Over the weekend, perusing images of the shows in Paris was my only solace from academics. Why? Because I care about the woman of the future. A new decade is upon us! What will our clothing say about us in the 20teens? So why don't I tell you what I think so far. (So far means last Wednesday through Saturday. Sunday through Thursday of this week will have to wait until I reemerge from the books at week's end.)
I believe almost everyone was aiming to please buyers (except for Viktor and Rolf, see previous post, who only made 50% aimed at the market and the rest aimed at dreamlandscapes of the future bourgeoisie - or something). Under the pressures of utilitarianism, some fell into redundancy, while others met the necessary challenge to be both innovative and available. Thus, we will go from what I think was boring, to what I liked best, to what is simply beautiful, and end with the worst.
These were just not doing anything for me.
Aren't we getting a little bored of this look? It seems so very "LA" in a stereotypical way.
Also, Balenciaga. This is pretty contentious I'm sure, but I thought this collection was just modernist painting rendered onto skinny pants, tank tops, and short skirts, and I was quite bored.
Now for what I liked. Still aiming at the popular market, but without being overly pandering, we have Yohji Yamamoto, who perfectly captured the adult, womanly goth I'm planning for myself this fall (Aside: Can't wait to show you my new Gaultier floor length pleated skirt - it's da bomb.)
Comme des Garcon is always my favorite in this world, and this collection built nicely on last fall. One day, I will save my pennies and buy a Comme des Garcon, Junya, or Yohji structured/deconstructed jacket.
I continue to be enamored with Lanvin and the inspiring beauty created by Alber Elbaz. At first I was bored by the ladylikeness of it all, recalling an interview with Alber who states quite bluntly that he's designing for real, working women. That is well and good, but does it help the woman look to her own future, push the boundaries of feminine sexuality? Or does it further entrench her into her current mode of life and a received Western notion of beauty? Yet by the end of this show, I was thoroughly impressed and wanted all things flowy, beautiful, and sparkly. So an achievement, yes, but I'm still ultimately more interested in the Japanese perspective on design and the body going into the next decade.
See how this started off boring then got ridiculous (3-6 are all I care about here)? Everything about that last one reads South Beach grandma and I'm totally OK with it.
Also, in similar ways to Lanvin, Haider Ackerman pleased me. Mainly because of the draping and puffy volume around the stomach. But I would want to mess up the ultra-chic feeling of these garments and put on pants under the short dresses. And polka dot leggings and red flats.
And then there were Margiela and Rick Owens, who both stood out as particularly bad, sadly. Slouchy boots are not the way into the future. And despite what I may have thought at one time, neither is black-white-gray + geometry.
The problem with this first "piece" has already been discussed over at Hard Liquor, Soft Holes. That shit had me loling! The rest is just uninspired and would not look good on anyone.
Margiela, what the hell? I agree with Sarah Mower at style.com, "it is almost unkind to enumerate the ways in which it disappointed." Ouch.
It seemed during this first half of Paris' week, most others were just turning it in for credit, not taking risks or really trying to innovate. What did you think?
Ok. This was my most ridiculous post yet. But I'm done now, that's all I wanted to say on the subject.
I think I also just wanted to play in photoshop to avoid completing my "real" work.