Juliet Dunlop: It’s become an ugly business, fashion

Boy, is the world of fashion bitchy. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, without a comment or three about the sartorial choices of Gwyneth, Beyoncé and Cameron. First-name-only famous, forget about their Oscars, Grammys and box-office smashes – what are they wearing? What have they done to their hair? And what about the width of their hips? That’s what women want apparently, to judge and be judged.

Just look at the coverage given to the Metropolitan Museum’s Costume Institute Benefit Gala this week. Hosted by American Vogue editor Anna Wintour, affectionately known as Nuclear Wintour, it is New York’s must-be-snapped-going-up-the-steps fashion event. And, no matter how famous the woman, it’s the fashion pack’s favourite night of the year to pick and pull and analyse.

There’s always Oscar night, of course, but it’s supposed to be about the films. Actresses, fearful of getting it wrong, play it safe nowadays. Remember how Cher and Diane Keaton liked to experiment?

These days, the big industry events are about getting the tone right, but the Met Ball is different. It’s a celebration of fashion and design, an all-guns-blazing beauty blitz. It’s one of the few occasions when the famous take a chance on a designer, try something a little edgier and pin their fashion credentials to the mast. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong and this year it seems, there were more wrongs than rights.

Whose fault is it? Well, men apparently, or more accurately a clutch of influential male designers who currently worship at the altar of so-called ugly chic. For the uninitiated, it’s a look that favours ripped satin, slashed-to-the-thigh gowns, strips of fabric in clashing colours and shoes that give more than a nod to the world of bondage.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times. It used to be said that when times were good hemlines went up, and when they were bad they went down. The hemline index doesn’t always hold up, of course, but perhaps in this age of austerity designers think women shouldn’t look overly strong and powerful, that the female form doesn’t deserve celebration.

This year’s exhibition at the Met looks at how women subvert ideals of beauty and glamour by playing with good and bad taste. And some of the couture creations on show at this week’s ball were quite frankly, bizarre, unflattering and barely there. But hey, that’s high fashion for you, and it won’t be the first or the last time we’ll hear the phrase “designers can’t dress real women”.

That, of course, doesn’t stop women buying into the perfect dress, shoe or bag, however expensive or unsuitable.

Take the Christian Louboutin exhibition that’s just opened in London to celebrate the shoe designer’s 20 years in the business. His creations, known lovingly as Louboutins, are exquisitely expensive, toweringly high and famously uncomfortable. His most popular style has a five-inch heel.

“Shoes are objects of pleasure,” according to Louboutin, and walking clearly is not one of his priorities. “I am not against comfort, but I don’t like the idea that my shoes are evocative of comfort.”

So, there you have it, women have to suffer to look good. Nothing new in that. But have women really rejected the values that slowly revolutionised the way we dress now in favour of some limited, sexualised male ideal of femininity? Coco Chanel would be turning in her grave.

Yet, we’re fascinated still by the very idea of fashion’s transformative power. The fashion fix can always be had in any number of magazines. Page upon glossy page of long-limbed perfection modelling everything a woman could possibly want – this season.

Of course, they’re peddling a dream. The average woman in the UK is 5ft 4in and a size 16. The average model is 6ft and usually a size 6. But even the Glamazons have been knocked off their gilded perches by the rise of the A-list actress, however ungainly in couture. These days a beautiful face just isn’t enough when it comes to selling watches, cars and perfume. Fashion. It’s a cut-throat business.