For more information, be sure to visit http://www.indeedlabs.com/nanoblur/

Guests mingling at The Spoke Club

Guests chatting it up with drinks in hand and Nanoblur applied

The famed Nanoblur product

The Spoke Club is packed with guests

Rock It Promo's Angelique shows off the product to guests

Indeed Laboratories presentation on the product

Live demonstration in which half the model's face has Nanoblur applied, and the other with no product

Images courtesy of Rock It Promotions and JJ Thompson (excepting for the first two, which are from the BlackBerry)

Notable fashion forward designers – Vera Wang, Francisco Costa, Brian Atwood, Marc Jacobs, and Michael Kors – take up this Rachel Zoe challenge. And before you start asking why this editorial isn’t under criticism for its depiction of violence, realize that it is not neither sexualizing violence nor glamorizing misogynistic values. Instead, it is just poking fun at the fashion stylist. So lean back in your coffee chair and have a good chuckle.

Take a look at how the designers would “off” the fashion stylist:

Vera Wang goes for sophisticated by slipping the poison into the drink

Francisco Costa goes in for the silent kill

Brian Atwood makes use of his precious shoes

Marc Jacobs goes in for an over-the-top kill

And leave it to Michael Kors to finish the job nicely

Images courtesy of Harper’s Bazaar and StyleList

To add to all of the discussions over the BP oil spill is a 24-page editorial shot by Steven Meisel for the August 2010 issue of Vogue Italia depicting Kristen McMenamy in various interpretations of the injured, oiled animals. And while, the spreads are undoubtedly beautiful and provocative, there is a sense of unease. After all, the crew and luxury goods are flown to the scene, with the clothing soaked in gasoline, which could be seen as wasteful of our resources and goods.

But one could say is that such editorial really is in fact a call-to-action. In being so provocative, and at times repulsive, one would think that the goal of Vogue Italia is to evoke the average reader to open their wallets to donating to clean-up initiatives. If such was the case, though, there would be a information at the end of the editorial to direct giving audiences. Flipping through the twelve spreads on Refinery29, there doesn’t seem to be any sign of such.

In which case, the editorial seems to be nothing more than a glamorization of a tragic incident, as opposed to being an intentionally thought-provoking editorial, and thus serving its purpose in capturing our attention and discussing it.

Find below some of the spreads from this month’s Vogue Italia.

Images courtesy of Vogue Italia via Refinery29

What drew me in, aside from the price tag, was the wash of the jeans, which is great for the casual with its faded black tone and worn-in look. Drawing me in the most, though, was the fact that the inseam of the jeans measured 30″, which is what I wear, but incredibly rare to see these days. Often, I end up buying jeans with an inseam of 32″ or even 34″ and then have them hemmed soon after so that I am not rolling the bottoms into summer cuffs for the winter.

Now before I dive into the one negative that I have, I did have fair warning when I asked the sales rep when she did say that Hudson jeans stretch, as most denim does. Of course, I didn’t think that the pair would end up stretch one or two sizes up. So what went from a perfect and most comfortable fit (I was going in between either a 27 or 28 at the time, and chose the latter) wound up being loose at the waist and on the thighs. From the knee down, though, there wasn’t much stretch to it and the calf area remained fairly tight. With that said, the taper on the jeans is more than your usual pair of skinny jeans – it’s more narrow than what you would normally fine, which may leave you wanting to go one size up from the usual, which I did.

The jeans do hold up (no pun intended) and meet all other expectations that one would have; they’re comfortable, easy breathing, and durable. Perhaps what can best remedy the situation is a belt to cinch the waist together a bit more and to stop the jeans from slowly sinking. The next time that I go and buy a pair of Hudson jeans, though, I may have to go down to the smaller spectrum of what I wear.

About Hudson Jeans
Founded in Los Angeles in 2002 with the desire to embody British cool and California freedom, Hudson Jeans is often recognized with its union jack logo and triangular flap pockets. It is said that each pair is created from denim from Japan and Italy, and then each hand-finished and tailored to be one of a kind.

For more information, visit http://www.hudsonjeans.com

Image via coldbling.com

Remember in high school how there was a particular group to ensure that no one would be wearing the same prom dress? Maybe they should’ve considered something similar for the August issues of Elle UK, W Magazine, and VOGUE UK. On the mention of Prada in my last post, the brand comes up again in the news with its diffusion line Miu Miu, in which one of its dresses gracing the covers of three major magazines. While it serves as great exposure for Miu Miu, some are wondering how this happened.

Of course, it is more of a coincidence than anything. Many pieces of clothing and accessories are taken to shoots, some of which may not fit the model, and therefore, it isn’t guaranteed that the same piece can appear on two, let alone three covers of the same month. Is it possible for it to happen again? Yes. But likely? No.

Image courtesy of Guardian.co.uk

Up until now, the idea of purchasing high fashion goods via the brands’ websites was unheard of (with few exceptions; Louis Vuitton has been selling its accessories online since the LVMH owned eluxury.com went down in 2008). The idea of e-commerce mostly catered to affordable brands in the 90s, with high-end brands joining in on the trend in the new millennium; however most luxury brands were unfazed by such. The ideal luxury fashion website relied upon extravagant photographs in the background of a flash interface. As we can see, on a side note, the whole revolution of search engine optimization has yet to hit the high fashion markets, as many have opted to abandon flash in lieu for coding that is more readily crawled by Google. But of course, these websites still garner the hits because of the age of the domain, backlinks, trackbacks, and other factors. But finally, brands, such as Marc Jacobs, La Perla, and Hugo Boss, are opting to making their goods available online.

Why only now, though? Well, you can give some thanks to the recession, which has triggered the long needed movement towards e-commerce for high-fashion lines. With department stores slashing prices in half in attempts to collect some profits, fashion brands are recognizing their need to take control of their pieces. And quite frankly, it is about time, especially given that profits in the luxury-goods industry fell approximately 8% in 2009 without the aid of e-commerce. And while there won’t be friendly chatter to convince you which bag is best for your needs or advice on your true bra size, there is at least the option to shop at your convenience, as opposed to having to trek to the boutique.

One could also go so far as to say that the Louis Vuitton lawsuit against Google may have been a factor in moving luxury brands to the web. For those that may not have recalled the incident, Louis Vuitton was not to happy with the fact that upon searching the brand on Google, many websites for counterfeit products came up in the advertisement links. Not to mention, results for buying counterfeit bags in the actual search engine results comes up third and thereafter. So perhaps some of the move towards providing a sense of e-commerce is to steer consumers away from the prevalence of the counterfeit links and more towards purchasing power of owning a luxury item from the brand itself.

In any case, it’s about time.

Image courtesy of NYMag.com via Prada

Lately, I’ve found myself following NY Mag’s The Cut (or quite possible, the correlation simply lies in the fact that I finally added them to my Google Reader), but I found an article that recently peaked my interests. Dove currently casting models for its next “Real Beauty” campaign; the company posted a listing on Craigslist last Friday, but there seems to be some concerns with the posting.

DOVE “REAL WOMEN” PRINT CASTING JUNE 28-30, 2010 in NYC
ABSOLUTELY NO ACTRESSES / MODELS OR REALITY SHOW PARTICIPANTS or ANY ONE CARRYING A HEADSHOT!!!!
REAL WOMEN ONLY!
LOOKING FOR 3-4 REAL WOMEN for a DOVE PRINT CAMPAIGN!

AGES 35-45, CAUCASIAN, HISPANIC, AFRICAN AMERICAN, & ASIAN!

SHOOT: SUNDAY, JULY 18 in NYC! MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR THE SHOOT!
RATE: $500 for Shoot date & if selected for Ad Campaign (running 2011) you will be paid $4000!
USAGE: 3 years unlimited print & web usage in N. America Only

YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THE CAMPAIGN IN A TOWEL!
BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN!
MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!
Well groomed and clean…Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic.

Great Sparkling Personalities. Beautiful Smiles! A DOVE GIRL!!!
STYLISH AND COOL!
Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!!

PLEASE SUBMIT SNAPSHOTS of FACE & BODY ASAP & WE WILL CALL YOU IN FOR A CASTING NEXT WEEK 6/28-6/30 in NYC!
urbanproddovecasting@gmail.com

I hadn’t even realized that Dove was embarking on another round of their “real women” campaign. Albeit, the premise of the campaign appears to have good intentions, but the criteria for the listing speaks otherwise. Examining the listing carefully, one notes there to be many hints of a desired body. In order to do so, one has to pick up the words explicit in selection, as well as pick up on the implicit ones.

What I mean by such is that the term “beautiful arms and legs” are meant to complement the applicant; however, the perception of such is already so skewed in society that one would immediately think of what is seen in the magazines. The explicit constraints are printed boldly with phrases, such as “flawless skin” and “beautiful hair,” and “no scars or tattoos.”

To say that Dove is on the forefront of body image leaves many terribly mistaken. They are as adamant as we are in holding the beauty ideal – they are simply positioning themselves in a way so that we find them to be leading a reformation.

But hey, maybe they’re just listing these requirements because of how strong an opinion they hold on retouching photos – perhaps they’re looking for perfection so as to avoid such.

Remember when we were kids on the playground and often fought with one another when we found out that someone stole “phrase?” Well, given last week’s event, it seem as though the staff at VOGUE are still bickering in the sand pit. For those unaware of what had happened, the story is as follows: an organization in Victoria, Canada sought to host an event that allowed for small businesses to showcase their collections under the name Victoria’s Fashion Night Out. Apparently, the phrase “Fashion’s Night Out” is actually trademarked by VOGUE; the legal team was not happy and sent a letter with request for the organization to change the event’s name. An excerpt read:

“Our client did not consent to use of its Fashion’s Night Out trademark by your organization or its members and is extremely concerned by this unauthorized use of its intellectual property.”

Courtesy of The Cut

While Fashion’s Night Out serves to celebrate shopping all over the world’s major cities, I fail to see it as its title to be a necessity to be trademarked. The whole idea of Fashion’s Night Out being trademarked confounds me simply because of its construction of words. There is nothing excitingly clever about the phrase except that it serves to personify the word “fashion.” I wouldn’t go so far to call the phrase banal, but it is nothing special; there’s “mom’s night out,” “girl’s night out, and “ladies night out,” which are all frequently used for events.

But let’s also toss out another thought here; Nuit Blanche is an international all-night festival that attracts visitor from all over the globe. Participating cities include Paris, Rome, Toronto, and Lima; these four cities use the term (with the modification of language in Rome and Lima), and yet they don’t face any issues. Why? Because it’s just a phrase/term (I’m not sure how it would work internationally, truth be told); there shouldn’t be a particular connotation or sponsor to it. Toronto adds a company affiliation in its name and it is thus called “Scotiabank’s Nuit Blanche.” Of course, other participating cities have opted for different names, but that isn’t the point. The point on-hand is that the option for a particular avenue of creativity should be allowed. Had Victoria called its event “Victoria’s imitation of the Fashion’s Night Out brought to you by VOGUE,” then I can see an infringement and need for legal action.

Even though many compare this incident to the trademarking of I Die and Bananas by Rachel Zoe last year, I find that there is further complication in this case. The fact that the phrase serves to address a particular industry and places strict usage on these words leaves those in the fashion business more unnecessarily conscientious of their title choice, as they are afraid of unknowingly impinging on trade- and service- marks, whereas we don’t find many naming their lines and events “Bananas” or “I Die.”

For referential purposes, a particular phrase can be trademarked several times, provided that it is a product in a completely different industry. Should the requested trademark be too relevant to an existing one (as there are categories), it will be denied. For more information on trademarks, be sure to check out the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

Images courtesy of Vancounver Sun and Toronto.ca

With the world in a frenzy over the start of the World Cup (including me, who only ever tuned in for the 2006 finals match), some may have already begun their hunt for memorabilia. Umbro is already one step ahead with its release of the new line of limited edition jerseys. Celebrating the world’s seven most victorious nations -- Italy, Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Uruguay, England, and France -- with England’s revolutionary tailoring philosophy, Umbro collaborated with local artists to create new emblems to affix to the jerseys. To accompany the shirts and designs, a recreated advertisement was spun out from the creatives. The new advert references is a direct reference to the 1960s limited edition jerseys featuring the wives and girlfriends of the nations’ superstars.

In terms of aesthetics alone, the bright colors and great graphic emblems make the jerseys unique and a must-have item for 2010. Of course, you shouldn’t be wearing this to your day job, but it serves great for casual wear for the duration of the World Cup. And given that it isn’t some cotton tee, you’ll be sure to stay cooler than your friends on the overbearingly hot days.

The original 1960s limited edition jerseys advertisement featuring the wives and girlfriends of football superstars

For those in Toronto, be sure to stop by GOTSTYLE Menswear at 489 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3J5 to pick up your jersey -- they’re donating 10% of sales to the Nelson Mandela’s Children’s fund. And for those in NYC, check out the Alife Rivington Club, which has opened up a Umbro x A.R.C pop-up store at 157 Rivington St, New York, NY 10002 and retails the jerseys for $80 USD.

As for now, you can watch the behind-the-scenes video below:

Images courtesy of Umbro

In case you haven’t heard, American Apparel has found itself in deep trouble with its hiring policies and targeted demographics. It started last month when erotic dancer and performer April Flores approached a showroom representative of the company asking if they would ever consider launching a plus-sized line. Flores was met with the response, “That’s not our demographic.” Of course, that alone started a flurry of responses, including one from Lillian Behrendt of My Unacceptable Body, that stated that they not only were big fans of the comfort of the clothes, but were also frequent buyers.

The greater issue that has surfaced within the past several days deals with and examines the hiring policies of American Apparel. Albeit, the company has already been accused of having the policy of letting go of employees that were deemed too ugly. But now, they’re facing fire of how you even get to work for the LA based company. What Gawker has learned and obtained from an internal transcript is that job applicants have their photos taken, which are then assessed by a nameless person for hiring. Adding to such, employees receive $100 incentives for their recruitment, but have to send the pictures through their personal email account, and not the store’s account. And of course, American Apparel asserts that they are screening candidates so as to make sure that they do not hire those that are considered to be “off-brand.” But really, how can you be off-brand if you are wearing a tee and a pair of pants when having your photo taken so that they can be sure of you eye and hair color, and figure?

The interal transcript from May 18th regarding hiring procedures for American Apparel

The scrutinizing and “rigorous” hiring process has always been an issue with American Apparel, though. I do recall when I still worked in retail and considering places to work, American Apparel was the only store requiring headshots to apply. I wouldn’t go so far to say that that was damaging to my self-esteem, but I can surely say that such application process did leave me feeling far more self-conscious than if I hadn’t considered such.

More disconcerting, though, is the fact that Dov Charney’s American Apparel enjoys priding themself on the fact that their products do not come from sweatshops, but are rather, made in America, and yet, they seem to ignore the blatant social issues, such as the problem with body image and the fact that the average American woman is in fact a size 14. With his overtly sexual advertisements and screening processes, one can’t help but find that American Apparel goes out of its way to promote women (and men too) to be more critical of their bodies and therefore, have a negative perception of their body image and self-worth. And also following Charney’s notion of the fact that a size not featured in the advertisements (drawing connections between Flores’ incident with the showroom and the policy’s “requirements” of head-to-toe examination) is considered to be “off-brand” because their waist size is perhaps 1.5 times that of those in the posters, could he in fact be implying that the majority of America is “off-brand,” or removing the corporate labels, “fat and ugly?”

Image courtesy of FlavorWire and Gawker