It’s always great when one of your favourite designers branches out into perfume, and today, we’ve learnt that one of our London Fashion Week favourites, Meadham Kirchhoff, has done just that.
The design duo, known for their quirky designs, has created a fragrance using such notes as whisky, incense, leather and myrrh for a scent that will certainly awaken the senses. The fragrance has been three years in the making and is a collaboration between the designers and luxury perfumers Penhaligon, known for its rich and varied heritage.
And the fragrance name of choice? Tralala, a suitably quirky name to fit such a flamboyant brand.
The fragrance is set to launch at Penhaligons.com on May 5, but if you can’t quite wait until then, it’ll be available at harveynichols.com from April 21. Just look out for a quirky little bottle shaped like a clown — what else would you expect?
image credit: facebook.com/albertaferretti
“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it," tFS forum member TREVOFASHIONISTO fittingly stated when commenting on the new Alberta Ferretti Spring 2014 campaign. What worked so wonderfully last season was sure to turn out well again this season. “This is gorgeous,” TREVOFASHIONISTO also added. Peter Lindbergh shooting Mariacarla Boscono for the Alberta Ferretti campaign is clearly a formula that we have no objections to thus far. But whereas the Fall 2013 campaign had a dramatic, somber feel to it, this season’s campaign promises to be more on the colorful, romantic side. The campaign found many supporters on the tFS forums.
TianSoFine gushed, “I basically love everything about this! It's very natural and has an easy elegance. I also love the use of light and color.”
“I really love it. I think it's super pretty,” agreed Moofins.
Sweet rus joined in on the swooning and posted, “Gorgeous, just gorgeous! Love this bright green color and the way the fabric flows, stunning!”
But not everyone was impressed. Mariacarla receiving negative comments on the forums is pretty much unheard of, but Ortemis, who thinks 'MCB' is not graceful enough here, was not the only one who criticized the model.
“Love everything except her facial expression,” wrote Koibito.
After looking at the hi-res version of the preview image, one might tend to agree about the facial expression. But nonetheless, the composition of this ad is striking and there is too much to love about this for me to actually be bothered by what her face looks like upon closer inspection. Beautiful!
Yesterday, Jezebel posted an open call offering anyone $10,000 who can deliver un-retouched photos from Lena Dunham's Vogue shoot. Less than 24 hours and…voila! In fact, it only took Jezebel two hours to get six allegedly unaltered images from the actress' Annie Leibovitz shoot. Jezebel points out in detail the exact visual edits, of which there weren't that many. Jezebel is, of course, trying to give the few changes that were made some meaning in a larger context:
"In the end, while Dunham's images were not drastically altered, it's important to remember how unforgiving the media is when it comes to images of women. Men are generally allowed to have pores and wrinkles; women are supposed to be 'perfect' — a state that does not exist. As Mother Jones' co-editor Clara Jeffrey put it on Twitter: 'If [Lena]'s given us an image of a real woman on Girls, and they altered — perhaps without her consent, isn't that a paradox that should be explored?'"
To their point, in the bathtub image that also features Adam Driver, he was not Photoshopped at all, with the exception of his leg, which was raised to come up out of the water, but there's still no denying this whole fiasco was much ado about nothing.
Last night, Dunham tweeted, "Some shit is just too ridiculous to engage. Let's use our energy wisely, 2014."
Jezebel has just posted a call offering $10,000 for unretouched photos of Lena Dunham's Vogue cover and editorial spread:
"Lena Dunham is a woman who trumpets body positivity, who's unabashedly feminist, who has said that her naked body is 'a realistic expression of what it's like to be alive' and 'if you are not into me, that's your problem.' Her body is real. She is real. And for as lovely as the Vogue pictures are, they're probably not terribly real. So Jezebel is offering $10,000 for pre-Photoshop images from Lena's Vogue shoot."
The online publication notes that Vogue has a well-documented history of heavy photo manipulation and also that the prolific celebrity and fashion photographer, Annie Leibovitz — who photographed Dunham for the glossy's February Issue — has openly admitted that she doctors images.
One could find a couple problems with this project:
1) Good luck finding a fashion publication that doesn't retouch its images. Vogue almost certainly did use Photoshop in this instance — but also in every other instance, ever.
2) If we accept my first point, that raises the question: Why is Jezebel trolling for proof of the widely-used industry practice in this specific case?
Dunham is famously open about the fact that she doesn't fit into a size two. (Or four, or six.) Because Vogue typically photographs very thin women, whenever a non-straight-sized body appears in the pages of the magazine, it is notable. This time, the glossy didn't shy away from showing Dunham's body and dressing it in beautiful, covetable clothing. It's a pretty remarkable thing: A talented young woman, who may not be as conventionally attractive as other female celebrities, was the true star of a Vogue fashion shoot.
Isn't it kind of shame-y and weird to suggest that she couldn't have looked so good without a big spoonful of Photoshop sugar? Especially since everyone has their photos retouched for the pages of Vogue, even models?
"To be very clear: Our desire to see these images pre-Photoshop is not about seeing what Dunham herself 'really' looks like; we can see that every Sunday night or with a cursory Google search. She's everywhere. We already know what her body looks like. There's nothing to shame here. Nor is this rooted in criticism of Dunham for working with Vogue. Entertainment is a business, after all, and Vogue brings a level of exposure that exceeds that of HBO.
This is about Vogue, and what Vogue decides to do with a specific woman who has very publicly stated that she's fine just the way she is, and the world needs to get on board with that. Just how resistant is Vogue to that idea? Unaltered images will tell."
Okay. Personally, I think this project has very little to do with feminism or making any kind of political or moral statement and everything to do with pageviews. If Jezebel gets its hands on undoctored images, no matter how unremarkable they are, it'll be a huge traffic coup. The publication established its reputation using this exact technique in 2007, when it published a disturbing before/after Photoshop cover with Faith Hill for Redbook; the photograph was acquired following an open call asking readers to submit the most shocking example of Photoshop retouching by a women's magazine. A reward was offered for $10,000.
This is not unusual practice. Another Gawker Media site, Gizmodo, reportedly paid $5,000 for an iPhone prototype in 2010. Gawker was said to have tried a similar tactic with someone connected to the Balloon Boy story, to prove that it was a hoax. Other publications, like TMZ and the National Enquirer, are known to pay sources regularly. Even a more traditional news outlet, CBS, reportedly agreed to pay Casey Anthony $200,000 for materials to use for broadcast.
The unifying characteristics of all of these stories? They are pretty trashy, they aren't about anything — but they do attract a lot of attention. And that's worth money.
DNAinfo New York reports that a full service salon and spa catering to children will soon open on Myrtle Avenue in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn. It's called A Kid's Dream, which is confusing because sitting still in a chair with someone poking at your head is not really the thing kids dream of, in my experience.
According to the website, the facility will offer a variety of unique services: "Kiddie" blowouts and perms, candy facials, glitter spray updos, nail art, make-your-own lip gloss sessions and lice treatments.
Upon entering, children will be provided with slippers, a robe and an iPad loaded up with educational materials. DNAinfo quotes a spokesperson who explains that "the theme is to combine hair services with the opportunity for kids to receive education."
The salon was founded by a 34-year-old former teacher, "because she noticed a lack of salon services for children in the neighborhood."
Services will reportedly be priced from $25 for a basic haircut to $125 for manicures and facials.
A Kid's Dream is currently hiring; check out their job portal for open positions.
[Kiddie Blowouts and Candy Facials Coming to Myrtle Avenue — DNAinfo New York]
In a profile about Karolina Kurkova's steady rise to fame published today in The New York Times, legendary fashion photographer Albert Watson was quoted making a candid comparison between Kurkova and the patron saint of model-celebrities, Kate Moss.
“She’s not at the point where people on the street know who she is,” said Watson, of Kurkova. "But she’s a much better model than Kate Moss ever was. Sometimes notoriety is what you really need to become known.”
Although of course the British model enjoys a good amount of notoriety, and that has certainly helped her secure fame, it's not really fair to ascribe Moss' stunning career entirely to her tumultuous romantic history and alleged drug use. Furthermore, Watson's supposition that people on the street wouldn't know the 5' 11" Czech model by name, much less recognize her as a top model, is suspect. According to a very informal, unscientific poll conducted on Gchat five minutes ago: even among fashion illiterates, Kurkova already enjoys celebrity status. Also, I'm pretty sure even my parents know who she is.
And as for Watson's comparison, what do you make of the claim that Kurkova is a better model than Moss? Personally, I think it's bunk. Clearly Moss is an incredible model, so is Kurkova — and so what? Life isn't always a reality show; there are no winners.
Related: After ‘The Face’ Finale: An Interview with Karolina Kurkova and [Spoiler!] Winner Devyn Abdullah