Céline S/S 11 Paris

[Laritournelle]

After digesting the collection for a day I have to say I still like it and furthermore I love it. The simple lines and porportions differ a lot from last seasons' although it follows the same idea as the last one- wearable, chic, lux daywear. Despite the dominating oversized and 'slouchy' looks, I agree with mikeijames about the sophisticated and understated sexuality Phoebe brought into this collection. I love that it's balanced by loose and fluid materials such as silk and crêpe against heavy cotton, nappa leather and denim. And the good thing about it is that from time to time we all need to refresh our wardrobes with these kinds of clothes.

 

[chloehandbags]

Why should fashion automatically need to have an element of fantasy? Fashion shouldn't be so easily circumscribed. Like I said, fashion isn't only the province of fantasy, and neither is it only the province of realism. I was criticizing the single-mindedness that fashion had to be some kind of spectacle. To limit fashion in that way is to do it a great disservice. So have fun with your Galliano-McQueen wet dreams (which I do enjoy), but allow for Philo spareness to exist with it side by side. Fashion should be permitted to be fantastic, real, emotional, cerebral, sexy, feminine, masculine, and minimal all at the same time.

I think talking about fashion wet dreams to a woman is slightly redundant, TBH - I doubt she's enjoying it (or not) on that level.

Fashion can be whatever its designer wants it to be, but if it is very pared-back, the observer has the right to find it dull and say so.

 

[chloehandbags]

Real women aren't only the dress-up dolls of gay men and fashion editors.

Very true, but we're also not the dress-up dolls of people who would have us in yashmaks, or sackcloth and ashes, either, are we?

We're not the dress-up dolls of anyone, in fact; including other women.

You use the word 'proposal', well that's just what all these collections are, of course, isn't it? Proposals.

We don't have to wear any of it - wet dream or worst nightmare - if we don't want to.

BTW, some of us like the 'balance sheet staples' (amongst other things) and any designer worth their salt (including Phoebe - especially Phoebe!) knows that.

There may be few bags on the runway but, as we all know, that's the real reason for her being at Celine and to attempt to hide it could also be viewed as somewhat less than honest.

 

[Uemarasan]

I think talking about fashion wet dreams to a woman is slightly redundant, TBH - I doubt she's enjoying it (or not) on that level.

Fashion can be whatever its designer wants it to be, but if it is very pared-back, the observer has the right to find it dull and say so.

Of course she has the right to say so; I simply took issue with her idea that fashion HAS to have an element of fantasy, which I highly disagree with. I also highly disagree with the idea that fashion HAS to translate into the "wearable", whatever that means. If you can put it on the body, it is wearable.

Enough about wet dreams! I'm starting to get some nasty images

 

[Uemarasan]

Very true, but we're also not the dress-up dolls of people who would have us in yashmaks, or sackcloth and ashes, either, are we?

We're not the dress-up dolls of anyone, in fact; including other women.

You use the word 'proposal', well that's just what all these collections are, of course, isn't it? Proposals.

We don't have to wear any of it - wet dream or worst nightmare - if we don't want to.

BTW, some of us like the 'balance sheet staples' (amongst other things) and any designer worth their salt (including Phoebe - especially Phoebe!) knows that.

There may be few bags on the runway but, as we all know, that's the real reason for her being at Celine and to attempt to hide it could also be viewed as somewhat less than honest.

Frankly, I don't appreciate separating and analyzing my quote from the rest of my text. It should be put into the context of my argument, which isn't really about who dresses up who but about the value of minimalism in fashion.

Oh, I am sure that Phoebe Philo is well aware of the financial value of balance sheet staples, but again I was not criticizing the need for them to exist (well, maybe I was poking fun at them) but rather I was mostly remarking on how Phoebe seemed to be contrasting her bag-obsessed days in Chloe with this collection, which for me perhaps solidified her integrity as a designer of clothing.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Very true, but we're also not the dress-up dolls of people who would have us in yashmaks, or sackcloth and ashes, either, are we?

We're not the dress-up dolls of anyone, in fact; including other women.

You use the word 'proposal', well that's just what all these collections are, of course, isn't it? Proposals.

We don't have to wear any of it - wet dream or worst nightmare - if we don't want to.

BTW, some of us like the 'balance sheet staples' (amongst other things) and any designer worth their salt (including Phoebe - especially Phoebe!) knows that.

There may be few bags on the runway but, as we all know, that's the real reason for her being at Celine and to attempt to hide it could also be viewed as somewhat less than honest.

This is so convoluted. What?

I think what is in question here, and in regards to Celine's direction in general, is a new kind of feminism in fashion. Are woman equal to men? If so then they can dress themselves for the same reasons: comfort, practicality, and as far as designer collections go, luxury. Confidence is key, it is always a must for men and women. But the question is: is the Celine woman the kind that gains her confidence from dressing sexy for other men or for her own pleasure? Of course, genuine feminism means a woman can choose whichever they like but one mode is significantly more progressive than the other.

I think we know where Philo stand on all of this.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

again, we'll have to agree to disagree. phoebe brought in sensuality and sexuality in a very subtle, very celine way. it's those nubby gorgeous wovens that had no back, it's those flowy silky colorful numbers, it's those the dangerously low v-necks, and it's so much else.

and as for look twenty three and twenty four, it's easily one of the most sophisticated takes color we've seen all season. they got styled to preserve the spirit of austerity we love about celine, but tossed over a tomas maier bikini or an emilio pucci maillot caught in the fantastic sea breezes of an exclusive resort, those pieces would exude nothing but sensuality.

Hmm - you might have a point on sensuality retained Mike. Maybe at a first viewing I missed it and should look again. I'm here to think and learn.

I do think though that this season the sensuality is a good deal less obvious?
I think that's the loss that those who have reacted negatively in the early part of thread are lamenting and, if you've seen Phoebe interviewed by Blanks on the Style.com video, the part right at the end, where Phoebe's talking about austerity and the brand being for a woman who doesn't need to show too much skin, we don't get to hear Tim's question but I think he may well have put it to her to the effect that it's less sexy this season.

http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/show.aspx/video/id,9810

I have a theory to develop about this which stems from the response Mutterlein made to my reply a couple of pages back. I hope that you and others interested will tell me what you think of what I develop. As I say, I'm here to think and learn. I need some sleep first though.

And oh so so many collections still to view. I can't keep up with the pace.

I see there's also a meaty debate broken out about fantasy and feminism. The wet dream discussion. I might try to join that up in my post tomorrow (lord help us ) because I am, bravely, going to attempt to talk about what women want and the absence of bags as some sort of clue to the strategic positioning of this show. Amongst other things.

For the big 'talking brand' of the moment doesn't this thread seem strangely quiet? Was it so last season? Balmain and Balenciaga seem to have way more posts. But if Phoebe is the 'industry barometer' what better place to dig down and discuss 'industry' here.

 

[Alexis1983]

:::::::::::ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz::::::::::::::

i think i slept through it

 

[chloehandbags]

Of course she has the right to say so; I simply took issue with her idea that fashion HAS to have an element of fantasy, which I highly disagree with. I also highly disagree with the idea that fashion HAS to translate into the "wearable", whatever that means. If you can put it on the body, it is wearable.

Enough about wet dreams! I'm starting to get some nasty images

LOL!

But she didn't say it 'HAS to' have an element of fantasy, though, did she?

She said 'But isn't fashion supposed to...?'.

So, not only did she not say it had to be anything - she even posed her POV as a question to you and yet, you reacted to her as though she'd made a definitive comment.

I felt that was very unfair.

 

[chloehandbags]

Frankly, I don't appreciate separating and analyzing my quote from the rest of my text.

OK, sorry about that.

I certainly didn't do it to try to annoy you - but, from now on, I'll make sure to quote your entire post and then highlight the bits I'm talking about and/or separate it into sections and then comment, as I have here.

It should be put into the context of my argument, which isn't really about who dresses up who but about the value of minimalism in fashion.

Oh, I am sure that Phoebe Philo is well aware of the financial value of balance sheet staples, but again I was not criticizing the need for them to exist (well, maybe I was poking fun at them) but rather I was mostly remarking on how Phoebe seemed to be contrasting her bag-obsessed days in Chloe with this collection, which for me perhaps solidified her integrity as a designer of clothing.

Yes, I appreciate that that's what you were doing, but I was just pointing out that the lack of bags on the runway, when they still very much exist in the stores, brochures and magazines, could just as well be viewed in a different way by potential customers.

If she had chosen to be at a house that wasn't (by far) best known for its leather goods and/or if she had refused to be involved in the creation of its leather goods, that might be a different matter, of course.

 

[chloehandbags]

This is so convoluted. What?

Sorry about that - I was, essentally, attempting to reply to several points that Uemarasan had made in his post and yet, I only quoted one of them.

I think what is in question here, and in regards to Celine's direction in general, is a new kind of feminism in fashion. Are woman equal to men? If so then they can dress themselves for the same reasons: comfort, practicality, and as far as designer collections go, luxury.

Is it new, though?

I would say not at all.

Most, if not all, of the women I know have been wearing exactly what they like, in terms of clothes, for years (decades, for the most part, actually).

Most of them dress, primarily, for comfort and if they don't, it's because they choose not to; not because they've been told not to.

Shoes may be another matter, for a few of them, but I know I certainly only wear footwear I find comfortable, too.

What they choose to wear to feel comfortable is another matter - this kind of all-over volume version of comfort may not have been around for a while, although it has been in the past, of course and many women wore it when it was.

Personally, I don't find lots of baggy, non-stretchy garments (particularly trousers/skirts) particularly comfortable, as they're a bit like wearing pajamas, in that they have an annoying tendency to pull downwards and twist around the body.

However, I appreciate that they may be a godsend for some women and that's great.

Confidence is key, it is always a must for men and women. But the question is: is the Celine woman the kind that gains her confidence from dressing sexy for other men or for her own pleasure? Of course, genuine feminism means a woman can choose whichever they like but one mode is significantly more progressive than the other.

I think we know where Philo stand on all of this.

You see, I would say that that is not the question.

I really don't understand why this discussion has been reduced down to the idea that anyone, who doesn't find this collection visually appealing and/or something they'd want to wear, must be someone who wants to look sexy (for men, or otherwise).

I'm not saying that there may not be an element of that, for some people, but it's a huge assumption to make that everyone, who hasn't given this collection a glowing review, feels that way.

There are many more aspects to the visual appeal of design (or lack of it) than whether garments are cut close to the body and/or to reveal lots of skin, or not.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Sorry about that - I was, essentally, attempting to reply to several points that Uemarasan had made in his post and yet, I only quoted one of them.





Is it new, though?

I would say not at all.

Most, if not all, of the women I know have been wearing exactly what they like, in terms of clothes, for years (decades, for the most part, actually).

Most of them dress, primarily, for comfort and if they don't, it's because they choose not to; not because they've been told not to.

Shoes may be another matter, for a few of them, but I know I certainly only wear footwear I find comfortable, too.

What they choose to wear to feel comfortable is another matter - this kind of all-over volume version of comfort may not have been around for a while, although it has been in the past, of course and many women wore it when it was.

Personally, I don't find lots of baggy, non-stretchy garments (particularly trousers/skirts) particularly comfortable, as they're a bit like wearing pajamas, in that they have an annoying tendency to pull downwards and twist around the body.

However, I appreciate that they may be a godsend for some women and that's great.





You see, I would say that that is not the question.

I really don't understand why this discussion has been reduced down to the idea that anyone, who doesn't find this collection visually appealing and/or something they'd want to wear, must be someone who wants to look sexy (for men, or otherwise).

I'm not saying that there may not be an element of that, for some people, but it's a huge assumption to make that everyone, who hasn't given this collection a glowing review, feels that way.

There are many more aspects to the visual appeal of design (or lack of it) than whether garments are cut close to the body and/or to reveal lots of skin, or not.

Honestly I feel gender equality in our popular culture and dress (and that means fashion) is a fallacy. There are immense societal pressures that dictate a fairly narrow idea of what a woman is and should be (and a man for that matter). There was a discussion about this collection being sexless, but that observation alone reveals the conditioning in our society that a woman has to be sexy. I really don't think women prioritize comfort the way men do, utility is absolutely out of the question. Is it a new kind of feminism? I think so if only because it defies almost every convention of what a sexy woman should be, and just by the sheer act of putting it on the catwalk, a particularly influential catwalk, its lack of vivacious glamor already begins to change the game. The focus is on practicality and utility, that those qualities are enough to make the clothes desirable and interesting. I see Philo highlighting an entirely new way of dressing and putting together a look that defines a woman and her needs in an entirely modern way. As for its newness, well an old show of feminism would be to simply to put a woman in a suit. This is an advancement.

That all said, I don't know why you don't like. I can't see this as dull, I find it terribly thrilling.

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Well, as I said on the YSL thread (there's a discussion on there involving this, as well!), a lot of it reminds me of a less interesting, diluted, more souless and boxy riff on S/S '04 Chloe.

Then there's the burgundy skirt, of course, which I might like in theory but, in practice, looks like a heavily bloodied butcher's apron, to me.

Despite that description, I actually don't dislike this collection, personally; I just don't like most of it very much.

I just can't engage with a totally boxy silhouette, with an even boxier print placement and (speaking of suits) I speak as someone who often prefers menswear shows (and have said as much, on here, in the past) and would feel the same way if this was a menswear show.

So, you see, it's not about me feeling it's not sexy enough for me, as a woman - it's just that I wouldn't want to wear these particular shapes, even if I was a man.

Whereas, I would (and have) happily worn wide shouldered, waistless silhouettes with leggings, or tapered trousers (so, I've ended up with a man's silhouette, in effect) and you can't get much more masculine and non-traditionally sexy for a woman than that, can you?

But, it wasn't boxy - it still had what I would consider to be an attractive shape (albeit a non-feminine one).

Having said that, I have worn stuff a bit like this, before - when I was about 11 (I was tall for my age, so I could wear small sizes in womenswear, by then).

I remember I wore a cricket-type sweater (which was, basically, an authentic men's cricket sweater, only with lilac and green stripes around the neck, rather than more traditional colours) and a matching, very full, long cream skirt (both from Laura Ashley!) and it really did give off a very similar, boxy, appearance to this.

Having said that, it was still somewhat softer-looking, somehow (probably because of the fabrics and the cream colour, rather than stark white) and it had the V of the cricket sweater to break up the boxiness, a bit.

So, you see, this sort of thing (or something pretty similar) has been done before (in the UK, anyway) and as this collection is based on an old-fashioned, British tennis clothing idea, it was obviously done way back then, too (probably in the '20s, or '30s, I'd imagine?), although that was for sportswear only, of course.

Maybe you're right and I'm just out of touch with how many women feel? Maybe many women are still caught in a sexist trap, wearing uncomfortable, highly restrictive, clothing?

Just because I can't remember ever having worn anything uncomfortable (other than shoes, in the past), just because a designer suggested it, doesn't mean others still don't, I suppose?

Having said that, is this really the way to coax someone who is still so subjugated into comfortable clothing, I wonder?

Isn't this likely to be at least a bridge too far for them?

 

[BerlinRocks]

the HQ give me a better portrait of the collection !
thank you.
i still don't like the first looks ... but there's a very parisian attitude in this, with a touch of NYC 90s minimalism (in the cut, probably).
i see a new parisian/french chic woman, who wear Hermès, Dries van Noten and Prada.
but that unfortunately, only american women wear and a few parisian/french wear ... coz that's a bit too sportswear somewhere for the french customer.
actually, her power is to talk to as many customers she can. i think that is what makes her powerfull. she can talk to americans, french, english (and perhaps expatriates in each city). it makes a medium clientele ....

i actually think that this is this thing going in the styling (with the sleeves of the shirts) that really bothers me. the collection looks after a 2nd look in HQ, pretty interesting. but tha thing sucks ...

* and what's going on with the zipper ? will women wear apparent zipper ?

oh and it's still a bit shy ...

 

[Uemarasan]

LOL!

But she didn't say it 'HAS to' have an element of fantasy, though, did she?

She said 'But isn't fashion supposed to...?'.

So, not only did she not say it had to be anything - she even posed her POV as a question to you and yet, you reacted to her as though she'd made a definitive comment.

I felt that was very unfair.

Going by the rest of her post and its overall tone, I think she was saying pretty much the same thing. And she posed it as a rhetorical question, which meant it wasn't a genuine question at all but a more roundabout statement of her opinion. I don't think I was being unfair in my reply, not to mention that my tone was sufficiently calibrated (although strong).

But I really don't want to argue semantics. Mutterlain, you make fascinating points about what Phoebe Philo is trying to do here and what kind of dressing she is proposing.

 

[Uemarasan]

It's interesting that the suit for women has already lost much of its original power, subsumed into the vocabulary of fashion and is now simply a choice of outfit. The idea that this collection seems to challenge what women can wear adds a very rich dimension to the clothing. What is fashion, after all, but a constant argument for women?

 

[mikeijames]

Hmm - you might have a point on sensuality retained Mike. Maybe at a first viewing I missed it and should look again. I'm here to think and learn.

I do think though that this season the sensuality is a good deal less obvious?
I think that's the loss that those who have reacted negatively in the early part of thread are lamenting and, if you've seen Phoebe interviewed by Blanks on the Style.com video, the part right at the end, where Phoebe's talking about austerity and the brand being for a woman who doesn't need to show too much skin, we don't get to hear Tim's question but I think he may well have put it to her to the effect that it's less sexy this season.

http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/show.aspx/video/id,9810

I have a theory to develop about this which stems from the response Mutterlein made to my reply a couple of pages back. I hope that you and others interested will tell me what you think of what I develop. As I say, I'm here to think and learn. I need some sleep first though.

And oh so so many collections still to view. I can't keep up with the pace.

I see there's also a meaty debate broken out about fantasy and feminism. The wet dream discussion. I might try to join that up in my post tomorrow (lord help us ) because I am, bravely, going to attempt to talk about what women want and the absence of bags as some sort of clue to the strategic positioning of this show. Amongst other things.

For the big 'talking brand' of the moment doesn't this thread seem strangely quiet? Was it so last season? Balmain and Balenciaga seem to have way more posts. But if Phoebe is the 'industry barometer' what better place to dig down and discuss 'industry' here.

i did see that interview....but yes, eight times a year, it's a marathon of fashion. that's why i can't help but revere some of these designers -- tisci, lagerfeld, et al -- who put out all of these collections and have such strong visions for each one. i'd love to see phoebe dip her toe into the menswear arena -- i know celine sells ties -- but with respect to her latest: the sexuality has never sat on the surface. some of the stuff is indeed QUITE sexy but in a quiet way. do not overlook the power of suggestion when it comes to the exposed zipper. the bare shoulders. the backlessness. within the laboratory of the runway, it's quite tame, but on the right woman, it's sexual power. seriously, fully zipped this garment is one thing, but casually unzipped over bear skin in a michelin-starred restaurant and we're talking about a scandal:

style.com

 

[chloehandbags]

Going by the rest of her post and its overall tone, I think she was saying pretty much the same thing. And she posed it as a rhetorical question, which meant it wasn't a genuine question at all but a more roundabout statement of her opinion. I don't think I was being unfair in my reply, not to mention that my tone was sufficiently calibrated (although strong).

But I really don't want to argue semantics.

Well, I don't think it's arguing semantics, personally.

Maybe this is another male vs female perspective? But, to me, it wasn't a rhetorical question, it was a genuine one.

Obviously, gimmethatbag tends to believe, herself, that fashion is supposed to have an element of fantasy, otherwise she wouldn't have asked that question, but I also think she expected you to just answer; 'Well, no, I don't think that it is necessarily supposed to, actually, because yada, yada, yada...', rather than reacting in the way you did.

I may be projecting somewhat, but from what she says, I think she comes across as a bit irritated, in the rest of her post, not because she is completely married to the idea in her question; but, rather, because she seems a little bit tired of being told what she should and shouldn't think and wear by men who, quite frankly, may very well not 'get' her and her lifestyle and needs, at all.

I could be wrong, though, of course!

I can't help but think that, if the sexes can't even understand each other properly in posts, why do they then think that they have a hope of telling each other what they ought to want to wear?

It's not as though most of us women pile into the menswear threads and start telling all the men how much better their lives would be if they wore a certain type of clothing, is it?

Or start trying to undermine the perspectives of men who say that they don't really like the propositions there.

So, if we are talking about sexism in fashion, there's another possible example, right there, isn't there?

No real point in being 'free' in terms of what we wear, if that so-called freedom has been, more-or-less, imposed on us by faceless men on the internet...

 

[Marjon]

horrible imo

 

[Alkupra]

Its Phoebe Philo second Spring/Summer collection for Celine and it’s the sequel from latest resort collection and maintains the relaxed and buoyant mood of the collection.
Still with Philo’s striking simplicity, the show was opened by all white look, from long vest and loosen pant. Pale palette seems dominating the runway before the leathers found its way and then some geometric prints bring an easy sportiness. Every piece seems so light and flowing, especially the loose pants as the key item. Its feel so relaxing but it still put an extra effort for the tailoring.
Honestly, its feel too Cruise collection than ever, but the good thing is, it looks like it was designed for every woman who feels good about themselves and already in point she doesn’t need unnecessary sexiness to believe they’re sexy.