MARIO MAKES IT BIG: Mario Testino’s “Undressed” is the Helmut Newton Foundation’s largest-scale show to date. In this exhibit of 50 published and private photographs of men and women often wearing nothing more than their tattoos, Testino blew up his images to completely fill the walls in three halls of Berlin’s graciously proportioned Museum of Photography.
Looming over 10 feet from the ceiling to the walls’ lower wood moldings, and spanning sometimes 23 feet in width, this site-specific installation conceived exclusively for the Helmut Newton Foundation offers a spectacular yet also intimate view. For as the photographer noted prior to the show’s opening June 2, the enormous size and full bleed from corner to corner means there are no distractions. The viewer is almost compelled to immerse his or herself in the images, turning from “a voyeur into a participant. We’re in a moment when people want to interact with what they see, and not just look. They want to be part of it, so who knows? Maybe people will now go home and take photos of each other like this.”
That means equal undressing rights for all, with full frontals, male and female, to enticing back views, moments of amorous play

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

A downtown Los Angeles-based apparel firm thinks it has the right formula to succeed in the customization and made-to-order space, promising all the quality of an atelier backed by proprietary 3-D software.
Frilly, which launched in 2014, and has been refining its business model and building its technology, recently emerged out of beta with an online store offering customizable product to shoppers.
The opening price is about $60 and goes up to around $2,000 to be able to take the company’s stock of chic separates and tailor the necklines, sleeves, fabric and on down to the hardware used in the garment.
The company was founded by chief executive officer Shangwei Ding and chief marketing officer Jeni Ni and is entirely self-funded. It counts 24 employees in Los Angeles with a factory in China of about 80 and a software team of another 80. Tailors in China produce each garment, which goes through three rounds of quality control before being shipped to consumers within two to three weeks from the order date.
“We really want to bring the control back to the customer,” Ni said. “The age of personalization is upon us and we are bringing it to the customer in a way that hasn’t

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

MONUMENTAL MEN: Karen Walker is making her way into the men’s category.
While male celebrities including LeBron James and Terry Richardson have worn her quirky women’s designs, this is the first time Walker has designed a collection specifically for men.
“Men have always enjoyed wearing Karen Walker eyewear in the past and we thought it was about time we gave them their own space,” Walker said. “When we talk about what it is to be a man now, it’s such a fluid concept. And yet, there’s also this wonderful permanence. We wanted to capture that and be subversive and classic at the same time.”
The collection, which is called Monumental, features six styles that Walker likens to Mount Rushmore, because they will create the foundation for shapes to come. The styles are modernist takes on eyewear from the Thirties and Fifties made from black horn, tortoiseshell acetates, silver and gold metal, and polarized or classic lenses coming in smoke, brown and green. The line retails from $220 to $250.
The look book, which has become a signature branding mechanism for Walker, features musician Connan Mockasin wearing the sunglasses with a bird atop his head. The collection is available now at Karen Walker stores in

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

Aurea, Pininfarina’s new concept yacht, is a breakthrough in form and function.

Armoury founder Cho opines on grandfather clocks, favorite cities, and finding world-class artisans.

Dior Homme and Ralph Lauren have just what you need for that next urban escape.

The Bay Area is home to incredible technological innovation, so it is surprising that San Francisco has taken a decidedly anti-tech stance lately.

First, Supervisor Jane Kim announced that she was exploring the option of imposing a “robot tax” on firms that displace human workers with automation. Then, Supervisor Norman Yee proposed banning delivery robots from city sidewalks. This does not sound like the city that has benefitted so much from such technological advances.

Kim’s proposal would use the financial penalty of taxation to try to slow the adoption of certain kinds of automation, while directing revenue to subsidize education for displaced workers.

“We don’t want to become a Third World country where there’s a big divide between the very rich and the very poor,” Kim told Fast Company.

It seems that that ship has already set sail, though. The city’s Human Services Agency released a study in 2014 that put San Francisco’s income inequality on par with Third World nations like Rwanda and Guatemala.

Even so, income inequality alone is a poor measure of prosperity. After all, we should celebrate if the poor get richer, even if the rich get richer at a faster rate (thus increasing the income inequality gap), because everyone is better off than they were before.

And who is to determine the “proper” rate of automation, or which types are “harmful”? Why, hordes of government bureaucrats, of course.

But stifling innovation and increasing government welfare subsidies, thus providing less incentive for displaced workers to invest in developing new skills and finding new jobs, is certainly not a recipe for economic success — for entrepreneurs or for workers.

Yee’s solution to new technology is even more extreme. Just as new automated delivery services are being tested and improved, Yee wants to kill the efforts before they can get off the ground. He reportedly discovered that a pilot autonomous delivery program was being operated — gasp! — without permits or regulation.

Discussions with police and other agencies revealed that regulation would be nearly impossible to enforce, however. “So, for me, then, the regulation becomes: They shouldn’t be on the sidewalks,” Yee told Wired. In other words, we can’t micromanage it just the way we want, so we’re going to ban it for everyone.

“Our public spaces should not be commercialized,” Yee added in a separate interview with CBS San Francisco. This is a curious argument, given that human delivery services use public roads all the time. And, as a police spokesman told Wired, the threat is really no greater than a worker pushing a dolly down the sidewalk. There is no evidence of extraordinary safety issues, or that any issues could not be handled by existing laws.

New technologies certainly can disrupt job markets and our day-to-day experiences, but that has always been the case with progress. Is it better to prop up old technologies that stifle innovation and make businesses less competitive on a national, or international, scale?

It is not a coincidence that the tech industry has prospered so much while being one of the more lightly regulated industries in the state. San Francisco lawmakers should ask themselves what Silicon Valley would look like if we had adopted government restrictions like their proposals 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

For much of the 20th century, crippling regulations prevented the American freight rail industry from operating at anything more than substantial losses. By 1980, the entire industry was on the brink of bankruptcy, and consumers were forced to absorb higher prices. But since then, regulatory reform has paved the way for a booming rail industry, which has produced major benefits for California consumers and the state’s economy.

The regulation of freight rail dates back to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, implemented to ensure that fair rail rates were in place. Over the following decades, however, regulations increased dramatically, eventually turning into a web of dated, convoluted rules which severely limited railroads’ ability to compete with other modes of transportation.

One study found freight rail’s return on investment between 1962-1978 to be a paltry 2.42 percent, far below that of similarly regulated industries. As a result, by the late 1970s, the American freight rail industry was nearing collapse.

After debating whether to initiate a federal bailout or nationalize the industry, policymakers in Washington, D.C., decided to proceed down a deregulatory path. In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Act, which loosened the regulatory burden on railroads in an attempt to boost economic production.

The effects of deregulation were felt almost immediately. As noted in a recent analysis by the American Consumer Institute, rail productivity increased three-fold while costs fell dramatically: 4 percent in the first two years, 20 percent in the first five years, and 44 percent in the first decade following partial deregulation. In turn, the prices of economic goods dropped 65 percent for shippers, savings passed onto consumers in the form of $10 billion in annual economic benefits.

The benefits of freight rail’s revolution are perhaps felt nowhere better than California. More than 150 million tons of cargo are moved through the state each year by the 25 railroads operating in the state, which employ more than 9,000 rail workers. Moving goods by rail also has environmental benefits; the recent Colton Crossing project in San Bernardino, for example, has been estimated to reduce greenhouse gases by 31,000 tons annually.

And with the Los Angeles freight rail system anchoring the movement of goods on the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have grown into America’s largest port complex, moving $287 million worth of freight annually and serving as a bedrock of international trade.

In spite of these widespread benefits, the Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency overseeing railroads, has offered a multitude of new regulations concerning the use of rail facilities and assets, including those which could force railroads to grant their lines to competitors at below-market rates. These directives would harm competition and discourage investment, leading to inefficiencies, delays and higher costs ultimately, once again, absorbed by consumers.

In the four decades since the Staggers Act was signed into law, the benefits of a smart regulatory environment have been made abundantly clear: these reforms have emboldened a better rail business model, supported the environment, created jobs and lowered costs for consumers. As policymakers consider new rail regulations, they must remember the era before 1980 to avoid making the same mistakes again and spare California’s economy and consumers from unnecessary harm.

Steve Pociask is president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, a nonprofit educational and research organization.

It’s late spring and nothing captures the spirit of the season quite like the vision of high school graduates donning their caps and gowns on football fields and in gyms and auditoriums throughout the county.

Tens of thousands of our young people are graduating from area high schools this month. They should be commended for their hard work and overcoming a variety of challenges in order to earn their diplomas and launch confidently into college, work life and adulthood.

Some students, of course, face significantly more challenges than others.

For those who live in unstable housing situations, lack access to nutritious food or simply don’t have the financial resources needed to buy school supplies, the long road to graduation is much more steep.

Despite perceptions that Orange County is nothing but a wealthy enclave of privilege, the recently released Orange County Community Indicators report shows that perception is far from reality.

With the cost of living and housing in Orange County at or near all-time highs, more than 28,000 county students are either homeless or doubled — and sometimes tripled — up with other families. This is twice the number from the last housing boom just a decade ago.

This unstable housing situation impacts everything from students’ health to their studies. Low-income parents often lack the resources and — because they’re forced to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet — the time to take their children to the doctor or help with homework. These challenges conspire to threaten students’ long-term health, education and job prospects.

These types of statistics can be paralyzing, leaving many well-intentioned citizens to question whether there’s anything they could possibly do to help. Indeed, one person can’t reverse these trends. Nor can the government do it alone. Schools have limited resources. The business community can only write so many checks.

What will chip away at and eventually overcome this seemingly insurmountable mountain of challenges is when individuals, organizations, government agencies and community leaders work together to empower our community’s ground forces that are making measurable impacts on the lives of others.

Those include talented school teachers who have worked tirelessly to help disadvantaged students — many of whom grew up fearing that graduation and college were out of reach — cross the finish line and beyond. Westminster High School’s Eric Dykes is one of those teachers.

Mr. Dykes leads the school’s Advancement Via Individual Determination program, an internationally proven academic teaching and learning program that holds students and teachers accountable to their highest standards while creating a college-going culture that promotes expectations of success.

Four in five of the school’s AVID students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds that serve as significant headwinds on the road to graduation and college. But Mr. Dykes’s passion for helping his students succeed overcame all that, showing tremendous early results. That’s when the collective caring power of Orange County stepped up to the plate, supplying the proven program with the resources needed to expand and make an even greater impact.

Support from United Way’s Destination Graduation initiative — a network of 22 middle and high schools throughout Orange County — combined with other resources has allowed Mr. Dykes to hire and oversee an army of tutors. Many AVID graduates themselves, these tutors are helping more students succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

Recently named a top AVID National Demonstration School among 150 programs nationally, Mr. Dykes’s program has experienced a 100 percent decline in freshman dropouts. Last year, all of the program’s seniors graduated on time and 83 percent were accepted at four-year college institutions, all because the community came together to support and help grow this worthwhile and successful program.

There are hundreds more teachers like Mr. Dykes throughout Orange County; those helping students lacking resources but not a steadfast will to succeed; those instilling the confidence to set high goals along with the skills necessary to exceed them.

Nothing is more important to our community’s future success than the education of our children. When more kids succeed, we all win. That’s why we, as a community, should commit to redoubling our efforts to ensure that the graduating classes of 2018 and beyond grow in numbers and accomplish more than they ever dreamed possible.

Max Gardner is the president and CEO of Orange County United Way. For the past five years, he has led the organization toward advancing its mission of improving lives and strengthening Orange County by focusing on the building blocks for a good quality of life: Education, Income, Health and Housing. Prior to joining United Way, Mr. Gardner was President of Irvine Company Apartment Communities. For more information about the FACE 2024 community-wide action plan, please visit www.unitedwayoc.org.

So what if, in his speech last week to NATO, Donald Trump didn’t explicitly reaffirm the provision that an attack on one is an attack on all?

What’s the big deal? Didn’t he affirm a general commitment to NATO during his visit? Hadn’t he earlier sent his vice president and secretaries of State and Defense to pledge allegiance to Article 5?

And anyway, who believes that the United States would really go to war with Russia — and risk nuclear annihilation — over Estonia?

Ah, but that’s precisely the point. It is because deterrence is so delicate, so problematic, so literally unbelievable that it is not to be trifled with. And why for an American president to gratuitously undermine what little credibility deterrence already has, by ostentatiously refusing to recommit to Article 5, is so shocking.

Deterrence is inherently a barely believable bluff. Even at the height of the Cold War, when highly resolute presidents, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy, threatened Russia with “massive retaliation” (i.e., all-out nuclear war), would we really have sacrificed New York for Berlin?

No one knew for sure. Not Eisenhower, not Kennedy, not the Soviets, not anyone. Yet that very uncertainty was enough to stay the hand of any aggressor and keep the peace of the world for 70 years.

Deterrence does not depend on 100 percent certainty that the other guy will go to war if you cross a red line. Given the stakes, merely a chance of that happening can be enough. For 70 years, it was enough.

Leaders therefore do everything they can to bolster it. Install tripwires, for example. During the Cold War, we stationed troops in Germany to face the massive tank armies of Soviet Russia. Today we have 28,000 troops in South Korea, 12,000 near the demilitarized zone.

Why? Not to repel invasion. They couldn’t. They’re not strong enough. To put it very coldly, they’re there to die. They’re a deliberate message to the enemy that if you invade our ally, you will have to kill a lot of Americans first. Which will galvanize us into full-scale war against you.

Tripwires are risky, dangerous and cynical. Yet we resort to them because parchment promises are problematic and tripwires imply automaticity. We do what we can to strengthen deterrence.

Rhetorically as well. Which is why presidents from Truman on have regularly and powerfully reaffirmed our deterrent pledge to NATO. Until Trump.

His omission was all the more damaging because of his personal history. This is a man chronically disdainful of NATO. He campaigned on its obsolescence. His inaugural address denounced American allies as cunning parasites living off American wealth and generosity. One of Trump’s top outside advisers, Newt Gingrich, says that “Estonia is in the suburbs of St. Petersburg,” as if Russian designs on the Baltic states are not at all unreasonable.

Moreover, Trump devoted much of that very same speech, the highlight of his first presidential trip to NATO, to berating the allies for not paying their fair share. Nothing particularly wrong with that, or new — half a century ago Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was so offended by NATO free riding that he called for major reductions of U.S. troops in Europe.

That’s an American perennial. But if you’re going to berate, at least reassure as well. Especially given rising Russian threats and aggression. Especially given that Trump’s speech was teed up precisely for such reassurance. An administration official had spread the word that he would use the speech to endorse Article 5. And it was delivered at a ceremony honoring the first and only invocation of Article 5 — ironically enough, by the allies in support of America after 9/11.

And yet Trump deliberately, defiantly refused to simply say it: America will always honor its commitment under Article 5.

It’s not that, had Trump said the magic words, everyone would have 100 percent confidence we would strike back if Russia were to infiltrate little green men into Estonia, as it did in Crimea. But Trump’s refusal to utter those words does lower whatever probability Vladimir Putin might attach to America responding with any seriousness to Russian aggression against a NATO ally.

Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Trump’s visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. It’s not that yesterday Europe could fully rely — and today it cannot rely at all. It’s simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.

And for what?

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Letters@charleskrauthammer.com