Plurality in the field of fashion is not least a product of the enormous amount of visual information that bombards us every day. Susan Sontag claims that a society becomes modern when one of its main activities is to produce and consume images. In that case, we are close to living in the most modern of all possible worlds. All of us have become ‘image junkies’, as Sontag puts it. According to Hal Foster, we are unable to escape the logic of the image, because images both create a loss of reality and at the same time give us something – namely new images – that enable us to soften or deny this loss. The image becomes a substitute for reality. Hannah Arendt writes: ‘The reality and reliability of the world rest primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more permanent than the lives of their authors.’ Conversely, a world where the lifespan of things is completely at the mercy of the whims of fashion is an unreal and unreliable world. For Lipovetsky, fashion becomes the life-guide, because it trains us to live in a world where everything is constantly changing. Viewed this way, fashion ought to be an ideal life-guide for a world whose premises it has set itself. The question is whether it really can fulfil such a role.