After Dior, can Givenchy, Lacroix and Chanel measure up? by Colin McDowell- times

[BaroqueRockstar]

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.

Tisci did answer that question, Mr McDowell. You just didn't like the answer. His answer was that couture is no longer about beautiful clothes to make beautiful women. It's evolved into an art...
making beatiful women vs art...
hmm. IMO the former is much more pointless

 

[Scott]

ugh,i cannot stand when people are so biased and contradictory. Givenchy a load of theatrical rubbish but in turn lament Galliano's circus shows at Dior? Personally,Riccardo was dramatic for sure,but theatrical? Dior was much more the latter I thought. And it always is. But Givenchy,I thought was quite simple in it's atmosphere....and in it's presence left us to look at the work,and the drama and craftsmanship within the clothes,and not some circus enviroment. And where does he even get off saying that it's pointless whereas Dior isn't? See,again,an air of bias,on his part. This isn't an objective point of view it's a downgrade to make,I'm sure his friend,Galliano seem more important than everybody else.

Personally,I think what he writes is a line rubbish.

As far the reputation of Givenchy and the Hepburn relationship,Riccardo made it a point not head into that direction at all. Saying that Givenchy was much more than she. And I admire him for that. He's obviously got alot of respect for the design qualities of the old master and not drawn to it because of it's mere celebrity association. And frankly,it's redundant to do more and more little black dresses.

 

[Scott]

you're right,Riccardo doesn't have alot of experience,but surely that wouldn't give him right to completely hack on him as he did so unabashedly and disrespectfully. and mind you,riccardo is a great craftsman....one who simply adores anything hands-on,so i find this the perfect medium for him.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^exactly. if he decided to keep on doing LBDs, he'd end up like karl at chanel: same old same old...
as for pointlessness, no one's going to wear this:

style

 

[Scott]

^perfect example.

 

[notmanons]

Couture is all to the imagination, seriously its not exactly meant to be 100% wearable and the price isn't exactly something that everyone will want to buy. Haute Couture is meant to be a beautiful piece of art which is beautiful to look at. Ok it may seem pointless but its what they enjoy doing, there are no boundaries to Haute Couture so let the designers live up to their imaginations! Its exciting.

 

[mariemaud]

Couture is all to the imagination, seriously its not exactly meant to be 100% wearable and the price isn't exactly something that everyone will want to buy. Haute Couture is meant to be a beautiful piece of art which is beautiful to look at. Ok it may seem pointless but its what they enjoy doing, there are no boundaries to Haute Couture so let the designers live up to their imaginations! Its exciting.

KARMA !

 

[Dkammern]

you're right,Riccardo doesn't have alot of experience,but surely that wouldn't give him right to completely hack on him as he did so unabashedly and disrespectfully. and mind you,riccardo is a great craftsman....one who simply adores anything hands-on,so i find this the perfect medium for him.

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE!!! thank you scott!! respect is all i ask here!! it's a matter of dignity and education

Kushie, i feel like you are saying that for being more wearable couture is less elaborated... i cant imagine how many hours of work a chanel taileur requires....

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Tisci did answer that question, Mr McDowell. You just didn't like the answer. His answer was that couture is no longer about beautiful clothes to make beautiful women. It's evolved into an art...
making beatiful women vs art...
hmm. IMO the former is much more pointless

Art reviews publish both negative and positive reactions. This is part of the critical process, something alien to the fashion industry, which is evidently a circle-jerk.


It's ironic that McDowell seems to be taking a broadside on this thread for sticking knives into sacred cows when he's approaching one himself. As a respected art historian who knows John Galliano, Alber Elbaz, Ralph Lauren &c personally, one could say it's not quite appropriate to knock him down as if he were some junior hack.

 

[iyemstoopid]

wow this article is such rubbish.... i mean, i respect everyones opinion, but its almost like dior wrote him a check for this. the article is just so arrogant

 

[j´adore dior]

Regarding Givenchy i think Ricardo does a great job at it, specially at Haute Couture, this time i found amazing most of his propositons but i think he constantly laks on energy, whenever i see his shows i get this feeling of sadness, i don´t know about the rest of you, but when i look at a fashion show besides wanting to see extraordinary clothes i look for a burst of energy, i think in that way he doesn´t represent Givenchy well, becuase his shows shout be a little more frivoulous perhaps?, i guess Mc queen had the perfect recipy for them, maybe he shout look back at those archives, great work, great silhouettes, not nearly as vulgar as Mc donald´s clothes and a perfect measure of skills, wearability, theatrics and of course, positive energy.

 

[KI_egoiste]

That article makes me want to cry with frustration!!! I haven't heard of Mr. McDowel, but I hope he is old - that would explain his dementia and myopia! What a bunch of crap. Moreover, pompous, arrogant crap. I know I'm supposed to respect everybody's opinion, bla bla bla, and not drop criticism unsupported by evidence and reason, but this is exactly what he did in his article, so I won't bother. I'm glad that most of tfs questions this man who deems himself the fashion Pantokrator though.

 

[Scott]

sorry,PoC,but even the hierarchy can simply be trite sometimes. and you answered what i deemed to be true,that he's taking on a more biased approach in ripping somebody like Tisci apart.

j'adore,but we all already knew beforehand that this was not Tisci's style--and the execs knew this as well,otherwise,they could have continued searching for another designer. When he was showing his own work,wasn't he always doing quirkier installations? Another refreshing attribute about him is that he doesn't force-feed us all an in your face perception of what a show is. so it's melancholic and sombre...isn't it best to be true to one's identity than to try too hard at creating an illusion? that seems to be your idea and i would lose my respect if he even attempted to do anything of the sort because it wouldn't be him at all.

 

[KI_egoiste]

I agree. I respect Tisci very much for staying true to himself, despite the frequent attacks.

Another aspect of this article (and other critiques) that I find infuriating is the fact that they all use the same cliche terms to describe a designer. I just hate how they are quick to ascribe a label to all of them. How many times have we heard the "that deeply troubled house" in reference to Givenchy? Givenchy USED to be a troubled house. It's doing fine now, and it will be doing better. Get over it! Also, haven't we heard the "Tisci's collection raised more questions than it provided answers" phrase in reference to one of his rtw collections? If you ask me, he doesn't attempt to raise or answer his own or anybody's questions. He makes STATEMENTS.

So please tell me - how am I to take these critics, or pardon me, "fashion historians" seriously in evaluating one's creativity, when they cannot even be creative and express themselves in their own words?

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ this was mentioned in some other thread but i wouldn't say that givenchy is doing fine. there were 40 couture looks last season, there were 25 this season
but i absolutely agree about tisci making statements. then again, i am quite biased myself. i will defend tisci to my grave...