How Many Looks Were Lost on the Fall 2009 Runways?

[fierceboi]

You may have noticed that the collections presented for fall were a wee bit more concentrated than usual. As the industry continues its twist into a Darwinistic survival of the fittest, designers no longer have the luxury of showing pieces that won't sell, no doubt another sign of These Economic Times. "This season is different because what you see is what you get," said Betsey Johnson, who halved the number of looks she showed at her presentation — 25 this time around. This is a big change for Betsey, who showed 51 looks for spring 2009, 60 for fall 2008, and 41 for spring 2008. "Everything shown will actually hit stores ... unlike bigger runway shows where some looks weren't available for sale," she said. Comparing spring 2009 to fall 2009, John Galliano lost 17 looks, Narciso Rodriguez lost 9, and Matthew Williamson and Oscar de la Renta both lost 11. But the biggest drop occurred at the Armani shows: The Emporio Armani show featured 69 looks, down from 92 last season, while Giorgio Armani had 56 looks, 20 fewer than spring. Of course, not every designer cut looks. Some even gained two, five, or eight. But it was impossible to ignore drastically reduced runway shows and see the impact of recession rearing its ugly head again.
Check out the top twelve downsized shows this season after the jump.
SHOW SPRING 2009 # OF LOOKS FALL 2009 # OF LOOKS TOTAL SUBTRACTED Anna Sui 57 50 -7 Betsey Johnson 51 25 -26 DSquared2 45 35 -10 Emporio Armani 92 69 -23 Giorgio Armani 76 56 -20 John Galliano 47 30 -17 Matthew Williamson 50 39 -11 Moschino 50 44 -6 Narciso Rodriguez 48 39 -9 Oscar de la Renta 62 51 -11 Roberto Cavalli 44 35 -9 Vera Wang 41 30 -11
Source NY Mag

 

[vogue28]

I am really not surprised that so many where dropped. I hate it when designers design clothes that are not wearable at all. For example, Gareth Pugh?

 

[kala_dev]

ah ! not surprising !

oh ya and nice crotch shot !

 

[mandolux]

I don't see any tragedy in here.... I would prefer well-edited 30 perfect pieces collection rather then 60 messy, all-over-the-place collection...

 

[wongak]

o well, money is money....

 

[ilaughead]

I don't see any tragedy in here.... I would prefer well-edited 30 perfect pieces collection rather then 60 messy, all-over-the-place collection...

Agreed. Balenciaga, for example, is consistently one of the most influential shows and it always has around 30-40 exits. (Of course, one could argue that Ghesquière only shows a few different outfits over and over to begin with, but that's for another thread.) I actually tend to like prefall a lot *because* the collections are all so small and well edited.

 

[karina_zb]

to each their own, i guess

I am really not surprised that so many where dropped. I hate it when designers design clothes that are not wearable at all. For example, Gareth Pugh?

I hate when people don't understand that fashion doesn't all have to be wearable, especially runway fashion. I don't think anyone expects to be able to walk out on the street wearing looks straight off one of Pugh's runways, so that's not the reason he's succesful. Clothes are sometimes art that's meant to be appreciated, not worn in your everyday life.

 

[vogue28]

^ I understand perfectly your point of view. I know exactly what you mean

But your right 'to each their own'.

 

[Blanche DuBois]

I think it's better...
I hate that Dolce & gabbana, for instance, has almost like 90 looks on the runway
it gets boring!!!!

 

[Navygreen]

I hate when people don't understand that fashion doesn't all have to be wearable, especially runway fashion. I don't think anyone expects to be able to walk out on the street wearing looks straight off one of Pugh's runways, so that's not the reason he's succesful. Clothes are sometimes art that's meant to be appreciated, not worn in your everyday life.

Sure but in my humble opinion, it should be:
RTW=wearability, HC=art. It's a more grounded approach. Any skilled designer could/should be creative and practical at the same time.

 

[Spike413]

^ But are you taking into account the fact that the concept of "wearability" is entirely subjective? One person's "art" is another person's addition to their wardrobe.

As for this article I think the fact that they included Galliano's numbers is kind of a joke tbh. It's not the first time he's shown a smaller 30-something look collection, and out of the 30 looks he showed, how many of them were actually realistic as clothing options?

Forgot to add, I don't really know if this is in fact another sign of how bad things are, at least not in the way that they're saying it is. It's not like any of the designers mentioned (with the exception of John) are theatrical designers who show a lot of "show pieces". And any of the looks they may have scrapped from the runway would likely have still been in the showroom for buyers to see. I think this has less to do with wanting to only show salable pieces and more to do with either having a tighter budget to work with, or in the cases of those who are fairly economically safe, wanting to present a more potent and focused collection.

 

[Meg]

I agree Spike. I think the main focus this season has to be on grabbing buyer's attention and getting people to actually wear the clothes. So I think that the number of looks on the runway fluctuate from season to season, but this year you will see a lot more things that can be more easily incorporated into people's closet and that are straightforward and more easy to wear. Likewise, difficult economic times are also supposed to be the ones that lend themselves to creativity, and when you have a limited budget to spend on clothing, why not spend it on one big, showpiece item and build up the rest of your wardrobe on basics that you can get anywhere.