Tentacl Ventricl
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 1
As the season draws toward the time for solidifying conclusions around best collections, trends, direction of vibe, wardrobe wishlists or ideas for creativity; I'd like to pose a couple of quick questions stepping off from Givenchy..
This is the most overtly sexual season since...when?
When sex becomes a ubiquitous 'ground', is it in fact something other/opposite/outside - elegance perhaps - that becomes the true differentiator?
We can 'see' this second question more sharply if we compare and contrast this season's Givenchy with this season's Jil Sander. Both are sexy collections but their differences might contain the very question - how do we want our sex?
With Raf? - with a sense of elegance, deportment, grace, class, beauty, love even? Or is that overly romantic, unreal, dishonest even?
Or with Riccardo? A more senses tingling, dangerous, exciting, downright dirty, even, affair? A sense of a darker fantasy, libidinous, sex as pure pleasure and entertainment?
Of course, with the wearer or viewer and through that prism of ''taste'', the answer is somewhat socio-culturally differentiated. And with a ''choice'' based proviso that each may wish to play with each side of the sartorial equation at different times dependent on occasion and mood.
But there's also a structural differentiation. It is the case that at showtime fashion writers, Sarah Mower might stand as an exemplar, do tend toward a more puritanical view of femininity. Come the time of visual interpretation - ads and particularly editorials - art directors, editors, photographers and stylists, let's posit Olivier Zahm and Terry Richardson as exemplars, simply do tend to give vent to a more libidinous fantasy, something harder, edgier and more undressed.
In part it's the influence of Bourdin on Tisci this season which draws me to this line of thinking. Whilst I don't see Givenchy AW12/13 as a particularly 'editorial' collection, nevertheless I can see that my own current preference for the Jil Sander woman may well be, at least in part, determined by these structural differences and how we're perhaps all led to see with a different eye at showtime.
Come editorial, come the September issues, come the season being played out, worn, lived, translated down the commercial Cerulean effect foodchain, does a darker, more raw, more down and dirty sensibility come flooding back in? And if presently, as most of us do, we find this Givenchy collection unpalettable perhaps that's a lot to do with structural aspects (about who is present saying what when). And, once the fashion system plays out and turns to visualisation, perhaps we experience something of a shift in our own sensibility and eye in consequence?
So two juxtaposed visions of 'sex' but our preference for one over the other may, to an extent at least, be influenced by the structural conventions written into the system as between writing (at showtime) and visualising (subsequently). It simply is the case that Bourdin and Newton still stand as the strongest influences on contemporary fashion photography. Tisci's intent, at least, seems to be to have written that into what he offered on the runway.
This is the most overtly sexual season since...when?
When sex becomes a ubiquitous 'ground', is it in fact something other/opposite/outside - elegance perhaps - that becomes the true differentiator?
We can 'see' this second question more sharply if we compare and contrast this season's Givenchy with this season's Jil Sander. Both are sexy collections but their differences might contain the very question - how do we want our sex?
With Raf? - with a sense of elegance, deportment, grace, class, beauty, love even? Or is that overly romantic, unreal, dishonest even?
Or with Riccardo? A more senses tingling, dangerous, exciting, downright dirty, even, affair? A sense of a darker fantasy, libidinous, sex as pure pleasure and entertainment?
Of course, with the wearer or viewer and through that prism of ''taste'', the answer is somewhat socio-culturally differentiated. And with a ''choice'' based proviso that each may wish to play with each side of the sartorial equation at different times dependent on occasion and mood.
But there's also a structural differentiation. It is the case that at showtime fashion writers, Sarah Mower might stand as an exemplar, do tend toward a more puritanical view of femininity. Come the time of visual interpretation - ads and particularly editorials - art directors, editors, photographers and stylists, let's posit Olivier Zahm and Terry Richardson as exemplars, simply do tend to give vent to a more libidinous fantasy, something harder, edgier and more undressed.
In part it's the influence of Bourdin on Tisci this season which draws me to this line of thinking. Whilst I don't see Givenchy AW12/13 as a particularly 'editorial' collection, nevertheless I can see that my own current preference for the Jil Sander woman may well be, at least in part, determined by these structural differences and how we're perhaps all led to see with a different eye at showtime.
Come editorial, come the September issues, come the season being played out, worn, lived, translated down the commercial Cerulean effect foodchain, does a darker, more raw, more down and dirty sensibility come flooding back in? And if presently, as most of us do, we find this Givenchy collection unpalettable perhaps that's a lot to do with structural aspects (about who is present saying what when). And, once the fashion system plays out and turns to visualisation, perhaps we experience something of a shift in our own sensibility and eye in consequence?
So two juxtaposed visions of 'sex' but our preference for one over the other may, to an extent at least, be influenced by the structural conventions written into the system as between writing (at showtime) and visualising (subsequently). It simply is the case that Bourdin and Newton still stand as the strongest influences on contemporary fashion photography. Tisci's intent, at least, seems to be to have written that into what he offered on the runway.
Last edited by a moderator:
the gloves! I liked the handbags and am mixed on the boots, the boots are hit and miss head on, but I do like the side views.
) but on the other side, those silky items are pretty fancy. And have to say, that maybe I'm one of few, but the boots seem nice to me- only the plain black and plain beige ones. Don't like the dresses
