The curse of 'intelligence'

I had a wonderful weekend in Brighton seeing my friend Luci,  meeting up with family who are usually half way around the world in Australia and buying exciting house items like cake stands, tea cups and paintings. However, before I move on to post about those fun and frivolous matters I have something more serious to comment upon.

On Friday morning as I indulged in my usual routine of eating an omelette, drinking a cup of tea and perusing the Daily Telegraph I came across an article which grabbed my attention and demanded that I read every word and then react with a profusion of expletives, head shaking and cheeks rouged up in anger. The article in question was 'The curse of haute couture' by Tanya Gold. The Telegraph is a reputable paper with an intelligent demographic of readers therefore it astounds me that the editor had the affront to publish an article which so obviously demonstrates their stupidity. Fashion is always under scrutiny from feminists and other opinionated writers who feel the need to critique the size of the models or the price tags of the clothes with the arguments of sexism, misogyny, materialism and vanity. Tanya Gold's article makes similar arguments and has almost nothing new to say. In response to her comments on the size of the models, '[their[ forearms are bigger than their upper arms', I would wholeheartedly agree that the size of girls on the catwalk is incredibly worrying, even more so for the obvious fact that the models are girls not women and have frequently put their bodies through extraordinarily unhealthy diets in order to maintain pre-pubescent figures. But this argument is nothing new and recent catwalk shows and changes in the stipulations of modelling contracts has suggested that the 'ideal' body type of models is slowly changing to include more (comparatively) curvaceous women like Lara Stone and Doutzen Kroes. In response to her underhand mockery of the price of couture, 'if you have to ask you can't afford', I would argue that plenty of men and women across the globe spend extortionate amounts of money on wine, cars, art, real estate and other luxury items and yet no-one berates the car/wine manufactures or art dealers for the ridiculous prices. Such items are luxury collectors pieces which the owner will treasure for years to come and if they have the bank balance to comfortably afford such items who are we to criticise their purchasing choices?

The most irritating aspect of Gold's article is the commentary on the fashion itself. Considering that the article is intended to be a review of haute couture- the most beautifully artistic and intricately produced  fashion- it is incredibly naive and shockingly offensive for the Telegraph to have sent a writer who clearly has absolutely no knowledge of high fashion. I have no problem with women (or men) who are not interested in fashion, view it as a vain indulgence and prefer to dress in inconspicuous clothing because they believe it is more rewarding to be considered attractive and given respect for their personality and intelligence rather than the way they dress. I find this perfectly acceptable. I may not agree with such people but I believe it is their right to have and express their own opinions. What I do find aggravating, inconsiderate and entirely disrespectful is when such people deign to pass supposedly 'intelligent' commentary upon the world of fashion about which they have no knowledge, interest or admiration. It is ridiculously biased and entirely pointless. It was clear from the subtitle of the piece, 'a sinister, silly world peopled by bloated egos and breadstick thin women', and the opening paragraph in which Gold describes the pronunciation of haute couture as 'oat koturr', that she was openly disdainful of the world of fashion and thought herself above the 'silly' people who earn their living working within the fashion industry. Gold was lucky enough to be invited to the couture shows of such esteemed labels as Georgio Armani, Stephanie Rolland, Chanel, Ellie Saab and Jean Paul Gautier, a chance which myself and numerous other bloggers would be honoured to have, and yet she ruined and discarded the experience with sniggers and an air of contempt. I could understand if she commented that the cut/colour/draping/theme of some of the collections were not to her tastes but with such immature notes as 'womb-lining' and 'fungus' and such condescending insults like referring to Daphne Guiness as a 'cracked princess' she is only advertising her ignorance. It is increasingly clear from statements such as: 'I instantly imagine 20 whores with their dad' (regarding Karl Lagerfeld's bow with his models) that she has neither the knowledge nor the respect for the visionary abilities of the designers and the skilful construction of the clothes to pass judgement on couture or any other aspect of fashion. I do not understand why the Telegraph has wasted the time of the writer or the readers in commissioning a piece from someone with such a blatant lack of experience and respect. Next time I see a fashion review in the paper I expect to see something more commendable from a writer who actually has an interest in the topic.