Christian Dior Haute Couture S/S 2005 Paris

[Spike413]

Eh. Having seen the whole collection, it's really not that great. Why is there such a huge section in red? I mean, the color is beautiful but there are like 15 looks in the middle of the same color. And then the white dresses at the end. I don't really get it. I think the link between Edie Sedgwick and Josephine is forced and shaky, at best. I don't understand why Galliano has to be either totally over-the-top and ridiculous or totally boring and mainstream. Why can't there be a middle ground?

These are my sentiments exactly! There was no flow between the two inspirations, no correlation at all. Normally I can look and say, wow I never would've related those two things, I.E. his Egypt-Avedon collection last spring. Though totally unwearable the collection at least made sense. This just didn't do that for me.

I think that if he continues in this toned down direction it will work. It will become more natural and less forced, but only if he allows himself to use some fantasy cause clearly totally wearable isn't working for him.

 

[Foxie-Pooh]

Did you read the rest of my post at all? I was saying that a middle ground would incorporate a little bit of the outlandish couture of the past three years with the completely sober collection he showed today. Why is that a bad thing?

Well I did read your post. I was saying that maybe he likes to either go crazy completely or becomes super calm and bland. Maybe this collection is supposed to be satirical to those who wants him to tone things down. I like it regardless, the puffy dresses and skirts were wonderful, the flower headdresses were fantastic, and the modish coats were evern wearable. I guess it's really impossible to please all crowd, but who cares...as long as they make money off of this. Seriously, do rich socialites really read reviews when they go out to get a Dior ensumble?

 

[metal-on-metal]

Well I did read your post. I was saying that maybe he likes to either go crazy completely or becomes super calm and bland. Maybe this collection is supposed to be satirical to those who wants him to tone things down. I like it regardless, the puffy dresses and skirts were wonderful, the flower headdresses were fantastic, and the modish coats were evern wearable. I guess it's really impossible to please all crowd, but who cares...as long as they make money off of this. Seriously, do rich socialites really read reviews when they go out to get a Dior ensumble?

Ok, I understand you. I still think a hybrid of the outlandish and the restrained is the way to go.

 

[Spike413]

Ok, I understand you. I still think a hybrid of the outlandish and the restrained is the way to go.

I agree, that's what got him the position at Dior. Then that got kind of tired and he went for the over the top, but now it's time to scale back again and although I don't love this first effort I think it is a step in the right direction.

 

[pointup]

I want to see the video then maybe I can get it a little better ....

 

[brian]

i want a crocodile detective bag...

 

[Foxie-Pooh]

" At last, Galliano has had the change of heart for which his critics have been praying. "In my quest to make a corporate image for Dior, I had become a bit predictable," he said. "So I wanted to get off the podium, to be more exclusive and less MTV." "-from style.com

 

[birdofparadise]

For Galliano, making his couture collection more exclusive seems to, at least visually, have the opposite effect. It is more down to earth, more visually accessible, combining elements we have all seen before in one form or another. It is still his mind at work but the end result does not have the shock value. Is that what 'exclusive' means? 'Exclusive' to whom, for whom? Isn't couture, whether jeune fille or matronly, already exclusive?

The paring down of Dior couture seems to echo the losses that fashion has suffered over the past few months. The flash and steel of the 90s with its sex and minimalism is long gone along with its mascots--Ford, Lang, and Sander. Of course, Berge deemed the closing of the YSL atelier as the end of couture. We all have read about the Gucci Group no longer willing to invest heavily in McCartney and McQueen in favour of Gucci and Veneta, which is turning a profit... A few years from now, will we all be mourning those losses as well? Fashion without McQueen, without his intellectual and emotional contributions seems absurd but all too possible.

Perhaps I am trying too hard to read into Dior's downplaying but I am concerned for fashion as we know it, for its future. There are a lot of us on this board who will somehow break into the industry. What is going to be left for us to do as couture tries to become pret a porter and pret goes H&M...which gets criticized for trying to go plus size...which is attempting to take its cues from couture...which is trying to become pret...

Is this 'simplicity' just another of Galliano's tricks or are we all in for one nasty surprise after another as fashion goes 'exclusive' by attemtping to appeal in one way or another to the masses?

 

[softgrey]

seems mroe 'old' galliano style, wich is good

ditto...

 

[softgrey]

galliano has once again risen up from the slings of adversity and has proved that haute couture, even though it's inaccessable to most, can indeed remain relevant.:

slings of adversity??...huh?...



what adversity?...dior is making money had over fist...and he's got melania knauss trussed up in a $100,000 gown on the cover of vogue this ...i'd saying he's riding on a pretty big high...

 

[softgrey]

Seriously, do rich socialites really read reviews when they go out to get a Dior ensumble?

i think many of them do actually...or at least look at editorials in magazines like vogue...that's why the designers suck up to them so much...

and that's why it's a HUGE deal that melania is on the cover of vogue in that huge dress...the sheep will follow...

 

[softgrey]

For Galliano, making his couture collection more exclusive seems to, at least visually, have the opposite effect. It is more down to earth, more visually accessible, combining elements we have all seen before in one form or another. It is still his mind at work but the end result does not have the shock value. Is that what 'exclusive' means? 'Exclusive' to whom, for whom? Isn't couture, whether jeune fille or matronly, already exclusive?

The paring down of Dior couture seems to echo the losses that fashion has suffered over the past few months. The flash and steel of the 90s with its sex and minimalism is long gone along with its mascots--Ford, Lang, and Sander. Of course, Berge deemed the closing of the YSL atelier as the end of couture. We all have read about the Gucci Group no longer willing to invest heavily in McCartney and McQueen in favour of Gucci and Veneta, which is turning a profit... A few years from now, will we all be mourning those losses as well? Fashion without McQueen, without his intellectual and emotional contributions seems absurd but all too possible.

Perhaps I am trying too hard to read into Dior's downplaying but I am concerned for fashion as we know it, for its future. There are a lot of us on this board who will somehow break into the industry. What is going to be left for us to do as couture tries to become pret a porter and pret goes H&M...which gets criticized for trying to go plus size...which is attempting to take its cues from couture...which is trying to become pret...

Is this 'simplicity' just another of Galliano's tricks or are we all in for one nasty surprise after another as fashion goes 'exclusive' by attemtping to appeal in one way or another to the masses?

what an incredibly insightful post...!!!


where have you come from?...have you introduced yourself?...you are consistently cutting right to the heart of matters and making great observations...thanks for that ...

for my part...i will repeat what brian pointed out about couture historically being much quieter...and with clothes shown privately to a small clientele...not being a HUGE commercial for the cosmetics line...about an exquisitely cut suit made to measure of the most sumptuos fabrics and detailing...

the people who have been fans of the spectacle are not actually anyone who can or would buy the clothes...

the customers must have had some influence on this shift...after all... the customer is always right...people may enjoy the show...but in the end ...if they can't wear the clothes...it's a bit boring...no?...

some of his previous dresses were more like soft sculpture than fashion...
if only people displayed dresses in their living rooms...

 

[Meg]

I agree with Brian and Softie about how couture used to be. It seems we all get used to years of Galliano's theatrics and forget how it used to be and what made it important wasn't the spectacle and the over-the-top but that it was supremely well made.

So if couture is more like ready-to-wear, than how was ready-to-wear compared to how it is now? You say it more geared toward the masses or more H&M like (something I'm not disagreeing with) so how was it that it is not anymore?

 

[birdofparadise]

All of the routes designers are taking today are relavant simply because they are appealing to someone. I also think these are special times, however, with larger fashion houses saying that they can do without 'the designer'. The stamp and heft of individuality is being downplayed as much as possible for the bottom line, the once all mighty American dollar, the strengthening Euro and so on and so forth. Something about what is going on right now feels more distinctive and dangerous overall, not just a matter of the pendulum swinging in the other direction just to one day return.

I am very much intrigued by the statement 'what made it important wasn't the spectable and the over-the-top but that it was supremely well made.' It seems to suggest that for something to be well made, it cannot be colourful, soulful, crazy, exuberant with energy...or perhaps even non vintage for that matter. In my humble opinion, couture is not the place for conservatism, though it certainly has to appeal to women with money and 9 times out of 10, they are not 17 or 23 or 33. Couture has the added task of preserving the life of the mind, the soul of creativity that is inherent in each and every designer, whether established or just wanna be. Let us not forget YSL's contributions to couture, how he reveled in the shock he caused by putting a man's peacoat, leather biker boots (which at the time were contributed to biker gangs who were committing fresh and dangerous versions of highway robbery in France) and African hut chic on the couture runway.

As far as the question of what ready to wear used to be, it may be more powerful to consider what it is now. A few years ago, the NY Times published an article on couture like pieces creeping into ready to wear; a rose embroidered full length leather jacket from Dolce & Gabbana going for a cool $80,000. Both versions of the sequinned evening dresses from McQueen's S/S 04 'They Shoot Horses, Don't They?' collection went for a little more than that. The Rochas dress on Hilary Swank in Feb's vogue goes for $41,872; his rooster feather dress? $70,535. Jean Paul Gaultier has talked about taking a more modern approach to couture in which dresses would only require one fitting and their presentation could be folded into a pret-a-porter showing. The merging of the two catagories in both obvious and clandestine ways should not be ignored.

Designers are seeking to use ready to wear to satiate desires fulfilled by couture in order to cut down on costs. In digging deeper, it is also easy to see designers weighing the costs of creativity at a time when many cling to traditions, both old and new that devalue 'spectacle' and the 'over-the-top' in favour of an almost political-religious sober seriousness.

 

[saturnine]

It's funny how the collection is still shocking, although not in the usual way. What a change of direction.

 

[Urban Stylin]

i like the coats with the large collars

 

[Meg]

I am very much intrigued by the statement 'what made it important wasn't the spectable and the over-the-top but that it was supremely well made.' It seems to suggest that for something to be well made, it cannot be colourful, soulful, crazy, exuberant with energy...or perhaps even non vintage for that matter. In my humble opinion, couture is not the place for conservatism, though it certainly has to appeal to women with money and 9 times out of 10, they are not 17 or 23 or 33.

I think you mistook what I said. I meant that things aren't simply couture because they are over the top and exuberant and completely unwearable. Yes couture can be both over the top and wearable but but being one of those things does not couture make. And I think part of the problem for me at least (as I think also for the mainstream populace who doesn't understand couture) is that couture doesn't direct rtw anymore. There are very few shows that provide inspiration and are both 'soulful, crazy, exuberant with energy' but that also have direction, are well made, and can provide as a stepping off point for rtw. Maybe while it is couture week (or days I suppose) we could start a thread talking about couture's place in today's market and it's ever changing relationship to rtw?

 

[Melody Nelson]

Balenciaga fall winter 2004 Dior Hautre Couture spring 2005

Dior Haute Couture spring 2005 Balenciaga fall winter 2004

That's what came up in my mind immediately....

 

[brian]

what adversity?...dior is making money had over fist...and he's got melania knauss trussed up in a $100,000 gown on the cover of vogue this ...i'd saying he's riding on a pretty big high...

adversity as in, the state that haute couture is in at present...it may not be true for dior as sales are up and will more than likely continue to go up thanks to this collection and melania ...but for the most part people were talking of couture as a dying art; that it's no longer relevant (i'm sure you remember??). but i believe that this dior show is proof that it isn't. it can be much more than the outlandish over the top spectacle that it's been in seasons past, much more than experimental art pieces and drag makeup, it can be totally wearable, totally modern and totally desired.

the customers must have had some influence on this shift...after all... the customer is always right...people may enjoy the show...but in the end ...if they can't wear the clothes...it's a bit boring...no?...

 

[Mr-Dale]

birdofparadise, I feel that somehow you are missing the point of this show. The first part of the show is completely wearable and indeed resembles ready-to-wear pieces. But I believe that when you take a closer look to any of those pieces the construction of all those bright coats, stiff skirts and cropped crocodiles will turn out to be unbelievebly detailed and precise, which in most cases is not the deal for ready-to-wear. Ofcourse these Jackie O's are good contestants to be hung in the boutiques, but if they will, the construction will assumably loose bits of its accuracy and detail. There lies the difference with 'simple-couture' and ready-to-wear. It is all about the detail in couture, but with good detail alone you will never sell a simple piece. When you say couture, you think detail and you think beauty, those two belong together when it comes to couture. Without one of those two aspects, it's not couture. Now come the reactions as in "So if I don't think it's beautifull, it's not couture?" Negative. The beauty of a couture piece lies in the costumer's taste, thoughts and ideas, I am very convinced of that.

What I would also like to add is that I don't think that this collection will mean a big shift in ready-to-wear because they are brought so closely together now, simply because this show also had a second and a third part and those two were far from regular ready-to-wear as we all can see I think.

Plus: Still no video