Givenchy S/S 2016 New York

[arlekindearrabal]

But the thing is, he has been "remembering his work" for the past few years. There's nothing wrong with revisiting some bits of your past work, some established aesthetics, but ultimately you have to move forward otherwise it starts to look unimaginative, predictable and lazy. And that's what going on with him.

Hit the nail right on the head.

 

[anlabe32]

I see beautiful clothes, whether repetitive and lazy or not.

 

[Lola701]

I don't think the problem here is him revisiting his past. Every designer is doing that.
My problem with this is that this time, it's not so great...given the big event. He has done it in the past with more success.
Even if the second part is far superior the the first part of the collection, i don't think in 10 years, people will remember it as one of his best collection.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ It's possible he tailored it for a North American sensibility-- which is never been quite on the level of Paris.

I watched the show again, and if I set aside the lack of design progression, it's a really enjoyable show with such a rich atmosphere.

With fashion geniuses like Gaultier and McQueen who transport you to another time, place and even dimension beyond just clothes, now retired or gone, it's really great to see Riccardo still bringing a little of that storytelling, world-building components to a fashion show.

Shows have become these cold, endless, generic marches hardly distinguishable from one to the next-- especially in NYC. So corporate-driven these days with no creativity, imagination that his show does feel like a welcome dream, a mirage for that 20 minutes to the audience-- definitely for me watching the video. I don't care for Riccardo's fabulous lifestyle with his famous friends, but I do appreciate that he still cares enough to put on a show that creates a mood, a vision that's beyond just hustling clothes.

 

[ThatRascal]

But the thing is, he has been "remembering his work" for the past few years. There's nothing wrong with revisiting some bits of your past work, some established aesthetics, but ultimately you have to move forward otherwise it starts to look unimaginative, predictable and lazy. And that's what going on with him.

It only appears that way to the people who follow fashion religiously, certainly not the masses or the people who consume the products. In this industry, people are always salivating for the new, next, fresh, or whatever adjective you want to use, without giving designers time to really establish an identity for the house they’re designing for. In the case of Givenchy, Riccardo started out really strongly and then started making clothes that are more viably successful. It’s important to let designs breathe and latch on to the public consciousness before trying to “evolve” more.

Again, for Givenchy, I get the sense that Riccardo has to recycle the most recent collections because they are successful commercially and this is a critical time for the brand. They’re really expanding both in product categories and their physical presence globally. They need the money.

People are always attacking designers for not being innovative, showing the same thing over and over, or calling them boring without thinking of the actual business operations. Just take a look at what happened to the houses of Jean Paul Gaultier and LaCroix. So Sad!

Finally, to the people commenting on designers who you always see out partying, hanging with celebrities etc, they’re branding themselves and it is absolutely necessary to do so. The way things are going, if Kering decides one day to completely change the direction of Givenchy and decides to give Tisci the boot, he’s already a big enough name and known by the public to launch a namesake label. That is what these designers are doing, they’re playing the game. Fashion isn’t art; it never was and never will be. It’s commerce, all of it, and in commerce, money and profits will determine everything.

 

[gazebo]

^BTW, Most people here love fashion and follow it quite religiously

 

[ThatRascal]

^BTW, Most people here love fashion and follow it quite religiously

Which is exactly what was implied...

 

[Lola701]

People are always attacking designers for not being innovative, showing the same thing over and over, or calling them boring without thinking of the actual business operations. Just take a look at what happened to the houses of Jean Paul Gaultier and LaCroix. So Sad!

I agree with you but Gaultier and Lacroix were meant to close. Gaultier has always been about the clothes. In his glorious days, he was a big RTW seller. It was a time when designers didn't relied on accessories as much as today.
When the word luxury replaced the word fashion, his business wasn't relevant anymore. JPG was never about luxury and his prices were quite outrageous.

Lacroix was a good couturier but his RTW was already dated when he started. He never ever made it to profits.


But i have to say that people who are buying Givenchy (or any other brand) cares about the collections, the creativity and everything. As you can imagine, the majority of those people is not related to fashion at all but they cares about it.

 

[Creative]

It only appears that way to the people who follow fashion religiously, certainly not the masses or the people who consume the products. In this industry, people are always salivating for the new, next, fresh, or whatever adjective you want to use, without giving designers time to really establish an identity for the house they’re designing for. In the case of Givenchy, Riccardo started out really strongly and then started making clothes that are more viably successful. It’s important to let designs breathe and latch on to the public consciousness before trying to “evolve” more.

Again, for Givenchy, I get the sense that Riccardo has to recycle the most recent collections because they are successful commercially and this is a critical time for the brand. They’re really expanding both in product categories and their physical presence globally. They need the money.

People are always attacking designers for not being innovative, showing the same thing over and over, or calling them boring without thinking of the actual business operations. Just take a look at what happened to the houses of Jean Paul Gaultier and LaCroix. So Sad!

Finally, to the people commenting on designers who you always see out partying, hanging with celebrities etc, they’re branding themselves and it is absolutely necessary to do so. The way things are going, if Kering decides one day to completely change the direction of Givenchy and decides to give Tisci the boot, he’s already a big enough name and known by the public to launch a namesake label. That is what these designers are doing, they’re playing the game. Fashion isn’t art; it never was and never will be. It’s commerce, all of it, and in commerce, money and profits will determine everything.

You can create a cult around yourself even if you are not hanging out with celebs. Riccardo loves that sh!t. And he can't help it. He wants to be as famous as Karl... He loves fame and I'm not blaming him for it, but his attempts are usually quite ridiculous and forced. Phoebe Philo is the best example of creating a cult around yourself without a creepy Instagram account. It's just not necessary.

And when I was reading you I thought: Oh, well, he's so right after all. Money is all that matters. And if the old-fashioned-fashion he's telling his team to do from a Skype call from Ibiza sells... then why change it and why blame him for it. But... no, no, no. This is just in another level of boredom and disdain. Glad they showed it NYFW because that's where it belongs. He (or his team guided from a Skype call) can do something better (anyone can), something that has the Givenchy by RT stamp and something that is sellable at the same time.

But then again, I think most of designers have a liftime as designers of 10 years. In 2015 even less (5 or so). When they've been designing for that long, they loose their touch and stop being relevant. Phoebe is the exception that prooves the rule.

 

[nastassia]

The way things are going, if Kering decides one day to completely change the direction of Givenchy and decides to give Tisci the boot, he’s already a big enough name and known by the public to launch a namesake label.

Isn't Givenchy part of LVMH ?

 

[Fashionstuff]

i am surprised that so many of you don't like!

i thought it was beautiful, the white is my favourite...that lace

I like it too.
Awesome collection. Great show.

It was a celebration of Tisci’s ten years at Givenchy house that Hubert built. The collection included reinterpretations of acclaimed couture pieces. It is a * Celebration* collection.


Yes, it's not very wearable but Tisci anf his gang made a great job.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

some of the tailored pieces were really nice.

 

[Fotoholic24]

Favorite show of NYFW SS16, i did not know i was such a fan of Riccardo´s work. As he said this is nothing new, just a retrospetive of was he did over this 10 years. Its a celebration, and i´ll do the same in this particular situation. Congratulation!

 

[Spike413]

Maybe I've just softened in my old age, or maybe I'm just tired of pretentious garbage masquerading as clothes for real people, but I'll take something that isn't new or fresh or exciting -- just beautiful, flattering and wearable -- over "cutting edge" and "hip" any day of the week. While the lineup could've been cut by at least 25% the fact is that the clothes are just downright lovely most of the time. Also, people have apparently forgotten that Riccardo has, since his first moments as a tastemaker, had a habit of reexamining and remixing his previous work, and that was before he had ten years worth of work to look at.

As for the comments about his apparent laziness as evidenced by his Instagram posts on vacation and partying it up (because Instagram really does offer the most accurate portrayal of everyone's lives, no question) I'll merely say that if I had to contend with the downright psychotic schedule Tisci no doubt has to work with most of the time you can bet your *** I'd be letting loose any chance I did get to do so.