Gucci Resort 2009

[la_sonnambula]

to anyone who watched the show live online - was goldfrapp there? im dying to know.

help, please?

Goldfrapp did perform for Gucci. From Style.com:

Indeed, the show started more than an hour behind its scheduled time and Goldfrapp made its debut around midnight.

 

[la_sonnambula]

good god, Frida. drop the Rock&Roll. DROP IT!

My thoughts exactly. She's painfully self-conscious about being "cool" and "down with the kids" and it's utterly unconvincing. Good for Frida though. Not everyone can get thrown tons of money by being a poseur and regurgitating the same few ideas that weren't so hot to begin with.

 

[liberty33r1b]

it's just really always the same old she's showing, i liked one dress and that's it.

 

[helmut.newton]

I like the rock n roll aesthetic shes trying to imbue into the Gucci brand.

The idea of maximalism and overt sexuality is so passe and Tom Ford's 'woman' would be considered vulgar nowadays.

Being cool is the new being sexy in my opinion. Thats why its all about leather jackets, the f**k you attitude and rock music nowadays.

And plus, as Frida always says, the music world is very close to the Gucci world. They've always been involved with musicians. Shes just continuing that legacy.

Shes much more brilliant than people give her credit for

 

[cette fille]

Goldfrapp did perform for Gucci. From Style.com:

ta!

photos now in alison's thread if anyones interested.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Oh Frida, there wasnt one collection she has done for Gucci since joining that i liked and this is no different, bloody awful.

 

[Spike413]

I like the rock n roll aesthetic shes trying to imbue into the Gucci brand.

The idea of maximalism and overt sexuality is so passe and Tom Ford's 'woman' would be considered vulgar nowadays.

Being cool is the new being sexy in my opinion. Thats why its all about leather jackets, the f**k you attitude and rock music nowadays.

And plus, as Frida always says, the music world is very close to the Gucci world. They've always been involved with musicians. Shes just continuing that legacy.

Shes much more brilliant than people give her credit for

Couldn't the same be said about this "cool", "rock and roll" bohemian stuff?


I completely agree with what la-sonnambula said, there's nothing cool about trying to be cool.

Regardless of whether you liked it, hated it or truly didn't care about it, at least Tom Ford's vision of Gucci was genuine.

 

[helmut.newton]

^^^ I don't think Ford's Gucci was genuine at all. It was all about emotions and playing on peoples shock factor. It was about how to push the boundary of whats considered sexy and whats considered erotica. It wasn't about the clothes in the end. It became about an aesthetic.

Frida's Gucci is much more genuine. Its about the women enjoying fashion and enjoying being a woman without having to conform to the idea of expressing feminine sexuality through the body. Her woman is more laissez faire and more free spirited - therefore more 'genuine' than Ford's p*ssy brigade could ever be.

Also how exactly is she 'trying to be cool'? Can someone please explain how Frida is 'trying to be cool' by showing Bohemian designs??

 

[Dkammern]

^^ being bohemian and wearing gucci are two total opposites imho. La boheme implies a certain façon de vivre completely opposed to the ideals of "la dolce vita" much closer to what gucci always stood for. if you are a spoiled rich kid and you wanna dress yourself in hippy-looking dresses, fine... but don't call yourself bohemian. that's why i guess this is "trying to be cool" (i say "you" as in someone who would buy this, not You of course ) that's why i can't really see this gucci woman as a free spirited one... i have the impression that she is denying her luxurious/lavish way of life by letting her hair air dry and wearing printed long skirts with chains and fringe vests. i find that to be a terrible try-hard from her, not a laissez faire.
however i agree on everything you said about tom ford's aesthetic, it was all about a daring proposition, more than a "fashion statement" per se. B)
the gucci woman doesnt need another tom, nor it needs another frida... it needs some fresh air (just like dior homme... not hedi, not kris... just something more/else!)

 

[Spike413]

I say that Ford's vision of Gucci was was genuine because it was always very apparent that what he sent down a runway, sold in stores, and featured in ads was always what he truly believed in. He didn't resort to banalities in his clothes, nor did they look like they could have any random label inside. They were recognizable with a very, very strong and precise personality built in. As you said, it was about an aesthetic, a lifestyle which, imo anyway, is much more than just clothes. He was one of a handful of people who could manage to make even something mundane seem new and exciting.

Giannini's Gucci woman doesn't have a personality, at least not a very convincing one, nor is she doing anything that doesn't already exist. She "designs" a bunch of clothes that other designers have already done a million times over to the point that they're not only a cliche, they're lazy go-to ideas for any number of truly untalented designers. Her "aesthetic" caters to two sets of people; the men and women with enough money to spend a ridiculous amount on clothing that you can buy at a much lower price, for almost the same quality, in any number of high-street, mid-market retail chains and large department stores before they're even shown on a Gucci catwalk and the men and women running the company who's sole concern is profit.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a vulgarity laced p***y parade of actual luxury goods instead of the boring bottom line coming down a runway....at least it gets your pulse racing for a split second.

As for why I believe this isn't truly cool, borjacapella put it much more eloquently than I would have. But basically, making an effort to be cool has the exact opposite effect.

 

[mackos]

It's very Frida so it's VERY: Seriously, let someone take this women away

 

[Spike413]

One last thought to add to my previous post...

The biggest thing that separates Ford's work from Frida's work is passion.

Whether you loved him, hated him or didn't care at all about him you can't deny that he seemed to east, sleep and breath fashion. He seemed to have that innate drive to achieve perfection that, I think anyway, is a part of being a real designer. We all know perfection doesn't exist, but the need to find it is what separates those with a vision from those who just make clothes. I'm not calling him an artist or anything like that, nor am I calling him an exceptional craftsman, I just think he had passion for what he did.

I just don't get that from Ms. Giannini. It's obvious she enjoys what she does and has fun with fashion, but I don't get that sense that without it she'd be at a loss for what to do with herself.

 

[FashionPower]

Whetever you like her or not Frida knows what women want and how they want to show themselves to others...maybe this collection is tacky or not genuine and Tom would puke if he saw the whole show but it will become a best seller like every Frida's works...and now in fashion the things that really count are sales...and she can make a lot of sales...so she'll work for Gucci for a long time I guess

 

[helmut.newton]

^^ being bohemian and wearing gucci are two total opposites imho. La boheme implies a certain façon de vivre completely opposed to the ideals of "la dolce vita" much closer to what gucci always stood for. if you are a spoiled rich kid and you wanna dress yourself in hippy-looking dresses, fine... but don't call yourself bohemian. that's why i guess this is "trying to be cool" (i say "you" as in someone who would buy this, not You of course ) that's why i can't really see this gucci woman as a free spirited one... i have the impression that she is denying her luxurious/lavish way of life by letting her hair air dry and wearing printed long skirts with chains and fringe vests. i find that to be a terrible try-hard from her, not a laissez faire.
however i agree on everything you said about tom ford's aesthetic, it was all about a daring proposition, more than a "fashion statement" per se. B)
the gucci woman doesnt need another tom, nor it needs another frida... it needs some fresh air (just like dior homme... not hedi, not kris... just something more/else!)

Agree.

I can also see your point about the whole Gucci/Bohemian thing but honestly, Frida has explored La Dolce Vita (Spring 2007 - Monica Vitti inspired) and I think this worked but it can only repeat itself. It can't evolve...

Thats why shes moving on. Slowly, but surely.

 

[Brogue]

I liked some of the jackets... Pleeaaaase, no more god awful bags!

 

[helmut.newton]

I say that Ford's vision of Gucci was was genuine because it was always very apparent that what he sent down a runway, sold in stores, and featured in ads was always what he truly believed in. He didn't resort to banalities in his clothes, nor did they look like they could have any random label inside. They were recognizable with a very, very strong and precise personality built in. As you said, it was about an aesthetic, a lifestyle which, imo anyway, is much more than just clothes. He was one of a handful of people who could manage to make even something mundane seem new and exciting.

Giannini's Gucci woman doesn't have a personality, at least not a very convincing one, nor is she doing anything that doesn't already exist. She "designs" a bunch of clothes that other designers have already done a million times over to the point that they're not only a cliche, they're lazy go-to ideas for any number of truly untalented designers. Her "aesthetic" caters to two sets of people; the men and women with enough money to spend a ridiculous amount on clothing that you can buy at a much lower price, for almost the same quality, in any number of high-street, mid-market retail chains and large department stores before they're even shown on a Gucci catwalk and the men and women running the company who's sole concern is profit.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a vulgarity laced p***y parade of actual luxury goods instead of the boring bottom line coming down a runway....at least it gets your pulse racing for a split second.

As for why I believe this isn't truly cool, borjacapella put it much more eloquently than I would have. But basically, making an effort to be cool has the exact opposite effect.

I don't think Ford's Gucci was particularly recognizable at all. Again, it was the WOMEN who were recognizable - not the clothes. The clothes alone, without the runway presentation, the make-up the gorgeous models etc etc - were not as strong.

Okay I do partially agree with what youre saying about Gucci lacking a directional personality. It is true - the house is a little confused about its woman. But shes exploring and developing the image. As Frida said herself Gucci has a very complex trajectory and shes trying to develop what the Gucci woman means post-Tom Ford.

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^Well...while I agree she should have her own voice and she should figure out the new Gucci girl...she's been at the house for 3 years and it's been the same since day one...nothing new, no evolution, no real "identity."

 

[helmut.newton]

We've been over this a thousand times.

Not ALL fashion has to evolve. Not every house has to be about evolution. I mean honestly, there are about maybe 3 designers that are concerned with the 'evolution of fashion'. The House of Balenciaga, Yves Saint-Laurent are two that spring to mind.

They are truly concerned with evolving the silhouette, playing with shapes etc etc

The other houses, like Prada are more concerned with revolution that evolution.

So, my point is, that Gucci needn't be about evolution, it should be about clothing with a history. Its a logo brand. It was never about evolution in the first place.

Please don't try and tell me that Tom Ford was concerned with 'evolving the Gucci woman'
He never evolved his aesthetic, he merely developed it over and over again.

Thats precisely HOW Gucci became so lucrative. Because it became about the sex and the overtness. It was consistent and thats what was important.

 

[helmut.newton]

A short video. What is Frida saying??

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQmsslIWATY

 

[Street_a_Licious]

did you think about what you typed in? you say that Gucci needs something new, in other words, evolve, yet say that they don't need to evolve. stick to one thing.

and you clearly haven't followed the old Gucci shows. what Tom Ford sent down the runway wasn't vulgar. it was luxury, women, men, draped in luxury, even in the most simplest garments. Tom Ford had a clear vision and gave the brand an identity. the clothes were, no matter what you say, recognizable, both because of the Gucci aesthetics and the craftsmanship that went into it. even nowadays, i sometimes see certain looks which are very "Gucci" in different shows (the last Ferragamo show was SO Gucci.) or on the street, the sexy, the powerful, the dominant woman, who's HERE and FIERCE as hell.

these days tho, you can find similar pieces to the Gucci WMNs shows at Zara TRF. to me, there's no difference really.