please read the interesting review and tell me how u guys think
_________________________________________________________________
After Dior, can Givenchy, Lacroix and Chanel measure up?
by Colin McDowell (the times)
Is Galliano at Dior a good or a bad thing for Paris couture? This season he is such an impossible act to follow that the Chambre Syndicale should probably have cancelled all shows still to come. Certainly if they had banned Givenchy we would all have been saved a lot of pain. Riccardo Tisci, the designer there, produced a show which raised many questions but provided no answers. For starters what is couture for? Once we knew it was about beautiful clothes to make beautiful women. At this deeply troubled house they don't think that way. Choosing to show couture in a raw hanger-like space with pools of water for the models to drag their evening dresses through is neither intellectually challenging nor conceptually original.
It's just dumb. If it's theatre it's theatre of the absurd. Or is it theatre of cruelty - to the spirit of French couture? And the clothes? Don't even go there.
If Tisci's muse seemed to me Morticia of the Addams Family, Christian Lacroix's jumping-off point is perhaps two rabbits copulating, he mixes his colours and patterns so promiscuously. It really is impossible to imagine any woman of sane mind wearing much of what comes down his runway, which is a pity as he has the colour sense of an artist and a feel for pattern which is both bold and complex. But poor Christian so clearly never knows when enough is enough and never seems to learn from any mistakes. His muse is actually the tawdry Christmas fairy who is never once popped away up in the attic.
And the results of her presence are frequently dire. For example a promising white lace evening dress has so little line left after Lacroix's been at it that it looks like nothing more than a Victorian unmade bed and a series of bunchy crinolines in dodgy furnishing fabrics were like nothing more than those dolls that some people put over their toilet rolls. And it's really sad because Lacroix has talent and integrity. Someone should be permanently at his side saying: "No Christian! No! No! No!"
At Chanel all is grandeur, from the audience - Madame Chirac on one side, Sophia Coppola and Kate Bosworth on the other - to the setting of the Grand Palais - to the trappings: a huge white carpet rolled out by five lads which would not have been so vulgar if it had been sent up by having the lads semi-naked, say, wearing only Speedos with the crossed C logo in diamonds. But sadly the witty gene was one not given Karl Lagerfeld. But he was given a lot more, including immense talent. This season his daywear was beautiful although I did detect a frisson of fear and even alarm from his vertically challenged not to mention somewhat broad-beamed private clients as it became apparent that many of the skirts were so short they didn't even come below the jackets. There's going to be a need for some serious adjustments when the fittings start. Things usually become a big circus at this house as evening falls and this season was no different, with very heavy glitzy gold and rather too many little patches of fur and feather which managed to look slightly scrofulous and worst of all half gloves of feathers which would be just like wearing a dead bird on your hand. Clearly something that every woman needs.
_________________________________________________________________
Colin McDowell is a famous fashion historian and also write some amazing books like fashion today.
But I just cann't believe when I read this, he is so harsh.
_________________________________________________________________
After Dior, can Givenchy, Lacroix and Chanel measure up?
by Colin McDowell (the times)
Is Galliano at Dior a good or a bad thing for Paris couture? This season he is such an impossible act to follow that the Chambre Syndicale should probably have cancelled all shows still to come. Certainly if they had banned Givenchy we would all have been saved a lot of pain. Riccardo Tisci, the designer there, produced a show which raised many questions but provided no answers. For starters what is couture for? Once we knew it was about beautiful clothes to make beautiful women. At this deeply troubled house they don't think that way. Choosing to show couture in a raw hanger-like space with pools of water for the models to drag their evening dresses through is neither intellectually challenging nor conceptually original.
It's just dumb. If it's theatre it's theatre of the absurd. Or is it theatre of cruelty - to the spirit of French couture? And the clothes? Don't even go there.
If Tisci's muse seemed to me Morticia of the Addams Family, Christian Lacroix's jumping-off point is perhaps two rabbits copulating, he mixes his colours and patterns so promiscuously. It really is impossible to imagine any woman of sane mind wearing much of what comes down his runway, which is a pity as he has the colour sense of an artist and a feel for pattern which is both bold and complex. But poor Christian so clearly never knows when enough is enough and never seems to learn from any mistakes. His muse is actually the tawdry Christmas fairy who is never once popped away up in the attic.
And the results of her presence are frequently dire. For example a promising white lace evening dress has so little line left after Lacroix's been at it that it looks like nothing more than a Victorian unmade bed and a series of bunchy crinolines in dodgy furnishing fabrics were like nothing more than those dolls that some people put over their toilet rolls. And it's really sad because Lacroix has talent and integrity. Someone should be permanently at his side saying: "No Christian! No! No! No!"
At Chanel all is grandeur, from the audience - Madame Chirac on one side, Sophia Coppola and Kate Bosworth on the other - to the setting of the Grand Palais - to the trappings: a huge white carpet rolled out by five lads which would not have been so vulgar if it had been sent up by having the lads semi-naked, say, wearing only Speedos with the crossed C logo in diamonds. But sadly the witty gene was one not given Karl Lagerfeld. But he was given a lot more, including immense talent. This season his daywear was beautiful although I did detect a frisson of fear and even alarm from his vertically challenged not to mention somewhat broad-beamed private clients as it became apparent that many of the skirts were so short they didn't even come below the jackets. There's going to be a need for some serious adjustments when the fittings start. Things usually become a big circus at this house as evening falls and this season was no different, with very heavy glitzy gold and rather too many little patches of fur and feather which managed to look slightly scrofulous and worst of all half gloves of feathers which would be just like wearing a dead bird on your hand. Clearly something that every woman needs.
_________________________________________________________________
Colin McDowell is a famous fashion historian and also write some amazing books like fashion today.
But I just cann't believe when I read this, he is so harsh.
The more money they cost, the more the clothes have to be excessive? How can luxury be interpreted in a less obvious way? The commentary is interesting too, Dior was for socialite/housewives, and was considered extravagant for the (non-working) women of that time.
but maybe it was a dramatic-audreyhepburn-on a boat...
