Gucci F/W 07.08 Milan

[fouroclock]

I agree with masquerade, but at the same time I'll give Frida credit for something I think she does best: her patterns. She's incorporated or reincorporated that into the Gucci brand.

 

[kuba01]

Well in regards to sales, that has to do with two things. One is that the accessories have exapanded to include even more logos than before, which means they're more accessable and affordable than back in the days of croc and python on everything. Every season Giannini releases a new "line" of bags and shoes with logos out the a$$

I've seen all the bags in this collection and I haven't found ONE Gucci logo yet. Could you please show me a bag or a shoe "with logos out the a$$" ?

 

[kuba01]

I thought I was bad!
I'd like to think the only reason why Gucci is keeping her is because they don't want to seem like another fashion house in trouble and transition. I wonder how long her contract is.

I highly doubt LMVH is keeping Frida simply because "they don't want to seem like another fashion house in trouble".

In fact, that notion is ridiculous. The bottom line is that if a collection doesn't sell and if there isn't enough profit, Frida is gone. It's all about economics. Gucci is a brand and a company - they need profit to survive. Frida provides them with profit therefore she stays.

 

[cavanaugh]

I've seen all the bags in this collection and I haven't found ONE Gucci logo yet. Could you please show me a bag or a shoe "with logos out the a$$" ?

have you been to a a gucci boutique lately? its all poo colored GG's interlocking everywhere you look...

 

[kuba01]

On another note, why are people so intent on comparing Frida to Tom Ford and blasting her ability to design.

This nostalgia for the past, and for Tom's 'Gucci woman', is LONG gone. Fashion is about CHANGE. Frida brings change to Gucci.

In the modern world, fashionista's are all about change and innovation. It's not like the 60's or the 70's where a collection from a fashion house was so defined. Today, people want change. They want to wear clothes that are new and innovative. No one wants to look like Tom Fords Gucci woman for the next 10 years. I think people need to move on from this concept.

 

[kuba01]

have you been to a a gucci boutique lately? its all poo colored GG's interlocking everywhere you look...

I'm sorry, are we talking about the Fall/Winter 07/08 collection or the accessories line, which is a completely different topic?

 

[cavanaugh]

well, obviously both...when you mention profit, its basically a reference to the accessories line since thats where gucci makes all of its money...

anyways, i see some balenciaga influence on the shoes and bags, only thing i really like so far is that red coat on raquel, its very nice (hate the bag though)

 

[brian]

there are no words.

 

[city girl]

Good question. What I think Gucci was about a young, confident woman first of all (Frida has now turned it into like a teenage girl almost!).

completely..it's turned into a brand young socialities wear.
i just can't even compare this to the glamour and sensuality that tom ford created.
i don't think collection is hideous, but it doesn't give me any faith in gucci (and frida)

 

[xmodel citizen]

On another note, why are people so intent on comparing Frida to Tom Ford and blasting her ability to design.

This nostalgia for the past, and for Tom's 'Gucci woman', is LONG gone. Fashion is about CHANGE. Frida brings change to Gucci.

In the modern world, fashionista's are all about change and innovation. It's not like the 60's or the 70's where a collection from a fashion house was so defined. Today, people want change. They want to wear clothes that are new and innovative. No one wants to look like Tom Fords Gucci woman for the next 10 years. I think people need to move on from this concept.

Seriously. Like I said, I know nothing about Tom Ford under Gucci except SEX. And judging by the pics posted, I don't want to know more. Judging by the ads and runway pics and everyone's comments, it was all about backs and breasts and legs and nipples and pubic hair. Maybe some find that appealing, but I for one don't. Yes, the details are lovely, but altogether, it's a very polarizing theme.

I've looked at her past collections, and so what if she doesn't do the same thing over and over again? Maybe the Gucci woman doesn't give a flying f*ck about being a "Gucci woman". Maybe she just wants to be a woman who likes what she likes.

And again, those boots and bags are SLAMMIN! I don't get it, I think those bags are hot, and they seem to be logo-free. The boots, well, let's just say, I want them

 

[Spike413]

On another note, why are people so intent on comparing Frida to Tom Ford and blasting her ability to design.

This nostalgia for the past, and for Tom's 'Gucci woman', is LONG gone. Fashion is about CHANGE. Frida brings change to Gucci.

In the modern world, fashionista's are all about change and innovation. It's not like the 60's or the 70's where a collection from a fashion house was so defined. Today, people want change. They want to wear clothes that are new and innovative. No one wants to look like Tom Fords Gucci woman for the next 10 years. I think people need to move on from this concept.

To answer the first question, people in fashion ALWAYS compare a new designer to the designer who either started the house or brought a well known identity to it....that's part of fashion, it's no different then when people bashed Toms work at YSL in comparison to Yves' and Alber Elbaz's. Fact of life, so get used to it.

As for people blasting her ability as a designer, it's because she has none. She had no formal training of any kind in making clothes, she was only handed the position of RTW director upon Alessandra Faccinetti's departure, so people are going to notice the decline in technique when it comes to the clothes.

As far as the new and innovative comment, I beg of you to point out anything in this collection that is at all new or innovative. This stuff has all been done by many designers before, and with a lot more success.

Under Tom, Gucci had an identifiable image, dark, erotic, severe. Nothing really comes to mind when I think of Gucci these days, it's a mish-mash of whatever happens to be on her mind.

Frida has given Gucci no image to call her own, and that is why people are comparing her to Tom Ford, plain and simple. Yes she brings change to fashion, but at what cost? She ripped away any shred of an image and replaced it with a mess of ideas that are neither coherent or in line with what people expect from Gucci.

If Raf Simons had gone into Jil Sander and completely turned the brand upside down with his aesthetic, Jil Sander fans would be up in arms. It's no different here.

 

[kuba01]

I've looked at her past collections, and so what if she doesn't do the same thing over and over again? Maybe the Gucci woman doesn't give a flying f*ck about being a "Gucci woman". Maybe she just wants to be a woman who likes what she likes.

BEST quote of the day. Perfect summary

 

[kuba01]

As for people blasting her ability as a designer, it's because she has none. She had no formal training of any kind in making clothes, she was only handed the position of RTW director upon Alessandra Faccinetti's departure, so people are going to notice the decline in technique when it comes to the clothes.

That is such an unfair statement to make. She obviously has credentials in designing, as otherwise she would have been disposed of.

The fact of the matter is - no matter who came to Gucci after Tom Ford, all his fans were going to criticize him/her. It's absolutely not fair. People are just going to attack Frida because she isn't Tom and her designs don't glamourize t*ts and pubic hair. Fact of life, get used to it. LOL

 

[kuba01]

Frida has given Gucci no image to call her own, and that is why people are comparing her to Tom Ford, plain and simple. Yes she brings change to fashion, but at what cost? She ripped away any shred of an image and replaced it with a mess of ideas that are neither coherent or in line with what people expect from Gucci.

Why does Gucci have to have an 'image'? Balenciaga certainly doesn't have an 'image' - Ghesquiere goes from equestrian to space age in one season. No one attacks his credentials.

If you're talking about consistency, then maybe Frida hasn't designed enough collections for us to see a clear consistent manner in which she designs. She's constantly changing and evolving as a designer and eventually you will see her 'image' of what a Gucci woman is supposed to be.

 

[Spike413]

^ No, she has no credentials in designing whatsoever, unless designing a pump is the same as designing a dress. I wouldn't know, I've never made a shoe, but I'm assuming they're quite different. Thats just a fact, she had no experience in clothing and the only reason she's made it this far is because she has a team of designers working under her.

And trust me, not everyone who's complaining about her was a die-hard Tom Ford fan, they're just observing a major flaw here. Cute clothes are all fine and good, just not when it comes to high fashion, which is what Gucci used to be, but as Metal-On Metal pointed out, no longer is.

Any good designer or creative director creates an image, those who don't usually find themselves at the recieving end of harsh criticism. Pubic hair and sex were merely tools in creating an image for Mr. Ford, but they were not the image itself.

And I beg to differ with you on Balenciaga not having an image. It does, one of the most identifiable in fashion for that matter. It's about architecture, exaggerated shapes and lines, and now under Ghesquiere, a penchant for the experimental. The image is there, but it's much more then the theme of a single collection. And let's for a minute say that Ghesquiere does do something entirely different from what the house of Balenciaga is all about, even then, no one can say he doesn't have a huge amount of talent for making clothes. Frida does not. That's the difference.

Frida is not evolving, evolution is slow, steady and it means you're developing an idea, not tossing it out in favor of something radically different each season. There has been no evolution in her work, and she's had more than enough time to prove her ability, two years is certainly enough time for a designer with any talent to prove themself...she has yet to do so.

Clearly we just have entirely different opinions on what constitutes a designer, and I can't make you see what I'm trying to say, but hopefully I've clued you in as to why so many people are complaining about this and comparing it to Tom Ford's work at Gucci. You don't have to agree with it, or even understand but that's just the way it is.

 

[Khoipond89]

*Cough* Cough*

3 Seasons later.....

[style.com]

 

[Spike413]

Ew, even if that wasn't so similar, it's still heinous.

Patent leather AND an overload of gold hardware is not a good thing.

 

[Khoipond89]

^^^

Oh..no I agree.. it's not a piece that LV Boasts about...it's just that the whole thing has been done..
(oh and the Patent never made it off the runway to the retail floor)

 

[Spike413]

^ OH, I thought the purple patent bag was the Gucci one b/c the Gucci photo didn't load at first.

Still, it just seems to me like if you're gonna copy something, at least pick something good to knock off.

 

[Khoipond89]

I remember reading that Frida was the one who designed all of the Fendi Baugettes..before she went to Gucci