Alexander McQueen F/W 2006.07 Paris | Page 18 | the Fashion Spot

Alexander McQueen F/W 2006.07 Paris

Forums New posts
It's nice to see he's returning to his theatrical style. The way in which he manipulates fabric is amazing. The Kate hologram was kind of fame-grabbing... but it was also symbolic - she's back. :p
 
Yea that hologram was cool. it looked so real and that is what amazed me!
 
I finally brought myself to watch the video. Don't kill me now. It's much worse than I thought. :ninja: The heartstrings-tuggingness of it....:cringe:. If it were a movie ending instead, a fallen-angelic iconic girl in a floaty, dreamy dress twirling and rising in diaphaneous frills serenaded by melancholic violin and vanishing into a star...that would be trashed as major kitsch. I thought at first that he did something experimental with the hologram, but, NO. It would get a straight F as an art project in most respectable academies. The ending beats the rest of the collection in facile crowd-pleasing tactics. I saw my first hologram when I went to a club in my early teens, it's nice, but really much expensive ado about nothing much, a gimmick, unless a creative type is able turn it into a compelling art form which I'm sure there's potential for, eg. using its hyper-reality to augment sensory perception or something, the way 360 degrees camera work was used to capture the paradox of static-motion. Even though I love Kate Moss, this "dream sequence" gives me goose-bumps, but the wrong kind. Her disturbing complexity so brilliantly captured by Corrine Day and others is much reduced here into a stereotype. The ending also sums up for me what I find problematic about this surface beautiful collection. Just my own take of course. *ducks*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wow...I didn't know this dress was fully feathered....



00033.L.JPG

00031.L.JPG


firstview.com
 
Wow thx for the detail shots! AMAZING! I love the great detail put into the clothes!!
 
Zazie said:
I finally brought myself to watch the video. Don't kill me now. It's much worse than I thought. :ninja: The heartstrings-tuggingness of it....:cringe:. If it were a movie ending instead, a fallen-angelic iconic girl in a floaty, dreamy dress twirling and rising in diaphaneous frills serenaded by melancholic violin and vanishing into a star...that would be trashed as major kitsch. I thought at first that he did something experimental with the hologram, but, NO. It would get a straight F as an art project in most respectable academies. The ending beats the rest of the collection in facile crowd-pleasing tactics. I saw my first hologram when I went to a club in my early teens, it's nice, but really much expensive ado about nothing much, a gimmick, unless a creative type is able turn it into a compelling art form which I'm sure there's potential for, eg. using its hyper-reality to augment sensory perception or something, the way 360 degrees camera work was used to capture the paradox of static-motion. Even though I love Kate Moss, this "dream sequence" gives me goose-bumps, but the wrong kind. Her disturbing complexity so brilliantly captured by Corrine Day and others is much reduced here into a stereotype. The ending also sums up for me what I find problematic about this surface beautiful collection. Just my own take of course. *ducks*
Click to expand...

I always enjoy reading your comments here, as you know...:flower:.. and you even got me excited when you used the term "sensory perception"... and I would have been jumping up and down if you have used it in relation to the clothing, because you are quite right the hologram is not interesting.. but then again what interest me is the clothing these girls are wearing here and not the surrounding, the models, the music etc....

The other term I couldn't help picking up upon is "surface beautiful"... which I can't see the problem in, because is cloth more than a surface?... more than this play with the surface?... isn't cloth just a sensory perception.. the violence of sensation... a play with material, shape and form that speaks to our senses/feelings?... is this depth you are calling upon not just merly an illusion?...^_^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Multitudes,

Thank you so much, :flower: I feel relieved that my comments weren't taken as gratuitous criticism against a very much respected designer.

I'm amazed at the details and hand-work that he put into this collection, it's very much like the way traditional couture is made, lavish, elaborate and beautiful. It's meant to elicit a "Wow! What luxury!", the way you would look at a Faberge egg and be amazed. That's what I mean when I say surface beauty. I guess it's not enough for me, especially coming from McQueen.:(. I'm sure he knows it too. Maybe it is really to sell clothes to the sorts attending charity balls, and to get into the red. I don't blame him, I guess. There's that reality that your clothes need to sell enough, but I think he could have opted for a more sophisticated direction. I do believe that however superficial fashion is, clothes can go deeper, and express the soul in a very personal way, not just luxury. Some good designers can do that. What do you think?:)
 
Zazie said:
Multitudes,

Thank you so much, :flower: I feel relieved that my comments weren't taken as gratuitous criticism against a very much respected designer.

I'm amazed at the details and hand-work that he put into this collection, it's very much like the way traditional couture is made, lavish, elaborate and beautiful. It's meant to elicit a "Wow! What luxury!", the way you would look at a Faberge egg and be amazed. That's what I mean when I say surface beauty. I guess it's not enough for me, especially coming from McQueen.:(. I'm sure he knows it too. Maybe it is really to sell clothes to the sorts attending charity balls, and to get into the red. I don't blame him, I guess. There's that reality that your clothes need to sell enough, but I think he could have opted for a more sophisticated direction. I do believe that however superficial fashion is, clothes can go deeper, and express the soul in a very personal way, not just luxury. Some good designers can do that. What do you think?:)
Click to expand...

You are most welcome Zazie..:flower:
I can see where you are coming from... and just to make it clear, when I talk about the surface(beauty) then I don't relate it to superficialness or just luxury...

.. going a little bit off topic here, just to explain this notion of the surface I have.....
When I'm drawing portraits am I only trying to get the appearance or am I conscious of trying to convey qualities of personality?...
No, because I think the qualities of the personality come through in their appearance. Very often a person's appearance belies their qualities, but generally speaking I think that you can, to a great extent, analyse their character from their appearance. And so I am certainly not trying to make a portrait of somebody's soul or psyche or whatever you like to call it. You can only make portrait of their appearance, but I think that their appearance is deeply linked with their behavior...
And I think this kind of notion of the surface(appearance), related to clothing or to any kind of artistic expression, makes it "nomadic", smooth, fluid... than if we persist on this deepth of the subject... isolating expression to a singularity which holds it in place...
I think, It is in the link it becomes interesting, and even more in multiple links... I will go so far as stating that what I express clearly is what "relates to my body"... and that is why I have this emphasis on "sensory perception", as you put it... the violence of sensation... that is where I find what you call "depth"..
And yes some designers are able to do this, and for me, Mcqueen does that here through his cloth, it relatest to my body...:p

I don't know if this makes sense or if you can relate this to the discussion here.. I hope you can...:D
 
Zazie said:
Maybe it is really to sell clothes to the sorts attending charity balls, and to get into the red.
Click to expand...

Dont you mean "into the black -numbers-" or "out of the red"?
 
I agree with what you said Zazie. The more I look the more I am dissapointed.
 
I agree with Zazie that the Kate hologram took away from the show. Gimmick was so unnecessary in this case.
 
It may have been the music, I wish the hologram was just tossed out there in a more matter of fact way, as if it were nothing special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

L
Alexander McQueen F/W 13.14 Paris
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
16K
MON
MON
marcBarna
Alexander McQueen S/S 2015 Paris
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
Menace
M
N
Alexander McQueen Resort 2012
2 3
Replies
48
Views
9K
dizzytacks
D
B
Alexander McQueen Pre-Fall 2009
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
18K
redhotfuss
R
aracic
Alexander McQueen F/W 2006.07
Replies
7
Views
2K
lauralynn025
lauralynn025

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,274
Messages
15,294,185
Members
89,210
Latest member
Biggums

Share This Page

Back
Top