This is an interesting take on the most recent ‘big name fashion design raises own profile and makes
cheap tat imitations designer clobber accessible to the masses’ initiative.
More importantly, at least some discerning consumers out there must be wondering: is it even remotely chic – or even strictly seemly – to behave in this way? And, yes, that is a rhetorical question. It almost goes without saying that times have changed since Virginia Woolf deemed shopping one of the only ways for the modern woman to establish order – and indeed control – in her life, but there is still at least a certain sense of sisterhood in a day’s leisurely retail therapy, or even just window-shopping with friends. Spend, spend, spending might not be on the agenda, but that doesn’t stop us wondering.
My query is more about why women continue to be so bonkers when it comes to clothes. Let’s face it: Lanvin’s involvement in this project began and ended with the submission of a few drawings. The clothes are still pure H&M; cheap and cheerful (in other words: likely to fall apart after a few trips through the washing machine). But not so cheap, actually: a standard H&M dress costs as little as £24.99, whereas a Lanvin H&M dress costs at least £99.99. And they’re all fairly fugly dresses, it must be said.
Lanvin’s involvement doesn’t make trashy fashion any less trashy. It just makes it a great money-spinner for cynical retailers who have tuned in to the desperation that many women have when it comes to being fashionable.
People are mental.