1 Night, 11 Different Costumes

Courtesy of dailymail.co.uk.

Eva Longoria hosted the 2010 MTV Europe Awards in Madrid, Spain earlier this week and changed outfits a whopping grand total of 10 times.

Even more miraculous than her never-ending costume changing trick, was the evolution of her hair. She managed nearly every possible hair combination, which I would consider a bigger feat then changing clothes.

One thing all of her outfits had in common: short and tight (with the exception of her "ham dress"- an ode to Lady Gaga).

The actress debuted in a Georges Hobeika Couture silk top with pleats and also later wore the designer when she changed into a tuxedo type outfit with eggplant colored details.

Next up came a more-or-less one piece bathing suit ensemble by Gianfranco Ferre'. The last way I would describe this outfit is modest, to say the least.

Another fan favorite of the night was a red-mini dress the host donned in congratulations to the Spanish National Team which won the World Cup this past year. Considering the show was held in Madrid, it was a nice gesture.

Courtesy of dailymail.co.uk.

Of the 11 outfits she wore, only 3 were long, but don't worry, they took away as much fabric in other areas of the dress as much as they made them longer. Both of the long Emilio Pucci dresses she choose lacked fabric in significant areas like the front and sides of her dresses. The one other long dress Viktor and Rolf's A/W 2010 collection only remained long until Katy Perry ripped the skirt right off of Longoria to reveal her most revealing outfit yet: an embroidered bodysuit that hardly covered anything on the actress.

Courtesy of dailymail.co.uk.

My favorite choice of the night was her most conservative- or a better word choice would probably be "least revealing". The giant ham costume she choose was hilarious and a nice break from the endless array of skimpy outfits.

Overall, I do not think a host should need 11 costume changes to keep an audiences attention throughout the night. Ideally, the host should have enough talent to keep them entertained without them wondering "I wonder what she will come out in next?"

Over the years, these shows have become full fledge productions. The performances by special guests rival the special effects and performances from their tours, and the hosts will do nearly anything to keep you interested. It all about being the biggest and the best.

While changing outfits does add some fun to the show, 11 outfits truly is excessive and expensive. At an awards show, I would rather be entertained by the performers than the clothes (my answer changes if you ask about a fashion show, though). What do you think?

Courtesy of dailymail.co.uk.

For more info: hollyscoop.com

More Hair, More Problems

Photo courtesy of nytimes.com

I can almost guarantee that every girl has attempted to grow her hair out at least once in her life.

For some, with beautiful, strong and healthy hair, it comes with ease and it seems to grow at the speed of light. For others (like myself), it becomes fruitless and I am positive that my hair will never reach the endless lengths of some of my peers.

According to society's expectations, the teenage and young adult years of our life are when we should be sexy, fun, versatile and beautiful. To many, long hair perfectly represents all of these traits.

But, there seems to be an age limit on long hair. Once a woman reaches age 30, it's like there is a invisible law requiring her to chop off her locks and loose the associated appeal. 

Dominique Browning seems to disagree and defy the social norms, deciding against chopping off her long silver hair, even at age 55.

In her essay in the NYTimes, "Why Can't Middle-Aged Women Have Long Hair?", she talks about how it has become culturally correct for women of a certain age to cut their hair. She describes how her mother hates it, her sister worries about it, and her friend thinks it undermines her professional credibility.

Browning gives us 3 main categories that lead to peoples complaints about her long hair, and on older women.

First off, it says rebellion. It shows that these women are acting out against corporate America in general. Secondly, it shows that they are still "living in the '70s". And thirdly, that long of hair is high maintenance. It is impossible for women with long hair to go without brushing their hair or getting their hair tangled into some every day activity.

While yes, all of these complaints may be valid- the hair only affects the person's head it is on. (Unless they are sitting in front of you somewhere, and it gets on you- thats gross, but uncommon).

Realistically, I think it's impossible to pinpoint why society came to expect women to cut their hair, but that the increase of women in the workforce could play the largest role.  

Most working women do not aspire to by thought of as sexy and fun in an environment where they want to be taken seriously. A woman with shorter hair may be thought of as more masculine and as less of a sex object, therefore demanding more respect. 

Honestly, I don't think that women should need to cut their hair to be taken seriously or demand respect. A woman's (or man's, for that matter) actions should be why they are respected/disrespected, not their physical appearance.

I'll admit that I have occasionally thought that I would cut my hair shorter as I get older, but I couldn't give you much of a reason besides "it's just what people do". 

Maybe, I'm a victim of our culture and think like this because my mom has had short hair for the past 20 years. Even so, almost every woman I can think of over 30 has short hair as well. 

Whether the hair is long, medium, short, or shaved- I think it should only matter to the person who's head it is growing from.

Miniskirts are SO Over.

Well, they are according to Lugi Bobbio, mayor of Castellammare di Stabia, a small seaside town in Italy.

But, don't worry, he only wants to ban the ones that are so short that they show a woman's underwear. Except for beach areas. Police will be checking the hemlines of women's skirts, and those found to be against the ordinance will be forced to pay 25-500 euros (equivalent to $35-700 American dollars).

This is honestly one of the most ridiculous laws I have heard. While I disapprove of the unwarranted ass peepshow as much as the next person, I find it hard to believe that this is the biggest problem facing the town.

I realize that I live in a much larger area with (predictably) higher crime rates, but I'm sure there is at least some petty crime within the town. I do not think that police officers should be spending their time measuring the lengths of women's skirts (Are we really back to the "finger-tip rule" from elementary?), but instead should be working on improving the town for ALL of the citizens.

Oh, and a potential $700 fine? A little excessive if you ask me.

Also, the idea that (most likely) male police officer's would be physically "measuring" the short hemlines of women's skirts looks like a red flag to me.

The mayor hopes that his ideas will help to "restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil coexistence." While I can appreciate his ultimate goal, I don't think these proposed bans will successfully achieve them.

Italy is a democracy, and therefore provides people the rights to control their own lives. I think that people should be aware of common decency (whether it affects their clothing or word choice) and should act accordingly, but they still deserve the right to make their own decision.

Unless a clothing choice is severely disrupting the flow of society, I don't think the government should have a legitimate reason to intervene.

As absurd as this law may seem, other places such as Kenya, Uganda, Chile and areas in the UK have proposed a miniskirt ban as well. Some of these bans have passed, others have not.

Miniskirts are also being banned in the job place, as well as schools. These bans are less surprising, as I don't think miniskirts are appropriate attire for the professional world. They are fun and flirty, and meant for those types of situations.

As long as people recognize these boundaries, I don't think that governments should find a realistic need for these bans.

For more information, check out: jezebel.com

Logo No-go?

A few weeks ago, The Gap, the worldwide brand we all know and love, attempted to update its iconic logo. And failed miserably.

In an attempt to keep in line with the modern direction the company's style is moving in, they threw out the classic navy background with white lettering, for a simple white background with black letters and a small blue box behind the "p". For lack of better words, it looked like The Gap hired a teenager with minimal clipart capabilities to design it.

Immediately after the release of the new logo, an outpour of response began to flood in on the company's Facebook and Twitter, none of which praised this change.

More than anything, people were confused. They did not understand why The Gap needed a new logo or why it just "showed up" out of nowhere. The most common criticisms of the new logo called it boring, uncreative, and amateur. None of these are qualities that would be successfully marketable.

In an attempt to use their customer's opinions towards solving the dilemma, the company tried "crowd-sourcing". Through social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook, the company opened the field for it's customers to submit their best logo re-designs.

Ultimately, The Gap received even more criticism from the poorly planned and poorly handled crowd-sourcing attempt and scrapped that plan all together as well. A week after they first released the new logo, they officially threw it away and returned back to the tried and true original "Gap" logo.

The company acknowledged that the entire logo process had been a mistake and they had not gone about the process in the correct way. They realized that they missed a huge opportunity to engage the social media in the process of re-designing the logo.

Today's brands are being forced to realize that social media is completely changing the playing field between companies and customers. Consumers have the option of communicating with the brands in a public setting, where the brands must immediately acknowledge their successes and failures.

Never before have customers been playing such a large role in making changes in these billion dollar corporations. With out a doubt, the redesigned Gap logo would not have been as widely spread or known in that amount of time without the use of social media.

While The Gap clearly made mistakes in its introduction of this logo, some say it may not have been a mistake at all. Claims that the logo was never meant for use and that this entire ploy was a marketing scheme are circulating, and personally I think they might be right. The Gap could have never generated this much publicity for itself without creating a scandal, but luckily this scandal is easy to get rid of.

Skin and Bones: The Fashion Industry's Choice

Within the past few years, the fashion industry has come under heavy fire for its obsession with tiny, emaciated models both on the catwalk and in advertisements.

Photo retouchers often sculpt famous faces and bodies into "real-life" Barbies, sometimes producing completely different people. Occasionally, the celebrity will come clean about the photoshopping (many times not until the real photo is released), although they usually find safety in blaming the extreme disproportions on the magazine or brand they appeared for. 

Photo courtesy of complex.com.

"So what: I have a little cellulite. What curvy girl doesn't!?" said Kim Kardashian, when a photo of her prior to retouching was accidently released.


I find that most celebrities, who have had a picture released prior to retouching, use the opportunity to take a stand on body issues/gain publicity. Many claim that they are happy in their own skin and that they appreciate their imperfections. But, would they have said that if people had never seen the original picture? Part of a celebrity's appeal comes from their sex appeal and beauty, whether it is real or not.


Brands, on the other hand, seem to be much more reluctant to take fault for their retouching mishaps. Magazines like Allure and Redbook have both defended the retouching used on their covers, while the clothing company Ralph Lauren continues to whittle their print ad  models into nothing.


Models Tao Okamoto, Valentina Zelyavea, and Filippa Hamilton have all been victims of extreme photoshopping when appearing in ads for Ralph Lauren. They look emaciated, fake, and reminiscent of Bratz dolls.


I find it ridiculous that Ralph Lauren continues to distort its models to such extremes. Even with backlash from nearly every corner of the planet, they blame it on a heavy-handed retoucher and brush it off. I think it is scary and problematic that a company with so much influence could be so careless in what they produce.


Ralph Lauren is a main-stream brand with a broad audience base, so these ads are likely to be seen by a range of people. It is impossible to know how many young girls have seen their retouched models and thought that was "normal".


While not as mainstream as Ralph Lauren, Chanel is one of the most recognizable brands in the high-end couture modeling world. Karl Lagerfeld, head designer of Chanel, continued to fuel the fire when he defended rail thin models in an interview with Focus magazine.


The world of fashion was all to do "with dreams and illusions, and no one wants to see round women," said Lagerfeld.


Runway models already suffer the most from pressure to be unrealistically thin. Their job is to act as "clothes-hangers" for the garments, ideally falling into the background so the clothes are center stage. When such a legendary designer embraces the thin trend, aspiring and working models alike are guaranteed to take notice. 


An interesting side note: Lagerfeld shot a plus size shoot for V magazine a few months after his Focus magazine interview. In my opinion, he was doing damage control from his previous comments (especially since he still has yet to embrace larger women in any of his shows).

Photo courtesy of jacob. ca.

Although hard to believe, steps are being made in the fashion industry towards embracing a more "normal" body. Jacob, a Canadian clothing retailer, has said no to retouched photos. They are still using size four models in their campaigns, but that is still two sizes larger than typically seen on the runways.


Victoria Beckham, an up and coming designer, recently banned size zero models from her latest show. She wanted "to celebrate a women's curves," said Beckham.


Even with the recent advancements, the industry is still a work in progress. Until world-wide and influential brands like Ralph Lauren and Chanel embrace that bigger is better, I think many other brands will be reluctant to as well.


For more information on up to date fashion:
- jezebel.com
- cocoperez.com