Ghesquière In N.Y.

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by Lena+Apr 29th, 2004 - 1:54 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lena @ Apr 29th, 2004 - 1:54 am)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-chickonspeed@Apr 29th, 2004 - 3:47 am
To say that Nicolas' collections have always been stale and devoid of imagination/technique is even more out there.

i never thought he's stale for imagination or technique,
on the contrary my point is that he's trying too hard
both for imagination and on technique, i feel his recent
collections are real 'forced'.
i also agree he's been copied en masse, at the time
that he was making waves at Balenciaga, but who doesnt?

[/b][/quote]

I so agree, though, with this. His last collections were, indeed, very forced. That dress is proof.

the problem i see with NG's work is that he is not 'creating'
in the Balenciaga mood. If he was leading his own label,
i wouldnt criticise him at all for his style, it is just that
for me, the Balenciaga label stands for an entirely
different 'style' a mood i havent seen yet from NG.

Some of his collections, though, were in the Balenciaga 'tradition.' Organic, heavy and architectual are some words to describe it.

the fact that he gets so shamelesly 'inspired' by other designer's
collections is also annoying me,
i mean he works for Balenciaga..
why should he turn to others for 'inspiration'?
why should he endanger client faith in the label?

Ditto. I so agree.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by softgrey+Apr 28th, 2004 - 6:00 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(softgrey @ Apr 28th, 2004 - 6:00 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lena@Apr 28th, 2004 - 5:53 pm
but the fun in Balenciaga was it's streetwise sassiness and that energy and jolt of buzz surrounding it.

you see, i dont think the balenciaga label should be about "sassiness"
but about elegance instead

i agree with lena's statement...balenciaga should be about elegance and drama and fantasy...

i think olivier theyskens is turning rochas into what balenciaga should have been...i'm looking forward to what he will become... [/b][/quote]
WORD! The kid has TALENT.

 

[metal-on-metal]

I think that if every re-born fashion house (Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Rochas, Nina Ricci, Balenciaga, Revillon, Gres, and boatloads of others) were still designed with respect to their namesakes, fashion would be pretty boring. This isn't necessary, especially if a particular house has almost completely lost it's previous image. When Nicolas came in, Balenciaga was pretty faceless. Sure, we all remember and cherish the magic of Cristobal, but how many years ago was that? I think Nicolas' best work comes when he doesn't try to reference/rework the past, but rather, strives to create a stronger, younger image of Balenciaga for the 21st century.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by chickonspeed@Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:31 am
I think that if every re-born fashion house (Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Rochas, Nina Ricci, Balenciaga, Revillon, Gres, and boatloads of others) were still designed with respect to their namesakes, fashion would be pretty boring. This isn't necessary, especially if a particular house has almost completely lost it's previous image. When Nicolas came in, Balenciaga was pretty faceless. Sure, we all remember and cherish the magic of Cristobal, but how many years ago was that? I think Nicolas' best work comes when he doesn't try to reference/rework the past, but rather, strives to create a stronger, younger image of Balenciaga for the 21st century.

i completely agree. i think that the only way house revivals can work is if they are infused with something utterly modern and relevant. revillon is the perfect example...so much tradition but reawakened with that current and edgy voice of rick owens.

the major fashion players (vuitton, chanel, cartier, et al) have all had to radically expanded their scope in order to stay competitive in today's market place.

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by mikeijames+Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:47 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:47 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-chickonspeed@Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:31 am
I think that if every re-born fashion house (Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Rochas, Nina Ricci, Balenciaga, Revillon, Gres, and boatloads of others) were still designed with respect to their namesakes, fashion would be pretty boring. This isn't necessary, especially if a particular house has almost completely lost it's previous image. When Nicolas came in, Balenciaga was pretty faceless. Sure, we all remember and cherish the magic of Cristobal, but how many years ago was that? I think Nicolas' best work comes when he doesn't try to reference/rework the past, but rather, strives to create a stronger, younger image of Balenciaga for the 21st century.

i completely agree. i think that the only way house revivals can work is if they are infused with something utterly modern and relevant. revillon is the perfect example...so much tradition but reawakened with that current and edgy voice of rick owens.

the major fashion players (vuitton, chanel, cartier, et al) have all had to radically expanded their scope in order to stay competitive in today's market place. [/b][/quote]
i don't know...i think the most successful one...CHANEL...still looks a lot like chanel... they still sell the original bag designed by coco...and they can't keep it in stock...

i still think that if designers want to express their own point of view then they should do it under their own name...just ask alexander mcqueen about the difference...

and just to clarify... it was lena who was touting martin grant and ralph rucci...i am not 'entranced' by them either...

chick-the skinny "V" silhouette is THE classic silhouette of the 80's...EVERYONE was doing that...all he did was push along the eighties revival which was about due anyway if you go by the schedule that fashion recycles itself every 20 years...and krystle carrington(i notice you had the spelling right-a fan of dynasty are you ...)looked a lot like that imo...the only difference was the hair and make up...which is a styling thing...not a design thing...

mike-as for the bag-i think it's the one 'original' thing that's come out of that house but what are the odds that ghesquiere designed that all by himself?>>>who's the girl in the picture, btw...i notice she's not wearing any balenciaga clothing...actually, i think she has on a donna karan belt from 1985...everything else is probably vintage as well...that's what i mean...you can get this whole look at a thrift store...why would you pay all that money for it...not to mention the fit problem...

i'm just not all that impressed...i think he did get a lot of hype and attention...as did miguel androver and daryl k...but i was never impressed with them either...and now it seems as though he's just become a puppet...

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by softgrey@Apr 29th, 2004 - 12:29 pm
CHANEL...still looks a lot like chanel... they still sell the original bag designed by coco...and they can't keep it in stock...

i still think that if designers want to express their own point of view then they should do it under their own name...just ask alexander mcqueen about the difference...

mike-as for the bag-i think it's the one 'original' thing that's come out of that house but what are the odds that ghesquiere designed that all by himself?>>>who's the girl in the picture, btw...i notice she's not wearing any balenciaga clothing...actually, i think she has on a donna karan belt from 1985...everything else is probably vintage as well...that's what i mean...you can get this whole look at a thrift store...why would you pay all that money for it...not to mention the fit problem...

i'm just not all that impressed...i think he did get a lot of hype and attention...as did miguel androver and daryl k...but i was never impressed with them either...and now it seems as though he's just become a puppet...

there is an allure about chanel because i don't think chanel ever completely fell off the fashion radar. my grandmother still has her old chanel and wears it...but my grandmother would shudder at images of girls in hot pants (was it on the cover of the new york times or some other publication...it was a big rage bc lagerfeld said, the look for spring is "skinny")...also, as i am sure you are aware, there are plenty of chanel bags that are completely new (remember the "CHUNEL" bags lagerfeld put out a few years back and even the tape cassette ones)....those bear no resemblance to gabrielle's chanel...

i posted the girl wearing a balenciaga bag (i don't know what she is wearing either) to say that balenciaga is relevant and accessible on many levels....you may not buy into a particular look, but i think that ghesquiere does design for a very particular modern woman...i think that the heads of all of the revived houses strive to strike the balance between accessibility and exclusivity...and again, i think ghesquiere is one a very few who get it right.

 

[metal-on-metal]

The girl in Mike's photo is Bay Garnett, editor/creator of Cheap Date.

I didn't say that Nicolas invented the 'V' silhouette. But he was certainly responsible for reintroducing it into fashion, almost singlehandedly I would say, in the late 90's/early 00's. Though fashion in general has long moved on from a hard 80's aesthetic, those shapes with tight bottoms, nipped waists, and big shoulders do remain.

Chanel didn't go through a period of over 30 years without having a serious design vision behind it. I think when Nicolas was handed the reins at Balenciaga he was pretty much allowed total design freedom and was basically told to move the label forward. Balenciaga is his house now. There's no denying it. Maybe that isn't right but who can argue that Karl doesn't own Chanel and that Marc doesn't own Vuitton? Or that John doesn't own Dior?

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by chickonspeed@Apr 29th, 2004 - 4:49 pm
The girl in Mike's photo is Bay Garnett, editor/creator of Cheap Date.

aah...thx...i knew she looked familiar...she's so cute...

 

[softgrey]

some of my thoughts...



you're right of course about nicolas g=being given the reins...but it's still not his house...as you pointed out...he doesn't own it...and look at where tom ford is now...i'm sure we all thought he'd be at gucci forever...and nicolas won't be at balenciaga if something doesn't change...

i've been under the impression that the reason for keeping these old houses alive and reviving others is because of the brand recognition...the public knows the name and reputation of the original designer and that's why they are interested in the label...built in customer base...

i just think that if you try to change the image completely, you lose your audience...but i'm horrified by the re-issue pieces as well...i don't want copies of the originals...i want something new,,,based on the original...again...like olivier is doing at rochas...to my mind...that is the perfect way to revive a label...stick with the original aesthetic, but give it a new twist and make it modern...move it forward...anyway...that's what i'd be interested in as a customer...

marc had it easy because there was no image for him to follow...as did tom...but then look at the trouble tom had at YSL...and i much prefer what galliano does with his own collection to what he does for dior...i would NEVER buy galliano for dior...but i'd love a galliano dress...or a vintage dior...

i think the balenciaga legend and image is too strong and iconic to just toss it away the way nicolas did...ultimately..it was pure ego and arrogance...especially since you readily acknowledged that what he was doing wasn't even original...so he was inspired by dynasty...i would have preferred him to be inspired by balenciaga anyday...

cristobal's work

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by mikeijames+Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:47 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:47 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-chickonspeed@Apr 29th, 2004 - 11:31 am
I think that if every re-born fashion house (Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Rochas, Nina Ricci, Balenciaga, Revillon, Gres, and boatloads of others) were still designed with respect to their namesakes, fashion would be pretty boring. This isn't necessary, especially if a particular house has almost completely lost it's previous image. When Nicolas came in, Balenciaga was pretty faceless. Sure, we all remember and cherish the magic of Cristobal, but how many years ago was that? I think Nicolas' best work comes when he doesn't try to reference/rework the past, but rather, strives to create a stronger, younger image of Balenciaga for the 21st century.

i completely agree. i think that the only way house revivals can work is if they are infused with something utterly modern and relevant. revillon is the perfect example...so much tradition but reawakened with that current and edgy voice of rick owens.

the major fashion players (vuitton, chanel, cartier, et al) have all had to radically expanded their scope in order to stay competitive in today's market place. [/b][/quote]
I third this statement.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, Nicolas wasn't totally away from the Balenciaga image when he designed. Some of his clothes were organic, heavy and architectual ala Cristobal.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by softgrey@Apr 30th, 2004 - 3:11 am

i've been under the impression that the reason for keeping these old houses alive and reviving others is because of the brand recognition...the public knows the name and reputation of the original designer and that's why they are interested in the label...built in customer base...


i think the balenciaga legend and image is too strong and iconic to just toss it away the way nicolas did...ultimately..it was pure ego and arrogance...especially since you readily acknowledged that what he was doing wasn't even original...so he was inspired by dynasty...i would have preferred him to be inspired by balenciaga anyday...

cristobal's work

i second softgrey's post here

if a designer does not revive a House's tradition, then what is he doing designing for the House? why doesnt he go out and create his own label and do whatever he wants? MacDonald was highly criticised for not 'catching' the Givenchy mood, Phoebe is highly 'congratulated' on re-defining the archetypal Chloe spirit.
If she was just banging on her drum she would have the same problems Julien was having.
I believe designers should either concentrate respectfully on the image the label stands for or -much better- just go their way and bring in fresh styles in modern fashion, but mixing/mixed message is always blurry in my book.
See what Nicolas is doing right now.. re-issue Balenciaga archives? a lifesaver right? Of course, thats the only way to get Balenciaga out of the red... His direction speaks by itself, the peach satin dress he designed for that hollywood star (posted before) is a proof of his change of direction and one does not change direction if he's been on the right path

chickonsped: When Nicolas came in, Balenciaga was pretty faceless

excuses but this was not the case, Balenciaga was doing pretty well with Andrew Gn on design direction, but Andrew wanted to concentrate on his own line and thats when they brought NG in, Balenciaga was not faceless at all and Andrew was doing a pretty good job there. Of course Andrew was not a cute face, he was not concentrating on making a hype or on copying other designers, he was just a designer doing a great job and this seems not to be enough for stirring up the ephemeral interest of the 'ladies who lunch' .

but see, times are changing, Andrew Gn is doing great with his own line (sales wise) while NG is looking around for life savers.

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by Lena+May 1st, 2004 - 3:25 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lena @ May 1st, 2004 - 3:25 am)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-softgrey@Apr 30th, 2004 - 3:11 am

i've been under the impression that the reason for keeping these old houses alive and reviving others is because of the brand recognition...the public knows the name and reputation of the original designer and that's why they are interested in the label...built in customer base...


i think the balenciaga legend and image is too strong and iconic to just toss it away the way nicolas did...ultimately..it was pure ego and arrogance...especially since you readily acknowledged that what he was doing wasn't even original...so he was inspired by dynasty...i would have preferred him to be inspired by balenciaga anyday...

cristobal's work

i second softgrey's post here

if a designer does not revive a House's tradition, then what is he doing designing for the House? why doesnt he go out and create his own label and do whatever he wants? MacDonald was highly criticised for not 'catching' the Givenchy mood, Phoebe is highly 'congratulated' on re-defining the archetypal Chloe spirit.
If she was just banging on her drum she would have the same problems Julien was having.
[/b][/quote]

That's true yet nobody wants it to be a stale copy-paste from the archives brand.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by ignitioned32@May 1st, 2004 - 4:10 pm
That's true yet nobody wants it to be a stale copy-paste from the archives brand.

there is a wide range from copy & paste to 'no matter what' ,
one should keep somekind of respectable balance