Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mikeijames
i almost agree. i think that constraint and limitations make any creative expression more poignant. it's too easy for anyone to express themselves in a predictable way. but i don't think that a bill blass suit should look like an ann demuelemeester suit. i don't think a balenciaga pant should be cut just like a pant from armani. i think designers are at their best when they are forced to create something new while operating in their little box. menswear has long operated under those limitations where womenswear, for the most part, no longer has any limitations. back in the days of the great couteriers women couldn't wear just anything, there were strict rules of decorum, but now a days we actually applaud halle berre for wearing a sheer gown to the oscars or helena christensen wearing disheveled cargoes to a primiere.
she's on to something here although i'm not sure her examples necessarily support her conclusion.
|
If you are referring to Jacobs's work at LV, I agree. Certain famous houses have an image built on history and that is perfectly fine for a designer to uphold it. I was referencing his own line mainly. It's more of a question of who is lauded these days, and it seems that in the beginning of the article Ms. Horyn is critisizing that kind of a designer.