Balmain F/W 2009.10 Paris

[b9409]

balmain is NOT for the un-initiated. this is for the girl who already has birkins (posh spice, for example, has sixty birkins) or for the girl who shops cartier for baubles she wears once (think rachel zoe's clientel, et al).

these clothes appeal to the same class of women that foamed at the mouth over gucci when tom ford took the helm. it's overt. it's unapologetic. and they're actually buying it.

i know it's trendy these days to hate people who have enough money to blow on things like ripped jeans, sparkly dresses, and 'it' shoes, but they're still out there and it's clear the new brands they're choosing. they're the ones that are surviving.

I am sorry, but I do find that comment quite inappropriate.

"...it's trendy these days to hate people who have enough money to blow on things..." I am not hating anybody. I am not looking at these clothes or the people who can buy them with hate or envy. I seriously do not understand the situation. And it is not like the people who do not understand this situation are hungry cats/dogs in front of the butcher's shop. The actual and imposed value of these garments are and should be next to nothing.

I would make the same argument if everyone was drowning in money and diamonds.

I think brands like Balmain are precisely why today's luxury market suffers this much... selling items to people who like to announce their wealth rather than anything else. You are not paying that money for exquisite craftsmanship, expensive materials, exclusivity, or even a unique vision. It is empty value that is pumped by clever PR. So when a crisis happens, people throw away luxury altogether. I truly think people lost their trust to the whole industry, if this seems acceptable. It is a joke really.

Plus, comparing this to Tom Ford items is quite silly, imo, because almost nothing he sold was this pricey with next to zero actual value. Those times were different: you couldn't charge this much on anything other than actual couture.

It is not like I am questioning the price; if the garments are selling, you can charge anything for them. That means you found a market. Maybe people wouldn't buy them or pay any attention if they were much cheaper. With that price tag, they look like they are actually worthy of that desirability.

Almost every leather-goods item we buy from these brands are made in China, yet we pay the Made In Italy/France prices. So there is already an imbalance in question already, but suggesting that the only thing that annoys people about this collection would be the price is simply wrong. I do hate the clothes and the design mentality behind them. The insane price is just illogical.

 

[mikeijames]

I am sorry, but I do find that comment quite inappropriate.... suggesting that the only thing that annoys people about this collection would be the price is simply wrong. I do hate the clothes and the design mentality behind them. The insane price is just illogical.

that's a large part of many people's criticisms, however. i didn't mean "you" specifically.

I think brands like Balmain are precisely why today's luxury market suffers this much... selling items to people who like to announce their wealth rather than anything else. You are not paying that money for exquisite craftsmanship, expensive materials, exclusivity, or even a unique vision.

this remains part of the lie of fashion. first, these items ARE exclusive. i'm sorry, but there aren't that many women -- ESPECIALLY in america -- who have a balmain jacket. second, the wild price variations in fashion have less to do with craftmanship and quality than they do with margins and profit. further, those proposing new directions in fashion have long placed astronomical prices on their items to keep them exclusive. you cannot tell me those dolce and gabbana $100k dresses or those balenciaga $100k leggings or hermes $100k coats COST that much to produce in materials and labor. those houses are profitable for a reason.

Plus, comparing this to Tom Ford items is quite silly, imo, because almost nothing he sold was this pricey with next to zero actual value. Those times were different: you couldn't charge this much on anything other than actual couture.

yes, but the luxury market has changed since tom ford's tenure started at gucci. back in those days, a $500 fendi baguette and a $425 pair of manolos stood as outrageous conspicuous consumption. since then, the couture has died -- why get clothes customized to your body when you can get your body customized to your clothes -- and the way people spend money is different. when tom ford started, rich people still rode first class. now, it's private jets. balmain appeals to this new type of spender.

 

[b9409]

balmain appeals to this new type of spender.

Well, perhaps this is where we'll have to learn to agree to disagree.

Balmain appeals to nothing. It appeals to no one. The fact that it sells for a season or two means absolutely nothing. Cutting dresses as long t-shirts and placing to oversize eggs on the shoulders doesn't make a designer with someone with vision or durability. It is a fad, and just like those hideous shoulders they are pushing, the brand will die... again. You can only turn in a few seasons of disco clothing. That's it. The clothing presented here is more disposable than Galliano's 'J'adore Dior' t-shirts.

You know what they used to say about Balmain way back when when Balmain WAS Balmain... they used to say 'Chanel can become demode, Dior can become out of fashion, but a Balmain dress will always be in and of fashion'. Look at where the brand is now. Catering to the Euro-trash, and being proud of it. If the shapes they were pushing had any real deep meaning, like Menkes recently said, then going back to 80s or whatever could make sense. She says back then, the working woman was 'shoulder to shoulder' with men. Hence the shapes and the shoulder pads. What is their relevance now, other than being a gimmick? Today, the likes of Vic Beckham are wearing those shoulders, who act like designers' trash cans anyways. And those 'exclusive'' jackets you mention are still RtW and not timeless like a Cartier piece or a Birkin.

We pay for the designer's vision. Decarnin is horrid. What he sells is utter trash and has no relevance in fashion. It is just an announcement of how much money you have. Self-advertisement for the dummies. It doesn't challenge women, it doesn't make them look any beautiful, or it doesn't even spoil them. It makes them a part of the gimmick. That is about it.




PS:

D&G's $100k dresses are hand-sewn crystal gowns that require many many hours of sheer craftsmanship. Those gowns are what they have to offer against Atelier Versace, and are made to order. That is a sum of money worthy to spend for a gown that should be seen and cherished as modern couture.

Balenciaga $100k leggings are also hardware polished to perfection and put together by hand. They are statement pieces, and Ghesquiere doesn't really rejoice in their gimmick-y quality. They are not there to be sold to turn in profits. Those leggings are a part of his larger vision for his collection: a small part of a fashion presentation about concepts and innovation. They are not cheap knock-offs of Mugler or Gianni like what Decarnin is doing.

Hermes $100k coats are croc, and yes, that is their price. But a croc bomber jacket or a trench is, again, true imposed luxury that initiates prestige and heritage.

Of course, none of these items cost that much to produce. You cannot charge this much money without an imposed value. Those 15 million dollar blue diamonds do not cost a fraction of that money when the jewelers buy them from the mining companies. The imposed and attached values are beyond important, because there is something sentimental about owning a Hermes coat. Or a Balenciaga airbrushed latex dress...It is like owning a piece of art. Balmain's midnight blue stripper sequin mini skirt with exposed black zipper is hardly in the same category as any of these items listed.

 

[mikeijames]

Well, perhaps this is where we'll have to learn to agree to disagree.

we certainly will have to do that.

Balmain appeals to nothing.

except those who buy it.

It appeals to no one.

except to the magazine editors who continue to feature it.

The fact that it sells for a season or two means absolutely nothing. Cutting dresses as long t-shirts and placing to oversize eggs on the shoulders doesn't make a designer with someone with vision or durability. It is a fad, and just like those hideous shoulders they are pushing, the brand will die... again.

except when you have a look potent enough to spawn off-shoots like alexander wang and "inspired by" runway looks from dolce and gabbanna and gucci.

You can only turn in a few seasons of disco clothing. That's it. The clothing presented here is more disposable than Galliano's 'J'adore Dior' t-shirts.

so you're acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of dollars those j'adore dior tees brought into the brand to focus on the higher points of fashion. that's the genius of the "must have piece": it gets money in the door. i'm curious why i didn't hear this same vitriol when chanel did denim or balenciaga charged a mint for those jackets which fyi had sizing issues and DID fall apart in the stores (and wouldn't sell for 80% off). inventive, yes, but let's not delude ourselves.

...Catering to the Euro-trash, and being proud of it.

which french house doesn't make it's bread and butter on these people? the very fact that we have ready images of a dior bag, a chanel bag, a lanvin shoe, a balenciaga shoe/bag, a givenchy shoe/bag, a vuitton shoe/bag proves this point. they all do it. proudly. it keeps them alive.

...like Menkes recently said....

because she's called every single trend right for the past few decades? i value her opinion/insight, but it's not gospel. she has her personal likes and dislikes just like the rest of us.

And those 'exclusive'' jackets you mention are still RtW and not timeless like a Cartier piece or a Birkin.

again, we'll have to agree to disagree since i know for a fact more euro trash clamor for the latest color/size of birkin bag than even know what the house of balmain is at all. and cartier makes trend jewelry just like tiffany. it's just pricier. most people buy birkins and cartier watches (which is what keeps them afloat, btw) to announce their wealth in the same way you claim balmain women wear these jackets. the only difference is, everyone (in certain circles) knows a cartier tank or a birkin; not everyone knows a balmain lace dress.

We pay for the designer's vision.

not everyone pays for that. some people have unserious views toward fashion. they buy it because simply because they like the way it makes them look and feel.

What he sells is utter trash and has no relevance in fashion.

i guess if you count out its retail impact, its editorial coverage (good or bad), and its ability to create trend downmarket, it is irrelevant. there are so many designers that would kill for that sort of irrelevance.

It is just an announcement of how much money you have.

as is most of fashion if we take a sober look at it.

PS: D&G's $100k dresses...

are made by the same people who create most couture confections where clients get charged half that amount. chanel bought six of those couture workshops years ago meaning that prices should be about the same everywhere (except at chanel where it should be less).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/fashion/thursdaystyles/19ATELIERS.html?pagewanted=print

Balenciaga $100k leggings...

gave birth to $20k varietals that had none of that craftmanship? right.

Hermes $100k coats are croc, and yes,

funny, because there are many a luxury house who make croc coats at a much lower cost. remember that alaia ditty from a few years back? certainly not $100k.

...It is like owning a piece of art....

we can agree here. art's about creating a feeling in its admirer. just because you love monet, doesn't mean that everyone who loves warhol is tasteless.

 

[mikeijames]

Decarnin is horrid. What he sells is utter trash and has no relevance in fashion.

honestly, i don't see why this is such an anti-fashion (and all it stands for) look. it looks pretty standard to me. i don't understand what the uproar's about. it's just great clothes.

streetpeeper.com

 

[Stixnstones]

i actually like this collection! love the blue-color.

 

[LesAvantGarde]

I feel like such a tacky hooker for loving Balmain

 

[GiGiBeaumont]

please do not quote images. thank you.

LOVING the footwear!

 

[Miss Laura]

i love balmain.

I don't care who knows it hah

 

[b9409]

I am not against change, nor am I afraid of something new. Yes, Balmain unfortunately has a huge impact on today's trends, but it is not because the brand represents something so genius and innovative... No, it is because what they put out is extremely easy to make and lurid. It is easy to 'aspire' to something low and beneath common decency. Plus, all Balmain influences are these Milanese brands that are waiting for any excuse to cut the dresses that short anyways! I mean, Gucci is the last place to look for taste nowadays and D&G's latest two FW collections should both be burned in hell.

Plus, not every fashion editor is in love with this look, just Roitfeld and Sozzani for obvious reasons. Yes, they are very important personalities, but I cannot bring myself to see these clothes as items of good taste, or anything more than just a fad for people who truly hate fashion but want to look trashy.

Maybe my visual standards are too delicate, or maybe my time in fashion is truly over at the age of 23! And I am all for sexy clothes btw. But ^that monstrosity Natasha is wearing makes me want to puke my intestines out!

 

[b9409]

we can agree here. art's about creating a feeling in its admirer. just because you love monet, doesn't mean that everyone who loves warhol is tasteless.

Balmain is not Warhol. It is the photocopy of a Warhol print plastered over a mug or a puzzle at best.

We are not comparing apples and oranges here. Maybe apples and plastic apples. Or in my case, maybe the poisonous Snow White apple, because this show just wants me to choke, go to sleep and wake up when this horrid Balmain influence is over. For good.

 

[Thefrenchy]

I think one shouldn't over-think what Balmain has become. I don't know about the background of the house but today, i see it as fun pricy clubbing wear. Like it or not, it does appeal to some people.

I personally liked his last two collections because i saw it as something fun to wear to party -- and i like the whole blazer/ripped jeans/high heels look from SS09. That must have appealed to my trashy side, right? . The only thing that sightly annoy me is to see so many celebrities wearing it and not wearing it well imo (Beyonce and Rihanna are the first examples that come to my mind).
Does Decarnin deserves all this hype? i don't know... One thing is sure, if he doesn't try something new for his next collection, people will get tired of it and move on.

 

[mikeijames]

Plus, all Balmain influences are these Milanese brands that are waiting for any excuse to cut the dresses that short anyways!quote]

it's more than short dresses. it's destroyed luxe. it's a very specific palatte. and it's also that exaggerated shoulder: no one has championed that look like decarnin. this past couture season, we saw so many rushing to catch up....

givenchy haute couture

armani prive

jean-paul gaultier paris

i'm not saying balmain's the end-all-be-all, but it's not to be dismissed as a legitimate fashion moment.

 

[mikeijames]

Balmain is not Warhol. It is the photocopy of a Warhol print plastered over a mug or a puzzle at best.

We are not comparing apples and oranges here. Maybe apples and plastic apples. Or in my case, maybe the poisonous Snow White apple, because this show just wants me to choke, go to sleep and wake up when this horrid Balmain influence is over. For good.

this is the real deal. kylie looks amazing, for example....

redcarpet-fashionawards.com

 

[mikeijames]

One thing is sure, if he doesn't try something new for his next collection, people will get tired of it and move on.

i agree.....and he has changed over the three years he's been at the house. the collection that everyone has jumped on him for sold out in a month. naturally, with that kind of success he's not going to completely abandon that look (and all those residual dollars).

just a year ago, he struck pay gold with this boho look worn by kate hudson.

style.com

instyle.com

 

[b9409]

^ The Givenchy and JPG shoulders remind me of the shoulder shape of that Balenciaga flowers/baseball stitch collection back a few seasons past, more than Balmain.

I do know Balmain is influential. Maybe I am just too much of a coward to admit that this influence will remain, and it is actually valid and acceptable. I just don't see it. Many designers have played with the big shoulder volume time and time again, and I am not adverse to it at all. I just do not see the relevance of it other than being gimmick-y.

But it is also a matter of opinion. I can see you are a true fashion connoisseur, mike, perhaps much more than I will ever be. But when I see Kylie for instance, with all the clumsy draping and rousching around the waist, all I see are the tacky prom dresses they see over at the 6th and 7th Avenue stores mid-Manhattan. Maybe there is a value in the cheap-ness and insipid nature of their execution and look. I prefer to see her in Dolce&Gabbanas and Ungaros she used to sport back in the day, but that is just me I guess.



source:
lateboots.blogspot.com

 

[b9409]

Everything is never quite enough.

By the way, this is the name of one of my all time favorite songs, but I guess it may be just a coincidence since not that many people know about the song I am talking about. .

 

[mikeijames]

The Givenchy and JPG shoulders remind me of the shoulder shape of that Balenciaga flowers/baseball stitch collection back a few seasons past, more than Balmain....

you'll never get me to denigrate mr. ghesquiere at balenciaga -- i sued to be on my soap box for him back in the day.

and it's true: he's used "eighties shoulders" as part of his vocabulary since 2000. i do think that decarnin has made a stronger case for those shoulders (specifically). he had shoulder pads in his jacket a year before those balenciaga floral dresses came out....

balmain spring 2007

balenciaga 2000

style.com

ghesquiere -- like decarnin -- both faced FIERCE criticism with their looks and their pricepoints. one of my favorite collections OF ALL TIME remains ghesquiere's collection with the green cargo pants and the liberty prints where he got criticized for everything from not being true to the house to gouging his customers over the price of those pants (which, btw, sold out) and copying a small designer from which he took (direct) inspiration. look at the house of balenciaga now. i'm not saying that decarnin is as talented as ghesquiere, but he's caused a similar splash. it's exciting to see where it'll go.

 

[mikeijames]

soooo off topic.

By the way, this is the name of one of my all time favorite songs, but I guess it may be just a coincidence since not that many people know about the song I am talking about. .

FROM THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR (with pierce brosnan and renee russo)?! that film's my #3 film of all time (my standards are low, believe me). i gleaned my tag from that soundtrack.

 

[b9409]

you'll never get me to denigrate mr. ghesquiere at balenciaga -- i sued to be on my soap box for him back in the day.

lol.

i do think that decarnin has made a stronger case for those shoulders (specifically).

Apparently so.

ghesquiere -- like decarnin -- both faced FIERCE criticism with their looks and their pricepoints. one of my favorite collections OF ALL TIME remains ghesquiere's collection with the green cargo pants and the liberty prints where he got criticized for everything from not being true to the house to gouging his customers over the price of those pants (which, btw, sold out) and copying a small designer from which he took (direct) inspiration.

I also LOVE that collection. I remember some upheaval about the whole thing, but nothing that major.


off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic: off topic:

I love that movie and that soundtrack so much.

And in a very very sick way. I do not know how many times I have listened to that CD ever since I was 14 or whenever it came out. (wow, for the past decade really...) Wasis Diop is the best, and that is such a sexy and beautiful song in every way. I always thought that song should have been used on some Tom Ford fashion show: would be especially suitable for one of his YSL ones.

After seeing that movie and how Russo looked, I remember starting to see Michael Kors under a much more positive light, to say the least. lol.