It's always interesting to see how fashion defines itself in the face of celebrity.
This year's cover man is Johnny Depp, with fashion accessories of ink, cigarette, necklaces and winecork.
It was once when fashion houses were defined by their patrons (often royals and aristocrats, the royals sometimes granting Royal Warrants) but now it seems patrons are defined by their fashion houses. Agree or disagree? It is not new that celebrities are often paid (officially or unofficially) for the clothing they promote/wear--this goes back at least 150 years.
It is interesting to see that some men are fashion icons because they can get away with wearing anything they please (again, not a new concept as a true man of fashion dresses only for himself) and some have started clothing lines themselves.
This year's cover man is Johnny Depp, with fashion accessories of ink, cigarette, necklaces and winecork.
It was once when fashion houses were defined by their patrons (often royals and aristocrats, the royals sometimes granting Royal Warrants) but now it seems patrons are defined by their fashion houses. Agree or disagree? It is not new that celebrities are often paid (officially or unofficially) for the clothing they promote/wear--this goes back at least 150 years.
It is interesting to see that some men are fashion icons because they can get away with wearing anything they please (again, not a new concept as a true man of fashion dresses only for himself) and some have started clothing lines themselves.
I am thinking of a portrait bust of a man of fashion from the 1840s...
