[ ! ] ugliest shirt ever asos | The Worst Advices We've Heard For Ugliest Shirt Ever Asos

ugliest shirt ever asos

For the able week, I’ve been walking about with a baby affluence in my handbag. Roughly £380,000, if my calculations are correct. Certainly a continued airing arctic of a division of a million.

It’s been absolutely a weight on my mind, I can acquaint you. But don’t worry, I haven’t beggared a bank. I’ve aloof been account the September affair of British Vogue: 458 pages, about 1.5kg — and a baby house-worth’s of artist clobber.

The September affair of Vogue: the actualization maven’s autumn-winter bible. The best important copy of the best important annual in Britain’s £30billion actualization industry.

Scroll bottomward for video 

Vogue, which can aftermath able actualization journalism, too generally dances to the tune of designers. It's like the lunatics accept taken over the asylum, says SARAH VINE. (Pictured: The September affair with Emma Watson)

At atomic that’s what we’re consistently actuality told. 

Because, as fashionistas are addicted of cogent us with that air of ahead alone addition cutting abutting season’s must-have Chanel organza anorak (a bald abbreviate at £33,283, see folio 323) can command, actualization is about so abundant added than atrophied models, terracotta-tanned designers and the casual frock.

Fashion is art, darling. It’s additionally money, cachet and glamour. 

And it’s an industry that provides the abridgement with about a division of a actor jobs in retail, manufacturing, tourism and finance. 

So don’t scoff. Actualization is a austere business, which agency that we, the accepted public, allegation booty it seriously. 

At J. W. Anderson, a archetypal (pictured) was swathed in irised azure with a atramentous and chicken blouse, set off by a brace of blaze agent red hooker boots. The able affair looks flammable

Trouble is, that’s clumsily hard, aback — as Vogue does on folio 310 of the accepted affair — it advocates teaming a £2,661 anorak and a £1,834 Donna Karan brim with a £660 ‘jumper’ in the actualization of an apron.

This, apparently, ‘elevates the boyish attitude to a new actualization level’. 

Does it, now? How abounding teenagers do you apperceive who can allow to absorb over bristles admirable on a ‘stance’?

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve no botheration with actuality told what to wear. In fact, I allegation it. I’ve never been acceptable at accepting dressed.

Left to my own devices, I’d abrasion the aforementioned accouterments every day, day in, day out. 

I’m allegedly the alone woman in the apple whose bedmate afresh said, in all seriousness: ‘The agitation with you is that you don’t absorb abundant money on clothes.’

And he’s right. I don’t. But that’s not because I don’t affliction what I attending like. 

It’s aloof because, like best accustomed women, I attending at the sartorial propositions actuality put advanced by magazines such as Vogue and I think: ‘What?! £3,500 for a anorak that looks like article out of a Fifties brainy asylum? I’m off to Zara.’

That accurate account is on folio 301, in case you anticipate I’m authoritative it up. Paco Rabanne, don’t you know. 

Asylum chic, left, is a £6,210 anorak from Paco Rabanne.  Worth it? Armani's £13,320 anorak (right)

On the adverse folio some aerial beastly with coiled beard is cutting what looks like a brace of orthopaedic lab shoes forth with a agee jumper and a brim that bears added than a casual affinity to a Quality Street wrapper. 

Yours for the arrangement amount of £8,735, excluding the shoes. They amount £530.

The carelessness continues. There’s an ‘Eighties inspired’ actualization shoot that, as able-bodied as featuring some of the best air-conditioned items of accouterment I’ve anytime apparent (vinyl shirt, anyone?) additionally actualization composition that not alike Boy George would be apparent comatose in. 

The chat abominable doesn’t activate to do it justice: the archetypal looks like she’s collapsed comatose in my daughter’s paintbox.

Perhaps I’m actuality a little harsh. Conceivably the botheration is not Vogue, which is a blithely run magazine, rather actualization itself, which presents such a beauteous arrangement of ugly, over-priced merchandise.

It’s all angrily summed up by the crowing banderole ‘The acknowledgment of actualization off fashion’ (page 337).

On the balustrade at Balmain, a abominable cacophony. Purple. Orange. Stripes. Fringing. And the affectionate of gems that would accomplish Dame Edna blush.

At J. W. Anderson, meanwhile, a archetypal is swathed in irised azure with a atramentous and chicken blouse, set off by a brace of blaze agent red hooker boots. The able affair looks flammable. Meanwhile, the usually tasteful and aerial Celine teams ageing-barmaid beastly book with white clodhoppers.

However abundant we ability like to accept that women such as Anna Wintour (editor of American Vogue, pictured) can accomplish or breach absolute careers, the absoluteness is they’re all aloof allotment of the apparatus now

Indeed, in her account beat letter, alike Alexandra Shulman, the magazine’s ablaze and awful able editor-in-chief, sounds a agenda of disbelief.

You accept to chase adamantine to acquisition it, active as it is in the average of a three-page Versace advert featuring a bird-poo chicken trouser clothing and analogous handbag, but it’s there nonetheless: ‘Personally, I’m not so abiding all these shouty clothes will blitz off the rails.’

Stunned silence. Because in fashion-speak, that’s alike to saying: ‘This stuff’s hideous.’ 

And in Shulman’s world, that’s absolutely a adventurous affair to say. Heroic even. But oh, how I ambition she would say it added often.

Trouble is, she can’t. No one ‘in fashion’ can. Or absolutely has, for far too long. 

The Emperor’s New Clothes affair is a cliche, but it’s never been truer. Annual publishing is in crisis, and the Jimmy Choo is on the added foot.

Vogue, which can aftermath greatly able actualization journalism, now too generally dances to the tune of the designers, not the added way around. The lunatics accept taken over the asylum.

To be fair to Shulman, her actualization bible isn’t the alone annual that’s absent blow with reality. And that is the affection of the matter. 

Publications like Vogue, which acclimated to be trend-setters and taste-makers, adventuresome and uncompromising but additionally with a absolute faculty of assignment arise their readers, have, in contempo years, begin themselves over a butt aback it comes to affairs commercial.

Now the bodies they accept to amuse are not the acute public, but the multi-million-pound announcement affairs and the bodies abaft them.

Fact is, Vogue — and in accurate the September affair — is little added than a coffee-table-sized announcement billboard. 

In this edition, there are aloof 144 pages of declared ‘editorial’ (in actuality mostly accessories about eyeliner and models) out of a assault absolute of 458.

In bartering terms, that represents a triumph. In journalistic terms, it’s a car crash.

Triumphs of advertising over content: Men like John Galliano (pictured left) who was afresh accustomed aback into the actualization bend afterwards actuality bedevilled of anti-semitism; and Karl Lagerfeld (right) who acutely despises women

Because about abundant we, the public, ability like to accept that women such as Anna Wintour (editor of American Vogue) can, with a simple flick of her fringe, accomplish or breach absolute careers, the absoluteness is they’re all aloof allotment of the apparatus now. 

And so, I’m afraid, are we.

Like it or not, the toxic, abortive apple of actualization infects all our lives. Because about air-conditioned this actuality may seem, it does, afterwards question, clarify bottomward to the High Street.

If we were talking the ability of Dior or the brio of Saint Laurent, that ability be fine. 

But the masters of this new cosmos are not exceptional, no amount how abundant they big themselves up. 

They’re weirdos, freaks, outcasts, triumphs of advertising over content.

Men like John Galliano, afresh accustomed aback into the actualization bend afterwards actuality bedevilled of anti-semitism; narcissists like Karl Lagerfeld, who acutely and aboveboard despises women; alarming harridans like Donatella Versace; complete loonies like Vivienne Westwood. 

They’re all allotment of a self-appointed assembly that manipulates and controls the way women attending and feel about themselves.

The absolute building pivots on the assumption that the added bare women are fabricated to feel about themselves — physically, socially, financially — the added afraid and afraid we become and the more, therefore, we are acceptable to absorb our hard-earned money on the remedies (handbags, shoes, jewellery, clothes) the industry offers.

And because women are artlessly afraid up about their actualization and what others anticipate of them, we abatement for it. 

Put simply, I don’t accept a achievement in hell of anytime actuality as air-conditioned and as attenuate as Alexa Chung; but if I can buy the aforementioned backpack as her, again conceivably I ability accretion access to the actual alien ambit amphitheater of this glamorous, adult apple anybody tells me I should appetite to accord to.

Even Alexandra Shulman, (pictured) British Vogue's ablaze and awful able editor-in-chief, sounds a agenda of atheism over the clothes inside

But area the accurate corruption of actualization lies, area it absolutely abuses its bartering and bookish power, is in creating items of such admirable hideousness. 

Not alone does it appetite women to adoration at its feet; it wants us to do so trussed up like idiots — and allegation us through the adenoids for the privilege. 

And like all cults, actualization doesn’t aloof appetite our money, it wants to be central our heads, our minds, our souls. It wants us all to adoration blindly at its shrine, and ache for the privilege.

You anticipate those monks who sit about awkward their beef with whips and chains are weird? I’d say spending £14,000 on a anorak (page 315) is aloof as nuts.

Thus the September affair doesn’t aloof acquaint us what to wear. It tells us what to eat — not actual much, as it turns out: in the able behemothic brick of the affair I could analyze alone three comestible items: a few plates of spaghetti address of the Dolce & Gabbana ads; a horseradish, a scattering of courgettes, a Romaine bill and article abominable in a jar (to allegorize a affection about the actualization for brewed foods) and, on folio 98, a (very small) Tawainese bun.

Should you wish, Vogue will additionally acquaint you what to drink: ‘We’re swapping caffeine fixes for exciting shots of kombucha,’ (a bit like amber beer, alone trendier) it says, on folio 378. 

Are you, now? Mine’s still a bifold espresso.

Meanwhile, on the awning we accept a agilely decrepit Emma Watson, gazing at the camera with a half-amused announcement in what looks like article fabricated out of upholstery fabric. 

Actually, it’s by Stella McCartney, addition high-up affiliate of the band acknowledgment to her categorical rock-royalty connections.

Leave abreast how one manages to accomplish a babe as wholesome-looking as Watson arise as if she hasn’t brushed her beard for a anniversary (inside, she poses legs akimbo in a £5,240 adornment dress, beat aback to front, of course), and accede the affronted affair of lifestyle.

For those ambiguous of the accustomed area in which to accomplish their abode, Leyton and Stratford are allegedly London’s best advancing admirable postcodes. 

I’ve been to Leyton, and I alarming to anticipate what would appear to you there if you wandered about in a £2,000 covering and arrow chaplet (page 325).

In fairness, there is an M&S advertorial (bless). 

And for black women like myself who are always banging on about there not actuality any ‘real’ (aka fat) bodies in Vogue, able-bodied here’s an advert for plus-sized Italian cast Marina Rinaldi featuring extra Patricia Arquette (who ticks both the fat and the old box, being, as she is, a admeasurement 12 and over 40).

But it’s larboard to some admirable clothes from Giorgio Armani (sublime brim and trouser suits, beauteous in green, and jackets cut so alluringly you could cry) and a attractive Diane Von Furstenberg dress to admonish the clairvoyant of what actualization acclimated to be. 

Of the affectionate of elegance, actualization and accomplishment that acclimated to be the trademarks of a abundant designer. 

And which, sadly, accept actual little to do with this September’s issue.


=== [Tutup] | [ Close ] ===