Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Designers and Collections' started by vogue28, Nov 16, 2020.
10 years at the helm of this brand, but Sarah is unable to launch a decent collection following the McQueen DNA.
She is very lucky though...a 10 year tenure is not an easy feat for such an untalented designer like her!
This is my favorite resort collection because I'm a sucker for tailoring and tie-dye .
I don't think she untalented, her first few collections are really strong and she is one of the best menswear designers right now. I think she feel the pressure of making the brand to reach it 1 billion goal by Kering (how much more money does Mr. Pinault needs)
This looks like an ODLR collection to me.
It's a beautiful collection but it looks so last century to me, like something in a museum.
^^^ It is straightup classic feminine and beautiful. When she showcases her tailoring and dressmaking skills, she’s confidently herself and a solid “designer”. She’s always been strong when the pieces are just about tailoring and construction for a ladylike silhouette. And this is that. I dig it.
Stripped off the distracting, tiresome wannabe-McQueen trappings of bondage/medieval accoutrements and orange platforms— which BTW. were already copied en masse by doll lines like Monster High and Ever After, these are solid designs. Had this collection been presented in just black, it really would be no-nonsense stronger. I'd even go further and strip off the jewelry.
For me is untalented because she does not care about the style legacy of McQueen...and it is more flagrant in her case, when she worked with Alexander as his right hand.
She has a total disregard about what Alexander McQueen stood for in his work. He once said that "pretty-pretty is not enough for me"...and pretty dresses is all she makes, season in and season out. She doesn´t even try!
Take all her clothes, add another label sewn inside of them (an irrelevant one, like Ungaro for example)...and no one could see the difference, because her work is so flat and totally McQueen unrelated!
Im SO sick of people referring to the DNA of this brand.
Floral and Tailoring are the two things synonymous with McQueen, but purely because of his self destructive personality, people assume it should be DARK.
Sarah is not dark. She was always attributed in bringing softness and a feminine aspect to the collections when she was Head of Womenswear under Lee. I think calling her untalented is rude in comparison to so many other designers that are just copying old crap season after season.
If McQueen was still helmed by Lee, I personally think it would have been shelved many years ago by Kering in the same way Christopher Kane was, as he barely sold anything commercially and it really was extremely hit and miss.
People remember the good collections like any designer, but the bad ones seem to never be spoken about. Same with John at Dior.
This collection is totally fine. I like that they're trying to push some sort of sustainability in a word where consumerism is eating the planet alive. It obviously has a customer because, believe me, if it wasn't working on a commercial level, there would easily be a shakeup in design and/or team.
In a way I agree that she need to take more adventurous road in terms of design and inspiration, because I lost count how many "white dress with black belt" she sent down the runway.
But if not her running the house right now, I don't think anyone have the good tailoring and dress making skills as her right now. Last thing we need is a sloppy deconstructed suit with a McQueen label on it.
I do feel for her ( and any designers really) how can you be total creative when your bosses keep reminding you to make everything sellable.
You can feel as sick as you like; but I remember you that DNA is what makes a brand. And McQueen was regarded not only because of his dark sense of style...but because of the aggresive experimental cuts he also made in several of his collections.
You think calling her "untalented" is rude? For me is just reality...because all she is making is basically the same kind of looks since her tenure begun! I alway have the same "stucked in a loop" feeling when I have a look to her "new" collection.
Sustainability here? Coming from a woman who loves using metres and metres of fabric to make unflattering volume dresses?
I do not care if this sells, because if we are going to judge a designer for the amount of money they can make, we are losing the point of talking about the clothes. Let´s talk about numbers and financial reports only then!
Any Marvel film from Hollywood makes lots of money...are we going to pretend those cheap blockbusters are better than any Pasolini film (just to put an example here)?
^ well said , and you certainly have a point . I would just argue that McQueens ‚dark and destructive personality’ was what made the collection powerful and unique, without the strong image and emotional impact the brand wouldn’t exist anymore now. If you take this collection out of the context of McQueens history it would really be Oscar de la Renta
Good tailoring and dress making skills are not enough for being a fashion designer at a high level (it is the least you can expect).
But Kering doesn´t give a damn about the brand, as long as it is profitable. If they had the guts to make Balenciaga into a merchandising monster (when Balenciaga has a way more important legacy than McQueen), nothing different could be expected about the way they handle Alexander´s brand...
And the suits have the nerves to talk about respect the legacy of the founders and the creativity of the designers as if they won't throw the designer away like used a cotton pad the moment it's stop being profitable
Yes, we are in the era of "disposable designers"...
Too predestiran and sugary sweet, which is not synonymous with McQueen. Burton is better than her contemporaries like Viard and Chiuri, and that’s it! When the bar is so low these days, I begin to wonder what i really look for in fashion. It seems that there are very few things left to be seen nowadays. In this case, Kerring simply continues to cash in on McQueen’s legacy. I don’t dislike Demna’s Balenciaga or Alessandro’s Gucci, on the contrary, I enjoyed a little bit of it. Unlike those heritage brands, the McQueen brand is here to remind us every season that the state of fashion is quite sad even in 2020!
I see both sides of this argument but it gets tiresome when people scream DNA in regards to Burton when McQueen himself was unable to create a DNA that was profitable.
I find her menswear collections to be stronger actually in terms of inspiration and direction. I feel like I've seen this before from her. Remove the tea length gowns and i think it's a stronger showing. Those just seem like an afterthought.
I think the striped knit dress and pretty and I would have loved to see more of that as.
You can say what you want but I would wear those suits (if I had the money).
I like her (sharp) tailoring.
Then are you gonna tell me Sarah is better designer than Alexander, because she has managed to make more money than him??
Christian Lacroix was never a profitable brand. Are you also gonna tell me that Sarah is better designer than Lacroix, because she has managed to make more money than him??
Here is the big problem with this industry nowadays. It is all about numbers: money, money, money!!
And I know this is a business; but without any creativity this has finished feeling like they could also very well be producing gears, ice-cream and cars to make more money of a designer brand!
If we are gonna measure the talent of a designer by the amount of money he/she can make...then what´s the point of talking about the clothes in this forum?? Where is design, where is style, where are concepts??
Let´s upload the last McQueen financial report on .pdf format; and discuss about the 5% rise of profits in the last quarter! Let´s change the name of this forum to "thefinancialfashionspot.com" too!
This is fashion landscape nowadays.
It's just another McQueen collection. I feel like I see the same tailoring, the same silhouettes, the same dresses but in different prints and treatment. Those pieces are the best sellers each season but at least, give it some depth.
Quite boring and forgettable.
Burton is an architect of the profitability of the brand. In a decade alone, they have ambitions (they can reach) of 1 billion, which is amazing and great. But McQueen wasn't profitable under Lee because of the restrictions caused by having the founder, creative director and owner at 50% of the brand. Lee had a vision but let's be clear, his vision wasn't a 1 billion vision. The same for all the original designers part of Kering like Nicolas or Stella. Nicolas owned 10% of Balenciaga and while he made some compromises in order to make the brand profitable (in 2007 they became profitable), it was less easier for the group to follow their plan with someone like Lee.
The goal of Pinault was to have his Dior. And Sarah is doing the job in a fabulous way. I would rather wear McQueen's new look than Dior's new look in 2020.