baby’s 1st fashion week.

anna shot by tommy tom

i can’t maintain a blog focused on brand, image, & fashion without writing about my first real experience with new york fashion week. while i am by no means a fashion insider, i am fortunate to have lovely and stylish friends who are – and through them, found myself in the middle of, as one writer put it, “the beautiful mess that is fashion week.”

i jokingly tell my friends that i love their jobs. who wouldn’t? i found myself in the 2nd and 3rd rows of the christian siriano and davidelfin shows, respectively, sipping moet at events with the ‘impossibly hip,’ attending openings, among other fashion week delights. i enjoyed all of this, while only having to remember what time i needed to show up. i experienced none of the pressure, chores, and drudgery of actually working in fashion.

there are terms in psychology regarding motivations: they are either implicit and explicit and affect how we feel about what we do. for instance, until about the age of 20, i was destined to be a virtuosic cellist and/or pianist. groomed since the tender age of 6, i practiced, auditioned, and was otherwise chained to these instruments in order to refine my musical skills. while i loved music, practicing felt like a chore. i was explicitly motivated by outside influence, which negatively affected my desire and love to play music. today, i love attending as many concerts, recitals, and operas as i can and play in chamber music and orchestra groups for fun. fun being the operative word, because i am implicitly, or internally, motivated to pursue my hobby.

social psychology lessons aside, i found in the past year that fashion is perhaps one of the most unglamorous industries in which to work {those poor interns passing out wwd in the cold!}. Experiencing it this week on my own accord, unrelated to my job, was blissful. living in new york, this is funny because everyone wants to work in fashion. however, like anything else, it’s a business, and typically, the top 1% gets to have all the fun. i sat next to a reporter from new york magazine at the siriano show on day 2 of fashion week. already she was tired, hot, miserable, complaining. today, the last day of the shows {and the last held at bryant park}, attendees at the davidelfin show looked tired and haggard; i swear i saw more flat shoes than ever before. for me, i’ve never felt cooler striding into the bryant park tents donning my best attempt at stylish garb, or happier sauntering around parties, bubbly in hand.

in fashion, most people are tirelessly working behind the scenes so that we, the outsiders, see only the gleaming veneer of glamour. boxes must be packed, orders filled, cars ordered for celebrity guests, scenery struck down, models directed, and so on and so forth. most of my friends were very much lacking in sleep and food {side benefit: heroin chic}. keep in mind, all of this is after the clothes have been conceived, designed, and produced.

a look from marchesa fall 2010

and let’s not forget about the clothing. we get lost in the inherent theatrics surrounding all of these fashion week events, but oh goodness: it’s really about the clothes. at the temperley london show, pieces were shown on mannequins displayed among old norman parkinson photographs from the 1960s. one could touch and examine the garments, which provided the opportunity for happy little discoveries of the designer’s technical expertise. one jacket, for example, which looked like a slightly fancy tuxedo jacket in soft pink, was found to be made out of a single piece of continuous fabric. incredible. this is why fashion isn’t fundamentally glamorous: it is a labor-intensive, grueling process where only a very select few of extraordinarily talented craftsmen  rise to the top – just like in any other art.

one of my fash pack friends says that the inner workings of the fashion industry seem so unglamorous for the very reason that we expect it not to be; the juxtaposition is stark. people in fashion work very hard, fight for good pay, and deal with utterly intense, cutthroat competition. however, i’m incredibly glad they do, because what we fashion fans get in return is a whole universe of fantasy in which to play during fashion week, and continue to do so the other 51 beautiful weeks of the year.

emotional.

in my line of work, we often talk about the “journey” or “experience” the consumer has with a product or service. an important part of the cultivated  relationship between brand and consumer is memory creation {in simple terms: think of how difficult it can be to donate a sweater you wore on your semester abroad, yet haven’t worn since.}

these relationships are based purely on emotions. were we true rational decision makers {which we are not}, we would behave differently. we’d donate the sweater, we’d cease to covet jimmy choo’s, and we’d stay at a local inn rather than at the fairmont. those emotions are catalogued over time to create a portfolio of feelings towards a particular brand.

but what if those feelings could be organized, recorded, and tracked in real time? in school, we called that an mri machine. subjects are put inside an mri and the affective decision-making experiments are done within. photos are taken of the subjects’ brains to observe which parts “light up” during different emotional cues. not exactly a re-creation of a normal operating environment. but louis vuitton has come up with the next best thing: an emotion monitoring bag.

i was in awe at the brilliance of the idea when i first read the article via agenda inc. while the attachable “charm” is still in its concept stage, vuitton reps state that it will be able to monitor a user’s heart & emotion rate to collect feelings endured during each journey with the bag. try donating that bag some day.

the product/service “journey” has become an important equity in brand communication recently. once, a product was a product was a product. now, a whole array of emotions are attached to it. it’s not just campbell’s soup, it’s campbell’s soup that is in portable form so you are free to be an effective and responsible parent. now, it’s not just going to best buy for a computer, it’s guaranteed service that follows you home, protecting and serving your digital lifestyle.

in terms of fashion, there is arguably no stronger tie than the clothes and accessories that stay with you all day and night. you are a moving dust bunny, gathering experiences, stimuli, emotions, all of which on some level are linked to those garments. i can look at one particular blouse and remember that it was what i wore on the second date with my boyfriend, and during a successful client presentation, and when i got stuck without an umbrella on a summer afternoon. my affinity for that blouse originated with an aesthetic attraction and evolved into an emotional attachment with what it has come to represent.

if the vuitton concept bag is a success, it speaks not only to the relationships consumers build with their “things,” it has implications across technology and social media. what if my “journey” with the bag could be uploaded to facebook, or twitter? or if i created an online community with my friends who also own the bag, tracking our ups and downs, our happiness, sadness, our anxiety? while the whole thing may end up being a shallow schtick, it’s an intriguing innovation in terms of luxury and psychology. perhaps it’s the precursor to a technology that could have a real effect on how we experience and share our lives vis a vis our stuff.

self-interest.

luxury means different things to different people. to some, buying a new outfit at j. crew once a season is a luxury. to others, it’s ordering a made-to-measure mink coat. still to others, it’s having the entire afternoon at home while your friend watches the kids. for me, it’s being able to live comfortably in manhattan.

what all of these forms of luxury have in common is this: they are self-serving. one would be hard pressed to find someone say it’s a luxury to clean their neighbor’s car. even if someone’s personal luxury is having 2 years off to join the peace corps in africa, that person still gains the selfish feeling of do-goodness [or, does true altruism actually exist? a discussion for another time].

we’re bombarded with photos of the naomi campbell’s and the posh spice’s looking mean & hungry behind their giant sunglasses as they enter personal town cars wrapped in all manner of costly adornments. they are steeped in luxury, and it would seem, their own glamorous lives.

according to a recent study at harvard business school, they are more interested in their own lives. findings suggest that people who are exposed to luxury are indeed psychologically different than those who are not exposed to luxury. and they’re not simply more self-interested, but more likely to be less concerned with others. while the findings aren’t particularly surprising, they may have broad implications on business, finance, and marketing. roy chau, the principal on the study, states “in the midst of the current global economic crisis, people are outraged by highly paid executives living in the lap of luxury while continuing to make self-serving decisions and ignoring the plight of others.”

this certainly represents the extreme significance of a study like this, but i like to think of it in terms of luxury goods. what is this season’s “must-have” bag? it’s probably of soft leather, a great color and shape, very expensive and allows the owner to wordless proclaim “i am savvy!” if a woman wanted to “treat” herself to that bag, make it a luxury to own it, is she self-involved?

the overall public perception is, yes. however, what trumps the findings from the study is the ability for a person to temper their desire for luxury. i love fashion, never miss my weekly manicure, and can surely be found in a nice restaurant several times a week. it’s not, however, my entire existence. i support the arts in the city, volunteer my time and experience, and sometimes [though not often] give money to pandhandlers.

those whose luxuries are not as tangible, such as spending time alone with a good book or cooking from scratch, are enjoying the same self-interested luxuries as a hyped up consumed consumer. it is the other actions in which a person engages that ultimately define whether the luxuries have increased their level of self-interest of not.

the size issue.

the past several months have been filled with much hoo-ha over v magazine‘s size issue.  the blogs and twitter have been previewing it ["check out early pics!" "lagerfeld eats his words!"] and the new york times even did a piece on plus-size models, and the v mag issue in which they’d be celebrated.

lagerfeld's v mag contribution

now, bloggers and journalists are all a-buzz about whether fashion is finally moving away towards a more democratic body revolution. while i certainly understand that some women in industry can take the size requirements too far [e.g. young women starving themselves to death, literally], there is no way that the fashion industry will move towards that norm. in fact, there is no way much of any change will happen: no size 6, no 5′ 6″ height, no bad skin, and no warts. runway models will forever remain very tall, very thin, and very breast-less.

the reason for the status quo isn’t because the industry has something against overweight women. even if i were to exercise 4 hours a day and drastically reduce my calorie intake,  i clock in at 5′ 4″, and thus will never be a runway model. so it’s not about just overweight women. runway models are an extremely rare breed of human, and that’s partly why they are so coveted in the fashion industry.

focus on garment not woman

function: in the times online, alice olins examines why models will forever be whippet thin. from a purely functional standpoint, they have to be. very thin women have predictable bodies; there are no wobbles, jiggles, or variations. the clothes that were designed to move a certain way on what amounts to a moving hanger, will move that way every time that model walks down the runway. the focus is solely on the piece of clothing, not on a woman who is adjusting, tugging, or otherwise fussing because her shirt’s gotten stuck around a curve.

form: rick owens is interviewed in the winter 2010 issue of bon magazine and he is asked many questions about his thoughts on beauty. anyone familiar with his aesthetic knows it is something of a glamorous morbidity [he cites david bowie's diamond dogs album cover as inspiration]. owens is surprisingly affable, and really brilliant in describing his notion of beauty. when asked about his choices in fashion models, he talks about them the same way he talks about his clothing – models as other-wordly. “i use the same girls prada uses, that all of these people use. i just take all their make up off. because i like to see just the skull. cause they are like alien creatures already. when you see them without the make up and without the clothing…or when i put them in my clothes, they are like these wonderful insects. they are just really incredible.”

fantasy: fashion, while ultimately affecting people’s lives in one way or another, has it’s root in fantasy, in aspiration. quite honestly, thin runway models are another way for fashion designers to communicate that they live in a world that is unattainable to mere mortals. they represent part of the world that 99% of people can only dream of – if i can never afford to purchase a chanel beaded evening gown, then i would rather the woman showcasing it be just as outlandishly unrealistic. even though the public knows the amount of air-brushing that goes on in magazines, and the severe dieting runway models must endure, the end image is still something that people somehow want to emulate.

uncommon lifestyle

appeal: i have a friend who could be a model should she choose to be – tall, very thin, utterly beautiful. were she not so terribly sweet, we would all hate her because she doesn’t exercise and eats whatever she wants. she has incredible style, and everything she wears looks amazing. it’s simply pleasing to the eye to see clothing on a thin frame. in a recent guest post on the fashion beat, a blogger reminds us that fashion magazines are not a celebration of everywoman. she compares publishing pictures of normal women to food magazines featuring photos of frozen dinners. looking at thin models in magazines and in runways doesn’t have to equal a bad self-image [in fact, there is no correlation between the two], but it is just nicer to see abbey lee kershaw in a bikini feature because she is beautiful and unique.

abbey lee kershaw

the fashion industry is a business, and one based largely on promoting image, art, and lifestyle. in order for it to be a successful business, it cannot become accessible to all. fashion isn’t wal-mart. if it were, we’d all be wearing ferragamo, driving mercedes, and have a regular table at the waverly inn. designers, photographers, and stylists need the best possible people to showcase that art and lifestyle, and that team includes a very small group of exceptional and invaluable models.

means-end.

i’ve recently been thinking about means-end theory and how it applies to brand. i read a document from another consultancy that describes it as connecting specific tangible aspects of products to individual values, or emotions. basically, a company starts with a product, which has a functional use. that use, typically through advertising, leads to an emotional benefit, and if cards are played correctly, ends up with a high order benefit – or personal defining value.

for a quick example in retail fashion: let’s say a company is selling a product, a shirt. to be more specific, the company is james perse and it is selling a simple white t-shirt. the functional gain is a high quality, well-fitting wardrobe staple.  that the wearer believes that they subscribe to a low maintenance high fashion -  sophistication, elegance, and comfort – is the emotional benefit.  to take something as frivolous as a t-shirt one more step and attempt to fulfill a ‘high order benefit’ may sound silly, but in fact, the goal of branding is to get to that point. ["i am what i like"] so in the case of the james perse t-shirt, the wearer isn’t only wearing a t-shirt, he/she exudes a relaxed, west coast-style mellowness coupled with a well-heeled heritage. a successful brand takes a t-shirt and turns it into a personal lifestyle billboard.

pieces from james perse

this doesn’t have to only work for a tangible product, a store experience can provide the same experience for a consumer. another simple example: think of a company that is known to provide excellent customer service. the functional benefit is good advice. perhaps then, the emotional benefit is something as simple as not having any regrets from the purchase – the consumer has made the Right Choice. not having regrets after shopping is a great benefit, and a good brand could stop right there on the means-end ladder. however, a great brand takes that ‘no regrets’ and turns that into peace of mind and confidence. again, this may sound lofty, but think of a brand known for impeccable customer service [say, zappos]. that brand is synonymous with peace of mind because the customer service is so darned good.

clearly, means-end works very well in the case of luxury and fashion. but how well does it work for something like runway haute couture fashion? it would appear that the functional [and even perhaps, the emotional] purposes are non-applicable. unless i’m daphne guinness, or attending a red carpet event, haute couture has no functional use for me. in fact, my emotional reaction would certainly be embarrassment if i suddenly found myself sporting alexander mcqueen alien shoes in public. i love celine’s leather versatile daywear in theory, but i would need it to trickle down to something a little more ‘street’ before sporting it.

leather daywear @ celine

does this mean that high fashion lands squarely in the ‘art’ category? i was wandering around the chelsea art galleries last weekend, thinking, as i looked at the price tags, that art must be the apex of all luxury. it possesses no immediate purpose, unless one considers visual stimuli a ‘purpose,’ but serves to emotionally satisfy and transcend literal interpretation. buying art bypasses the the lowest rung of the means-end ladder. haute couture similarly does this; watching a runway show elicits many emotions, and if the collection is truly inspired, touches something that is beyond, that is high art.

i write about this not because i have a concrete point of view, but because the idea that a designer’s vision, his brand, can eclipse traditional theories of product, changes the way the category could be approached. when whowhatwear. com has their regular feature inspired by… [showcasing affordable products inspired by a designer collection], it’s taking the elevated concept of high fashion and bringing it down to a level the consumer can understand. this grants the true visionaries license to head even further in the direction of the ethereal, while firmly planting the trickled-down-fashion-selling retailer in the means-end box.

the rise of online auctions [or, why i look better & feel smarter]

an online retail site enjoying incredible success during a recession sounds counterintuitive, but that is precisely what has happened in the past year. gilt groupe, the online sample sale started by two college friends, has enjoyed a swift and ubiquitous rise to popularity. the members-only site offers daily sales from popular designers at a 50-70% discount. similar sites, like rue la la, have been quick to follow suit.

impeccable timing notwithstanding, gilt has benefited from several factors that have surfaced in the market.

smarter consumer: countless articles have been written about the new brand of “smart consumer.” this doesn’t necessarily mean that a smarter consumer is a more thrifty one. rather, it appears that consumers are using tools like the internet to make more informed decisions about their purchases. in a previous era, if one wanted to buy a digital camera, there weren’t many options in terms of better pricing or availability. today, myriad websites provide product alternatives and customer reviews. the consumer educates themselves and makes what he/she considers the most intelligent choice.

does this necessarily mean that he/she is spending less? probably not. In fact, they may end up spending more. good deals often come in two’s or three’s. if someone gets a great deal on a digital camera, they’re likely to spend the money they saved on something else. an up-sell, perhaps, or a quick follow-up sale announcement from the company – purchasing is one of the more easily prompted behaviors.

i love fashion and i love gilt groupe. In the last several months, i’ve bought an ali ro dress, a mens-style gold and silver wristwatch, and gorgeous suede cole haan riding boots. this would normally set me back roughly $800, but i spent about $250 (+ shipping). not only do i get items i covet, i get them for a drastically reduced cost. so i feel pretty darn good. but would i have bought those boots or watch or dress otherwise? i have dresses, and a watch, and i certainly own boots, but the deal was too good to pass up, right?

the smart consumer in me does have rationale, though. the wares i’m buying at a significant cost reduction are high quality designer items. while i may not have otherwise purchased them, i surpass the cost-per-wear ratio. designer products are designer for a reason: these aren’t h&m shoes that will fall apart if they’re exposed to sunlight for too long; these are built to last. living in manhattan, where one’s clothes serve as armor, durability is exceedingly important. I wear the hell out of the stuff.

sense of urgency: what gilt, and to a lesser extent rue la la, has done is create a sense of urgency around their sales. members receive an email every day announcing what brands will be sold in the next 36 hours. if a sale is highly coveted, say rodarte, it will sell out in a flash. this negatively impacts rational thinking; instead, consumers listen to their emotional brain saying you must have it before anyone else does. in the 5 seconds i spent deciding which size i needed for the diane von furstenberg bejeweled flats, they were sold out [still a sore spot for me]. next time, i’ll know to throw both pairs in my basket and deal with the conundrum later. but once those shoes are placed in the basket, there is almost no chance i won’t buy them, even if the rational portion of my brain assures me i don’t really need them.

online access: sample sales are nothing new. every season, designers have a massive surplus of unsold goods that must go somewhere. most of the time, that surplus translates into a sample sale. i went to one in manhattan once. they scare the living daylights out of me. some bargain-shoppers get a thrill from the hunt and the excitement of what treasures are to be found. i think they’re unnecessarily aggressive and unorganized. moving those sales online provides a peaceful environment for roughly the same emotions, i.e. my rage at losing the DVF shoes contained in the privacy of my bedroom. this also means that one doesn’t need to live in manhattan to be privy to such events; the denizens of iowa, nevada, or pennsylvania have an equal shot at scoring reduced-cost armani.

exclusivity: as i mentioned, gilt groupe [and similar sites like rue la la] are members-only, which means that to participate, someone must be invited. while this isn’t particularly difficult to do [a member simply sends an email invite to a non-member], being a member holds some degree of exclusivity. gilt addresses its members as such in its communications. members, however, have an incentive to spread the love: they receive an online credit once an invitee completes their first purchase. my boyfriend buys a pair of dkny shoes, ka-ching! my mother buys a yurman ring, ka-ching! i know of some early members who amassed online credits upwards of $500.

something for everyone: like the smart brand that is it, gilt understands option value. when the site first launched, it offered only womenswear designer sales. today, the company has launched several lucrative extensions. gilt fuse showcases emerging designers and more mainstream fashion like club monaco and american apparel. gilt man is self-explanatory, and the recently-launched jetsetter offers discount luxury vacation packages like a spa in colorado, or a stay at the st. regis singapore. gilt home is now my source for cashmere vera wang sheets. i’ve noticed partnerships with wineries cropping up [$99 for a $300 bottle of wine?]. gilt is providing a luxury for every possible need.

democratization of luxury? do sites like gilt signal the democratization of luxury? not really. on the one hand, while the sales are impressive, a piece by marchesa that originally cost $2500 will still set someone back about $700. furthermore, that kind of wearable art is certainly something i would want to try on before buying. and no matter how good we look in our new gilt purchases, let us not forget that the items are still surplus from past seasons. the truly fashion-forward style set are wearing the newest designer wares far before they’re available to us mere mortals. one must be well-connected, well-heeled, and well-informed. for instance, emmanuelle alt, the fashion director of paris vogue who styles isabel marant runway shows, was spotted wearing a pair of marant boots moments after the show introducing them ended.

if sites like gilt bring accessible luxury to the masses, the luxury industry will surely find a way to increase its cost of entry. as higher-end goods becomes necessities to a wider audience, the real luxury market will simply create a new form of exclusivity. something to keep in mind when gilt launches something to the effect of gilt yachts.

re-branding the persona

recently, i’ve been thinking about personal appearance and how it affects not only how one feels about oneself, but the message it communicates to the world in which one interacts. in virginia postrel’s excellent book the substance of style, she anecdotally outlines the importance and impact of appearance. a feminist she knew physically embodied the stereotype: men’s haircut, unshaven underarms & legs, shapeless gender neutral clothing. this woman found herself falling in love with a man she had befriended. given this woman’s appearance, however, the man didn’t really consider her a woman. in a surprise move, the feminist stylishly cut her hair, dyed it blonde, and invested in elegant clothing. years later, postrel met up with the woman, who was then living happily with the man with whom she had fallen in love. the feminist explained that she never felt better or more confident, and would never give up her platinum locks for the world.

the woman in postrel’s book didn’t give up her feminist beliefs and values in her drastic makeover. instead, her looks most likely opened a greater audience to her; people are influenced by what they see, and people tend to act in a way that mirrors their appearance.

a column in this month’s bazaar similarly caught my eye. in a fluffy piece about re-invention over the new year [nothing new in the cycle of fashion magazine subject matter], i found a few nuggets of depth. the article uses several well-known celebrity reinventions to illustrate how appearance can completely change public perception. marc jacobs went from chubby pony-tailed grunge-ster to a hard-bodied tattooed hipster. his personal brand has changed, and he and his equally chiseled boyfriend are frequently splashed across all manner of fashionable front pages [his sales have similarly increased in recent years].

marc: before and after

similarly, karl lagerfeld became a happening man-about-la-ville after he dropped serious weight and started donning slim suits [fitting into hedi slimane's manoxeric silhouettes was allegedly his diet motivation]. since minimizing his mass, he has become much more of a spokesmodel for the chanel brand. these types of about-face shifts entirely rebrand a persona.

karl: before and after

overall, appearance should reflect how a person feels about themselves and their lives. oftentimes, appearance that is too forced, too calculated rubs the on-looker the wrong way. personal brand should be authentic, just as the most successful corporate brands are those perceived to be the most authentic.

as i mentioned in a previous post, i was once someone who believed that my brain and personality were far more important than my appearance. i sported dowdy trousers, dorky shoes, pearls, and cut off all my [by most accounts] luxurious hair. i followed a vegan diet that gave my body a hollow and angular quality. as much as i believed that my true vivacious-ness and elegance was internal, i found myself feeling like somewhat of a bore! within the last year, something clicked. this wasn’t me, and my personal brand, especially as i began a new job, was not in line with the person i believed myself to be.

like postrel’s feminist friend, i took inventory and re-invented myself. out went the trousers and flat shoes. out grew my hair. i began treatments to remove a horrid tattoo from my arm. i blew more money than i thought i could on high heels, stovepipe pants, baubles, and fur.  betty draper was replaced by emmanuelle alt as my sartorial inspiration. i became an enthusiastic omnivore, which was nicely reflected physically. i felt empowered and confident. all the while, my internal beliefs and valued remained constant.

emmanuelle alt (right)

there’s a phenomenon in the social sciences about controlling emotion. one can actually change the way one feels by controlling facial expressions. research suggests that if a person makes an emotive face, their internal emotion follows suit. so, if someone is feeling grumpy, simply forcing a smile will create a positive emotion. honestly: try it sometime.

all of this culminates into my belief that appearance and psychology are inextricably linked, and are by no means superficial. personal brand is an extraordinary thing and has the ability to significantly affect perception. a final example: think about the allure of the legendary french woman. now, think about how many times she leaves the house wearing sweatpants.

the importance of being branded

due to no fault of our own, we as human beings like to put everything that crosses our senses into a category. we are labelers. we do it so often, in fact, that our minds have developed what are called “heuristics” to categorize our surroundings quickly, easily, and superficially.

savvy people and companies understand this fact so well that they develop a simple & digestible message about themselves. that way, our short attention spans are instantly sated. examples of this peculiarity are innumerable: a stylishly dressed young woman who consistently shows up at hot spots becomes a mysterious “it girl” without any sort of credentials; an insurance company uses a small amphibian to attract young people with its quirkiness; adding “geek” to a title lends credibility to electronics repairmen.

those people who consider themselves “above” image are just as prone to its implications as those who subscribe to it. first, anything anti-trend inevitably becomes trendy. second, by dressing, acting, or buying products that one believes is contrary to image, one is carving out a “category,” and thus, a brand. that being said, image is not superficial. image is the substance by which all human communication is based. we receive and transmit who we are and what we like [i like that = i'm like that] to the world through our choices in fashion, music, occupation, diet, neighborhood, education, and so on.

i’ve started this blog because i am fascinated by this phenomenon of human nature. i’m also victim to it, which makes the aim to understand myself as well. i’m fortunate enough to live in one of the most innovative cities in the world, where one simply needs to walk outside to see what’s newest.

the past year for me has been major, and it’s contributed greatly to my ability to embrace and study trends with a fervor bordering on obsession. i moved to chelsea, in manhattan, an inspiring and avant-garde neighborhood; i rely on my friends, who i consider trendsetters in style and taste; and i joined a consultancy that specializes in brand strategy, design, marketing, innovation, experience.

in the past few months, i’ve become very aware of the importance of fashion. to me, it is the embodiment of basic human needs: novelty, acceptance, attention. i hope to write often about fashion and style’s role in image/brand (personal or corporate).  i was once part of the “it’s what’s in my head, not what’s on my body that counts” camp, but [and i'll explore this in another post] it can be one of the most reflective aspects of a person. thus, fashion/style can be just as calculated and influential as a multi-million dollar corporate brand strategy.

i hope this blog proves to contribute to a broader discussion. feel free to comment away. i’m looking forward to how my blog [my voice] will change and evolve, just like all other aspects of our rich and cultured society.