tentative boost to a sagging apparel industry. Retail sales figures released last week showed the strongest monthly gains in a decade, with department stores reporting an average increase of 11.8 percent. “There is an enormous amount of pent-up demand,” Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group said in a recent interview with The New York Times, “and now it is being unleashed.”

Marshal Cohen, the chief analyst for the market research firm NPD Group, even interprets the resurgence of multihued designs as an indicator of recovery. “Among the first things to be successful coming out of a recession are lively colors and patterns,” he said.

Or could it be collective delusional wishful thinking? Or just plain escapism, one of fashion’s key functions? Because a lot of naysayers don’t see our ‘recovery’ as being on solid ground. Robert Kuttner writes for the Huffington Post:

The takeaway from this summit conference of the world’s most prestigious dissenting economists (including three Nobel laureates) is that (1) this financial crisis is not over; (2) if present legislative plans are the best that we can do, the pattern of bubble and bail will repeat itself; (3) only a political counterrevolution that leashes the power of Wall Street will enable the necessary reforms to proceed; and (4) mainstream economics has only begun to atone for its own complicity in legitimizing the financial bubble.

Could all those shoppers be wrong about the future of the economy? Well, it’s not that simple. What those exuberant prints indicate more than anything are the aspirations, beliefs and desires of individuals. No supposedly objective statistical analysis, here.  What’s important is that people want the recession to be over and want to go back to having fun shopping and want something new and refreshing.

At Neiman Marcus, ikat designs from Gucci as well as tiger and python prints are the lure. Their novelty excites women, said Ken Downing, the fashion director at Neiman. “These are things they don’t yet own.”

Once again, irresistible drives sales.  And what about this drive to return to quality, and shift towards sensible investment dressing? How ’bout a little instant gratification instead?

Crowds have also been swarming fast-fashion chains like H & M and Topshop, each awash in pattern. At Ann Taylor Loft on 42nd Street and Broadway, Lauri Cohen, a health care worker, showed off her latest find, a fragile cotton blouse covered in pink and green buds. “I’m buying all the prints and stripes I can,” Ms. Cohen said. “I’ve been in black long enough.”

Bold, colorful prints are eye-catching and exciting. You’ll get noticed, get complimented. But then what? It either becomes a signature piece of your style… or it looks tired and trendy right away.

There is a passion nonetheless, Ms. Corlett noted, “to have more, to move beyond the deprivation stage we’ve been in.”

Ah yes, the call to reduce consumption is perceived as deprivation. For those - like myself- who are wired with a visceral craving for lovely clothes, it’s going to take external forces to curb shopping. I can cloak my thrifting habit in a veil of greenwashed motives, but isn’t the real reason the fact that I can get so much more cooler shit for so much less money? My closets overfloweth, be it from the Blue Hangar or Barney’s. And when my car blows up and I have to forego even Blue Hangar runs? Yes, I have to keep my urge to pout in check.

Of course the corporate media moguls are going to keep the spotlight on the Tea Party movement; the more they reinforce the meme that government is the one taking liberty, not protecting it, then that much less attention can be paid to the real issue - the consolidated corporate giants that control the mass market of consumer goods directed at the middle class that so many of these ‘activists’ are freaked out about losing. Don Monkerud writes for Counterpunch, Tea Partiers Should Be Picketing the Corporations That Dominate Our Lives:

Tom Tomorrow

“Those who control our corporations managed an Orwellian achievement to redefine the use of brute corporate force as ‘market forces,’” says Lynn. “We still believe in a consumer utopia, but we have an illusion of choice. Corporate powers manipulate our decision-making and direct us to buy certain goods at certain prices.”

Institutional power shifted to Wall Street and large financial institutions. Today a small elite runs corporations to serve themselves as they concentrate their power. Some Americans are waking up to the reality of their situation, but Congress lacks the will to regulate corporate power.

…Although some Americans worry about the growing power of the government, few understand the real power that controls their everyday lives.

Private monopolies determine the brand of breakfast cereal we eat, the type of car we drive, where we bank, the medical treatment we receive, the fashion of our clothes, and the kind of toothbrush we use, in addition to the beer we drink, the health insurance we buy, and what we feed our pets.

…”People say we have an uncontrolled free market but we have the opposite,” says Barry C. Lynn, senior fellow at the New American Foundation. “What we have today is a laissez faire American version of feudalism; a private government in the form of private corporations run by private individuals who consolidated power to govern entire activities within our political economy.”

…

Denise Dorrance comic

In America we tend to hold on tightly to this myth of a ‘classless society.’ Talk of status and reaching for it is taboo; rarely will an individual list ’signaling status to others’ as motivation for purchasing a luxury good (yeah sure, it’s allll about the quality…). British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson isn’t afraid to broach the class issue, and explains the fashion/status connection pretty clearly in his interview with Brooke Jarvis:

Louis Vuitton, classic status symbol

Status competition causes problems all the way up; we’re all very sensitive to how we’re judged. Think about Robert Frank’s books Luxury Fever or Falling Behind, or the great French sociologist Bourdieu—they show how much of consumption is about status competition. People spend thousands of pounds on a handbag with the right labels to make statements about themselves. In more unequal countries, people are more likely to get into debt. They save less of their income and spend more. They work much longer hours—the most unequal countries work perhaps nine weeks longer in a year.

If you grow up in an unequal society, your actual experience of human relationships is different. Your idea of human nature changes. If you grow up in a consumerist society, you think of human beings as self-interested. In fact, consumerism is so powerful because we’re so highly social. It’s not that we actually have an overwhelming desire to accumulate property, it’s that we’re concerned with how we’re seen all the time. So actually, we’re misunderstanding consumerism. It’s not material self-interest, it’s that we’re so sensitive. We experience ourselves through each other’s eyes—and that’s the reason for the labels and the clothes and the cars.

“We experience ourselves through each other’s eyes.” We are conscious about how others perceive us, especially strangers who have no other point of reference other than our outward appearance.

This is about the psychosocial effects of inequality—the impact of living with anxiety about our feelings of superiority or inferiority. It’s not the inferior housing that gives you heart disease, it’s the stress, the hopelessness, the anxiety, the depression you feel around that. The psychosocial effects of inequality affect the quality of human relationships. Because we are social beings, it’s the social environment and social relationships that are the most important stressors.

When Simon Doonan, Creative Director of Barney’s, (one of the handful places where fashion forward designers have access to the rare slice of edgy yet wealthy clientele that can afford their pieces), the extremely influential guy who the rest of the fashion industry knows to pay attention to… when Simon Doonan declares The Death of Trends then it’s a zeitgeist shift worth pondering. There are still going to be shapes and norms that we collectively select (whether you follow them or rebel against them) but I see this as more of a backlash against the accelerated cycle of the spending on disposable clothing hamster wheel and a coalescing around an iconic vocabulary of modernist elements; classics that are tweaked and revised with the times.

photo by Roxanna Lowit for the Jewish Daily Forward

Doonan writes for the Observer:

Fashion is no longer icy and aloof. Fashion is a massive, forgiving, ambiguous melting pot where people and trends can dig in their Lee Press-On nails and hang on for years and years without ever being out.

He goes on to list a few examples:

Uggs. Style pundits may have broadcast their out-ness for years, but last week’s snowy streets were packed with Uggs-sporting fashion plates.

There is a delicious personal irony in this example given that back in 2004 Uggs were cited in a lengthy discussion in Fashion Theory class as an example of trendy for trendy’s sake. Even though this trend might have been initiated by celebrity sitings, (so awesome to slip on between takes on outdoor shoots) could it be that they’ve had staying power because those who bought them discovered they were super comfortable and well made and lasted forever?

Skinny jeans. Despite their supposed out-ness, they have managed to become a fashion staple, especially when tucked into riding boots. Tally ho!

Key term, “Fashion Staple.” So they became ‘in’ a few years ago as the bootcut finally reached mass market saturation, but could it be that one fashion staple was traded in for another? Could it be that people want fashion staples?

Filson clothing, used as an example of 'American Workwear' trend on brand consultancy blog "We Are The Market"

Of course, now that the skinny jean is headed for eventual  mass market saturation, it will eventually go the way of the mom jean (which has been ‘out’ almost long enough to be revived…), so it’s not as if the trend cycle is no longer. But given that ‘fast fashion’ retailing cycles had accelerated to the point of new trends every six weeks, could it be that more and more consumers are weary of this and seeking alternatives?

These alternatives - especially to spending too much - have been found for the past few decades in the ‘indie’ and ‘alternative’ subcultures continued fascination with vintage. As these ‘trends’ arise in the vintage industry about which items are hot and eagerly sought after, it was a natural progression for designers to use said items as inspiration for re-issues.

Coco Rocha in Jean Paul Gautlier's Spring 2010 show. Does she look 'fat' to you?

Oversupply for limited demand means the fashion industry need only pay lip service to the idea of more healthy models. In reality, a size 4 is too ‘fat’ for even a celebrity model like Coco Rocha. Guy Trebay reports for the NY Times:

Back in the days when fashion was a more restricted industry and the pool of talent limited, models were groomed and expected to have longer careers, making a transition as they aged and filled out from catwalks to catalogs.

Now, Mr. Scully said, the sheer number of aspirants is so great that a span of five years (or 10 seasons) is almost enough to qualify a model for a gold watch.

So uproar notwithstanding, there are still hundreds, even thousands of teenagers eager to starve their not yet filled out bodies to have a chance to live the glamorous dream. How useful are a girl’s objections to these demands going to be when she can be replaced in the blink of an eye?

But Coco Rocha has carved enough of a place for herself to speak out and be heard:

“I’m not in demand for the shows anymore,” said the model, who has worked for Marc Jacobs, Prada, Chanel, Dior, Jean Paul Gaultier and Louis Vuitton, among many others.

“I’ve been told to lose weight when I was really skinny,” said Ms. Rocha, who recently added a new line item to her résumé: correspondent for Modelinia.com, the Web site for the model-obsessed.

“You know what, I’ve stopped caring,” Ms. Rocha said. “If I want a hamburger, I’m going to have one. No 21-year-old should be worrying about whether she fits a sample size.”

And no lanky 14-year-old should be pressured to starve herself, to cadge prescription drugs like Adderall or to take up smoking as an appetite suppressant.

“Girls are told they’re not skinny enough, or they hear, ‘She’s old, she’s boring, we’ve had her, she’s not tiny anymore,’ ” Ms. Rocha said. “A lot of people don’t take into account the vulnerability of these young girls.” And the latest crop of models is not made up of “adults or even sort-of adults,” she insisted. “They are children. Point closed.”

But let’s see if anything changes.

Kate Moss at Chanel

In the mass publicity frenzy that Fashion Weeks have become, reports on front row celebrity appearances had become just a typical part of the hype machine. And perhaps that’s the problem. Cathy Horyn dares to pierce the veil and share the real behind the scenes dynamics in the New York Times’ Muscling In on the Front Row:

“It’s such an underworld in a way, the celebrity wrangling,” said Vanessa Bismarck, a New York-based fashion publicist whose firm, BPCM, represents labels like Preen and Azzaro. She was referring to the deals, trades and exclusive contracts — first-class airfare, hotel rooms for friends, per diems, designer boutique shopping sprees — that miraculously clear a path to the front row for a busy actress. This is especially the case in Paris and Milan, where budgets and appetites for celebrities are that much bigger.

“Their managers and agents realize fashion shows are a money-making opportunity,” said Roger Padilha, whose firm MAO Public Relations represents a number of fashion brands. “If you see an A-list star at a show, that’s because she’s making $100,000 on the deal.”

No small wonder runway show costs have entered the stratosphere. Can anyone say ‘overhead?’

Yet this season, because of the economy and a general souring on celebrity, many designers are taking a budget approach to V.I.P.’s, paying only for a guest’s outfit for the show and maybe grooming and car-service expenses. A publicist for several New York designers said his clients had been approached by actresses in Los Angeles willing to grace their front rows — provided travel expenses were covered. The designers said no thanks. “Nobody has the money,” the publicist said.

But these big name designers backed by big name corporate conglomerates could get their hands on said money… if the return on investment were there. Apparently that seems to be waning.

Maybe the blunt mercantile aspects of celebrity — your frock for my recognizable face — have turned off the taste-makers. On Wednesday, Mr. Jacobs’s business partner, Robert Duffy, told Style.com that no celebrities were being invited to the designer’s show on Monday, a reversal of years of packing rappers in with famous artists and actors. Mr. Duffy said that “the celebrity thing” had become a bore.

…Now, like a worn rut in a road, the whole business of celebrity seems so well established as to be old and familiar, and in fashion, hopelessly preoccupied with the new, that makes it worthy of contempt.

Stars, too, find a front-row appearance less of a thrill. They see little reason to put up with the swarming photographers and inane questions from pouncing gossip reporters. Some celebrities strive for loftier images. “Angelina Jolie doesn’t go to the shows,” Ms. Schmeidler observed. “She goes to Haiti.”

Bling is out, social responsibility is way more fashionable?

Which brings us back to Snooki and the “Jersey Shore” bunch.

Inevitably they will be invited to a fashion show, just as surely as Lindsay Lohan, who only a few years ago was a desired “get” for the front row, will be told by someone’s publicist that there is no place for her now. She’s old business.

“one minute you’re in, and the next minute… you’re out.”

Which brings us back to Snooki and the “Jersey Shore” bunch.

“Oh, you know you’re going to see them at something,” Mr. Kors said of the “Jersey” cast. The fashion world scorns anything — camp taste, bad hair — until suddenly it’s in its interest to approve them, and then the idea is genius.

Alexander McQueen from Kinho.com

The fashion world has always been one of knock offs and derivatives, today they just happen at an accelerated pace. But in the Post Industrial Revolution world of designers as artists, there have always been a handful that serve as the true channels of zeitgeist that pretty much everyone else riffs off of. Alexander McQueen was such a genius, and the fashion world is painfully aware of the empty hole left by his suicide.

But it’s Stephano Tonchi, editor of T, the New York Times Style magazine, that had the courage to pierce through the veils of insular industry hype and call out the fashion system itself, the system that has been overtaken by corporate conglomerates that are now the only option for high end but envelope pushing designers to finance their endeavors by turning themselves into a brand and squeezing out ever increasing amounts of product.

The following was taken from New York Magazine’s blog, The Cut:

“I think it is just the tip of the iceberg…We all know that this is a very critical moment in fashion, and that basically he is the first victim of what is a conflict between creativity and business. Today to be a fashion designer, you have to be a superman or superwoman. You have to have nerves of steel. You have to be so strong. And if you are a little bit weak, if you have psychological problems or weakness, you end up like him.” When McQueen began in fashion, designers worked on two or three collections a year, said Tonchi. “Now you have to be a business manager, a marketer. It’s, what? Eight, ten, fifteen collections a year. Men’s, women’s, couture, diffusion. Then they want accessories. Then they want watches. Then they want jewelry. It’s a machine, and I think that killed him.”

Tonchi also comments on McQueen’s move from working on his own to Givenchy (owned by the LVMH conglomerate) and then to the Gucci Group:

“He is really someone who has been chewed by the system,” said Tonchi. “I think all these different bosses are part of the pressure that we are putting on our designers. And also the pressure on creators of topping what they have done before. But not once a year: Every three months, every six months you have to be better than what you have been. You always must feel like you’re running behind.”

Fashion’s transformation into a big business, Tonchi said, reminds him of the end of the Hollywood studio system in the forties and fifties. “Do you remember how many people were getting killed by the job?” he asked. “The Marilyn Monroes, the James Deans. It was the same kind of self-destruction complex that brings you to kill yourself or do something so stupid as suicide.”

Anger at suicide is a common reaction, but Tonchi said he was coming more from a place of concern about what the industry is doing to the people who work in it. “We cannot look at the poor Alexander McQueen, abused child or abuser of substance,” he said. “I think you have to put it in a larger context in terms of the fashion system. He’s just one of the little cogs that got squeezed.”