That is a strawman- "technology for technology's sake". This is not suggested as the only or the "right" direction to go. The direction to go that I mentioned is the world "today", i.e., the world I live in, not my grandmother's world. With this world comes a lot of truly fascinating ideas, concepts and innovations, and not just in technology, but also in art, society and culture. For example, even as "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is as "olde world" as you can get but imagine if it doesn't use any CGI but actors in rubber suits. In the film, you don't "see" technology, but technology made the Tolkien world vivid. McQueen is very "olde world" in his design, but at least he makes them in a way that is modern and relevant. I don't think Diana Vreeland, if she were alive today, would want fashion that is frozen in the 50s. She was daring and iconoclastic for her time, so were all the great designers, from Chanel to Balenciaga. They were pushing new ideas, experimenting with new forms that were radical during their reign, that's what made them great. The Chanel jacket was the ultimate streamlined chic during Mademoiselle's time, but to redo the Chanel jacket today over and over, like St John, makes it totally meaningless, uninteresting and does nothing to push fashion. Monet is great for his time, but imagine some cheesy artist still painting the same impressionistic water lilies today. That "artist" wouldn't make it to anywhere except maybe HomeShoppingNetwork, and no one is suggesting that he has to use technology or computers to do his art either. He can still painstakingly hand-make everything, but the meaning of his art has to be there. This feeling of watching Galliano do a parody of "Dior", more pailletes, bigger poufs, some Chinoiserie/Japonaise, throw some "blood" on for "revolutionary" edginess, lots of embroidery, *always* Pigalle and Toulouse Lautrec, maybe Marie Antoinette or Bois de Boulogne (ooh, the scandal!) next time, transvestite makeup, the peplum jacket, that hands on the waist "stomachache" pose, all the cliched "Frenchiness" but it's still the same stuff over and over. The French I know don't even think of Dior as French fashion anymore, just tacky expensive merchandise targeted at American, Russian and Asian tourists. And sadly, no fashion journalist out there would even do anything other than applaud this shabby state of affairs, "friendship" and lavish gifts aside, they can't bite the hand that pays for the ads.
I'm not going to say that I hate it but it's definitely not what I've expected, not to mention the set is horrible.
