Had there been no references to codes from Lee McQueen's designs, people would have been up in arms for just the opposite reason – disrespecting the house, its heritage, and, most importantly, its founder. It's basically what goes on with every new Balenciaga collection.
My issue is that McGirr seems to sprinkle in McQueenisms like garnishes. They're like cherries and olives in a cocktail: fun but entirely optional. The codes he really cares about – leopard print, the broken glass print, the lumpy boobs, the clodhopper shoes – have no basis in the house's nearly three decades of history. It's as if he said, "Oh, just throw in some skulls, tartan, and peaky shoulders," after he was done and reminded this was supposed to be a collection for Alexander McQueen. The references aren't coherent.
I've also been wondering about this: McQueen under Sarah Burton was a house that had moved seriously toward tailoring for a clientele that wanted an edgy-but-smart look. Now, it seems to have suddenly spun on its heel to appeal the lounge lizard, club kid demographic that Celine targets. Is Kering repositioning McQueen to go after Hedi Slimane instead of Saint Laurent?
