Gucci F/W 09.10 Milan

[RedAzalie]

dont know why most of you are not happy. This is very gucci in its own estetic. It was exactly what i expect so I am quite pozytive about it. Leather, furs, those boots and bags... all veryyy gucci, all very ford for gucci. Plus i like big dots - but this is suprise for myself, cant figure out why i like it XD

 

[Street_a_Licious]

what are people smoking to think of this as very "Tom Ford"-Gucci???

 

[Street_a_Licious]

even Ferragamo is more "Gucci" these days than Gucci itself.

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f60/salvatore-ferragamo-f-w-09-10-milan-77357.html

 

[homeboy]

Well well, what do we have here. I thought the men's collection was bad, this is beyond ugly. Always the same themes, punk rock or neo-tzarism.

 

[gb_32]

i love some of the details in posts by helmut.newton.

 

[Karen0193]

To me the collection was ok,it wasnt the best Frida can deliever but it isnt all bad,IMO.

 

[.amahlia.]

everything about this show screamed "FIERCE!!!" i loved the hair and the make up and i absolutely LOVEDDDD the glasses!!! frida is my IDOL!!

 

[4n98]

...but oh well, this collection will sell and Frida's contract will be renewed again for sure.

YES,$$$ will tell，LOL

 

[Versace-Goddess]

Everytime i saw that video of this collection i liked it more. Now i´ve say- i can definitely see the Gucci woman in it. Looks very 80s but in a modern way.

 

[entirely officia]

I had to wait for this to grow on me a bit. I like it. Especially the shoes! Everything except the jumbo dots

 

[kimair]

Frida Giannini's runway-clothes-as-merchandise concept for Gucci may be selling well, but it's still not sitting well with critics. Last season, her collection was likened to Zara, and this season her Fall 2009 collection earned another mall-brand comparison: Bebe.

Cathy Horyn and Suzy Menkes, neither of whom are afraid to be blunt, seemed indifferent to criticizing the collection — both just focused on Frida's decision to channel sex. But Christina Binkley of The Wall Street Journal got more pointed, going so far to ask "Who is the Gucci woman?": "[Frida] seems to develop a startling new personality each season, leaving last season’s clothes lost in relation to the new collection. Last season, she was globetrotting with flower children. This season, she’s shaking it in sequined leggings and a sparkling tunic at Studio 54."

WWD was more subtle about their disapproval, slipping less-than-flattering words like "gauche" into their review, while Booth Moore of the Los Angeles Times went for the outright accusatory Bebe comparison: "The problem is that [Frida's] never been able to elevate the look to the realm of luxury. So Gucci continues to look like Bebe with a bigger budget.

But she's got people talking — as Fashion Week Daily points out, "No matter what Frida Giannini shows, it governs dinner-table discussions in Milan at least until Miuccia Prada has her say. Some applaud Giannini for delivering trends directly and accessibly to the Gucci customer while others suggest that such a storied house merits a bit more vision." But Style.com counters, "Still, in these extreme times, maybe that's splitting hairs. When a designer sees her market, it would be insanity not to go for it, and in Giannini's case, that means aiming at nightclubbing girls." So, Bebe or not, Frida will likely be sticking around. Here's to next season . . . Gucci as Topshop, perhaps?

fashionologie...

god knows why this sh!t is selling, but whoever's buying it is keeping frida around...

 

[Spike413]

^ That Bebe comparison is the most beautiful thing I've ever read.

Thanks for posting that kim.

 

[.amahlia.]

or maybe Gucci for H&M. THAT i wouldnt mind

 

[helmut.newton]

I absolutely hate that argument of "Who is the Gucci woman? Frida seems to develop a startling new personality each season".

What a poor and redundant argument. Gucci changes each season, yes; but it stays true to her aesthetic of Italian glamour, and you will always find pieces that she has been doing since her beginnings ie. that fitted suit.

Secondly, you will never win with these critics. It's either designers are exceedingly revolutionary or they're not revolutionary enough.

Thirdly, why don't we hear this kind of criticism at houses like Balenciaga, Prada, etc? Each season these designers go with a diametrically opposed aesthetic to their previous season and yet they are lauded for it? Why is Frida so heavily criticized? Time and time again. Give this woman a break!!

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Couldn't agree more, helmut.

Well said!

 

[JunyaSchick]

i'm not a fan of the collection although I think it is old gucci 100%... but I really love the XXL boots, they are the best of this season.

 

[Spike413]

I absolutely hate that argument of "Who is the Gucci woman? Frida seems to develop a startling new personality each season".

What a poor and redundant argument. Gucci changes each season, yes; but it stays true to her aesthetic of Italian glamour, and you will always find pieces that she has been doing since her beginnings ie. that fitted suit.

Secondly, you will never win with these critics. It's either designers are exceedingly revolutionary or they're not revolutionary enough.

Thirdly, why don't we hear this kind of criticism at houses like Balenciaga, Prada, etc? Each season these designers go with a diametrically opposed aesthetic to their previous season and yet they are lauded for it? Why is Frida so heavily criticized? Time and time again. Give this woman a break!!

I actually completely disagree with you here.

Frida has not established a single identity in the 3 years she's been at Gucci. Looking at her collections from 2006 to now, there's no rhyme or reason to them, the only things they have entirely in common are the fact that they're geared towards trendy young girls and she likes to use prints. It's not just the surface look of things that people are questioning her about. It's that if you asked people to explain who the Gucci woman is and what she's all about, I doubt if you'd get a clear picture of her.

Donna Karan, Michael Kors, Versace, Rick Owens, Dries Van Noten, Nina Ricci, Ann Demeulemeester, every one of those labels has an easily traceable identity behind it that keeps whatever the designer does in perspective. How else do you expect that someone like Donna can veer between her Eastern spritualist world traveller stuff and her very polished, urban, tailored sensuality without it looking like two completely different designers had created it? And Prada does have a clear identity, even if you don't see it. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Prada was pretty consistent, her clothes were always slightly elegant, slightly feminine but also slightly off kilter and not quite "right". There was also, and still is at times, an underlying streak of frustrated sexuality to what Miuccia does, beneath the quirky, sometimes mumsy exterior. And despite all of the experimenting, Miuccia always harks back to that.

I also think at this point critics are asking quite literally who this Gucci woman is. What Frida designs is geared towards very young, very trendy girls who most likely cannot afford a $5,000 party dress or $3,000 leather leggings to go clubbing in. Even the simple printed dresses are probably way out of the average twenty-something's budget. So really, who is she designing for? Celebrities? The party girl children of millionaires and heiresses? Who else can afford, and has the desire and body to dress the way she pictures young women?

I think the key to understanding the criticism is this; just because the look of a collection is different each season doesn't mean the aesthetic is as well. It's also important to understand that putting the same pair of pants and the same jacket into a collection every season in different colors and fabrics doesn't equal consistency.

I mean, you may not get or agree with the criticism, but a dozen critics and countless tFS'ers can't possibly be pulling sh!t out of thin air every season.

 

[.amahlia.]

does anyone actually know the average price for a piece from her collection??

 

[helmut.newton]

I actually completely disagree with you here.

Frida has not established a single identity in the 3 years she's been at Gucci. Looking at her collections from 2006 to now, there's no rhyme or reason to them, the only things they have entirely in common are the fact that they're geared towards trendy young girls and she likes to use prints. It's not just the surface look of things that people are questioning her about. It's that if you asked people to explain who the Gucci woman is and what she's all about, I doubt if you'd get a clear picture of her.

Donna Karan, Michael Kors, Versace, Rick Owens, Dries Van Noten, Nina Ricci, Ann Demeulemeester, every one of those labels has an easily traceable identity behind it that keeps whatever the designer does in perspective. How else do you expect that someone like Donna can veer between her Eastern spritualist world traveller stuff and her very polished, urban, tailored sensuality without it looking like two completely different designers had created it? And Prada does have a clear identity, even if you don't see it. Back in the 90s and early 2000s Prada was pretty consistent, her clothes were always slightly elegant, slightly feminine but also slightly off kilter and not quite "right". There was also, and still is at times, an underlying streak of frustrated sexuality to what Miuccia does, beneath the quirky, sometimes mumsy exterior. And despite all of the experimenting, Miuccia always harks back to that.

I also think at this point critics are asking quite literally who this Gucci woman is. What Frida designs is geared towards very young, very trendy girls who most likely cannot afford a $5,000 party dress or $3,000 leather leggings to go clubbing in. Even the simple printed dresses are probably way out of the average twenty-something's budget. So really, who is she designing for? Celebrities? The party girl children of millionaires and heiresses? Who else can afford, and has the desire and body to dress the way she pictures young women?

I think the key to understanding the criticism is this; just because the look of a collection is different each season doesn't mean the aesthetic is as well. It's also important to understand that putting the same pair of pants and the same jacket into a collection every season in different colors and fabrics doesn't equal consistency.

I mean, you may not get or agree with the criticism, but a dozen critics and countless tFS'ers can't possibly be pulling sh!t out of thin air every season.

Well I think there is a lot of contradiction in this argument of aestheticism. I completely agree with you that the look of a collection is different to an aesthetic or an identity. But in saying that, you can’t justify one aesthetic against another; such as you compared Prada to Gucci.

People afford Prada compliments for her ‘aesthetic’ and ‘identity’ even though “not-quite-right” is as much an identity as “rock-n-roll-glamour” [what Gucci under Frida represents].

Just as you say that a design house can have an identity “even if you don’t see it”, I could say the same about Gucci. Whether you can see it or not, Frida does have a rhyme to her design-sense. She might have a violent trajectory in jumping from one season to another, but you can always see that she is consistent with her image of the Gucci identity; which is concerned with a certain music-influenced glamour juxtaposed against a bohemian sexuality.

Prices and marketing are pretty irrelevant in terms of defining identity anyway. A designer creates an identity with each collection and women take from it what they want. Just as Balenciaga is geared towards a very youthful clientele even though a minority of these girls would be able to afford a $50,000 dress or a $20,000 jacket. It’s about creating ‘show pieces’ and mixing them in with the more wearable pieces. And once you take away the show pieces from a Gucci collection, you’re left with a consistent identity which Frida has developed since her inception.

And I’m not trying to start an argument with you, but I get frustrated when people critisize one designer of doing something wrong simply because they don’t like their design aesthetic. I could easily apply these criticisms of “Who is ____ designing for? Who is their target audience?” and so forth, to probably every single design house. Besides, when I think of any of the revolutionary design houses I have trouble envisioning their ‘typical woman’. Isn’t that the entire point of revolutionary design? It rejects having to conform to one type of woman and adapts/changes every season to attract a new clientele?

 

[nicholas2505]

Whether you can see it or not, Frida does have a rhyme to her design-sense.
You have to be joking. The only thing she spins is her precious 70's music collection.

The criticism is well deserved and obviously not vocal enough. We're still having to endure her.