[softgrey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uemarasan Great insight! Yes, definitely "dadaist". In that way I think she has more in common with Schiaparelli than Prada (a connection that really wasn't as strong as the Met exhibition had hoped...).

what connection?......
that whole thing was dreadful...

thanks for the detail shots runner!
i don't know much about dada, tbh...

what i get from the details is almost impressionistic...
it's really confusing close up and hard to see what is going on...
but when one stands back and views the garment as a whole, it begins to take shape...

[Scott]

^agreed. when i first heard about that i was appalled at its ludicrousness. miuccia might be clever but she's nowhere near the the visionary that schiap was and rei is. the only thing she and elsa have in common is their nationality.

loving everybody's observations on what's behind it all. all i can say is there does seem a heightened play on energy and electricity. there's something very static-y about the collection but not merely that out of the dryer static but real environmental forces.

i also love susie's synopsis.....it could be an underlying commentary on societal habits and behaviours with our obsessions with all things electronic.

[runner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by softgrey what i get from the details is almost impressionistic... it's really confusing close up and hard to see what is going on... but when one stands back and views the garment as a whole, it begins to take shape...

yes I too think distance is the key, since respective parts lost conventional correlation and normative causation. sleeve is no longer subordinate to bodice. each garment component is independent and equal. hence "parataxis" dressmaking. at a distance, in the glowing aggregate of debris, you vaguely see those fragments edit themselves and complement one another on a vast scale.