Christian Dior Haute Couture F/W 09.10 Paris | Page 14 | the Fashion Spot

Christian Dior Haute Couture F/W 09.10 Paris

I'm very desagree with you. Do you believe Dior's legacy is just the New Look? Of course is not the same ingredient season after season but usually economy and company aims dictate what to do. The show idea should have been good for a fashion editorial but for a presentation...
 
I really like it! I love the old school bird cage veils and garter belts and the bright colors... Then again I'm a slave to anything that reminds me of post-WWII fashion... :ninja:
 
What you say is right and I will appreciate more the concept show or idea but it is not enough. This collection is a bit farfetched. There is nothing new as other times.

I disagree with u. If u go back and look at the collections that John has aready done, u will se some of the aspects of those show are in this on aswell. But not only that look at what he did with this collection, he re-vamp the history of the house Galliano style. From the use of the the new look, and the leopard fabrics and even some of the larger dresses were inspired from Dior orginals. This a collection that I could have easily seen Christian Dior showing if he was still alive today.

So yes he may have re-did somes looks that he has done already but John has taken them and made them work in this collection. I tmay not have been the dramtic over the top John that we have seen in the past but its still a great collection.
 
This a collection that I could have easily seen Christian Dior showing if he was still alive today.
You don't see anything wrong with that? That John Galliano, who is arguably more creative than the founder of the house he is now designing for, is making collections that look as if they've been designed by a couturier who died over 50 years ago? Fashion and style have changed pretty radically in those 50 years. Personally, I wouldn't take it as a compliment if I read that something I designed looks like it could've been made by someone else who has been dead for longer than I've been living.
 
Sorry Spike413, but I totally disagree with you. When a fashion house has such strong roots in the past, and there has never been another Dior or designer as revolutionary as Dior, those roots MUST be respected and resurrected. What you said, IMO, would be comparable to taking away tweed suits at Chanel, prints at Pucci, and jersey dresses at Halston. Dior's TRADEMARK is the wasp waist, the NEW LOOK. The NEW LOOK represents two things: 1.YOUTHFULNESS and 2.The FUTURE. And if you don't believe that, look at page 28 in his autobiography. And personally, I would take it as a compliment. The work of the couturier of 50 years ago is immpeccable and untouchable. In order to move on, we must learn from the past(and be inspired by it), as the history of the world bears repeating.
ok,
PCE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And no, Dior has numerous legacy, not just the New Look. His leagcy is dove gray, rose givre, the Longue line, the Winged line, the H Line, and the Flight line, all evident in this couture collection. And Galliano has always played around with the New Look from early on. Look at Spring/Summer 1997 or Spring/Summer 1999. And why is this idea so bad. You all dealt with the Tramp line,no?
 
^ The tramp line was something new, something unique, something creative, and something that resonated with the current day. Personally I regard it as one of Galliano's best couture collections.

Sorry Spike413, but I totally disagree with you. When a fashion house has such strong roots in the past, and there has never been another Dior or designer as revolutionary as Dior, those roots MUST be respected and resurrected. What you said, IMO, would be comparable to taking away tweed suits at Chanel, prints at Pucci, and jersey dresses at Halston. Dior's TRADEMARK is the wasp waist, the NEW LOOK. The NEW LOOK represents two things: 1.YOUTHFULNESS and 2.The FUTURE. And if you don't believe that, look at page 28 in his autobiography. And personally, I would take it as a compliment. The work of the couturier of 50 years ago is immpeccable and untouchable. In order to move on, we must learn from the past(and be inspired by it), as the history of the world bears repeating.
ok,
PCE
I'm going to disagree with you on that first highlighted statement, and I think most people with a knowledge of fashion history would agree. Not to trivialize what he did, but there were other more revolutionary designers both before and after Christian Dior, chief among them Chanel and Saint Laurent, whose contributions and innovations can still be seen in the wardrobe of most women today as well as throughout the work of the generations of fashion designers who came after them. The same can't be said of Dior.

Dior is not merely the New Look. The legacy and identity of the house is not that simple and one dimensional. The New Look is merely a piece of iconography at this point that is instantly recognizable as being Dior, but it is not the sum of 10 years worth of work. And yes, every designer must respect the past of any house they may inherit, such as what Lagerfeld does with Chanel or Elbaz does with Lanvin, but respecting the past and repeating the past are two very different things. Like it or not the New Look no longer represents the future because that's simply not what women aspire towards anymore. I don't need to read Dior's life story to know that his contributions to fashion represent a specific time and place that no longer exists and will never exist again. It was a moment in fashion, and moments aren't meant to last forever.

As for the second line I highlighted, I completely agree. But I do not think that this collection is a very good example of how to move on from the past. If anything I think this collection is trying to recreate the past, not move on from it.

Clearly you're a big fan of Christian Dior's, and I'm certainly not trying to tell you not to be, but I have the feeling that we'll never see eye to eye on any of the things being discussed here because we simply view fashion in very different ways. :flower:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, we never will agree. I know numerous fashion historians that would agree with the statement I made. There honestly is not another designer that caused such a revolution in his first showing. And honestly, I find Poiret and Vionnet much more revolutionary than Chanel.

Also, I 100% agree that the legacy of the House of Dior is not that one dimensinal, nor was I implying it, as visible in the post after the one you quoted. Dior's legacy is and should be visible in every collection and is very much so 3 dimensinal. And if moments in fashion history were not meant to last, we would have no designers and no fashion history; nothing to look back on in order to recreate and move on.

Also, I personally feel that Chanel (you will probably disagree) looks the same season after season. Chanel was indeed responsible for the LBD, the "Unisex" style, et cetra, but Dior offered an air of sophistication and dream like quality that Chanel couldn't (can you tell I'm not a Chanel fan)? He designed dresses that women drooled over. And honestly, toned down versions are undeinably in womens wardrobes. I do love YSL, le smoking is one of my fav, so that I will not argue you on-haha-but don't forget, if not for Dior, who knows if we would even have YSL.

I do have a deep understanding of fashion history and pretty much stick to my guns, as you do as well. We probably will never see eye to eye, but that's ok, I probably couldn't with a Rick Owens fan.

Like you blog though!
PCE
 
You don't see anything wrong with that? That John Galliano, who is arguably more creative than the founder of the house he is now designing for, is making collections that look as if they've been designed by a couturier who died over 50 years ago? Fashion and style have changed pretty radically in those 50 years. Personally, I wouldn't take it as a compliment if I read that something I designed looks like it could've been made by someone else who has been dead for longer than I've been living.

No I dont see anything woring with that because it should be taken as a compliment. For a designer to be able to perfectly channel the orginal style and ideas of the creater of the house is amazing and inspiring. Not to mention Christian Dior is known as one of the greatest couturiers in fashion history. For 10 years 1947 to his death in 1957 he single handedly lead the fashion industry in what has been called The Golden Age of Haute Couture John returned the house to its roots in this collection, using ideas from the past in a modern version to creat this collection. So when I said that I could have seen Christian Dior creating this collection, I ment as if he were still alive today a involed woth the world of fashion, this would be a modern version of some of his orginals.

When I see this collection I think of it as what Christian Dior whould have done if this was this first collection ever. This shows how much of a genius John really is. He does not have to do dramatic peices and lavish gowns that tickle the imagination to show that. And there is not anything worng with re-creating the past aslong as it is not the very smae thing. This was a sucessful couture collection.

And as u stated to Tian Couture I dont think we will agree on this either lol
 
Mmm, my main tiffs are the hair and color palette :ermm:
And animal print and Dior should never be together. In fact it should be banned from all the Paris fashion houses :ninja:

I don't think John is losing his magic-I did love the prêt-à-porter collections he made this season, especially John Galliano :wub:
But what is his inspiration? Didn't I read somewhere that he said Charlize Theron is his muse? Because as much as I love Charlize, and even if she isn't his main inspiration, I think he should find a new muse. Specifically Eva Green, because she's fearless :ninja:
 
Mmm, my main tiffs are the hair and color palette :ermm:
And animal print and Dior should never be together. In fact it should be banned from all the Paris fashion houses :ninja:

lol. I completly get what your saying, but the only thing woth the leopard print and Dior is that it is a signature of the house, ever since Christian Dior in the late 1940's i think it was 1949 created a dress made completly out of real leopard skinSo it sort of explains why it shows up in the collections every now and then.
 
Oh thanks for the info :blush:

Leopard skin dress: :sick:

Well now I don't like animal print in Paris. It looks so forced now-case in point:
Tanya's dress :yuk:

:innocent:
 
I looove sooo much everything about Dior! even I was looking over 7 times Christian Dior HC F/W 09.10 Paris all the show.
 
^ definitly

I think that leopard is probably the most tolerable of the animal prints, but I still didn't like much about the collection other than the colors. I'm a big fan of complete outfits, that have you know, actual bottoms?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,243
Messages
15,292,485
Members
89,165
Latest member
afrobichota
Back
Top