Dolce & Gabbana S/S 09 Milan

[helmut.newton]

I actually get what helmut.newton was saying, but maybe cheapness was the wrong word. Vulgar might be a better way of describing it, their brand of sexy was always "up and out". I'm not blasting it for that though.

In the past they kept a pretty good balance of vulgar mistress sex and baroque romanticism. These last few years though, they seem to veer to one extreme or another instead of finding that balance. It's sad in a way.

I miss the vintage Dolce and Gabbana, that look of just having left the boudoir in your palest pink lingerie without bothering to put anything over it before heading to a sex club.

Yes! That's the world I was looking for!

 

[xan]

It has the feeling of the Milan version of Marc Jacobs this season...

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[chanels]

style.it

 

[dior_couture1245]

Well, the make up is incredibly flattering!

 

[4n98]

O~M~G~~~~

So incredible....I'm indeed lovin it~!!

The shoulder silhouetted is AMAZING~
The Japan elements is sweet.I love almost everything.

 

[Lackuiew]

BEST colleciton in Milan .

 

[*ana*]

many pieces look cheap, the accessories and shoes are ugly and those flower gowns are just hideous. the only things i really like in this show are this dress on stam, this one on anouck lepère and the makeup...and the dog was cute too but SO out of place. poor thing.

 

[kuli_trendy]

those close up photos detail, just say "hey i copy dior, balenciaga and vuitton"...god..it's so dissapointing dolce gabbana for SS 09 collection.

 

[jenah]

half of it, love!
half of it, hate!

 

[kiddokiddo]

It definitely feels like Vuitton SS08

 

[Whitelinen]

"...Dolce needs to do "sexy", because that's what they're good at..."

To tell the truth, I have never seen Dolce&Gabbana as anything else but a company that makes money selling awfully tarty clothing for "kept" women, botoxed housewives of the rich business men etc. I find it interesting, reading this thread, that it seems mostly the men in this forum are crying out for the "sexy" D&G woman to come back... As a woman, I have to say I see no appeal in "being the D&G woman".

What exactly is Dolce&Gabbana's contribution to fashion as an art/craft form? Is there any? I have been wondering this for a long time. The only thing I see that makes them matter is their sales numbers and p*rn*gr*ph*c advertising campaigns. Is that so remarkable?

If all Dolce&Gabbana can do is that "sexy" we are talking of here, what is the relevance of Dolce&Gabbana? I wish that rather than sticking to that they would just stop designing. I see no particular use for their kind of "sexy" ... and if they can't do anything else well either, what's the point?

I am sorry if I sound offensive to some, that is not what I mean here. I am just giving my two cents...

That said, I do like some of the bags, belts, jewellery and headpieces. As someone said, they are very Lacroix indeed, but that doesn't bother me at all. The clothes on the other hand... maybe some skirts would work if separated from the rest, but mostly the clothes look awful. The final evening gowns are especially hideous (they look like bunches of cheap artificial fabric with plastic flowers glued over them), as are the platform shoes. If this is indeed supposed to be inspired by Japan, I guess the very first looks are supposed to reference to kimonos. Yet all I see is cheap hotel dressing gowns and pyjamas. The pieces with exaggerated shoulders or bubble-shaped skirts look plain ridiculous and like there hasn't been any thought given to making them. They look strangely one-dimensional.

A bad collection from an overrated duo, with some nice accessories sprinkled over it.

 

[Spike413]

The thing is, Dolce and Gabbana didn't always do p*rn*gr*ph*c sexy. They used to mix romance, baroque extravagance, mannish tailoring and sex to make what was ultimately their signature. It was a combination of very naive, coquettish boudoir femininity with harder more aggressive sex club type stuff that made them so appealing in the first place, like when they handpainted flowers onto rubber and vinyl dresses and covered them with tulle.

It's only recently that they've gone to an extreme. That said, I don't find anything wrong with their brand of sexy, it's one of many types. Not everyone can be subversively sexual like Prada, androgynously sexual like Saint Laurent, darkly sexual like Gucci used to be, or completely asexual like Jil Sander used to be.....women should have options in how to represent themselves, and I don't think one option is more "right" than any other.

I think people are saying they should stick to doing sexy because that's what they do well. All of this experimental stuff just isn't as honest, and when you know what a designer's strengths are, like cutting a flattering, structured corset dress, you don't want to see them squandering their skills on stuff that they don't do particularly well. I mean, would anyone want to see a label like Marni do something slick, tight and urban looking? It wouldn't come off as genuine if Consuelo did that.

 

[kuli_trendy]

^ i agree with you

 

[Whitelinen]

Seems like I need to research them more... could you suggest any particular period (season-wise) to look up to see what they were when they were great?

I do agree with that women should have many options - I just found it interesting that it seemed to be men talking of the D&G woman without considering if women want "her" back. I mean, sure you can long after that old "sexy", but if women don't share that view, it is not D&G's fault they are not doing that style anymore but moving to something that women seem to want better.