(Mischa Barton in ??? via Celebtopia)

Sorry for the inarticulate title, but there’s no other way to describe the 2008 Met Costume Ball. I pretty much knew from the moment the theme was announced that it was going to be a proverbial shit show. Superheroes and fashion? Really??? I know the gala has been pandering to Hollywood for years now, but why don’t you just cut the crap and make next year’s theme Hooray for Hollywood? That way you won’t confuse these celebrities and get something that is neither star-studded nor fashionable.

I had vain hopes that the guests would have a sense of humor about the obtuse theme and maybe run with it. But I forgot….celebrities don’t have a sense of humor nor are they creative-that’s why they have stylists! Well it seems like everyone’s stylists took the night off, that or somebody’s out of job tomorrow!

I truly didn’t think things could get any more hideous than 2004’s ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ themed gala. Which resulted in people wearing things like this….

But boy was I wrong….

Enter at your own risk. More after the jump…

Popularity: 1% [?]

(photo credit: Andrew Durham for the NYT)

There are a few fashion rules every good fashionista knows:

1. Black is the new Black

2. 0 is the new 2

3. And above all you don’t fuck with Anna Wintour. EVER! If she wants your first born, you better believe you’re going to give her your first born.

See what Oprah is to the entertainment community, Anna Wintour is to the fashion community. She can make you and just like that she can break you!

News comes today that Rachel Zoe’s has been dis-invited to the MET Costume Institute Gala a.k.a the Oscars of fashion. Zoe was originally an invited guests of designer Brian Atwood of Bailey’s-but now she says she was never planning to make the gala on Monday because of filming for her new reality show. She is either lying to make herself look better and thereby digging a bigger hole for herself with Anna Wintour. OR. If this is the truth, and she never planned to attend the biggest night in fashion, she is the stupider than I thought. Either way she’s about one bad outfit away from being booted from the fashion inner-circle.

Why might la Wintour be so peeved with Zoe? For making Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan fashion icons? No. It might have to do with this quote Zoe said in the New York Times Magazine last September:

“Anna Wintour is one of my heroes, but they say that I’m more influential. As great as it is, Vogue won’t change a designer’s business. But if an unknown brand is worn by a certain person in a tabloid, it will be the biggest designer within a week. When I worked with Nicole [Richie], there were things that she wore that designers had to remake for another season because there was such demand.’’

This is the fashion equivalent of the Beatles saying they were bigger than Jesus. Although what Zoe said may be true in a matter of moving clothing in retail, your not supposed to say that aloud. Because for the foreseeable future Anna Wintour is the most powerful person in fashion-regardless if this is a fact or more of a myth built by the media. Hopefully this incident will alert the fashion community that Zoe is has lost her magic touch.

( Ed. note: Although I pray for her demise, I look forward for her reality show on BRAVO. I’m sure her celebrity cilents will be thrilled that she is whoring them out for the cameras for her own self gain. Shouldn’t it be the other way around!? )

Popularity: 5% [?]

(Separated by a word-Juicy and Victoria Secret)

Juicy Couture is suing Victoria Secret for stealing their idea of writing stupid slogans on the ass of your overpriced velour pants.

Okay that’s not entirely true, but that’s how everyone in the blogosphere is phrasing it as. In reality the lawsuit is based on a similar marketing and packaging campaign. Try to make that interesting! Juicy Couture Inc. and their corporate sugar-mama Liz Claiborne are claiming that they created the “Sweet Shoppe” marketing concept two years before Victoria Secret starting wrapping bras and panties in nearly identical packaging. JC has singled out VS’s Pink Line. What is this Pink Line I speak of? It’s VS’s attempt at clothing. It’s kind of like the Eggo Waffle brand branching out into syrup. Just because it’s kind of similar to what you do-doesn’t mean you should do both!

This infringement extends to their clothing as well, the lawsuit states: “Pink has applied slogans across the seat of pants which famously originated with Juicy Couture and identifies its brand.”

That is all legal jargon to say-’They’re putting stupid slogans on the ass of their pants and everyone knows we created that idiotic idea….and people pay top dollar for that shit. Like totally NO FAIR, NO FAIR, NO FAIR!’

Even though I consider Juicy Couture the dregs of fashion and responsible for debasing the word ‘couture.’ Pam and Gela, the mistresses of Juicy Couture, do deserve credit for making  velour a luxury item. As well as making MILF’s and MILF’s-in-training alike forget that this is a fabric favored by those who live in old folks homes. Far be it for Victoria Secret to steal this idea and sell it for less-oh the horror! Juicy Couture is of course seeking money damages and profit from the alleged copying.

Hey Juicy Couture, it could be worse, Forever 21 could be stealing your ideas!

Popularity: 1% [?]

By now everyone and their grandmother has seen this non-controverisal, controversial Miley Cyrus photo, photographed by that smut-peddler Annie Leibovitz. It’s been awhile since I’ve posted a ‘real’ Inqusition post, but this incident has pulled me out of hibernation.

I couldn’t help but become irate that while watching my half-an-hour of real news, from 6:30-7, all they seemed to talk about was this photo. And then it went to the hour of entertainment shows, and it was all about the photos. And then the news at 10 and 11, and so on and so on.

Am I the only person seeing someone’s semi-emaciated back? I kept thinking a boob had popped out and I had just not noticed. But no. At a time when you can see Miley with her day-glow bra exposed all over the internet, that photo is controversial? If there was going to be a semi-nude photo of me on the internet I would rather it be taken by Annie Lebowitz any day.

And another thing, what’s the deal with blaming Annie Leibovitz? Is that really fooling anyone? From the press I’ve heard, you would have thought it was Terry Richardson taking the photo!

Does she realize that Leibovitz shots every other photoshoot that appears in magazines? In a few years when Cyrus will inevitably shot one those obligatory GAP Icons ads-who do you think is going to shoot it? Let’s just hope she doesn’t piss off Inez and Vindooh.

Why is this photo such a big deal? Because Miley does not own herself, no she is the property of The Walt Disney Corporation. She is their commodity and that commodity is innocence. And they are going to hold onto that till she marries her elementary sweetheart in Vegas for 52 hours and effectively loses all her fanbase with increasingly erratic behavior. It’s the tried and true Britney formula. And another thing she isn’t the first celebrity to mix her youth and innocence with risqué, suggestive photos.

Remember this?

(Britney photographed by David LaChapelle for Rolling Stone at 17)

Or the originator:

(Brooke Shields at 15 in those infamous Calvin Klein ads)

The truth is, this is such a none story. I don’t mind Billy Bush talking about this photo with the same gravity as if it’s the war in Iraq, because that’s his job-to talk about nothing as if it’s something. But when Charlie Gibson starts speaking about the scandal like it’s Iraq, we’ve got problems. So CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS back off of the Miley Cyrus photo-semi-nude-back-gate and leave it to the professionals-us bloggers. Who else has nothing better to do than take an hour out of day to write about Miley Cyrus? Now if you don’t mind I’m going to watch me some CNN. And Miley, if you think that photos is embarrassing at least you haven’t posed for an American Apparel ad yet!

Popularity: 1% [?]

Does this offend you? If you’re Louis Vuitton (and maybe Paris Hilton) it does!

In October of 2007, artist Nadia Plesner decided to create an art piece dealing with the genocide in Darfur. She created the above illustration that are on t-shirts and posters, with a 100% of the profit going to the organization “Divest for Darfur”

“My illustration Simple Living is an idea inspired by the medias constant cover of completely meaningless things.
My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly[sic] is enough to get you on a magasine[sic] cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention…If you can’t beat them, join them. This is why I have chosen to mix the cruel reality with showbiz elements in my drawing.”

Truth be told she’s not actually making fun of Louis Vuttion, simply celebutantes dependence to Louis Vuitton. Well LVMH didn’t really say it that way and on Febuary 13th sent a cease and desist letter. Which in layman’s terms means ‘take that down before we sue your ass!’ However Plesner is sticking by her right to express herself as an artist. And as of April 15th a LVMH has brought lawsuit against her.

Support Nadia Plesner and her awesome t-shirts and posters.

Get a T-shirt and/or a Poster

See the Lawsuit

Popularity: 1% [?]