[mikeijames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerlinRocks i thought Givenchy was s***, too ...

and that's fine, but it's different when a new york times' columnist says it. i mean, i wish the blogosphere had as much sway with stakeholders and decisionmakers as the fashion elite, but it's not that way. also, by the time the consumer actually gets to vote with their dollar, the dye has been cast and the words won't get taken back.

[mikeijames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squizree But definately not trite.

i'm sorry to keep going back to this....but this got presented at junya watanabe....and she qualifies this as strong. a simple google search of footballers finds that they wear this look ALL THE TIME. (and i actually enjoy this look, to be honest, but i'd never say it constitutes a "STRONG" collection).



men.style.com

(attached is a picture of real madrid footballer iker casillas from kickette.com)

[homeboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squizree ^You're right, but not all editors can use that tool. It works for Anna W. because shes a very well established editor with a huge reputation and works for one of the most prestigious fashion magazines in the world. If a random editor from another magazine tried this method it wouldnt work because they're just not important enough for designers to worry about.

The reason Anna stands above other fashion critic is because she has excellent taste and is a visionary just like the designers themselves, while most fashion critics are..........merely fashion critics with little or no demonstrated creativity -- especially those who are just columists. Her work as the editor in chief of Vogue speaks for her authority and righteousness as a critic while others only have negative adjectives to resort to in order to make themselves noted.

[Spike413]

I didn't take the footballers comment quite so literally, and I don't think it was meant to be seeing as it just doesn't make sense when it is. I think what she was saying was essentially that the collection looks like it's for people who merely wear what they're offered of designer clothing without actually knowing or caring about what fashion and style really are.

That's just my take on it though. For all I know I could be reading far more into it that Cathy intended anyone to.

[b9409]

Horyn hates Tisci - everyone knows that. She has never written anything nice about him - EVER as far as I can remember. I think it is something rather personal.

Critics opinions matter only a little. They hate Frida: Gucci sells like hot cakes. Theykens is another good example in the opposite way. Of course not everything is about sales, but that is how the paychecks of these editors and journalists are also getting paid in this business.

I also somehow understand Armani's position.

Of course she can somehow find a way to see his collections even if she is not invited (I mean this is the 21st Century) but why should he waste a space in the front row to a woman who never writes anything good, but sounds plainly condescending and didactic, about one of the most successful designers of the entire fashion history and his latest efforts? I can understand why he would give up on her - she can badmouth him all the way she wants whether she sits in the front row, or in her hotel room in front of some computer eager to see some clothes. Putting someone like Beyonce or Cate Blanchett in her seat will guarantee more press coverage and relevance for him anyways.

I like Tim Blanks, but he is always nice. Which is a good thing actually. I, for one. cannot stand Sarah Mower and her pedestrian BS. She just writes whatever her agenda is. She is utterly beneath contempt and an unpleasant person to begin with. I have written about my distaste with that woman before here.

Menkes is great, but we all know she has her faves too. But they all do. Horyn is an exceptional woman and journalist, but if she is this opinionated about everything that is fashion at large, then she should also find another angle to channel her knowledge and critical point of view rather than just writing about seasonal collections.

[b9409]

Quote:

June 28, 2009, 8:05 AM Paris Men’s: Here and Yonder By CATHY HORYN I was merely warming up, A. Neto, on the subject of Givenchy. It was late when I returned to the hotel, after some midnight scrambled eggs at the Flore following the Raf Simons show, and my thoughts were fresh and not entirely in order. You are not suggesting, A. Neto, that I be concerned about being banned from a fashion show, nor are you saying I should watch what I say. Nonetheless the possibility occurs to you simply because I have said something sharp about Tisci’s collection. I have really said nothing. This was a lazy, pretentious, overwrought collection marked with the slight tear stain of Michael Jackson’s legacy, since, according to Tisci, he was to make clothes for the pop star’s concert series. If other designers, like John Galliano, were asked to make clothes for Jackson, we didn’t hear from them. They had enough good sense not to say anything. Besides, many designers are usually involved with making clothes and accessories for a performer’s tour. Yesterday, while going around to the shows, a number of editors said to me, “The Givenchy look is contemporary—a lot of young guys dress like that.” And I replied, “That’s great, but it doesn’t mean the look is interesting.” To me, the Givenchy collection—the gold mesh top and leather shorts, the gold-studded tartan, the layers of baggy shorts over leggings, the Moroccan ethnic influences—smacks of the work of a stylist, rather than the specific vision of a designer. The collection has a cadged look of picking things up from here and yonder, notably Comme des Garcons. This method just betrays insecurity—the insecurity of a designer who doesn’t have a meaningful, real vision. No doubt the references in the collection could be explained by Tisci, but the best shows are generally clear to us—as well as the result of some kind of magic. One of the difficulties I have with Tisci is that he is utterly humorless as a designer. This is not a problem for Bernhard Willhelm, who at times completely captures the silliness of fashion. His setting was a kind of artist’s studio, or maybe a children’s play room—the floor was set with easels, stacks of old books and covered with plastic sheeting—and the first model came out wearing an army helmet mounted with a pair of G.I. Joes. The clothes were clever variations on jungle or camo prints, with ponchos, shirts and fatigues done in a collage of fabrics and spiky textures. Very sweet and funny—and innocent. .....(the article continues)

She can be quite irritating.

Her beef with him is personal I think. She is not criticizing: hers words are full of sheer and heavy insults. In a world as bland and mundane as mens fashion, I say everyone works as a stylist. Let's be honest: what are Slimane, Ford or even Simons?

They are all re-cutting and reforming either Saville Row or Giorgio Armani, with embellishments and clever styling. On the other hand, isn't that what every designer DOES today - sell an image within a vision rather than just well-made clothes?

If she wants humor, she should go and watch Bill Maher. I do not see Margiela or Rei doing anything light-hearted or 'humorous'.



http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Squizree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasha Horyn hates Tisci - everyone knows that. She has never written anything nice about him - EVER as far as I can remember. I think it is something rather personal.

She has...ONCE! I remember it kinda clearly. It was after his Haute Couture S/S 07 collection for Givenchy (which just so happens to be one of the greatest Givenchy collections ever made - if not THE best).
Cathy said that Tisci had finally achieved a degree of romance in his clothes for once, unlike all his other collections which lacked it. And I think she also said that this connected him to the original Givenchy.

For the most I agreed with her.

[mikeijames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasha ...I like Tim Blanks, but he is always nice. Which is a good thing actually....Horyn is an exceptional woman and journalist, but if she is this opinionated about everything that is fashion at large, then she should also find another angle to channel her knowledge and critical point of view rather than just writing about seasonal collections.

i don't understand why she can't take issue with a collection without becoming insulting. i believe anna wintour achieves this through omission. i believe tim blank does this by letting audience members express negative commentary. why hasn't a writer as accomplished as horyn found a way to disagree without being disagreeable?

[Squizree]

Quote:

No doubt the references in the collection could be explained by Tisci, but the best shows are generally clear to us—as well as the result of some kind of magic.

This is when I start hating her comments. Her idea of "some kind of magic" is so vague. It could be magic to the rest of us, and surely it is! Just because the references are invisible and unclear does not mean that they're not there. Maybe she's the one who's just not looking hard enough.

Either way, 99% of the time Cathy is a remarkable critic and she knows how to support her opinions with sufficient evidence, but there seems to be more than just fasion critisism here.

[Squizree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeijames i don't understand why she can't take issue with a collection without becoming insulting. i believe anna wintour achieves this through omission. i believe tim blank does this by letting audience members express negative commentary. why hasn't a writer as accomplished as horyn found a way to disagree without being disagreeable?

You might have answered your own question. She could just be a person looking to establish herself as the Perez Hilton of fashion so to speak.

[b9409]

Well I guess Horyn tries to make herself a 'brand' in her own right.

I do not like people who are rude, discourteous and pretentious. Yes, mEAN PEOPLE SUCK! You are talking about dresses and shoes for God's sake. It takes so much work and effort to create something, anything, and even though you may not like what you see, there is no reason to make a hardworking and creative man hate his job and all of the effort he has put in with these types of harsh insults just because someone gave you a pen and a poosition to talk about dresses, shoes and handbags.

Please... Tisci is a tastemaker in our world, and a valuable talent in the midst of so many who are just plain wrong, or banal.

And nobody is saving lives here: it is just mens fashion. Nobody will buy anything we see here anyways.

[mikeijames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squizree She has...ONCE! I remember it kinda clearly. It was after his Haute Couture S/S 07 collection for Givenchy (which just so happens to be one of the greatest Givenchy collections ever made - if not THE best)....

like, i guess she tried being nice?

Quote:

January 25, 2007 Fashion Review Far From Hollywood By CATHY HORYN PARIS ...Witness the gloomy brilliance of Riccardo Tisci’s clothes for Givenchy, shown on Tuesday evening on a wet stone floor, with the models dragging their long silk trains. On the whole, the point of view was immature. Yet the cut and the elongated line of a navy suede coat, rippling softly down the front and worn with a trailing skirt in navy silk, left no doubt that Mr. Tisci was proposing a distinct silhouette.... Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

style.com

[mikeijames]

compare her to her (now) collegue suzy menkes reviewing the same collection. horyn should watch her back....menkes has far fewer enemies....

Quote:

June 30, 2009 Caught in a Perfect Desert Storm By SUZY MENKES http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/fa...tml?ref=global PARIS — Arabia — the manly romance of the Orient — was a subtext of the 2010 collections, whether it was the pervasive djellebahs and kurtas breaking up a suit or just the dust and sand colors. “I looked to Arabic warriors in history and to Morocco,” said Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy, to explain studded tunics worn with helmet headdresses and soft, tribal pants. That part of his collection, with its Islamic tile patterns, gilded mesh tops, drapes worn over tank tops and heavy metal rings were ideas that were destined for the late Michael Jackson’s London performances. Mr. Tisci’s boldness in creating graphic patterns on pants or using shiny fabrics marks him as a young-generation designer with a vision and the courage to go for it. But he did not entirely ignore the Givenchy heritage, creating white suits to prove that he is also a fine tailor full of Western promise. Mr. Tisci may be trying too hard to be a creative force, but that is the prerogative of a young designer whose ideas can help to move fashion forward....

[BerlinRocks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by homeboy The reason Anna stands above other fashion critic is because she has excellent taste and is a visionary just like the designers themselves, while most fashion critics are..........merely fashion critics with little or no demonstrated creativity -- especially those who are just columists. Her work as the editor in chief of Vogue speaks for her authority and righteousness as a critic while others only have negative adjectives to resort to in order to make themselves noted.

i was about to write that Anna W. had nothing to do in a place where we're supposed to talk about critics ... and then i read this :

Quote:

Her work as the editor in chief of Vogue speaks for her authority and righteousness as a critic

that's pretty interesting. i think i don't know enough about Fashion mechanics to really think about this ... But that's pretty interesting.

Now about Horyn and Givenchy ... Well, I'm not sure it's something about Tisci, but about a definition of Fashion & Style.
Every critics has an opinion about Fashion and try to defend their aesthetics (it's like this in every sort of work of criticism - theater, cinema, arts etc.) !

now what would be nice is that - while they have so much space now (i mean when you write on the internet, there's no real space dilema as the internet is offered to a wide infinity amount of space), why don't they express their opinions more widely ...

i think most of the critics don't really know how to use the internet ... and are still under the 'printed press' mechanics (ie writing a certain amount of words not to bore the reader and because we only allow them this definite space). One should let (allow) more younger people do the 'internet, blog' fashion criticism, these know that internet is a great place of freedom.

About Horyn and Armani (or Menkes and LVMH) ... This kind of problem is encountered by every type of critics (same in theater and cinema - not really in arts). But while in theater a critic is truly needed (a theater is by essence not always available to all viewers - on the contrary of cinema and fashion, for instance), and so I do understand that some PR sometimes prohibit certain critics because they don't want the play to be badly critized (make up your opinion why), I don't understand why this happens in Fashion !!! A show is now widely broadcast, so why would they care about ONE critic ? The other problem Horyn raised was - I guess - that more and more Fashion Show are just a place to be shown, and no more a place where critics are allowed ....

IOW, maybe designers think critics are more and more useless .... while celebs can bring a lot more customers to the label.

Is it the end of Fashion Criticism ? Are Fashion crtics really usefull ?

[gimmethatbag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerlinRocks Those newspaper critics are very different from the style.com ones - where sarah and tim only copy/paster the press file and s*** designers ...

While maybe a year ago I would have agreed with you about the style.com reviews, more and more they are doing actual reviews rather than just "So-and-so was inspired by the monarch butterflies migrating each year. This inspiration was reflected in the flow and movement of the garments" or whatever. The thing I like about their negative reviews is that they don't just rip someone to shreds for the hell of it. They're very judicious in their critique.