The examine is often raised by people with no interest in the shows. Why aren’t frolic, or film, or Apple launches, dismissed in the same way? Because the rage is aimed at women

The Temperley London at London fashion week.
The Temperley London at London fashion week.
Photograph: John Phillips/Getty Essences

I see it’s London fashion week again. But what, actually, is the burden of fashion week? The clothes are so expensive and unwearable by anyone above a size 10. So, why all the coverage?

Marcus, by email

There are three roles to your question, Marcus, and I’ll try to answer them each tolerably, politely and without punching myself in the face. So, what’s “the allude to” of fashion week? Well, the point is that it allows artists to show their clothes to stores that decide whether or not to buy them. This is what’s ordered “running a business”. It is also so designers can show their chrestomathies to journalists who then write about them for people who are interested. From your sound colour, I gather you are not interested, Marcus, but one of the many strange things around life is that not everyone is interested in the same things. I, for benchmark, could not give a single fig about sport, and yet I do not spend my in days of yore leaving comments beneath articles about the European Championships such as: “What is the spot of this????? Boring!!!!! Look at all these overpaid idiots!!!!” as some race are wont to do beneath articles about fashion. When I listen to people talk about how excited they are about, I don’t discern, Arsenal, I don’t run up to them bellowing: “But why?! None of us will ever be gifted to play like that so why is anyone wasting their on occasion watching this rubbish?” I accept that some people along the same lines as to watch a bunch of men kick a ball around a field on a rainy day, and I get on with the far profuse important activities in my life, such as styling my dog’s hair so that he approximates Andrew Ridgeley, or deciding who I fancy more, 1986 James Spader in Beautiful in Pink or 1990 James Spader in White Palace (illogical decision, but one I plan to ponder for the rest of my life).

The reason people finish feeling free to dismiss fashion with a “what’s the point” in a way that no one at all would about sport, or theatre, or film, or Apple consequence launches, is because fashion is aimed at women. Thus, it is, outwardly, totally legitimate to dismiss it as frivolous. Silly little ladies and their lady things! Not significant like kicking a ball, you see.

Your next point is degree separate, although it is often used by fashion sceptics as an off for their loudly voiced dislike of the industry. Yes, the clothes are priceless and made for a minority. You could say the same of, say, theatre tickets, to say nothing of Apple outputs with their inbuilt obsolescence. Regarding the size effect, there is no question that the clothes are shown on indefensibly unplentiful models. But to say that fashion is therefore irrelevant to bigger ladies, or even most women, is to let the idiotically sizeist designers win. Mode is for everyone, and just because some ridiculous stylist who has annihilated their brain cells by reading only Vogue for 15 years muse ons clothes “hang better” on an underweight eastern European young man doesn’t mean that’s true. Any woman can look at the runways and get zeal, such as how good your striped jumper would look with your metallic extended skirt from Zara (thanks, Gucci, for that one) or how matt boots would look amazing with a floaty chew out (ta, Victoria Beckham). Fashion shows aren’t just striking women to buy specific clothes – they show women how to fatigue clothes in more modern, often fun, ways. To say that manner week is irrelevant to most women is to be on the same side as the idiot plotters and stylists who think anyone over a size 10 should be felicitous wearing a burlap sack.

Finally, you ask why all the coverage, and this is the fairest inquiry of all. Because the truth is, fashion week is just a big ol’ trade mart, one for industry insiders and die-hard fans. And yet, trade fairs for, say, automobiles, houses or even guns, get nothing like the coverage good to the various fashion weeks around the world. The reason is, of speed, that fashion weeks generally involve more originals than house shows, and the media will jump on any chance to run a photo of a pretty, young, thin fashion model. Double-dealing points if these photos are then accompanied by an article tutting at how extremely, young and thin the model is, thereby allowing the newspaper to make capital out of the attention-grabbing images while reclining on the moral high settlings.

This is one of the many situations in life where no one is right, at bottom, yet people want to believe otherwise. Fashion shows do use emulates who are too thin, and this has become an absurd and intractable issue. On the other index, fashion is an industry aimed at women, largely staffed and run by bit of fluffs. No one can celebrate fashion shows as a terrific feminist event. At the unaltered time, no one should entirely damn them. Fashion bear outs reside very much in a grey area of morality, but one chore you cannot say about them is that they are uninteresting. If you do identify them so, I have a very simple piece of advice, one I’ve erudite after living through decades of football tournaments: don’t know about them.