Alexander McQueen S/S 2015 Paris

[Phuel]

The issue isn't so much about Sarah's lightness of being not living up to McQueen the man's brand of the beauty of darkness. It's that she consistently rummages through the McQueen archive and takes one idea from his work-- maybe three if she's feeling particularly ambitious, and runs the look to the ground to such an unbearable repetitive fashion.

This collection really only consists of a few ideas from the McQueen archive, spread thin in repetitious variations: The Japanese influences of strong and sharp graphics from one of McQueen's Givenchy Haute Couture collections mixed with the bondage face masks of his "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" collection-- and always throw in the prerequisite ruffles to equate femininity, lightness, etc... That's basically the basis of Sarah's collections as a show. It's all so predictable by now. So of course you can't help but compare it to their original design source since it's always the McQueen archive she's pulling from.

I like her and I think she's a very strong tailor. I'd just wished she would forego-- or be allowed to forego the half-baked attempts at theatrics and drama, and just concentrate on her brand of femininity. Because, some pieces here are really amazing. Maybe she would like to dispense of the gimmicky props, but the handlers insist on them... In any case, I always feel she's stronger with the resort collections since than the mainline presentations.

 

[KKnardi]

I like it, it looks to me like a strong vision translated into somewhat, or wholly wearable clothes, yeah, maybe except for the masks...

 

[jeanclaude]

The issue isn't so much about Sarah's lightness of being not living up to McQueen the man's brand of the beauty of darkness. It's that she consistently rummages through the McQueen archive and takes one idea from his work-- maybe three if she's feeling particularly ambitious, and runs the look to the ground to such an unbearable repetitive fashion.

This collection really only consists of a few ideas from the McQueen archive, spread thin in repetitious variations: The Japanese influences of strong and sharp graphics from one of McQueen's Givenchy Haute Couture collections mixed with the bondage face masks of his "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" collection-- and always throw in the prerequisite ruffles to equate femininity, lightness, etc... That's basically the basis of Sarah's collections as a show. It's all so predictable by now. So of course you can't help but compare it to their original design source since it's always the McQueen archive she's pulling from.

I like her and I think she's a very strong tailor. I'd just wished she would forego-- or be allowed to forego the half-baked attempts at theatrics and drama, and just concentrate on her brand of femininity. Because, some pieces here are really amazing. Maybe she would like to dispense of the gimmicky props, but the handlers insist on them... In any case, I always feel she's stronger with the resort collections since than the mainline presentations.

I think these are the two main problems: lack of true deranged dark style; and the boring declination of a single look over and over.

And her concept of femininity (ruffles, lightness, etc) is such a big stereotype. There are other ways to display femininity, in a less obvious manner.

But well, she has a total different style. And that´s it.

 

[loladonna]

It's official. SS 2015 has the ugliest collections ever.

 

[blackcherrified]

I like this collection... but of course, it's not McQueen, but more of Sarah Burton.

As for the McQueen vs Burton/Dior vs Simons discussion... well... Burton still puts out beautiful wearable stuff while Simons... ughr... no, I wouldn't wear something like that last look in the SS15.

The only problem with this AMQ collection for me is that... hmmm... it reminds me too much of Armani Privé Fall 2011...

 

[Zazie]

I'm just relieved it isn't completely ugly..., no higher expectations!

 

[Not Plain Jane]

i think it's a nice shift towards something new - no excessive medieval decoration and or frills (except for a few pieces), but a different silhouette. I don't find it prada-esque because it's much sleeker than that. the harness adds a mcqueen-ish edge to burton's more feminine aesthetic. all in all, a good outing imo.

 

[lemeray]

I think there are some really nice ideas here. It's not a bad collection.

She will never fulfil McQueen's shoes, so people should stop expecting her to. I really think she's trying the best she can and it must be really hard. I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job than Sarah.

 

[dodencebt]

The issue isn't so much about Sarah's lightness of being not living up to McQueen the man's brand of the beauty of darkness. It's that she consistently rummages through the McQueen archive and takes one idea from his work-- maybe three if she's feeling particularly ambitious, and runs the look to the ground to such an unbearable repetitive fashion.

This sums it up for me. As for the collection, I honestly don't see anything in particular to gush about. It really isn't taking the brand somewhere new.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

^ speaking personally i didn't mean taking the brand somewhere new; i meant burton herself, because she seemed to be stick in a bit of a rut there for a bit. this seems a little different to me, which is good.

 

[Inaya]

it's mcqueen-y but it's missing the soul of the mcqueen woman

 

[amak]

Someone has to tell this woman McQueen was about macabre, sharp, aggressivity, derangement and darkness; and you can´t find all that in her clothes.
McQueen was like "Suspiria" by Dario Argento...and Sarah is more "Scary Movie" than anything else.

precise and succinct!!!! 100 points for Gryffindor !!!!

 

[masquerade]

SERIOUSLY STOP comparing this to Lee McQueen collections. Its the same with Raf at Dior. There is NO POINT comparing Sarah and Lee or Raf to John.

Sarah has her own design aesthetic, the road she wants to pursue. This is where she wants to take the brand and Kerring are happy with it, for the first time in forever, McQueen is making money and they will carry on with this aesthetic until it no longer does.

These are two totally different issues. Burton replaced McQueen in the brand he created after his death. He had a very specific vision and sensibility and many people did not even want the brand to continue after his death. It does his legacy no justice. Dior, on the other hand, is an established brand that has seen half a dozen designers since Dior himself, including extremely prominent names like Yves Saint Laurent and Gianfranco Ferre. Every Dior designer has his own style. Galliano doesn't define the Dior brand, so when people complain that Raf isn't like Galliano, its ridiculous and shows ignorance of the brand's history and aesthetic. Both designers have mined the archives and used historical pieces as inspiration, but they have different design styles and the result is different.

The issue isn't so much about Sarah's lightness of being not living up to McQueen the man's brand of the beauty of darkness. It's that she consistently rummages through the McQueen archive and takes one idea from his work-- maybe three if she's feeling particularly ambitious, and runs the look to the ground to such an unbearable repetitive fashion.

This collection really only consists of a few ideas from the McQueen archive, spread thin in repetitious variations: The Japanese influences of strong and sharp graphics from one of McQueen's Givenchy Haute Couture collections mixed with the bondage face masks of his "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" collection-- and always throw in the prerequisite ruffles to equate femininity, lightness, etc... That's basically the basis of Sarah's collections as a show. It's all so predictable by now. So of course you can't help but compare it to their original design source since it's always the McQueen archive she's pulling from.

I like her and I think she's a very strong tailor. I'd just wished she would forego-- or be allowed to forego the half-baked attempts at theatrics and drama, and just concentrate on her brand of femininity. Because, some pieces here are really amazing. Maybe she would like to dispense of the gimmicky props, but the handlers insist on them... In any case, I always feel she's stronger with the resort collections since than the mainline presentations.

Yes, she is much better when she is designing lady-like dresses without attempting to be avant garde or subversive like McQueen was. Most of the dresses that end up on celebrities and in stores are so pared down anyway, why even try to put on the theatrics during the show when it just looks so bad.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Yeah, even with all the McQueen-posturing since day-one, I never expected Sarah to ever come anywhere close to being the master visionary McQueen the man was. Except for Gaultier and Galliano in their prime, no one could touch his work, so I'm not shading Sarah. I just wish she would be able to concentrate on her strong tailoring skills, and not do all these theatrics which in some (most) cases, turn the presentations into soulless McQueen-knockoffs.

BTW, that Prada-does-Kimono collection was awful. The only similarity is the color palette. To Sarah's credit, this is so much, much, much better than that Prada collection. So much more thoughtful: The chrysanthemum-motif design here alone is so much more complimentary as a print than the scribble Miucia offered that resembled something 5-year-old girls wear. And if you look closely at some of the face masks, the design used is actually ones found as Kabuki makeup designs. It's all the frilly, ruffly bits totally ruin it.

This offering does seem a step in a better direction. But, I have a feeling it'll be back to more froufrou ruffles and feathers for the next collection LOL

 

[nataliaapple]

It's official. SS 2015 has the ugliest collections ever.

So true. Not one collection moved me.

 

[vispreevex]

Someone has to tell this woman McQueen was about macabre, sharp, aggressivity, derangement and darkness; and you can´t find all that in her clothes.
McQueen was like "Suspiria" by Dario Argento...and Sarah is more "Scary Movie" than anything else.

I agree 100%. If you remove the masks, belts and shoes there's nothing edgy or McQueen-esque about it.

 

[Crying Diamonds]

Someone has to tell this woman McQueen was about macabre, sharp, aggressivity, derangement and darkness; and you can´t find all that in her clothes.
McQueen was like "Suspiria" by Dario Argento...and Sarah is more "Scary Movie" than anything else.

FINALLY she's started designing clothes instead of costumes.
And they were quite beautiful at that.
But she just couldn't leave the ruffles alone could she? There they were, splat at the end.
Step one has hopefully gone, step two is to stop referencing the same McQueen archive pieces over and over. The long cuff is beautiful, but it's not new anymore - because McQueen did it years ago.
Just get inspired by something else and design from that.

 

[neonsprinkles]

Although I agree with the comments mentioned that it no longer seems like a Lee Alexander McQueen collection, I do appreciate Sarah's firm hold of her vision and where she is choosing to take us. Remember, the theatrics and the fantasy was probably McQueen's strongest asset, but now that he's no longer here with us, we really can't compare Lee with Sarah.

For people to compare it to the Japanese inspired Prada collection, the only thing they have in common is the fact that the color pallet as a whole is similar- but the way Sarah interprets Japan and Miuccia interprets Japan will be 2 completely different things.

I do see beautiful, wearable pieces that retain that signature severe tailoring and silhouette that McQueen has and stands for. When it comes down to it, I love the theatrical feast of the shows but there has to be some practicality and (direct) wearability to it as well. And it seems as though McQueen (the label) is finally getting some financial success, so cheers for that.

 

[Menace]

I'm not even going to bother criticizing Sarah Burton anymore. I guess when a designer is replaced (due to death or whatever reason) we just have to deal with the aesthetic changes that take place. It's not really possible to find someone like Alexander McQueen for Alexander McQueen now, is it? If they replaced Sarah Burton with someone very theatrical and macabre... wouldn't you all just complain about how they're just a copycat of Alexander McQueen's theatrics and that they're just being "gimmicky" or could you actually accept that a new visionary storyteller could take over Alexander McQueen and actually like it?