With the recent death of Michael Jackson, it seems appropos to look back at his fashion and the ways in which this pop-icon has created a new “royal wardrobe.”

Jackson and the Jackson Five, in the 1970s: Check out the bell bottoms and floral prints– in a few short years, Jackson will have ditched this look for a more “refined” style.

Jackson on the “Off the Wall” album cover: Losing the 70’s florals and bell-botoms, Jackson dresses it up for the cover of “Off the Wall” in 1979.

The red jacket: Jackson’s red leather jacket appeared in the “Beat It,” video which debuted February 14, 1983.

In 1983, Jackson is on the cover of People Magazine (October 17. 1983 edition) wearing the red leather jacket that would soon become an iconic piece.

That same year, Jackson is spotted wearing a red cardigan and dress shirt– a hybrid of the “Off the Wall” look and a spot of color from the “Beat It” video.

1983 also introduced the world to the “Billie Jean” sequined glove.

Thriller: In 1984, Jackson’s mini-movie, “Thriller” premiere, where Jackson again wore a red leather jacket.

Dress shirt and loafers: In 1987, Jackson switched up his look, adding a dress shirt and undershirt, shortened pants, and stand-out socks, much like this snapshot of Jackson from a performance of “Bad” and “The Way you Make Me Feel” in 1988.

Royal wardrobe: Around 1989 Jackson introduce a new look– one mixed with tassels and a military flare.

1991: The return of the dress shirt and slacks, with the occasional addition of a fedora.

1992: Jackson in “Remember the Time”

1995: Scream, with sister Janet Jackson

In the subsequent years, celebrities and the media alike have replicated Jackson’s look, and, shared the stage with him, proving that Jackson’s influence has spanned time.

Jackson & Britney Spears

Rihanna in a Jackson inspired look

Beyonce

So here’s to Michael Jackson and his legacy of music and fashion.

Rick Wilking/Reuters

When all the world is talking about politics, I want to talk fashion. But not Michelle Obama’s fashion (though her selection for the inauguration was bold, and also fantastic), but Sasha and Malia’s fashion for the inauguration. 

Unlike their Mother’s outfit, the girls remained bundled up for the inauguration in fantastic pea coats that were custom made for them by American retailer, J.Crew (one of my absolute personal favorites). 

The coats, which were spinoffs of coats available through J.Crew’s children’s line, Crew Cuts, mimicked the Obama campaign and mantra perfectly: American made, middle-class, but with a personal touch. 

I’m not one to openly sing high praise for political officials (at least not in writing) as politics are essentially synonymous with manipulation and deception and I hate being made a fool of; but from where I stand right now, the Obama’s have it down to a science– or at least their advisors do. 

For months, Women’s Wear Daily and various other political and fashion blogs, magazines, and news sources have been speculating which designers the Obama’s would wear on inauguration day. Sketches poured in from designers like Isaac Mizrahi to Carolina Herrera, Badgley Mischka and Christian Lacroix and so many more– it’s a designers dream. But Michelle Obama selected an American immigrant– Isabel Toledo– relatively unknown to the mainstream fashion world– and J.Crew– a classic, “Americana” brand. 

The decision to wear J.Crew (Michelle wore J.Crew gloves and heels– as opposed to a pair of Louboutins or Jimmy Choo heels) decisively  grounds herself as “one of the girls” and instantly makes her more relatable.

In addition to this, by continuing to dress Malia and Sasha in conservative and age-appropriate clothing, Michelle and Barack are subconsciously reinstating positive images of conservative and educated young women in society– young women that don’t look like “Hannah Montana” and don’t have to use sex as an avenue for getting ahead in life. Though it seems like a little thing, by choosing to dress Sasha and Malia in more conservative (but appropriate) clothing they become age appropriate role models for young girls: something that this world needs. 

And it might be a reach, but maybe it all starts with a cute little pea coat.

I’m two episodes into ABC’s “True Beauty” and I’m beginning to think that the show’s hosts are just as ugly on the inside as some of the contestants. I’m not sure why I’m surprised, considering the show is the brainchild of Ashton Kutcher and Tyra Banks– two people born to make you feel ugly.  

But we’re all supposed to think Vanessa Minnillo, Cheryl Tiegs (I thought Janice Dickinson was the first Supermodel– does Tyra really hate Janice THAT much that she wants to rob her of that title? DRAMA), and Nolé Marin are all legitimiately beautiful on the inside that they’re adequate judges of these other contestants? 

If you ask me, Vanessa, Cheryl, and Nolé should probably be contestants themselves. The only way I would have found this show “believable” (in the way that any superficial reality show can be believable) is if they had thrown in a judge who was known for their philanthropy and genuine heart. Instead, we were given three judges who are all superficially beautiful and essentially are no better than anyone else on the show. The words “pot” “kettle” and “black” definitely come to mind whilst watching. 

Don’t get me wrong– the show can be entertaining, but it’s not because the contestants are actually learning anything. Even when they’re disqualified for being ugly on the inside, the contestants don’t “get it” and argue with the judges decision– proving that the show makes no impact on their lives. 

The challenges devised are superficial at best– contrived and shallow, they don’t develop a sense of inner beauty, but instead merely touch on socially accepted standards of beauty– like donating money to a charity. If the show was truly interested in finding out who was a “True Beauty” they would send the contestants to a soup kitchen in couture gowns and challenge them to work the kitchen, keep the dress/garment clean, and make a friend. Contestants would maintain their superficial attributes because they’d be decked out in couture, but they’d also learn what it’s like to help another, and would be forced to foster a legitimate connection with someone they probably wouldn’t have connected with. 

In the end, I know the show is going to stay on it’s current course: fake people judged by even faker celebrities. All I can hope for is that at the end, Ashton Kutcher will jump out and yell that the judges got Punk’d and really they’re the most superficial of the bunch. 

Hey, now that would be good TV.

In an article in the Telegraph today, Marc Jacobs revealed his penchant for frogs and gave his fans a little bit of insight into why he selected them as an accessory for his most recent collection:

‘I love frogs,’ he tells me.’ This sort of fairytale frog that became a prince, and the chameleon who changes colours with his environment. I can hang out in a sports bar with a bunch of straight guys and I can run around in the art scene and I can also be at the Met Ball and be Mr Fashion Designer with Anna Wintour. I can go wherever I want; I can be whatever I choose.’ This, in the end, is Marc Jacobs’ superpower: ‘I can change colours – for my own amusement and, perhaps, the entertainment of others.’

Gotta have the Angie Evening Frog Pouch featured here? You can snag it at Neiman Marcus for a mere $1,195.

Hey ANTM fans– remember the Season 10 episode where Whitney , Anya, Lauren, and Fatema met with Italian fashion designer, Gai Mattiolo and Anya won the challenge? Of course not.

But, if you do, you might be interested to know that Gai Mattiolo was arrested today for alleged bankruptcy fraud, says the Associated Press.

ROME – The Italian financial police say they have arrested fashion designer Gai Mattiolo on a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy.

Officer Stefano Catorci says Mattiolo was placed under house arrest in Rome early Friday for allegedly siphoning funds from his fashion house before declaring bankruptcy.

Catorci says another suspect was also arrested on the same charges. He did not give further details because the investigation was continuing. The Rome-based fashion house Gai Mattiolo declined comment.

Mattiolo was seen as a rising star of Italian fashion in the 1990s, when his sexy, over-the-top style, laden with gold and precious beading, wowed the upscale ladies from his native Rome. His fame soon spread to the Milan and Paris runways.

Looks like maybe ANTM is where designers go to have their collections, and, careers die. Let’s hope this isn’t a trend.

The LA Times announced today that The Rachel Zoe Project will be returning for a second season.

The LA Times says:

Production has not yet begun, but expect new episodes of “Rachel Zoe,” produced by Original Media, to air in mid-2009.

No word yet on whether on-and-off-again rivals Brad and Taylor will be back, but as of October, when I last spoke to Zoe, both were still happily employed.

As much as it pained me to watch the show, I’d rather see Rachel Zoe return than a show like Stylista get renewed. Too bad they’re on competing networks and are both likely to come back in 2009. Maybe this season Rachel will actually use her knowledge for good and take some of those tips she offers on Piperlime and incorporate them into her show.

American auto makers aren’t the only one’s being slammed by the economy. The luxury market is feeling the pain of the recession too– big time. In the New York Times today was yet another article detailing deep discounts at luxury stores like Bergdorf’s and Sak’s. 

The article prompts fashionistas to think critically about their purchases– and, the cost of fashion.

What seems inevitable is that the pain will worsen as the price reductions provoke questions among consumers of how stratospheric profits must have been when the economy was riding high. How great, really, was the surcharge to consumers for participating in fashion fantasy?

Sure, anyone who’s willing to shell out $1,200 for a Marc Jacobs handbag knows that they’re paying for the name and bragging rights, but the New York Times has a valid point: how much is too much? Believe me, I’m the last person to say the recession is good for the economy– in the next week, I’m likely to become a statistic myself as I’ll probably be laid off from my job, but perhaps the recession is good for sanity. 

As much as it pains me to say it (mostly because I’ve had my eye on the Marc Jacob’s Blake bag and a Hermes Birkin bag for god knows how long), but maybe we don’t all need couture handbags and accessories. 

Ha, who am I kidding. We never needed them. We all just wanted them. The recession will just keep our wants in check, ensuring they remain dreams and fantasies instead of expensive realities. 

In the meantime, if you happen to have endless pockets, be sure to hit up some of your local luxury stores– there are some pretty excellent sales going on, and from the looks of it, now is the time to grab that pair of Louboutin’s before you really can’t afford them.

With the economy in a downward spiral, it’s hard to not want to (or have to) reel in your spending just a bit. However, an article in the Guardian about “stealth shopping” caught me by surprise– luxury goods shoppers aren’t hitting retail stores the way they used to. That part isn’t the shocker. What is, is the fact that luxury purveyors are doing more of their shopping online, and sites like Net-a-Porter are catering to their fiscal “modesty” by shipping in brown paper instead of flashy boxes.

This comes in contrast to New York Magazine’s article last week about “It” bags becoming “embarrassing” and investors projecting a decrease in the consumption and purchase of luxury goods like handbags. To that, I say pish-posh.

I agree it may become taboo to spend ridiculous amounts of money on frivolous items (and yes, to some, handbags are frivolous items), but in all honesty, people who could legitimately afford a Birkin bag pre-recession probably don’t have to worry too much about cutting back on “staples” like classic leather goods and shoes. Sure, flashy Louis Vuitton bags or the latest Gucci Tattoo Heart collection is likely to suffer, but classics like the Birkin? Probably not.

If you have the cash to shell out for a Birkin or a Kelly in the first place, you’re not likely to let it go now that you’ve already waited for the bag and shelled out the dough.

So it’s been a while since I’ve posted here, and I apologize. Life has been a trifle bit hectic and I just realized I never even posted about the season finale of America’s Next Top Model. So, let’s dive right in.

ANTM: Sigh, big surprise, it came down to McKey and someone else. Even bigger surprise? McKey won. (Can you sense the sarcasm?) Yes, I get that she has a unique look, and yes, I get that she’s the only one who has been fairly consistent throughout the show, but I can’t help but want someone else to win. Anyone else to win. Ok, maybe not anyone else– but you get the idea.

I think the part of the show that really irked me was the fact that at the end, they threw in the fact that she’s been modeling for years. I suppose it’s my own naivety to think that all of these girls are relative rookies and have little to no formal training as models (I prefer to think of all “reality TV” contestants as “raw” as opposed to what they really are– pseudo-actors), but I felt especially duped to find out about McKey’s training in the final moments of the FINAL episode of the season. Way to try to sway your audience, ANTM.

As far as I’m concerned, unless next season’s models are complete and utter trainwrecks, or Janice Dickinson comes back, ANTM won’t have a place in my TiVo. Farewell, Tyra. Your insane antics were fun… sorta.

Stylista: I caught another episode of Stylista this past week and can’t help but cheer for Danielle, the girl who got the boot. For those of you vaguely familiar with the show, she was the “visual merchandiser” who brought up her weight all throughout the episode, “It’s All About Who You Know.” I’m all for rockin’ what you’ve got, but IMO, Danielle’s “freak out” when she was forced to pick something from the Elle closet to wear to the party was completely self-inflicted. If you’re unhappy with how you look, or feel uncomfortable, or other people are making you feel uncomfortable, go with the easy alternative– handbags and shoes. Grab and go, and get on with your life. Besides, who doesn’t love a great pair of shoes?

Weight issues and unnecessary drama aside, if I was Anne, I don’t think I’d hire any of these kids. Well, maybe Johanna. None of them seem to know their way around a layout, let alone a fashion house and it just seems like a death wish. Honestly, when I was in junior high in journalism/yearbook I could pull together a better looking page layout than what these kids are doing, and they supposedly have an “eye for design.”

Give me a break. Stylista just seems like yet another television scam adept at mocking fashion and publishing. Maybe one day someone will come up with a show that actually features smart people who know their shit. Oh wait, that wouldn’t be any fun to watch, and, would be called the real world. Sigh.

Demarchelier/ Glamour Magazine

Britney Spears: Britney Spears has returned. I’m not going to pretend that I don’t adore her, but yay! I’m so happy that Britney at least looks healthy, though in MTV’s recent Brit documentary I couldn’t help but think that there was a special kind of sadness tucked away behind her eyes.

Britney’s team has been on a mad don’t-call-it-a-comeback media-blitz– hitting European media outlets, news magazines, Rolling Stone, and today on her 27th birthday, Britney performed on Good Morning America.

If you didn’t see her “Circus” acts on Good Morning America this morning she’s looking much better, but I hope the high-waisted hot-pants that she’s wearing as a part of her ringleader gettup doesn’t become a trend. Katy Perry already tried, and so did Madonna and thankfully neither of their influences have stretched further than the “costume” category, but Britney tends to have (or had) mass appeal… let’s hope fans opt for the super chic look of Brit Brit on this month’s Glamour instead of the three ring approach.

Sigh. Marjorie is gone.

Though I’m saddened by our loss, I’m comforted by the fact that she was totally and completely off her rocker in this last episode, drunk, disorderly, and awkwardly cocky.

What on earth happened to the sheepish and modest girl who we all loved and adored? Clearly all of our positive thoughts, urging her to “come out of her shell” were just a touch too strong and caused her to hit the bottle (and the bath tub with the boys), a bit hard.  

So now we’re down to the final three: McKey, Analeigh, and Samantha (the girl who I literally have to pause to remember the name of). 

I’d be willing to put money on it that the final two will be McKey and Analeigh– Samantha is just too blah to be what Tyra’s looking for, even if she does have the “perfect mouth.” Even when she’s done up, I can’t help but see “soccer mom” and Colgate ad. Whereas Analeigh and McKey just seem so much more versatile. 

Hands down I’m rooting for Analeigh, but I’d also be willing to bet that McKey is going to come out on top. Something just tells me that Tyra and the rest of the judges have a soft spot for the boxer gone model.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what next week and the pink runways have to bring.