The fashion world is in shock after one of its own, the designer Nicole Farhi, blew the whistle on a long-held secret: that celebrities are sometimes paid to appear in the front row of catwalk shows.
Fahri called this an "abominable" and "stupid" practice, adding: "What do they show you in the papers after a fashion show? Not the clothes, but the celebrities who are being paid to sit at the show."
I agree this is a regrettable change to photo-culture. As news, London fashion week isn't up there with the Syrian uprising, but pictures of it break up the front page nicely. Illustrated massacre isn't necessarily the first thing you want to look at with breakfast, but, insofar as fashion developments are "news", the clothes are what should be pictured.
Besides, they're interesting to look at. Before "what was shown" got replaced by "who was there", I always enjoyed looking at the latest fabulous creations from the cutting edge of style and laughing heartily. I'm sure it added to the gaiety of nations for us all: examining a catwalk snap of a spindly girl in orange pantaloons and a tweed fascinator, with one nipple poking artfully out of an asymmetric tank top, and giggling at the idea of wearing it.
It's quite refreshing to see expensive stuff that you don't want. Looking at women in haute couture is like watching people trying to drive down narrow urban streets in brand-new 4x4s. It's a healthy reminder that having millions might bring comfort, security and lovely holidays, but the chances are you'd spend your days dressed like an idiot, swearing as you banged your wing mirror for the 18th time en route to painful appointments for colonic irrigation and new teeth.
We rarely see those hilarious pictures of models in bizarre "A/W 2013" clothes any more. They've been edged out by the front-row celebrity snaps; it's not nearly as much fun to look at Alexa Chung sending a text message.
Photos of the people in a fashion-show audience don't interest and amuse like the clothes do, because they're never surprising. By all means hold the front page if you get a picture of Kim Jong-Un sitting there. If a model's lanky frame is striding past the eager, captivated face of Mary Warnock, Ken Dodd or Robert Mugabe, go on and show me. I'd be interested to see appreciative applause for a witty hemline from Willie Thorne, Dame Edna Everage or Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub. But they're never there. It's only ever famous models, aspiring actresses and Bryan Adams. Thanks: I could have imagined that.
I should point out, for reasons of legal nicety, that there's no reason to suppose Bryan Adams has ever been paid to go to a fashion show. But I'd probably admire him more if he had, rather than schlepping there out of interest alone.
Nevertheless, I think there is a message here for David Cameron. They're not fools in the fashion business or, if they are, they're rich fools. If they think it's worth paying celebrities to be photographed in their environs, that means they know this will affect public behaviour.
That is how the trickle-down effect happens, from haute couture to high street: snap a star at a fashion show, get the reader's attention, then slip in the news that "short and pink" is the way to go for summer (I'm speaking of skirts, by the way; in body terms, I'm short and pink all the time) and the culture is changed.
Could we not use this technique to encourage other, higher-minded cultural shifts, on a national scale? I don't know how much it costs to hire celebrities, but it's got to be less than Trident. I hope the coalition will consider finding a budget to create the following "impromptu" photographic tableaux on our front pages some time soon.
What's your opinion on the front row fakers?
Is it wrong to pay celebrities to come to a fashion show?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment