Dario Vitale - Designer, Creative Director of Versace

[Lola701]

That model looks like she's about to sing Pump Up the Jam. '80s nightmare!!

Ahaha I listened to it on the treadmill this morning!

 

[Cocteau Stone]

That model looks like she's about to sing Pump Up the Jam. '80s nightmare!!

Well not too far off from the runway soundtracks of early 2000s past though... Kind of could have worked, leaning into the utter campery this collection kind of is.

 

[perhydrol]

@carla56 you have no idea how much I am (and I guess we all are) waiting for the tea!

 

[Kanzai]

What Intellectual fashion means though?
I only believe in cerebral and instinctive. For me, the only thing that matter is the creative process, not the fantasy we put into the existing clothes.
Chanel made clothes for herself and then it became a style for the world. It was totally pragmatic so, for me her fashion is instinctive. Rei Kawakubo had an intention (at least when she came to Paris) to challenge the status quo and to impact a way of life through her clothes. Her clothes had a purpose that went beyond her and were supported by a concept that went beyond the expression through clothes. So for me, she is a cerebral.

But what does intellectualism mean and what is the opposite of intellectualism? Dumb?

If Armani was intellectual, what was Versace? Gianni shared a lot with Giorgio even though their clothes were different.

For me intellectualism was a stamp made for people to make themselves feel better about enjoying something as frivolous as fashion.

If we consider that there’s such a thing as intellectualism in fashion, when did it started?

I quote a comment of Phuel in "Intellectual fashion" thread, he nailed it perfectly. I hate that intellectual term too and I don’t think we need the binary of “cerebral” versus “instinctive” either. Some designers create works that demand time, thought, and contemplation before we “get it”, before we like it, or even recognize what makes it special. That’s (imho) what “intellectual” really means in the sense used on tFS and elsewhere. There are several designers who are considered "intellectual" to person A but not necessarily "intellectual" to person B, it's always like that.

Vetements, Jacquemus, (HBA, J.W. Anderson)… are the rise of intellectual fashion???? We are in dire dire dire times then since all are lessers blatantly copying greater designers before them. All unbearably hyped, pretentious and ultimately short on talent but very clever in understanding marketing. If that’s what passes as “intellectual”, I’d happily be dumb and passe in liking what I like.

Intellectual fashion is such a cringe-inducing term to me— and likely the type of segregation first-year fashion students take seriously without knowing how foolish they are for taking it seriously. But that’s a part of being a student— you make a fool of yourself all the while learning: As if a certain style of design is somehow much more “intelligent” and “thoughtful” just because someone dubs it “intellectual”. Fashion— whether high fashion, haute couture, artisanal, DIY, street and even fast, exists alongside one another and is as valid as the other. I may prefer one over the other, but they’re as much a part of the fashionscape, and as much a part of the fashion vocabulary as the next. I may not like Versace or Jeremy’s Scott’s Moschino— or even the aforementioned designers that started my post, but I think they’re as much a part of fashion/ high fashion as designers I may be attracted to. But it’s all just fashion. The more variety, the merrier. And it’s not like most will last in the long run anyway, right-- Jacquemus…?

 

[style_expert]

Well, he got one pretty good review in The NY Times which I found rather surprising...
At Versace, Dario Vitale’s Debut Gets Down and Dirty

But I paid special attention to this part:

So it’s unfortunate that neither Donatella Versace nor Miuccia Prada, who Mr. Vitale worked with for 14 years in his previous job at Miu Miu, were at the show (even if, according to a spokesman, it was so they didn’t steal the spotlight).

I guess they both know this was his first and last show; otherwise, they absolutely would have been there as a sign of confidence and approval.

 

[Lola701]

I quote a comment of Phuel in "Intellectual fashion" thread, he nailed it perfectly. I hate that intellectual term too and I don’t think we need the binary of “cerebral” versus “instinctive” either. Some designers create works that demand time, thought, and contemplation before we “get it”, before we like it, or even recognize what makes it special. That’s (imho) what “intellectual” really means in the sense used on tFS and elsewhere. There are several designers who are considered "intellectual" to person A but not necessarily "intellectual" to person B, it's always like that.

Hmm interesting.
For me, my perception of a designer’s work is almost irrelevant. I care about the intention of the designer. That’s for me the most interesting part. That’s why I hate the idea of intellectual.
I rarely had to digest a Prada collection. I have often had to digest a Ghesquiere collection. But it wasn’t so much because of internal deep questions but because it challenged my perception of their work.

And because for me, the only thing that matters is the intention of the designer, It would be pretentious of me to assume that the clothes mean more than they are.

We saw it with Phoebe Philo and that story by Vanessa Friedman. Phoebe had a very down to earth, pragmatic intention in her work and Friedman went into an intellectual diatribe.

And for me, there are no intellectual designers (even more when you have been in the industry). Some thinks that loving contemporary art, brutalism and quoting auteurs is enough.

But I understand people’s POV on the question.

 

[tourbillions]

they call it intellectual, i call it overworked.

hate that term... as if being creative was not intellectual enough. Only real "intellectual fashion" i care about is when i see the inspirations that the designers were nerding about in their clothes. Like that interview with galliano and his favorite things in his house and how it inspired him to make certain collections.

 

[thenewclassic]

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I guess he deserves some criticism but what do you really expect is gonna happen when someone gets appointed to make stuff for the lowest common denominator. It'd be one thing if this was a position to create a fantasy, building a unique just out of reach ideal of beauty, but that's not what McDonald's Dine Brands Global JAB Holding Company Prada Group Versace is for anymore. They are quite literally telling you exactly what is going on. You're not supposed to go to Versace to feel sexy. You're supposed to go there to buy a token from Sexy Land. Which like okay... 🙁 it is what it is. But the SHAME is that the token doesn't have ANY special quality about it anymore, which I guess Dario could be partly to blame. There is no shame in liking McDonald's and Burger King. They do have fun stuff. But you aren't gonna go there when you want the real deal.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

The online discourse of favour and praise over this I'm finding really odd. I agree that there are some things in here that are nice and would work when removed from the overdone styling. What doesn't make sense is a lot of these people going "Oh but Versace Jeans Couture in the late 80s to early 90s...". Are we really that nostalgia obsessed that we have to find a way to praise what is a rather mediocre collection at large by looking at some random blip of a reference? And how (and even why) does a reference like that work in the context of now? It's all a confusing mess.

What makes it worse for me is that the lead up is in such stark contrast to what is being presented here. The show makes Dario's casual look for Julia Roberts seem chic in comparison. Then comparing this to the pre-collection imagery and all the lead up promo is at odds with each other. There's already an identity crisis that also seems focused on this particular part of Versace - Jeans Couture. Donatella certainly lost her way in the last few years, which wasn't helped with the styling of Jacob K. But of all the references he decided to make the main focus, Dario chose Jeans Couture???

 

[ChicVogueSair]

That's not intellectual, that's basic.

 

[ChicVogueSair]

Call me crazy, but when I think of intellectual fashion I think of Hussein Chalayan, Alexander McQueen. For me intellectual fashion is something that makes me stop and think. It's not pseudo-intellectual poseur with accessories from the street fair.

 

[hamburgers]

The online discourse of favour and praise over this I'm finding really odd.

I'm still on the fence about it but I get why it's getting praised.

1. It was a big risk fully realized. All the debuts so far have been safe combinations of the creative director's last collection + heritage/the former creative director's last collection just general maintaining the status quo of the brand because market demand and the economy are in a slump.

2. It kind of addressed the elephant in the room that "sexy" dressing today doesn't really have anything to do with having sex at all. I mean you see people like Kendall Jenner with a body sculpted by the world's finest doctors in archival Mugler and it's somehow the most asexual thing in the world. It's hard for me to explain but sexy dressing of the 00's had a very warm and invitational "come hither" appeal, but sexy dressing today despite exposing the same amount of body feels icy. Instead of inviting you in it feels like it's used to push you away and say look at how much more beautiful I am than you which has a lot of utility in the social media attention economy. By focusing on a more casual and vulgar era of Versace, I think he's made it more about being horny than being sexy which right now feels infinitely more sexual.

 

[brandon J pierre]

The online discourse of favour and praise over this I'm finding really odd. I agree that there are some things in here that are nice and would work when removed from the overdone styling. What doesn't make sense is a lot of these people going "Oh but Versace Jeans Couture in the late 80s to early 90s...". Are we really that nostalgia obsessed that we have to find a way to praise what is a rather mediocre collection at large by looking at some random blip of a reference? And how (and even why) does a reference like that work in the context of now? It's all a confusing mess.

What makes it worse for me is that the lead up is in such stark contrast to what is being presented here. The show makes Dario's casual look for Julia Roberts seem chic in comparison. Then comparing this to the pre-collection imagery and all the lead up promo is at odds with each other. There's already an identity crisis that also seems focused on this particular part of Versace - Jeans Couture. Donatella certainly lost her way in the last few years, which wasn't helped with the styling of Jacob K. But of all the references he decided to make the main focus, Dario chose Jeans Couture???

I'm gonna call it what it really is the same thing that happened at dior a female designer got pushed out and replaced by a gay white man. They're talking about queer codes and all of that. Gianni and donatella never did that they never had to. Real sexiness doesn't have an sexual orientation.
The strangest thing to me is whether you like donatella, Or not. She did produce fine clothes, wonderful dresses great jackets and we saw none of that in the new show.

The jeans Couture part is the most shocking the reason gianni started that was to make some extra cash not to start a revolution. I just find it odd.
A collection is An automatic flop if I have to constantly go back and look at the references.

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

I'm still on the fence about it but I get why it's getting praised.

1. It was a big risk fully realized. All the debuts so far have been safe combinations of the creative director's last collection + heritage/the former creative director's last collection just general maintaining the status quo of the brand because market demand and the economy are in a slump.

2. It kind of addressed the elephant in the room that "sexy" dressing today doesn't really have anything to do with having sex at all. I mean you see people like Kendall Jenner with a body sculpted by the world's finest doctors in archival Mugler and it's somehow the most asexual thing in the world. It's hard for me to explain but sexy dressing of the 00's had a very warm and invitational "come hither" appeal, but sexy dressing today despite exposing the same amount of body feels icy. Instead of inviting you in it feels like it's used to push you away and say look at how much more beautiful I am than you which has a lot of utility in the social media attention economy. By focusing on a more casual and vulgar era of Versace, I think he's made it more about being horny than being sexy which right now feels infinitely more sexual.

The wording of this was incredible, thank you.

In the end, Versace was for me the "intellectual" show of the season, in the sense that it made me ask questions.

Is it ok going for the cheap diffusion line as main inspiration when you have such a rich heritage?
or is it better to perpetuate a dream even if it seems out of touch with our reality?

what does "sexy" mean today?

is this the new ugly chic, but it shocks me because of its newness?

was this a deliberate provocation or a genuine effort to make Versace have again a social impact?

are capris and tight bulges making a comeback?

 

[Norden]

I'm still on the fence about it but I get why it's getting praised.

1. It was a big risk fully realized. All the debuts so far have been safe combinations of the creative director's last collection + heritage/the former creative director's last collection just general maintaining the status quo of the brand because market demand and the economy are in a slump.

2. It kind of addressed the elephant in the room that "sexy" dressing today doesn't really have anything to do with having sex at all. I mean you see people like Kendall Jenner with a body sculpted by the world's finest doctors in archival Mugler and it's somehow the most asexual thing in the world. It's hard for me to explain but sexy dressing of the 00's had a very warm and invitational "come hither" appeal, but sexy dressing today despite exposing the same amount of body feels icy. Instead of inviting you in it feels like it's used to push you away and say look at how much more beautiful I am than you which has a lot of utility in the social media attention economy. By focusing on a more casual and vulgar era of Versace, I think he's made it more about being horny than being sexy which right now feels infinitely more sexual.

This is why I love this forum. I love reading all these takes.

 

[Scotty]

I'm still on the fence about it but I get why it's getting praised.

1. It was a big risk fully realized. All the debuts so far have been safe combinations of the creative director's last collection + heritage/the former creative director's last collection just general maintaining the status quo of the brand because market demand and the economy are in a slump.

2. It kind of addressed the elephant in the room that "sexy" dressing today doesn't really have anything to do with having sex at all. I mean you see people like Kendall Jenner with a body sculpted by the world's finest doctors in archival Mugler and it's somehow the most asexual thing in the world. It's hard for me to explain but sexy dressing of the 00's had a very warm and invitational "come hither" appeal, but sexy dressing today despite exposing the same amount of body feels icy. Instead of inviting you in it feels like it's used to push you away and say look at how much more beautiful I am than you which has a lot of utility in the social media attention economy. By focusing on a more casual and vulgar era of Versace, I think he's made it more about being horny than being sexy which right now feels infinitely more sexual.

Yes, but at the same time, I feel like the notion of being sexy or at least the cultural value placed on sex appeal has shifted from women to men. Maybe it’s just the way my social media is curated, but all I see on my social media are men embodying and selling sexiness. It’s also become so commonly achievable too. I feel like 80% of men have some sort of gym body nowadays.
On the other hand, women seem to be constrained by that sterile image you mentioned earlier.

Even in the show, the focus feels more directed toward men; in the designs, in the presentation, even in who’s sitting front row. You had Beyoncé and Mariah in 2004 but now its MAGA fitness influencer men. The women felt like an after thought to the ‘80s mustached men.

 

[Scotty]

Also, I just feel like the gay designers nowadays don’t love women anymore!

 

[brandon J pierre]

Yes, but at the same time, I feel like the notion of being sexy or at least the cultural value placed on sex appeal has shifted from women to men. Maybe it’s just the way my social media is curated, but all I see on my social media are men embodying and selling sexiness. It’s also become so commonly achievable too. I feel like 80% of men have some sort of gym body nowadays.
On the other hand, women seem to be constrained by that sterile image you mentioned earlier.

Even in the show, the focus feels more directed toward men; in the designs, in the presentation, even in who’s sitting front row. You had Beyoncé and Mariah in 2004 but now its MAGA fitness influencer men. The women felt like an after thought to the ‘80s mustached men.

Yes split the collection up between the men's and women.And you'll see what he really cares about.

 

[chiccestlavie]

On his insta stories right now he’s trying to convince us how *versace* his collection was by showing the archival references for seemingly each look in the collection. This includes a screenshot from Showgirls….