Lady GaGa, with her plainer hair that makes her look more like Sarah Michelle Gellar than artsy performer or freakshow, graffitied some more Japanese (and perhaps other scribbles) on her infamous Hermès Birkin bag.

Message coming in loud and clear? No. More fuzzy and more "eff" you than "love you". And we don't like to receive that!

Were there any taste in her original "artwork" - a simplistic message, it's all trash now and it has us needing to stuff our mouths with cookies to get the poor taste out of our mouths. What will save our eyes? We're almost angry, but it's just GaGa. What she does to fashion is harmless, for although she has amazing influence over die-hard fans, she doesn't hold much crossover power to normal fashion or accessorizing. Will Posh follow suit? Over her deathly-thin body, we think! By the way, is it difficult to read, like we imagine it might be? Does anyone have a new translation? Photo: The Superficial [NSFW site]

[caption id="attachment_3222" align="alignright" width="175" caption="Spring 2010 Vera Wang gown in the $3000 - $4000 range"][/caption]

Vera Wang is coming to David's Bridal! I know all of we gals who are unmarried are so excited (right??) that I should just rush & skip right to the important details:

• When the line debuts: Spring 2011
• What the price points are: $600 to $1500, most dresses costing under $1200!

Read more at The Cut.

By the way, Vera Wang's NYC flagship store has an annual sample sale, so if you choose to camp out for that, you could actually score a high-end Wang for under $1000!

When I was 10 and I got my first sewing machine, I scrounged up some drapes. ... I think it ended up falling apart.

-Jason Wu on the first thing he sewed on his first machine; a dress for his mother.

The first thing I sewed with my first machine didn't fall apart, however it was just some ugly embroidery on a tote bag. ;-) What about you?

Britney Spears has done a new ad campaign for Candies, but this is not just one more in their long relationship. Word is she didn't want to appear retouched. You'll see below why that was an absolute no-go on its own, so the shoe company offered to devote a part of their campaign to a split screen ad only vaguely about shoes (about the shoes, there is one cute pair in the gallery after this article).

[caption id="attachment_3020" align="alignnone" width="360" caption="Before half of the frontal "before and after" spread"][/caption]

The new Spears/Candies move is in the wake of the year-old French Elle with no make-up, this month's Marie Claire boasting the same (with Jessica Simpson, picture included in article), paired with numerous "photoshop" scandals that leave real women --- readers and followers of these publications and stars --- insulted and brimming with criticism.

This particular version of an un-retouched star is somewhat reminiscent of the very accidental slip of a brief Internet publishing of a pre-retouched, blotchy Kim Kardashian. While Kim quickly blogged that she loves her real body, she nearly as quickly changed that body, slimming down in the gym. That move obviously hurt the curvy/love-yourself cause and is plainly quite aggravating - so it does paint Britney's original, along with her intentions, in a beautiful light.

The major difference to this boldly publicized "before" is that there is no way the original could have been published anywhere aside from a tabloid or to support this cause. It's not due to flab, Britney's looking slim, but due to mere general flaws.

[caption id="attachment_3021" align="alignnone" width="298" caption="Candies' retouched version. (Ours is below, we hope you like it better.)"][/caption]

Last Tuesday, fashion bloggers were ahhing over the novelty of photos so honestly-unretouched, while it seems other publications & media outlets buzzed over her camel toe (in even the retouched version, by the way - above).

While it is refreshing to see a celebrity with true flaws (Oh I just mean the leg bruising probably from a rigorous dance routine, no insult here -- oh wait, and nasty feet, sorry Brit but it's true). What makes it especially refreshing right now is this "coming out" is in a world where perfect 10s make "unretouched" / "un-made-up" (yeah right) magazine covers and those create oohs and even some refreshed sighs.

Even more important than refreshing is that these images can be used to support the simpler acts of photoshopping/retouching, while also still pointing out the cruel eyes that guide hands to change women into fairy tale beings we don't want parading in front of our daughters.

Using the two Candies' front shots as examples, there's nothing wrong with Spears' shape, the beauty issue lies with the coloring and details of her legs and feet. (OK I might be harsh on feet.)

The Candies' marketer/graphic artist still went to extremes to shrink Britney, in addition to the acceptable-in-some-cases* smoothing of her skin. They gave her a 12-year-old's waist and stick legs where Britney's real-life tone is actually a badge. And how dare they lean down her perfect-for-28 slim yet womanly arms?

Yes, the extent is "normal" and arguably to prove a point, but it's not just to prove that point, these moves would have been made regardless.

Of course certain artistic photos and glamorous, swirling advertisements require more perfectly smooth and glistening skin - these things are about image, idealism, want. They correspond with equally or moreso false backgrounds, so what can we really expect? I bet we do want superhuman images, sometimes.

I still see a problem when it's a celebrity vs. a model, though. A face and body so well-known, especially in the days of tabloids, suddenly or sometimes appearing altered to an ideal is very unsettling to real humans, especially women. Possibly worst of all is it is damaging to young girls' self-esteem and development at a time when mental health is a more serious concern than any other point in life.

I decided to have fun and do some retouching of my own

to serve as a better example of appropriate ways to alter a star. I did go an extra mile and accentuate a smaller waist, but mostly to only show what is acceptable, and I think this is the farthest that should be gone.

Unfortunately I've realized these photoshop artists must be serious nerds who pore over literally every pore, trying to create their fantasy women. Fellas, if this is true and you, that could be why you might have trouble with women. Aside from your flawed desires, it's not you, it's your view of them.

Of course in reality the profession is mixed with money-hungry marketing-savvy people who just cannot stop until they've seen beyond perfection. Trust me, I understand the need to pick, but it must stop. In this case, the perfectionism is not an art - it's just evil business.

Lady GaGa in a Charles Youssef suit

Lady GaGa was just seen in an airport sporting long, plainer hair, a sneer, and looking generally roughed-up showing off her arm tattoo and ominous scratches. With quite hideous triangular-shaped pant legs (Charles Youssef), insanely high platform boots, and really cool/edgy Chanel gloves----she was, much more importantly, also boasting a white Birkin bag with Japanese lettering.

Lady Gaga fierce fashion: roughed up, including her Birkin Bag

If you were to wonder whether or not Hermès sold the purse that way, or whether she butchered the most remarked symbol of fashion, the answer will likely upset you. Lady GaGa did graffiti the Japanese characters, and they actually match the writing on her arm. According to The UK's Daily Mail, it's a message to her fans, reading, "I love little monster, Tokyo love". My first reaction was fear for the poor purse, but I'm not shocked GaGa would make such a stunt. It's GaGa! She wants spectacle, and this is quite the way to get it. She wanted the attention she's getting from this scheme, and it is one, even more than she cares for fashion. So she defaced an iconic and beloved symbol worth roughly $4,600, also according to the Daily Mail -- if she were to auction it, it would be worth even more, if only to the fashionista/GaGa fangirl demographic. Even if not, this chick can afford it. The girl sure has balls, and those balls bought her that Birkin. I just wish I could get a piece of that fame's fortune. I'm also a bit saddened that GaGa cares not that she slapped her much poorer but fashion-loving fan sector in the face like this. Don't you kind of agree? Oh, I promise you Hermès, I'd baby my own Birkin!

But what do you think? OOAK IT or Trashed $h!t?

Photos from Just Jared, obvs, read the post.

P.S. The new version of Gaga's scribbles.

Usually this might be a "style steal" bargain post on your typical blog, but while I love shopping, this is no shopping blog. We focus on design, and we hate celebrity "designers" who don't follow through with unique design when they place their names on lines.

Valentino   VS   Paris Hilton

Sure, I don't mind some bargain-priced couture trends. I love Easy Spirit's "E Collection" because it's stylish and even the heels have some comfort built-in. While not super cheap (shoes usually run in the $80's) they do borrow some designer stylish details du jour. (However they're quality-made and a comfort brand, but that argument is irrelevant to this particular rant.)

Now Paris Hilton, on the other hand

... well she wears some cute shoes*, so I might have loved to support "her designs" - but she really has none. Just her own brand name on simpler, cheaper rip-offs.

But while Paris surely wears expensive designer shoes, her own line consists of neither. The 2nd issue is a problem.

Here she, or they -- her company or whatnot, have attempted to quench the public's thirst for Valentino's (and possibly Vivienne Westwood's) exaggerated bows with their high-reaching top loops. Of course nothing quite has the charm of those original Valentinos, n'est pas?

This doesn't mean it's a crime for you to buy these Paris pumps, or shoes like 'em. I just prefer to dream of the real thing. I'm an idealist like that.

Do you like this style of post? We want to feature it somewhat regularly, and you can help us. If you see some identity theft, send it to us via our contact form!

*Unfortunately, the comments to that article (and many others) were lost.

The Kardashians have introduced what is their 2nd collection for bebe, which is set to debut April 20th.

It's not that each item is individually really all that bad in the sluttiness department (or is it?), but I do see each item is meant to show off bods (whether curvy and thin or just thin) and I can picture Kim in each one. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm talking about reminiscing over early 90's Mariah Carey (oh wait she still wears that stuff) skin tight/tube-fitting dresses.

Seriously, who wears dresses like the worst offender, pictured? (See more of the collection at Nitrolicious.) What message does it send?

"I cost $50 an hour" as a cheap prostitute, message. Not even a high class escort, just a questionable street walker.

You've been warned ... now I know you'll do whatever you want, anyway.

P.S. The shoes, they do not help.

[caption id="attachment_2797" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Surrender my shoes? I'd rather surrender Dorothy to the witch. Sorry babe, you're gone."][/caption]

In attempts to promote good deeds, TOMS Shoes is sponsoring a ... (blegh) ... go barefoot day, tomorrow, April 8th is (booming voice:) a Day Without Shoes.

Dun dun dunnnnnn...

TOMS donates one pair to underprivileged children for every pair someone else purchases from them. Which is GREAT! Fantastic!

But imagine the chaos that could unfold in the US metropolitan-type areas. Imagine the disgustitude. Imagine, men, how you'll turn off women. (And how their not only heel-less feet but nude feet, not cool, will turn you off!) (OK, not for every man.)

Also - ow. We'll beg for our stilettos back after the pain of accidentally stepping on a tiny sharp pebble about 50 times.

I guess that's the point.

Like I said, I'm all for charity and shodding people, I'm just kind of glad I work at home and don't have to see.

By the way when I go barefoot at home, it'll be something. Lately I can't stand to look at my preety pumps but not put them on.

So perhaps I'll go a whoooooole work-at-home day without having one of my own private shoe shows.

That's sad enough.

I'm still the girl who can't stand feet! Ahhh.... So ... don't think I'm a .. chienne, n'est pas?

P.S. The Jonas Brothers are in on it. As is Rachel Zoe.

P.P.S. Rachel Zoe put her name on the link, so I put my nick in. No idea why, just thought I'd be cool. *shrug*

[caption id="attachment_2789" align="alignnone" width="450" caption="Lanphear, Zee & Slowey"][/caption]

Three Elle editors spoke about bloggers, again, on W.F.I.T. radio (by the Fashion Institute of Technology). Two - Both Joe Zee and Anne Slowsky*---I mean Slowey---reiterated tired and old sentiments that really make me further want to shut my glossy covers.

However style director, Kate Lanphear, spoke refreshing words with soul:

"But there's also something beautiful about these fresh voices that can say something that maybe sometimes someone who does have a lot of credibility misses, or they see it through a really fresh eye. I think that's the debate that is going on in our industry full-stop, because we don't want to discredit years and years of experience and hard work and paying your dues and learning about what we do day to day, but there is something really beautiful about all of these really fresh perspectives that come out of the Internet."

Sorry to sound text-speechy, but "duuuurrr."

Fashion is visual and art; thus one of those things up to any and every beholder.

That said I am fully for accolades following proper dues-paying, both in the professional realm and even catwalk show pure fun.

Annnnyway, read more of this mostly old news at The Cut.

*Admittedly bad joke on how Anne might not like the Internet, she's "slow" to it. Eh, maybe I just felt b*tchy.

"Dream Out Loud" by Selena Gomez, to debut at KMart for back-to-school 2010, by some stroke of Wizardry is nice! Cute, feminine, and even a little bit unique in spots - I dig it.

[caption id="attachment_2773" align="alignnone" width="450" caption="My favorite looks from the preview"][/caption]

Perhaps I'm in a good mood, but I'm loving at least 4 of the pieces. And I may even buy one (or more?).

Selena says the collection reflects herself and is “the whole Texan cowgirl meets the glam Boho chic of Hollywood.”

But what I see is definitely more of the girly-girl trend happening, and with so much of it, of course I'm smitten.

Via Nitrolicious.