Gucci Resort 2009

[vogue28]

thanks for posting the video
Love the hair, and make-up.

Natasha

 

[Spike413]

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.

I completely and 100% disagree with this. I'm not going to attempt to convince someone who is set in their opinion why they should agree with me, but I just do not see it that way.

Just because Gucci always had a strong undercurrent of sex doesn't mean it was the same exact thing for 8 years. Ford didn't repeat the same designs and looks during his tenure, nor did he ricochet from one theme to another at breakneck speed....he started with a simple concept and built upon it steadily to constantly try to update what Gucci was all about.

Infusing new ideas and techniques to a defined aesthetic is exactly what evolution is, but in order to do that you first need to establish an aesthetic. An aesthetic is more than messy rocker hair, smudgy makeup and cropped jackets.

If she wants to do cute clothes that girls love to wear, that's just fine.....but that's not fashion. Fashion is more than pretty prints and cute dresses. So if people like Ghesquiere, Elbaz, Galliano, Prada, and Jacobs are held to such a standard that if (or when) they simply sent out pretty prints and cute dresses all the time they'd have their heads handed to them, then why shouldn't Ms. Giannini? And before someone replies with something like "she doesn't have to be one of them to be good" keep in mind that during his career Tom Ford was considered part of that elite group of people known as fashion leaders.

 

[J'ador-DioR]

Gucci has become an "high end" H&M now.

No vision, no sign of craftmanship & detailing, cheap tailoring, it's all about stylism more than the construction of the clothes.

When some of your accessories look better than 98% of your main collection, you are in trouble. At least, it sells...

How many more times is she going to be inspired by the 70's & rock n' roll?

I have rooted for Frida since the beginning, but ever since she sent down that hideous FW06 collection down the runway, i've lost any shroud of hope I had of her developing some kind of image for the house.

Does she actually design this stuff or is it mainly a design team effort?.

Because when she speaks of her clothes, i don't feel that she's connected to her work or the "vision" she is trying to present.

 

[Dkammern]

^^high-end H&M... interesting point of view!

about the accessories, i will never deny she is good at it! she was an accessories designer in the first place and she still does it very well imo! (better than tom)

about she acutally designing this or not... i don't think it matters at all. we know miuccia prada doesnt design the slightest bit, yet she has a vision and she knows how to put striking cohesive collections that are focused in one direction and that build up and idea of what her brand stands for.

helmut.n in the video, frida basically explains why they are showing in rome (70h anniversary of gucci in rome) and she talks a bit about the collection. she says vivante (full of life?), vibrant, cocktail dresses, night dresses, hippy, relaxed attitude, long silhouette, and that's pretty much it. just like when you hear one of those models talking backstage ("i think this is very sexy, and very beautiful, and everything is so sexy and so beautiful, and i love this brand, and everything is sexy and beautiful, and so so so soo... ermmmm.... mmmmh.... beautiful and sexy, and very beautiful....yeah! i love it! sexy!" uh... very deep, thoughtful, no?... and sexy of course )

 

[helmut.newton]

Just because Gucci always had a strong undercurrent of sex doesn't mean it was the same exact thing for 8 years. Ford didn't repeat the same designs and looks during his tenure, nor did he ricochet from one theme to another at breakneck speed....he started with a simple concept and built upon it steadily to constantly try to update what Gucci was all about.

Infusing new ideas and techniques to a defined aesthetic is exactly what evolution is, but in order to do that you first need to establish an aesthetic. An aesthetic is more than messy rocker hair, smudgy makeup and cropped jackets.

If she wants to do cute clothes that girls love to wear, that's just fine.....but that's not fashion. Fashion is more than pretty prints and cute dresses. So if people like Ghesquiere, Elbaz, Galliano, Prada, and Jacobs are held to such a standard that if (or when) they simply sent out pretty prints and cute dresses all the time they'd have their heads handed to them, then why shouldn't Ms. Giannini? And before someone replies with something like "she doesn't have to be one of them to be good" keep in mind that during his career Tom Ford was considered part of that elite group of people known as fashion leaders.

Firstly it must be known that Tom Ford completely ignored the the Gucci history. It was a dieing brand so he brought his own vision to it in order to revive it. There was no connection whatsoever between the history of Gucci and Tom Ford's designs. He was largely, shall we say, ignorant towards it - something he freely admits himself. He created his own vision of what Gucci meant and he went with that for his entire career.

Secondy, aesthetics are a largely complex idea. You can't dismiss Frida's aesthetic because its inspired by 'rock'.
Kant says that "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". This is what aesthetic value comes from. The music world and the history of Gucci, collectively, contribute to Frida's aesthetic. Therefore, and this is regardless of whether you like it or not, her work is loaded with aesthetic subtext.Finally, I don't understand why people swoon over Ford's designs. The way I see it, we've all been culturally conditioned to believe his work was good.

The truth is, if Ford designed today, he would be not even remotely close to being considered a 'fashion leader'.

 

[FashionPower]

Translation of what Frida is saying:
"This is a very important and occasional event because we wanted to celebrate Rome and the 70th anniversary of the Gucci store.The collection is very light and vivacious,with bright colours and prints composed by different situations:from morning,to cocktail party,to evening.The main idea is hippy deluxe:for the daywear I used flares,but they are still very tight,like the silhouette,which is lenghten thanks also to high platform shoes,that verticalize the entire structure"
Sorry for mistakes,hope you will understand easily
Anyway I recorded a clip of the show too
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9-jSCWwkw

 

[helmut.newton]

helmut.n in the video, frida basically explains why they are showing in rome (70h anniversary of gucci in rome) and she talks a bit about the collection. she says vivante (full of life?), vibrant, cocktail dresses, night dresses, hippy, relaxed attitude, long silhouette, and that's pretty much it. just like when you hear one of those models talking backstage ("i think this is very sexy, and very beautiful, and everything is so sexy and so beautiful, and i love this brand, and everything is sexy and beautiful, and so so so soo... ermmmm.... mmmmh.... beautiful and sexy, and very beautiful....yeah! i love it! sexy!" uh... very deep, thoughtful, no?... and sexy of course )

 

[helmut.newton]

thanks for the translation fashionpower!

 

[la_sonnambula]

You can't dismiss Frida's aesthetic because its inspired by 'rock'.
Kant says that "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". This is what aesthetic value comes from. The music world and the history of Gucci, collectively, contribute to Frida's aesthetic. Therefore, and this is regardless of whether you like it or not, her work is loaded with aesthetic subtext.Finally, I don't understand why people swoon over Ford's designs. The way I see it, we've all been culturally conditioned to believe his work was good.

The truth is, if Ford designed today, he would be not even remotely close to being considered a 'fashion leader'.

Nobody is dismissing Frida's work because she references rock music, people dislike it because she does it so badly and worse still, repeatedly. There is absolutely nothing rock and roll about her clothes. They are a pastiche of rock and roll. Fringes and leather and velvet do not rock and roll make. Just because Frida says that her designs are rock and roll does not make them so. And she is always talking about how important music is to her, about how she owns 7000 vinyls, and name-checking musicians a few years after their careers had cooled down from red hot (e.g. Gogol Bordello), anxious that everyone knows that she's a Music Lover.

Though I do think that high fashion should be new and exciting, I'm generally fine with populist and commercial designs that do not seek to break new grounds in fashion as long as they are beautiful. But when you strip away all the pretentious references from Frida's clothes, all you are left with are old looking, dated, fussy clothes that are just plain ugly.

Tom Ford is still designing. With his successful eyewear, fragrance and menswear line, Tom Ford is still very much at the front of the pack. Makes one wonders how Frida would fare without the G-shaped logo propping her up.

 

[Spike413]

Firstly it must be known that Tom Ford completely ignored the the Gucci history. It was a dieing brand so he brought his own vision to it in order to revive it. There was no connection whatsoever between the history of Gucci and Tom Ford's designs. He was largely, shall we say, ignorant towards it - something he freely admits himself. He created his own vision of what Gucci meant and he went with that for his entire career.

Secondy, aesthetics are a largely complex idea. You can't dismiss Frida's aesthetic because its inspired by 'rock'.
Kant says that "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". This is what aesthetic value comes from. The music world and the history of Gucci, collectively, contribute to Frida's aesthetic. Therefore, and this is regardless of whether you like it or not, her work is loaded with aesthetic subtext.Finally, I don't understand why people swoon over Ford's designs. The way I see it, we've all been culturally conditioned to believe his work was good.

The truth is, if Ford designed today, he would be not even remotely close to being considered a 'fashion leader'.

As far as I, and most people know, Gucci was historically a high end leather goods house that hit it's peak in the 60's and 70's when the Euro and Hollywood jet-set started toting around bags and wearing the ubiquitous horse bit loafers.

Gucci had no real rtw identity before the mid-nineties. And to say that Ford has admitted to being completely ignorant to the house legacy is not quite the same as what I've read, not to say that you're mistaken, just that there must be some conflicting stories. According to him, the archives at Gucci when he arrived there consisted of leather goods and photos of the celebs carrying them around during the 60s and 70s. While he may or may not have been ignorant to that history is irrelevant given that the first three collections he ever did for the house referenced Gucci's 70's jet-set heyday, not to mention the iconic horsebits, in an attempt to reinvent them...so I can't really see how you can say that his work had no connection to Gucci's legacy.

As for whether or not he'd be considered a leader now, no one can honestly say that because he, as well as fashion, has changed in the four years since his departure. But even if he wasn't considered a leader in today's climate isn't important, what is important is that he was while he was there...something that I doubt anyone could credit Frida Giannini with. She's there now and has yet to do anything new, exciting or individual. If you pulled her clothes out of the Piazza Oberdan showspace and flung them into the tents at Bryant Park stuck in between Michael Kors' and Badgley Mischka's shows nobody would notice.

 

[mishahoi]

Tsumori chisato also did the realistic kitschy underwater prints for this 2008 s/s season.
I think tsumori's are a bit more interesting, thought out, even sexier than Frida's....

elle.com

 

[mackos]

Thanks to Frida when I think of Gucci I no longer think of chic or elegance, it's only tacky and cheap looking crap that comes to my mind. It's so sad.

 

[Emilia]

Hq





FWD

 

[AD080119]

Please do not quote images. Thank you.

Wow I love this dress. Not a big fan of orange but that's cute.