Having fled Nazi persecution in Berlin at the tender age of ten, Freud arrived in London in 1933. Following such a terrifyingly intense start in life, including a stint as a sailor in the merchant navy during the Second World War, he later moved to Paris, where his apartment bordered on that of Jean- Paul Sartre’s.

A friendship with Kate Moss originated through an introduction via his daughter Bella, a designer whose company logo is an illustration of her irreverent father’s. His interest in her career plus Kates’ love of sitting for him combined with his adoration of parties and socialising meant that he continued to be a regular at glitterati events well into his old age.

Despite a gambling habit which saw him accrue some mountainous debts (which unfortunately coincided with a period in the eighties in which his often brutally realistic paintings went out of fashion) Freud managed to make his work relevant again in later years. Flawed in his youth through an often selfish predisposition, his older years saw him take on a slightly more contemplative air, with an adoration of his children allowing him to compensate for bouts of absenteeism in their childhood.

A remarkable life, in which zig zags across the world allowed him to fit more into one lifetime than the majority of us could dream of, and renowned for his charisma and talent, the memory of Lucien Freud is sure to persist through the legacy of his fantastically intriguing portraits.

However, when it comes to depilatory issues alone, there need not be anything oppressive or unfeminist about opting for a partial or full fuzz-free existence. The Guardian columnist, Bidisha, distinctly disagrees, describing men who enjoy the effect thus: “A man who likes a woman without pubic hair despises adult women so much that he wants us to resemble children. He should stay at home instead in front of a computer, masturbating alone to the hair-free images he reveres.” Obviously, to label all men (and surely women) who prefer minimal pubic hair as paedophiles who are undeserving of real-life intimacy is extremely insane.

More pertinently, however, Bidisha misses the point completely by placing the focus of the issue with male reception rather than with the satisfaction of the woman herself. The implication that pubic hair removal is only an issue when a man might see it is so tragically reductive – just as a woman may choose to wear a delectable set of a lingerie when nobody will see it but herself, so may a pube-free existence, should that be the self-desired aesthetic, be maintained for self-pleasure. Speaking of pleasure, the physical benefits of such a style are often ignored or forgotten:

-  Extended view – clearly desirable for women aroused by the visual.
-  Heightened sensitivity – the sensation of someone licking around your labia is, unsurprisingly, not quite as intense when their tongue is fighting through a small forest.

So, to oppose female deforestation is to oppose both female choice and pleasure. I mean, that’s pretty fascist and patriarchal, no? Rude!

Of course, I am in no way suggesting any uniform approach to the maintenance of one’s lady garden. The whole point is that any genital grooming (or lack thereof) should be the pressure-free choice of the individual without fear of ridicule from either men or women. Surely people have better things to do with their time than obsessively scrutinise the appearance of someone else’s vagina?

Regrettably, when it comes to the media, this is not often the case. Last year, The Times sex columnist, Suzi Godson, received a letter from an anxious 38-year-old divorcée who feared losing her new 29-year-old boyfriend over her full bush – she revealed he was “shocked” by her “lack of personal grooming”. I presumed Suzi would more or less advise the correspondent a “kthxbye” response to her boyfriend, but instead she offered the following unfortunate drivel: “If your boyfriend has been conditioned to expect a tidy Brazilian, he may genuinely find anything else very off-putting […] Fortunately, the craze for Brazilians is abating. The hot new haircut is the Sicilian. It is like a Brazilian – but you are left with a neat little Sicily-shaped triangle, which at least means that you still look like a woman. Good luck!” In her book How to be a Woman, Caitlin Moran responded aptly: “Sicily? The good news is that I can make my luge look like Sicily? Home of the Mafia? That’s my vagina now? It’s got the Godfather in it?”

Caitlin then goes on to highlight the hilarity of the prospect of men putting up with this shit – and it really is all a load of utter bullshit. Grow your bush long and strong. Wax it all away. Whatever. Everyone should just do whatever they personally feel looks best and feels best, torment-free, and then just shut the fuck up about it because vaginas shouldn’t be so controversial. Vaginas are lovely. Deal with it.

TOP TIP:

Whatever you do with your vagina, I would advise against going down the “luxury merkin” route. Real Housewives of New York’s Cindy Barshop’s waxing salon has come up with literally the most pointless use of the fur industry ever: “The Foxy Bikini, in which the bikini line is waxed bare and replaced with a pubic wig made from real fox fur.” As Maureen O’Connor writes on gawker.com: “It costs $225, comes in multiple artificial neon hues, and looks like nightmare porno from the id of Dr. Seuss.”

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) have pulled the advertisement for the new fragrance ‘Oh Lola!’ this month for being, ‘sexually provocative.’ The ad shows a wide- eyed looking Dakota Fanning, (Hollywood’s former go- to child actress) sat on the floor, wearing a demure polka dot dress that perhaps shows a tad too much thigh, with a large bottle of the perfume placed between her legs.

There is nothing overtly sexual in the ad. She’s fully clothed with her legs closed. Yet it is in her innocence that the offense lies; according to the regulatory body the “length of her dress, her leg and the position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.”

Though yes, the ad does scream Lolita rather than Lola (which was surely the slant that Jacobs was trying to achieve), have the ASA gone slightly too far? I say this because, it seems a bit excessive to pull an entire ad campaign after only four complaints. That’s right, an astronomical four. What’s more, the arguably pedantic ASA banned the YvesSaintLaurent ad for its fragrance Belle D’Opium, due to the expressive contemporary dance performed by actress Melanie Thierry, who was photographed apparently  tripping out at Warehouse Project (an occurrence which incurred a paltry thirteen complaints). Should we perhaps take their judgment with a rather large pinch of salt?

It is a tricky one. Though Fanning will be eighteen in February next year, there is no denying that in the glossy image, she does like she has just hit puberty. Yet is there no artistic license in advertisement anymore? Jacobs described the little sister fragrance to the hugely popular ‘Lola’ as “sensual”, Fanning being “seductive yet sweet,” – a perfect muse to portray his new scent. Furthermore, Coty, makers of ‘Oh Lola!’ said the giant perfume bottle was, “provoking, but not indecent.” Surely there should be some allowance, as after all, we all know Dakota has grown up since her ‘Dr Seuss’ days?

I can’t help but feel that it is a bit ridiculous that Jacob’s creativity has been quashed due to a small minority reading into things a bit much. Advertisement is an art form; a platform for subjectivity. The whole ad is legit, Fanning would not have excitedly accepted the project if she knew she would be portrayed as preteen tease. In my opinion, I think the bottle is resting on her lap. No suggestion. She’s just holding it.

Being one of the greatest fashion houses on the planet, under the guardianship of fashion god Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel obviously attracts a lot of gorgeous sophisticated women to star in their advertising campaigns. In recent years, Nicole Kidman, Audrey Tautou and Kiera Knightley have all graced our screens in the name of ‘Chanel No.5’ and ‘Coco Mademoiselle’. What works about these adverts is that Chanel brings in external directors who have worked with these actresses before to create a mini film. Baz Luhrmann worked with Nicole in Moulin Rouge prior to Chanel, and Joe Brown directed Kiera in Pride and Prejudice and Atonement. As a result the adverts have their own mini plots and are oozing with sexual tension and romantic hook-ups with mystery men. What may have been standard, ignorable television adverts become events. They suck you in to a romantic frothy world that, alas, we mere mortals can only dream of.

However, some celebrity-designer perfume adverts are just so, so wrong. Chanel is partial to a bit of tasteful nudity where nothing is actually on show. Calvin Klein’s advert for Secret Obsession starring Eva Mendes is another story. Rolling around on a bed starkers showing off your nipples and gasping ‘sexily’ is just so cheap. What is the point? A thirty second advert does not need to be X-rated in order to sell perfume- a ploy which holds little sway with the female populous.

Each to their own, of course, but personally I’ll be sticking with Karl’s adverts: glamazons, dashing men, couture gowns and gorgeous Parisian settings… sigh.

As an attempt to assuage this burning issue, I’ve assembled an arbitrary collection of offerings – including an appropriate amount of festive facial hair – for the peripheral boys and girls in your life. Season’s greetings!

Whether it’s a Christmas dinner with the family or a soirée in the city with friends, here at The Mancunion, we’ve got Party-wear 101 sorted. Chinos and leavers’ hoodies are to be left in the wardrobe (not that we are condoning the usage of leavers’ hoodies) and it’s high time that blazers and smart shoes were welcomed back. The menswear must-have is a statement belt. It has the power to bring an outfit together, not to mention the fact that it keeps trousers on the waist rather than showcasing your embarrassing underwear for all to see… For all you colour-phobes out there who wear nothing but navy, black and grey clothes (myself included), a statement belt will justify your somewhat boring, or arguably “classic” colour choices. Steer clear from soft-material woven belts and opt instead for coloured leather or a belt with a bold buckle. This Vivienne Westwood belt might seem garish to some but it does the trick whilst bringing a little Christmas sparkle into the mix. Its meaty price tag of £120 does mean however, that it will most probably be on the Christmas wishlist but remember that there is always a high-street alternative. Go forth and spread the Christmas cheer…

Here are some dreaded, but unfortunately common examples of potential Christmas disasters to avoid, lest you become a subject of ridicule over the holiday season.

(1^st Day: Christmas Party)

The custom of fancy dress is rife come December with work ‘dos’ and end-of-term house parties. With this theme comes the lip-bitingly disastrous choice of animal ears to your party outfit, confusing the most festive of guests of the relevance of reindeer ears to the commemoration of the birth of Christ.

(3^nd Day: Christmas Shopping)

The epitome of homecoming perks is shopping with Mum and Dad, and of course such a laborious mission will require practical yet stylish attire. However, calamity strikes when you realise and you’ll have to make do with that squeaky, seemingly astronaut-inspired puffer coat you’d abandoned at home. Note: take every vital garment back with you over term break.

(6^rd Day: Christmas Night-out)

Swilling down those pigs in blankets with Bucks Fizz has resulted in a disheartening ‘food baby’, and made the option of form fitting partywear a no-go. Remember that the allure of Boxing Night body-con is very dangerous territory: that metallic dress can be flaunted at a later, less bloated date.

(9^th Day: Opening Gifts)

The revival of the Christmas Jumper has been welcomed by the inner nerd in us all, but I highly doubt that the over-sized, home-made knit by yourNanencompasses that desired quirky, vintage look. Over-exaggerate your gratitude, but wear at your own risk outside of familial company.

(12^th Day: January Sales)

You’ve awoken from your Christmas food-coma to hit the sales, but this is no excuse for deliriously purchasing anything you’ll regret later. So take note and avoid hideous Ugg cardigan socks, headache-inducing patterned leggings and any garment that plays a festive jingle. Your reputation and student loan will thank me later.

Considering my penchant for terrible puns, cross-dressing, and all things sparkly, I couldn’t resist throwing some sexually ambiguous / gender transformative paint on some of its cast members. Now, pick a look and wear it to the show.

Photography & make-up: Isabelle Dann

Models: Augustus Porter, Nina Modek, and Jack Handley.

• A phone call (on your iPhone) post-job interview; your bank balance would just look so sexy all the way back to zero.
• A comment on something pretentious / quasi-witty / inane you posted on Facebook that proves you’re still acceptable on the internet.
• A text from that special someone that doesn’t suggest last night was a horribly hideous mistake.
• An email from your tutor answering all your last-minute essay crises queries / concerns / general lunatic ravings (because, hi, the deadline’s today).
• A tweet from your current intellectual idol – come on, @SalmanRushdie, let’s talk Clarissa and Courtney Love! #LiteraryKinderwhoreSmackdowns

As a form of remedy, I suggest the following: take a long shower. No, really. It’s ostensibly simple, yet most effective. Enforced time offline! Revel in your novel cleanliness!

Now, the most important preparation is to invest in the appropriate supplies:

For girls: Soap & Glory™ Higher Shower™ Pamper Pack, £20.

I’m a big fan of any brand that’s built their empire on puns (“Glow Job” facial moisturiser, anyone?), and this gift set contains the following products in full-size form:

• Clean Girls™ Shower Gel; a creamy body wash infused with notes of bergamot, blackcurrant, magnolia, freesia, vanilla and musk
• The Daily Smooth™ Body Butter; nourishes dry skin intensely with rosehip seed oil and cocoa butter.
• Mist You Madly™ Spray; a floral body spray for post-shower activity.
• Shower Puff for all your lathering needs.
• Shower Cap for Calpol chic.

As a delightful addition, try Soap & Glory The Breakfast Scrub™ Body Exfoliator, £9.95 for super-smooth skin via oat, shea butter and sugar.

For guys: Bath House Spanish Fig Men’s Shower Gift Box, £28.

For ultimate manly shower relaxation, try this kit containing:

• Spanish Fig Wash bar
• Spanish Fig Hair and Body Wash
• Spanish Fig Deodorant
• Nail brush
• Cotton flannel

All products are infused with – you guessed it – Spanish fig, in addition to nutmeg punctuated with clove and a heady base of sandalwood, cedar and patchouli.

So, now you’ve got the goods, step in and savour the steam. As a finishing touch, blast some suitably anthemic background music. Sing your troubles away! I recommend the Glee Christmas album.

Finally, when you head back to your room only to find that, still, nobody cares, rinse and repeat.

This criticism comes, of course, from someone who is somewhat biased towards playing around with their hair. Since hitting the teens and developing the consequent idea of a “self-image” attached to them, I’ve had every colour imaginable, tried out various (often tragic) stylings and forever had fun experimenting with my own follicles. Yet, judging by the looks from bystanders I usually receive, apparently this is somewhat weird.

Why is that? Why has the idea of a distinct look evolved in such a way that it’s the clothes we wear that are of ultimate importance? In an obvious paradox, unless we were to manufacture the clothes ourselves, expressing individuality through what we wear doesn’t wholly work. Sure, the way we arrange what we’ve got on and how we accessorise injects some personal character, but it’s still expression through the constraints of an industry hell-bent on convincing us it knows how we should be presenting ourselves better than we do.

Case in point: Daphne Guinness is considered “iconic” for donning a pair of Alexander McQueen’s infamous “heel-less” high heels; Lady Gaga is considered “original” for sporting a dress made from Kermit the Frog dolls (despite Kermit being an idea of Jim Henson’s); girls in Newcastle are considered “cool” and “sexy” for all wearing what is essentially a glorified pair of bra and knickers on a night out etc. etc.

So-called “originality” in the world of clothing is usually borrowed and/or shared; “character” ceases being just that, and becomes merely something we buy in to. Yet, with hair that is almost never the case. While someone could argue that dyeing your hair to have another colour follows the same principle as covering yourself in another designer’s clothes, there’s still a difference: that hair is yours. Like a snowflake, no two strands are the same, and each and every one of us has our own, unique biological make-up from which it grows.

This may sound preachy, but it’s meant to. You can express away with all sorts of clothes, but at the end of the day they’re all coming off; that’s an identity you choose to inhabit when it suits you. Hair, on the other hand, is with you 24/7; you can’t “change out of it” at the drop of a hat, and thus it’s a much more honest, lasting means of self-expression attached to it. So why shy away from it, people?

Get ahold of a brush, a hairdryer, some straighteners. Get acquainted with the terms “back-combing”, “curling”, “crimping” and the like. Ladies: spend less time faffing around with whatever shade of tan-gerine you’re slathering on yourself, or whether you should be in flats or high heels. Gentlemen: spend less time spraying Lynx all over your Calvin Klein boxers, or worrying which one of your seven supposedly-different-yet-seemingly-identical shirts to wear out. Start experimenting with your hair, because the face is normally the first thing we all see when we look at each other; don’t you want to frame yours well?

(I realise this article is entirely inapplicable to those of you that are bald, so in order to make it relevant, I give you a chat-up line: “It’s not a bald spot; it’s a solar panel for a sex machine”. Oh, and you could always buy a wig.)

Hollywood brought to light Katherine Hepburn and her iconic version of men’s inspired buttoned down shirts and trousers. In the early 1900s, her unconventional style created much agitation amongst fashion savvy women. Then the end of World War 2 saw working women wear this style of clothing by default, it being more practical and comfortable, initiating an endearing style of fashion that is carried out with more force, to this day.

History can also explain why men of today are more in touch with their feminine side and meterosexual fashion is ever increasing. Cinema enabled this to occur where men took pride in their physical appearance, using hair and beauty products. James Dean acted as a pioneer of this fad, with his elaborate hairstyles, hip dressing and quirky stance. He paved the way forward to a modern way of thinking and dressing.

The 60s took a turn for the best for androgynous fashion where women were caught walking the catwalk in trouser suits and boy cuts. Twiggy’s boyish look bedazzled people and designers were encouraged to experiment with fashion as the previous eras had not allowed. The hippie culture saw men getting more creative by growing hair past their shoulders and wearing wacky clothing, inspired by the latest rock star image.

The 70s and 80s introduced a new age of unisex fashion. Jeans, bell bottoms, platform shoes and peculiar hair had all become a widespread craze among men and women with the rise of the disco culture, which confirmed men and women’s clothing to be rather similar. The film ‘Annie Hall’ showed unisex fashion at its finest where Diane Keaton was seen wearing tucked in shirts, waistcoats and trousers, screaming androgynous fashion. This was also a sign that women were becoming strong, career driven females with business acumen.

Then came pop culture which caused havoc amongst people. Madonna and Michael Jackson were idolized, causing much of a stir with their enthralling persona and perfect mingling of both masculine and feminine. Fashionable androgyny as well as sexual identity were now more accepted.

The current decade has proven absolute creativity in fashion, providing visual interest to a specific outfit with its popular trends. The majority of people have now in some way or the other, taken on board this style, with the help of our very first innovators.

It is thus, that the theme for this week is androgyny. Loosely known otherwise, as unisex fashion, androgynous fashion is something that has been around for decades. The first noticeable emergence was in the 1920s when Coco Chanel débuted a relatively masculine women’s suit ensemble that consisted of a knee-high skirt with a squared-fit woolen jacket. Androgyny is not simply a matter of girls wearing boys’ clothes and visa versa; it is far more complex in that it is both feminine and masculine traits blended into coexistence, so as to create a look with no specific gender identification. The most common ‘androgynous look’ for a man, is largely very tailored and consists of military-inspired attire, waistcoats and tighter jeans, mainly using fabrics such as velvet, tweed and leather – all of which is exhibited brilliantly every season by brands such as Burberry Prorsum, Lanvin and Helmut Lang. Androgyny is very much present in the industry, and what enamours me even more, is the fact that it is hardly noticeable because skinny jeans and military jackets are not exactly the most uncommon of things you’ll find either in the shops or being worn in the streets. I too, have dabbled in the world of androgynous fashion in that the last bag I purchased was the Oversized Alexa by Mulberry, which was originally created as part of their womenswear collection. I only bought the bag because I find their menswear collection to be terribly dull and I frequently find myself unimpressed by other menswear bag collections in general. The Alexa is just a large, classic satchel and I can’t quite fathom why just because it is categorised as a womens’ bag, it should stop me from wearing one. It is thus that I have entitled this article Comme des Garçonnes with “Garçonne” meaning “boy” in French, spelt however, with the feminine suffix.

Androgynous fashion allows people to experiment with their style because it has merged numerous traits of menswear and womenswear, meaning that fashion is not secluded to gender. I am not saying that men will soon be wearing pink mini-skirts, but then again, nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

At what point, however, does a harmless love of the fashion circus and a devotion to designers transcend healthy interest to become, quite frankly, ever so slightly daft? This week, Vogue.com reported that certain (unnamed) audience members at the Christopher Kane Spring/ Summer 2011 show wept at the sheer beauty of his creations. Undoubtedly the collection was sublime- shimmering shift dresses adorned with fine gold embellishment provided breathtaking viewing, and Mr Kane should certainly be lauded for his undeniable design talent. But surely crying over his creations should be saved for those personally connected to the designer, as opposed to those for whom his gift simply means a stunning new piece of clothing to be gushed over at a glittering social soiree? Now, by no means am I claiming some sort of immunity from a clothes related weep fest- a recent fight with the washing machine that left a favourite cable knit jumper unwearable resulted in the shedding of (a very few) tears. That minor disaster, however, occurred in the privacy of my own home and was a genuine expression of grief for a much loved item- not a somewhat over-the-top expression of an appreciation of beautiful garments in a room full of fellow fashion fanatics.

It is hyped- up responses to events such as these which arguably purport a negative stereotype of those who chose to create a career in the arena of fashion.  An over inflated sense of self importance must be significantly reigned in if one wishes to maintain the respect of society at large whilst working in a world which is based largely on aesthetics- self- awareness is key.

And so, I believe, it is perhaps time to reconnect with fashion in all of its frivolous glory- to embrace our love of clothes and dressing as a thoroughly enjoyable respite from the mundane monotonies of daily life- something to salivate, rather than stress, over. Our experiences with fashion should bring us unbridled joy which does not require an abundance of emotion to prove our love to whomever happens to be watching; rather it should be something we indulge and engage in for nothing other than our own pleasure.

However, it all depends on your own personal choice of fragrance, and the key to the success of a unisex scent is balance. Although many women do wear men’s aftershave – Abercrombie and Fitch’s being a favourite – it is important to wear a fragrance that embodies yourself rather than your other half. Following the route of many celebrities, Taylor Swift has just introduced her first scent; yet, unlike her peers, her product isn’t strictly for men or women. However, the embellished lilac bottle suggests otherwise; I personally don’t see it being a big hit with the boys.

Another upcoming and less conventional unisex perfume comes courtesy of Asad Khan from Croydon, who has created a concoction from the spices used in Indian Cuisine, appropriately named “Tears on my Pilau”. This creation has been designed for charity and consists of chilli, cumin, ginger and cardamom – still, the question of the fragrance smelling aromatic still remains to be seen.

Now, is this craze a do or don’t? My own verdict is a positive one, fuelled by Coco Chanel herself, who commented that no woman should have to smell a particular way. So, experiment! Just be sure not to end up smelling like your local takeaway.

The brainchild of ex-Apprentice contestant Adele Lock, The Gentry Grooming Co offers the very best male grooming experience in Manchester, with salons in Manchester city centre, Wilmslow and Didsbury. Hair, colour, shaving, massage, manicure, facial, eyebrow and teeth whitening services are all available in a super-relaxing ambiance, with some of the best treatments including:

• Cut and Finish (wet cut and blow), £24.50, 30 mins.
• Deep Cleansing & Nourishing Hair and Scalp Treatment with Hot Towels, £10, 10 mins.
• Traditional Cut Throat Shave with Hot Towels (for sensitive skin), £27.50, 40 mins.
• Luxury Manicure & Hand Massage, £25, 45 mins.
• Deep Cleansing Facial with Face Mask (Treatment followed by Hot Towels), £35, 40 mins.

Additionally, a luxury male grooming product range is available in-store and online, enabling would-be dandies everywhere to take care of their pretty entities in the comfort of their own home. The Essentials Range consists of eight daily skincare and shaving products:

• The All Over Wash, £10.95
• The Face Wash, £10.95
• The Face Scrub, £12.95
• The Shave Oil, £9.95
• The Shave Cream, £12.95
• The Face Balm, £14.95
• The Eye Cream, £14.95
• The Styling Cream, £11.95

Moreover, the range is over 93% natural, pH balanced, free from alcohol, parabens and chemical preservatives – perfect for men with a sensitive complexion. Day and night time fragrances are also available. Concerning the range, Mr Black of Gentlemen’s Goods blog writes: “I have been trying the range for the last two weeks and I have to say they are a pleasure to use, the peppery scent from the face wash really wakes me up in the morning ready to fight for my spot on the train. Like a lot of men I find that some products far from sooth my skin actually irritate it due to all the chemicals used in the usual big brands, so I love the fact that these products are natural”.

Finally, as a much-appreciated finishing touch, The Gentry Grooming Co feature various demonstration videos and textual tips and tricks on their website in order to ensure customers are fully aware of how to take care of their sexy faces.

So go on. Treat yourself. Because it’s a Tuesday. Or something.

I’ve been infatuated with the Australian model Gemma Ward for years now quite simply because, unlike any other human being I have ever spied, she truly looks like she hails from another dimension, an entirely compelling effect.

Adorned with a wide-set sober stare, porcelain complexion and bee-stung pout, Ward has graced countless magazine covers, including Vogue (all national varieties), W and i-D, played a space alien for Alexander McQueen’s autumn / winter 2005 show, and starred in a plethora of campaigns from Prada to Yves Saint Laurent. More recently, she’s turned her hand to acting, having been performed the minor yet most enigmatic role of the mermaid in the last Pirates of the Caribbean film, plus she’ll be making an appearance in the upcoming Baz Luhrmann adaptation of The Great Gatsby.

An intoxicating chameleon, Ward continues to transfix the world with her ethereality.

Runner-up: Courtney Love

The “Lady Macbeth” of the grunge scene, Love is arguably the most fascinating personality to emerge from 1990s pop culture. An aesthetic of anti-establishment “kinderwhore”, Love’s public identity of stripper-turned actress-turned Hole front woman-turned fashion muse-cum heroin usage contrasted with her Mensa-leve IQ combined with some serious baggage resulted in one big hot mess – bleached blonde hair, cried-off mascara, kissed-off lipstick – and whispers everywhere she walks.

And whilst this behaviour is expected, certainly, rarely is it entirely accepted. In recent years, a slew of prominent fashion figures being exposed as all too less than perfect has revealed the extent to which an individual’s career and legacy can be blemished. From an exalted position as an icon, to shunned and disgraced, the fashion carousel has witnessed its fair share of falls from grace. Is it, however, fair to allow non- ideal behaviour in an individual’s private life to seep into and tarnish the professional?

Take, for example, the ‘Cocaine Kate’ scandal of 2005. When The Mirror obtained footage of Miss Moss chopping up and consuming numerous lines of coke, they deplored her behaviour and Kate went on to lose a number of high profile campaigns in the aftermath. Certainly, dabbling in the world of Class A narcotics when you are the mother of a dependant young child is morally dubious behaviour, and a terrible precedent to set as a primary role model in an infant’s life. But did anyone truly suppose that the then girlfriend of notorious substance abuser Pete Docherty was livin’ la vida sober? The world of modelling has long been associated with the consumption of illegal drugs, and for a seasoned hack at a publication such as The Mirror to bleat that Kate was setting a poor example to legions of young girls is ridiculous- a fashion model is not, by default, a role model to all exposed to her. Whilst Kate is answerable to her daughter for her past behaviours, it doesn’t seem correct to use this instance as an impingement against her iconic status.

Should, however, allegations of an even more unsavoury nature have any bearing on how we view the status of a deceased icon, with no means through which to redeem themselves? A new book detailing Coco Chanel’s relationship with a senior intelligence officer in the Nazi Regime (‘Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel, Nazi Agent’ by Hal Vaughan) sheds more light on the speculation that one of history’s most esteemed figures in fashion was a fierce anti- Semitic. That the late Chanel’s status will ever be called into dispute is highly doubtful- she is far too firmly cemented and celebrated for that to be the case. But for many, the association of the House of Chanel with the atrocities committed earlier in the century will tarnish the image of one of the century’s most revolutionary designers.

In a similar vein, the infamous British born designer John Galliano was notoriously caught spewing a racist verbal tirade which was captured on video and obtained by The Sun. Having been recently brought to trial, found guilty and given a suspended sentence by an outraged French feudal system, his publicist has claimed that he is working on alcohol and substance addiction problems and hopes to defeat these to come to a place of ‘understanding’.  In the ensuing fracas following the release of the footage, Galliano was sacked from his position as Head of Design at Dior and openly shunned by various influential media personalities.

The racist views and acts of Chanel and Galliano most definitely warrant punishment via the legal system, which only one of them is alive to have handed down to them. But whilst, they both evidently possess some extremely harmful, offensive and outright ‘bad’ opinions, the facet of their person which comprises their talent and achievement can be compartmentalised and assessed outside of this. For fashion to qualify every achievement recorded by the late Coco Chanel, or for the industry to forfeit the talent of Galliano, would be a terrible negation of a pair of visionaries.