Yesterday afternoon, I was reading the Stye and Arts section of the Washington Post, when I was particularly intrigued by my colleague Anne Midgette's story (part one of two parts) about the future of opera in America. I was curious because she talked about how opera is an expensive enterprise, often perceived as elitist, that is aimed at a small, niche audience. It sounded a lot like a description of high-end fashion. But the presence of the stories themselves suggested to me that the Post position on opera was that it was vital and important and even though only a small audience was interested - and not necessarily an audience that is quick with a computer mouse - it was a subject that we would cover and cover well.

Anne is an extraordinary writer and a top expert in her field. So, our coverage is as it should be. But it made me wonder why I've been so paranoid about the place that fashion coverage occupies in that same universe. To be sure, there hasn't been any direct or indirect, for that matter, suggestion that high end fashion coverage isn't an important piece of our cultural and style plate. I think, perhaps, the snide e-mails that come from some folks who just out-and-out HATE fashion are starting to get to me. Or perhaps it's because my time is split between fashion and FLOTUS. And even when FLOTUS attends a student concert and does little more than smile, that must be documented, while I struggle to find time to write about fashion businesses that are changing the way we dress or the way we think about women, beauty and aging.

I understand. It's all about the clicks. It's all about resources. But somehow fashion is neither fish nor fowl. It's not considered "arts" and it's not politics. I fret that soon it won't be considered. It's not the most important thing in the world, certainly. But it does tell us a lot about who we are as a society in the same way that great architecture, music and art do. People seem to automatically understand the relevance of those other fields. But it's always a struggle to convince them that the same is true for fashion.

Ever since I began writing about fashion, oh so many years ago, I've had my own love/hate affair with it. It can be frustratingly silly. But every now and then, something substantial happens. Some fashion show - like a recent Comme des Garcons one -- speaks volumes about how we relate to the homeless and to poverty. Or some fashion business - like Gucci - becomes a marvel of acumen and innovation.

I wonder what it will take to convince the non-believers, the skeptics that it matters? Would it convince them if designers stopped putting on fashion shows and instead presented their collections in the dull, fluorescent light of a convention center? Do more fashion companies need to go public so that Wall Street becomes more of a stakeholder? Do designers need to march on Washington for copyright protections? What will convince folks that a billion dollar industry is relevant?

 

I have been to New York numerous times since I moved back to DC last June. But for some reason, this time, I felt pangs of sadness. I miss this town! Maybe it's because I finally managed to spend a couple days here when the weather was nice. Or maybe it was simply that the champagne was especially tasty at the CFDA awards Monday night.

In any case, I arrived Monday afternoon. (After doing a little Q &A appearance at the Newseum on Saturday. Could someone please tell the powers that be at the Post that I helped sell a few dozen books? Michelle: Her First Year as First Lady. I don't actually make any money off the book. At least not directly. But its success reflects well on me and ultimately, that helps keep my gainfully employed.) I went to the Oscar de la Renta resort show where I practically tripped over Desiree Rogers who was seated in the front row next to Anna Wintour. Ms. Rogers has become quite the fashion presence. When last I saw her, it was at the Costume Institute party. Freed from the White House and DC traditions, she seems to be luxuriating in the bosom of the fashion industry. Good for her.

ODLR's show as pretty but nothing to jump up and cheer about. Resort shows are like that. Nice, commercial clothes that make retailers happy but do not fuel a story.

Then I did an interview for a documentary crew from Canada about philanthropy and fashion, specifically with ODLR. They tried so hard to get me to say that ODLR is a devoted and wonderful philanthropist but I declined. He's a charming man, but I don't know what's in his heart. Who knows why he does what he does.

Then it was back to my hotel to prep for the CFDA awards. Basically, I needed to set the hair so it would withstand my usual nervous sweat-fest!

The awards were especially fun this year and I made a point of seeking out Michael Kors, Iman and Paper magazine's Kim Hastreiter to give them big hugs of congratulations for their awards. They were super deserving in my opinion.

In the morning I had breakfast with Harriette Cole, formerly of Ebony. She had been acting editor in chief as well as creative director until this week. Linda Johnson hired a new editor in chief, but frankly I think Harriette deserves more credit than that press release gave her. She really transformed the magazine. And July has Prince on the cover....with an interview. That's quite a coup.

I'm meeting Susan Rolonze for dinner tonight. She used to be an editor at the Tobe Report, a big retail consultancy. She's a good, wise egg and I'm looking forward to a little vino at Bar Boloud.

Big news in fashion media news: Sally Singer of Vogue is the new editor of T:The New York Times Style Magazine. Yay for Sally! She was one of the best things about my short tenure at Vogue. She is smart, well-read and just a lovely person. I only wished she spoke louder. I was constantly saying: What? I'm sorry? Pardon?

Anyway, big congratulations to Sally.

Ordinarily I refrain from commenting on the things that are written about me on blogs. Some of it is extraordinarily kind. And for that I am deeply flattered. Some of it is not so kind. And to that I say: It's only fair. I'm lucky enough to have a pretty big platform from which to share my opinions. My day job gives me precious real estate every Sunday and I take that seriously. I know people will disagree with things that I write and I figure the trade-off is that I have to stand clear when they voice their complaints. As I said, it's only fair.

But recently, one of the blogs that keeps a watchful eye over all things related to the first lady published some erroneous information about moi. It wasn't on purpose. And I wasn't angry about it. But I sent an e-mail to tell them the information was wrong. I actually thought they'd say oops and take down the incorrect info. Instead, they issued a correction. Sort of. Whatever.

The problem is that nothing ever goes away in cyberspace. And the reality is that everyone makes mistakes. But if the corrections for those mistakes get muddled up in so much sarcasm, vitriol and bullshit - who's to know if it's a serious correction? People believe what they read on the internet. A lot of folks treat all the information they find online equally - one bit of information is just as reliable as the next, just pick the "fact" that makes you happy.