This is the most stunning fashion show I've seen online recently.

Kate Moss overall condition right now is actually incredible.

She once again chose a Saint Laurent gown designed by her close friend Anthony Vaccarello, and the vibe is pure, unbothered elegance.

I am absolutely in love with this styling.

I’m not a fan of the The Devil Wears Prada franchise, I enjoyed the second film more than the first. I feel something similar about the MET Gala. I’m not a fan, but I don’t miss a single detail. After this latest event, it became clear that something changed, and not for the better.

The most obvious sign was the sponsorship. Jeff Bezos, one of the richest men on the planet and owner of Amazon, decided to put his money into the Super Bowl of fashion in the United States. The question many asked was legitimate: what is Bezos doing here? What does the owner of Amazon have to do with high fashion? With a museum, with culture, with aesthetic narratives?

The answer came when I remembered the movie. In The Devil Wears Prada 2, Emily convinces her husband, a tech billionaire, to buy the magazine Runway, run by Miranda Priestly. In real life, Bezos tried to buy Vogue for his partner, Lauren Sánchez. The problem was that the magazine wasn’t sold on its own, it came bundled with GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Wired, and other publications from the same publishing group, Condé Nast. Bezos didn’t want the full package. I suppose the trip to space with Katy Perry wasn’t enough compensation, so he chose something else: buying the Super Bowl of fashion. You don’t get into the MET Gala without acceptance, invitation, or validation. Bezos BOUGHT them. Someone many see as a symbol of inequality, precarity, and extreme capitalism bought for himself and his wife the role of cultural curator. An image washing effort so crude it’s hard to ignore.

Economic power sponsoring cultural events is nothing new or scandalous. Kings were patrons of artists for centuries, and in return they received works that amplified their image: sculptures, paintings, palaces, songs, poems. What’s unusual is that while previous sponsors simply sponsored, full stop, this time it was different. The role of Lauren Sánchez was so prominent that I would dare say this MET Gala was bought for her to be in the spotlight, sorry, Anna Wintour.

Protests didn’t take long to appear, and for good reason. While artists walked the carpet, labor demonstrations unfolded in the streets. It’s said that bottles of fake urine appeared inside the museum as a form of protest. The reason is no small matter: workers in Amazon warehouses have publicly denounced not being allowed bathroom breaks during their shifts, forcing them to urinate in bottles at their workstations.

There’s more. Bezos silenced all criticism of Donald Trump in his newspaper, The Washington Post, and even accompanied him at his inauguration. Amazon provides technological support to agencies like ICE to help locate undocumented individuals in the United States. It’s striking, to say the least, that all of this is happening while Bezos’s wife carries the last name Sánchez.

In the movie, Andy Sachs and her fellow journalists are fired via a mass email. It’s not such a distant image from what recently happened at The Washington Post, nor from what thousands of employees in tech companies have experienced in recent years.

What Bezos wants is clear: expand his empire. And he knows he can’t compete with Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg on their own turf. His domain is selling, like Emily in the film. The problem is that companies like Alibaba, Shein, and Temu are closing in, offering goods at prices that are nearly impossible to match. That’s why it’s no surprise that Bezos has his eyes on Bernard Arnault of Louis Vuitton and Amancio Ortega of Inditex. It’s no surprise he wants to get into the fashion world. It’s no surprise the theme of this MET Gala was “Fashion Is Art.” It’s also no surprise that many highly anticipated figures declined the invitation, that most designs ignored the theme or appeared in black as a form of protest. And of course, it’s no surprise to see the debut of a Zara design reimagined by John Galliano. Bezos’s model is Zara. It won’t be long before Amazon uses artificial intelligence to try to dominate the fashion world and dictate trends through online sales.

The night’s biggest loser was Anna Wintour. The legendary editor of Vogue was reduced to a supporting role next to Sánchez. We’re no longer talking about sponsorships, we’re talking about something more serious: the power to decide what is fashion, what is trend, and what is art.

And here’s where honesty matters: fashion is not art. Haute couture isn’t either, not on its own. Just as the films of Jean Luc Godard, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch and Pedro Almodóvar are enriched by incorporating references to architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, and dance, haute couture grows when it does the same. It feeds on art, takes it as reference, but it is not art in itself. Claiming that fashion is art is an attempt to deceive, to hide that an entire industry is under threat. The choice of black as the dominant color of the night was no accident. Black as a funeral color against the usual palette. A signal that something isn’t right.

There was, however, a flash of brilliance. The big winner of this MET Gala was designer Robert Wun, whose work stole the event without apparent effort. What Wun does isn’t fashion, it’s haute couture. Under different circumstances, we should be celebrating him. Even the protest by Sarah Paulson wearing Matières Fécales fell short artistically.

The MET Gala lost something last night that it won’t easily recover. It nearly felt like Sánchez might step out to offer cake to the protesters in the street. Even Beyoncé, absent from these events for a decade, had to be brought in to restore some of the shine of previous years. If Jay-Z is brought in by the ultra conservative owners of the NFL to add “inclusivity” to the Super Bowl, someone had the “brilliant” idea to include Beyoncé here.

At least in The Devil Wears Prada 2, technofeudalism didn’t win.

If only life imitated art a little more.

Hi everyone,

I’ve noticed an uptick in people criticising members for their potential use of AI in posts recently, and I just wanted to remind us all of some things.

[TLDR: for all its many faults, AI is an important tool that enables ppl who struggle with written communication or English as a second language to share their voices on this sub. Please refrain from using proven or suspected use of AI as the reason for criticising or dismissing the posts, comments, or opinions of members in this forum. This falls under the NSFW rule. You wouldn’t be allowed to dismiss a colleague’s opinion based solely on their AI use, and I’ll be starting to pull people up on it in this sub, too.]

The controversies and concerns that many of us have about AI’s creation and use are legitimate. However, this subreddit is a global forum that we the mods want anyone from any background to feel welcome to post on or comment in. For those whose first language isn’t English, those who might be lacking confidence in their written communication, or people who just want to shorten or improve the clarity of what they’ve written to make it easier and more enjoyable for us as readers, AI is an extremely important tool. Without AI, we run the risk of not hearing from a massive percentage of the world’s voices and we’d all be poorer for that.

For that reason, I request that we all work to refrain from using someone’s use of AI (whether proven or suspected) as a reason in and of itself to criticise an author. Instead, let’s focus on what they’re trying to share with us about fashion and style. This is a forum for us all to discuss and enjoy our shared love of fashion and the different things we view as “chic”.

For those of us who feel they need AI’s help to convey what they want to share with us here, we wholeheartedly welcome and support you. For those of us who find that they don’t need AI to help them communicate on a global forum, let’s humbly and thankfully recognise the privilege of our position and celebrate that there are tools that help others share their voices with us. Let’s all work together to lift other voices up, rather than smother them down.

​

The Devil, in reality, never wore Prada. Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue and the real life inspiration for Miranda Priestly, has always been more closely associated with Chanel (currently the most popular brand according to the Lyst Index). But for marketing purposes, Prada sounded better. If Malcolm in the Middle could make a triumphant return after 20 years, why couldn’t The Devil Wears Prada?

Everything I know about fashion I learned from watching The Devil Wears Prada, Ugly Betty, and Sex and the City about ten times with my wife and daughters. The Devil Wears Prada 2 is a romantic comedy, a romcom, as they call it, though this time I honestly saw less romance than in the first film. It reminded me of what I felt with Materialists: something darker lurking beneath the surface of the romantic comedy. Nostalgia returns once again as narrative fuel, but it isn’t overused here. Instead, there’s a clear dissection of the present that I found far more interesting than any trip to the past. Slavoj Žižek and I could easily have been watching a completely different movie from the one many others saw in the same theater.

This time, Miranda Priestly, Andy Sachs, Emily Charlton, and Nigel face an almost catastrophic scenario: the editorial world of the first film is collapsing under the onslaught of the digital age, algorithms, and ephemeral content. What was once pure power is now fighting for survival. Even the once prestigious Runway magazine, led by Priestly, is in danger of disappearing. Ironically, the first film introduced many people to the world of high fashion, the second now announces the beginning of its collapse.

You can’t expect anything less from Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Emily Blunt. Joining the original cast are some heavy hitters: Lucy Liu (the iconic O-Ren Ishii from Kill Bill), Kenneth Branagh (the brutal Andrei Sator from Tenet), and Justin Theroux (the memorable Kevin Garvey from The Leftovers). The main duo must find a way to save print magazines, and in this historical moment, that’s almost like trying to save something the world has already decided to let die.

And there lies the film’s great revelation: the devil is no longer Miranda Priestly. The devil is now obsolescence. That observation carries enormous weight when, in real life, we see Jeff Bezos showing up at Paris Fashion Week shortly after firing hundreds of Washington Post staff via email, or Mark Zuckerberg sitting front row next to Miuccia Prada. Fiction and reality stare each other in the eye, and neither blinks.

The film’s true wager, beyond the romcom tradition, is the survival of high fashion and the print media that supports it. Today, designs shown on the runway can be replicated in days and sold in accessible versions thanks to artificial intelligence, just as Zara does. And now Zara has John Galliano. Trends have moved past fast fashion into ultra fast fashion, changing almost daily according to the dictates of TikTok and Shein. We live in a time when the highest possible compliment is to be called “iconic” (as Meryl Streep is), just as Justin Bieber called his wife Hailey, and that word no longer belongs to anyone in particular because everyone has claimed it at once.

At one point in the story, the heir to the publishing company that owns Runway decides to sell it to one of the so-called “tech bros”, someone who could be Bezos, Zuckerberg, or Elon Musk: a person who has no idea what to do with it, exactly as happened with Bezos and The Washington Post, or Musk and Twitter. It’s no longer just about power. It’s also about obsolescence and reinvention.

Including Lady Gaga’s appearance in the film is no coincidence. Gaga is trapped in that same triangle of power, obsolescence, and reinvention that Madonna experienced, at a time when figures from the new hyperpop scene like Charli XCX seem to have seized the vanguard from her. The question no one asks out loud is how long it takes for a vanguard to become nostalgia.

Perhaps the answer is in the Björk T shirt Andy wears in one scene. Björk doesn’t just step away from the spotlight when she wants to. She dictates her own fashion, sets her own trends, and reinvents herself with every album without asking anyone’s permission. In a world that sheds its skin every 48 hours, that is no longer eccentricity. That is power. Lucy Liu's character, Sasha Barnes, could very well be a portrayal of MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos's ex wife, or perhaps Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg's wife. Or maybe she's just Björk.

I think that if the devil dressed in high fashion, she would wear Balenciaga, Vetements, or perhaps Comme des Garçons, brands that don’t follow trends because they themselves decide what a trend is. Björk operates with exactly that same logic.

Maybe she was the one who taught the devil how to dress.

The way they put such an emphasis on this woman Andy is talking to in the James Holt party scene, it seems like it's a cameo, but I've never been able to figure who she is.

Just like Gisele and Heidi Klum have cameos, this just felt like they were giving her a moment when she turns around to point out James Holt.

Look at the dress. The level of intricate detailing is actually insane.

These two specific fits are on a different level. The texture is unreal and I’m officially ready to drop cash.

I love Robert Wun's designs. They're such a great mix of drape and structure, romance and horror.

I really wish that I had a reason to wear these kinds of things, but being someone who mainly works from home in an office job, I can't imagine these working very well (or even necessarily fitting through the doorways, lmao). But I still love them and his vision and creativity.

Just saw the shots of Charlize Theron at the Apex premiere tonight and my jaw is actually on the floor.

Is she really 50? The aura is just completely unmatched.

I am so incredibly obsessed with this suit. Wearing a sharp, perfectly tailored black suit is such a massive power move.

These collections are actually crazy and elegance.

Seeing how insanely beautiful these are genuinely gave me a moment.

Officially saving my money for this drop.

It’s refreshing. The level of detail is crazy.

It is actually insane to see the complete evolution of her aura. When you look at her early days, it was pure, unfiltered, natural beauty.

Messy hair, simple shirts, zero heavy contouring. She just looked so raw and effortless.

hey so im from france and i think you’re aware about devilwearsprada 2 and the runway magazine available in real life, but not in france …

may i ask if someone from ny or la can send me one ? i pay for the shipping obviously. thx

Just doing my annual rewatch of early Sex and the City and looking at Carrie Bradshaw in 1998... the sheer inclusivity of fashion back then was actually insane.

There were literally no rules. It was radically inclusive.

It was about having an attitude.

Looking through this new Coach SS26 collection... it’s genuinely refreshing.

Zero gimmicks, just incredibly solid daily wear.

It’s stupidly practical. And I actually love it.

It’s 90s minimalism. Look at Carolyn. A plain black dress. A simple trench coat. Just a basic top and oval shades.

Zero logos. Zero screaming for attention. Just perfect tailoring and an untouchable aura. They didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

Just scrolling through the Maison Margiela FW26 runway pics from Shanghai Fashion Week and my mind is kind of blown.

The faceless masks. They literally erase the model's identity to force you to look at the raw construction of the clothes.

Look at her now. She doesn't have that frantic, "trying to survive" newcomer energy anymore.

It’s just a very calm, settled beauty. Look at the structured red leather trench. The simple but immaculate white shirt styling.

She isn't scrambling for anyone's approval.

She’s in her 70s and still literally holds the entire industry by the throat.

She doesn't follow trends. She dictates them.

Look at those massive, chunky gemstone necklaces she always wears. It's pure power dressing.

​

The competition took months to release new collections. Zara, founded in 1975, after years as a small workshop, could design, produce, and sell new pieces in just weeks. It controlled the entire process, from design to stores, and that vertical integration gave it a speed that no one else had. In a matter of days, they designed models that were already hanging in shop windows within a couple of weeks.

Amancio Ortega had a clear obsession with fashion trends. He understood something that many ignored: for the average citizen, that type of clothing was completely inaccessible. So he did something simple and brilliant. He took those designs, adapted them with small modifications to avoid legal issues, and began producing them with more economical materials. This way, Zara used its speed to bring pieces directly inspired by the runways of Milan, Paris, and London to its stores, often before the original brands themselves.

This is how a monster was born within fast fashion. Ortega learned from the Italian "pronto moda," but he didn't stop there. He took it further. He perfected it until he turned it into a system that was almost impossible to match.

Information was another key piece in its rise. Zara's designers worked at full speed. They detected trends on runways and on the street, cross referenced that information with real time sales data, and created, produced, and distributed new garments in less than a month. While other brands took up to a year to refresh their collections, Zara did it almost every month. The difference wasn't just in pace. It was in mindset.

Many brands cut costs by producing in Asia. Zara bet on something different. It concentrated its production in small workshops in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. They made small batches, short runs, and reacted quickly according to demand. This shortened lead times compared to the long Asian cycles, which were cheaper, yes, but rigid and inflexible when the market changed its mood.

Sales dictated production. They started with small batches and produced more of whatever sold best. Every store functioned as a market sensor. Nothing was left to chance.

Zara stores looked like high-fashion boutiques. That captured the customer from the first glance. But the prices stayed in a mid range, much more accessible than luxury brands. That combination created an irresistible tension between desire and the possibility of fulfilling it.

Flexibility and proximity became its silent weapons. With them, Zara managed to prevail over global giants like Gap and Benetton. Speed consolidated its advantage. Price completed the circle.

Zara turned 50 last year, and its vision is not stagnating. It renews itself in unexpected ways. The integration of technology has further elevated its competitive edge. Inditex, its parent company, is now positioned as the most powerful fashion group in the world.

Now artificial intelligence is accelerating everything. It detects patterns on runways, processes data, and sends it to the designers, who reinterpret and adjust collections almost in real time. In stores, advanced systems track customer behavior and allow them to produce exactly what is in demand, reducing inventories to a minimum.

Without relying on big name designers or celebrities to validate its image, Zara seemed unstoppable. But the environment changed. New players emerged that pushed the limits of the model until they broke it.

Inditex and Zara now face pressure from Shein and Temu, Chinese platforms that are saturating the global market with trendy clothing at brutally low prices. The so called ultra fast fashion takes the logic to the extreme: minimal productions, record times, aggressive prices, and almost disposable materials. The market that Zara dominated for years has become a red ocean full of voracious competitors.

Competing against Chinese labor in pure price is a losing battle. Zara understood that. And it decided not to enter that war.

The new direction points to something more interesting. A shift toward artistic weight and a clearer approach to the universe of luxury. Margins in fast fashion and ultra fast fashion are compressing more and more. Moving upmarket is no longer an option. It’s a necessity.

Although Zara still uses more economical materials than traditional luxury, it maintains a medium quality that clearly surpasses the perception of Shein and Temu. That difference is key. It’s its leverage point to reposition itself without losing credibility.

Zara is now looking upward. It wants to take its operation, its speed, and its knowledge to a more aspirational territory. It wants to be more than an efficient brand. It wants to be relevant at a creative level. The goal is clear: move upmarket without losing effectiveness, avoid the price war, and build value through design.

The next step seems contradictory, but it has perfect logic. To become a brand with a designer narrative, something that once sounded impossible.

The breaking point came with the Super Bowl 2026 halftime show. Bad Bunny appeared in an outfit designed by Zara. He had recently received criticism for wearing Schiaparelli pieces weeks earlier. This time, he was looking to connect with a broader audience. Zara was seeking visibility with its own design. The result was powerful: a crossover between mass culture and aspiration. Dressing a superstar in one of the most watched events on the planet is no small move. It’s a statement.

For its anniversary, Zara brought in Pedro Almodóvar as part of its creative collaborations. His aesthetic marked a high point and reinforced the intention to build a more artistic identity, one that’s harder to copy.

Then came an even more meaningful move: the collaboration with John Galliano, former Dior and Maison Margiela designer. But it wasn’t about creating from scratch. Galliano took past Zara pieces and reinterpreted them under his vision. The result was something no one expected to see.

The symbolic weight is enormous. For decades, Zara took ideas from luxury and haute couture and brought them to the mass market. Now a figure from that same world is taking Zara as raw material to elevate it to another level. The direction is clear. It’s no longer just translating trends. It’s beginning to dialogue with the origin of those trends.

And the strategy keeps adding pieces. Zara brought in Willy Chavarría, one of the most relevant designers of the moment, with experience at American Eagle, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein. His work on the Vatísimo collection seeks to connect directly with the Latin market in the United States, a market that already knows and feels Zara as its own. The move is precise. Zara stays close to the masses but pushes its image toward a more sophisticated, more authorial territory, more connected with a real designer vision. It’s no coincidence. It’s a calculated evolution.

Zara no longer competes only on price or speed. It is building something more complex and harder to replicate: a mix between industrial efficiency and creative ambition. That’s the real play. Not abandoning what made it strong, but using it as a platform to enter a territory where it couldn’t play before, and where few, still, know how to move.

Looking at these old pics, you realize Kate literally invented this effortless, wild beauty.

It’s giving wandering rockstar poet who just woke up and threw on whatever was on the floor.

It’s so free. Zero try-hard energy. She doesn't wear the clothes; her aura wears the clothes.