[ohmyy]

It's a good collection but it reminds me of http://www.cosstores.com/Store/Women/New .

[Marc10]

It's like she saying "let me teach you all how it's done". Stunning collection, exactly what I expect and wanted from Jil. Sleek, minimal, precise, unpretentious and sublimely crafted.

[Not Plain Jane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tentacl Ventricl I may also be suffering from minimalism fatigue. And I'm taking the point being advanced by Uemarasan and Scott that perhaps Jil is more about utility. But..if, broadly, this be minimalism (utilitarian minimalism?, minimal utilitarianism?)... Because minimalism is about purity of form, about line, - if a designer fails to make any statement in the silhouette (or inject something from outside minimalism) the work can very quickly disappear into the trap of being all too vanilla, drab, pious, modest, provincial. This collection, I'm afraid, is frightfully dull. In all of those ways. What can we really say of the Jil Sander Jil Sander woman? That she's clean, that she works, that she's quiet, that she's modest. I'm sorry but she really isn't very interesting at all. She's a repressed throwback. To those who would give a positive review, help me see it - Is there really anything novel or interesting about the silhouettes of this collection?

Maybe it's like this - you see it or you don't; taste is a fickle thing, and it's hard to "convince" someone to like something they don't.

But for me this collection is transcendent. As a woman, i.e., someone who would actually wear these clothes, this collection appeals on so many levels. It looks comfortable; it looks modern; it looks well designed; it looks stylish; some of it, one might even argue, looks sexy. Take, for example, look #10, that long white sleeveless jacket with those fitted neon-red-orange pants; to me that is a strong and attractive look - long, sleek bare arms, with a cool elongated silhouette, and then that spike of colour on the legs. Or what about the cut of the top in look #23, which almost fetishizes the shoulder, the way it's cut around it and emphasizes just that body part. Or perhaps the body hugging pencil skirt and jacket in look #27: fitted and black. It's subtle, but to me it's there. Still, Sander balances that subtle appeal with looser looks, or more severe looks, with many different looks. Easy, clean, & varied. Nothing is in your face. Except, maybe, the craftsmanship, which is clearly sublime.

This is clothing that doesn't shout; it whispers ... to me, that can be tantalizing.

[Not Plain Jane]

^ And I didn't even mention the way those boots snake up the leg... those boots!!

[gomtik]

Love it!!! Refreshing!! Glad she's back!!

[karina_zb]

The shoes are just "off" enough I think they are my favourite part. Is there a video for this?

[jeffandtheworld]

Am I the only one who think this is a boring collection? I tried to get this but I just could not. I miss Raf for Jil Sander.

[Thefrenchy]

^ Good God, when will people stop with those "I miss Raf for Jil", "I miss Hedi at Dior Homme" or "I miss Galliano at Dior" We get that in too many threads! GET OVER IT, THEY ARE GONE AND NOT COMING BACK! Fashion is not about looking back, it's about looking forward.

[Uemarasan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tentacl Ventricl I may also be suffering from minimalism fatigue. And I'm taking the point being advanced by Uemarasan and Scott that perhaps Jil is more about utility. But..if, broadly, this be minimalism (utilitarian minimalism?, minimal utilitarianism?)... Because minimalism is about purity of form, about line, - if a designer fails to make any statement in the silhouette (or inject something from outside minimalism) the work can very quickly disappear into the trap of being all too vanilla, drab, pious, modest, provincial. This collection, I'm afraid, is frightfully dull. In all of those ways. What can we really say of the Jil Sander Jil Sander woman? That she's clean, that she works, that she's quiet, that she's modest. I'm sorry but she really isn't very interesting at all. She's a repressed throwback. To those who would give a positive review, help me see it - Is there really anything novel or interesting about the silhouettes of this collection?

Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement.

She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week.

I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism).

Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design.

People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

[HeatherAnne]

I'm a big Jil fan, and I know I'm supposed to get excited about this, but I just can't. Everything is tailored beautifully, but I'm really only liking about half of the silhouettes. I'm just sort of ho-hum about it, obviously not bad but I really don't think it's that great.

[Morphe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uemarasan Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement. She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week. I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism). Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design. People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

I see your point and I completely agree with the last paragraph but overall you managed to overly intellectualize, over-analyze, overread and overthink a good but simple collection with hit-or-miss sillhouettes that looks modest, non-threatening, but is widely considered to be a good attempt at modernizing the Jil Sander brand identity [semi-succesfully IMO].
Sure, we wear clothes everyday and Jil is/was a designer who puts focus on the fabrics, the details, the quality of her products but telling me she wanted to distance herself from her designs is as true of a statement as claiming Ann D. doesn't design clothes for basically herself and her hubbie. All designers are narcissists more or less and their designs are complete projections of their own lifestyles and personal ideologies.
I could be wrong though so in this case, forgive me.


PS. This collections feels more severe compared to her past offerings. I remember quite a few past collections with some cute flowery numbers, colourful prints and flowy dresses. And it was Vukmirovic who had a sportier, more minimal approach to the brand.

[thirdlooks]

Very of the moment collection. Personally I miss Raf's touch on Jil Sander but this is alot better than the menswear collections she put out. Nothing stands out as incredible to me but the overall presentation is very consistent and bodes well for her next womenswear show.

[Tentacl Ventricl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Plain Jane Maybe it's like this - you see it or you don't; taste is a fickle thing, and it's hard to "convince" someone to like something they don't. But for me this collection is transcendent. As a woman, i.e., someone who would actually wear these clothes, this collection appeals on so many levels. It looks comfortable; it looks modern; it looks well designed; it looks stylish; some of it, one might even argue, looks sexy. Take, for example, look #10, that long white sleeveless jacket with those fitted neon-red-orange pants; to me that is a strong and attractive look - long, sleek bare arms, with a cool elongated silhouette, and then that spike of colour on the legs. Or what about the cut of the top in look #23, which almost fetishizes the shoulder, the way it's cut around it and emphasizes just that body part. Or perhaps the body hugging pencil skirt and jacket in look #27: fitted and black. It's subtle, but to me it's there. Still, Sander balances that subtle appeal with looser looks, or more severe looks, with many different looks. Easy, clean, & varied. Nothing is in your face. Except, maybe, the craftsmanship, which is clearly sublime. This is clothing that doesn't shout; it whispers ... to me, that can be tantalizing.

Hell - you know when you craft a piece then lose it. Darn. The nutshell gist. Can come closer to Jil having seen Paris. But relatively she's solid functionalism to the feminine divine in the hands of Raf, Ricardo, Phoebe, Costa et al.

[Tentacl Ventricl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uemarasan Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement. She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week. I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism). Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design. People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

a well written exposition much of which I'd follow. I do think though that I get to integrate a couple of remade points from the original, now disappeared, response I made to NoPJs.

What Jil's offering this season delivers is the requisite quietitude of minimalism (call it the Zen calm if we will). I note you raise sustainability etc. I'm afraid that hairshirt eco piety is a leftover from early 90s green minimalism. The trail to the erstwhile, the campaigny holier-than-thou, the political, was what ultimately killed off that ecru linen strain of 'functional' minimalism. That way was light but unbearable. Since 2009 (Costa earlier) he, Costa, Phoebe, Miuccia and Raf have, somewhat tortously at times, been reinventing minimalism. Where they have arrived at, particularly this season, is spiritualism and sex.

Note how sheer, stripped down and/or dripping wet all the aforementioned designers have been this season. Jil is solid, functional, wearable-commercial, yes. But, in relative terms, her work, along the heat axis, is, I'm afraid, vanilla. Safe. You are saying so yourself.

On that point that one should'nt bludgeon Jil to the intellectual realm - well, ok, treat her as some sort of diffusion line then, derivative? I mentioned silhouettes in my earlier piece. I've realised that Jil's shapes for the season in fact are derived from those of Comme de Garcons and Prada last season. Pushed back to be more commercial yes, but those houses do have intellect. But you'd rather I just allow that, because of the commercial wearbility you wish for, I say the shapes are second cycle copies rather than insustantiating a notion of Jil being 'in dialogue'? We don't want any depth in our Jil? So long as it is nice to wear in the sense of non-controversial, modest, non-wasteful and such?

I've realised that you've an easy answer to my final point there - no that's not what you want - you said so. So, fine, Jil is for you then. But don't let the understanding of what Jil is stave you off from an appreciation of what she isn't. Her lack.

[Mutterlein]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uemarasan Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement. She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week. I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism). Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design. People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

Bravo, well said!