Imitation of Christ S/S 2012 New York

[ChrissyM]

Is it still Imitation of Christ or just Imitation or Imitation by Tara Subkoff?
style.com currently has it listed as Imitation of Christ...

style.com

 

[ChrissyM]

style.com

 

[ChrissyM]

style.com

 

[ChrissyM]

style.com

 

[ChrissyM]

style.com

 

[ChrissyM]

just read the review... it is in fact the relaunch of Imitation of Christ:

NEW YORK, September 8, 2011

By Maya Singer

There were two interesting developments this afternoon at the ballroom of the W Union Square. First, Tara Subkoff relaunched her Imitation of Christ label, eschewing the ready-to-wear Imitation brand she's been showing for two seasons in favor of IOC's remade vintage. Second, Lydia Hearst got married in front of the fashion audience. Seriously. For real.

The show was set up as a wedding processional, with models playing bridesmaids and groomsmen wearing IOC's suits and dresses. The prevailing look was dressed-up Depression-era, with lots of pastel lace bias-cut dresses and drop-waist chiffon florals, plus occasional forays into flapper silhouettes. On some items it was hard to discern what renovation had been done, while others, like a beaded flapper dress, looked made from scratch. Most of the legible work was embroidery, in particular flowers and birds that, depending on your mood, conjured either Miu Miu's Fall 2011 collection or the Portlandia skit "Put a Bird on It." (YouTube it.)

After the show, Subkoff said she was inspired to resurrect Imitation of Christ because she wanted to get back to handwork. "Hundreds of hours went into those dresses," Subkoff noted. "It's nice to work that way. And also, I feel like it's important that not every single thing that goes on at fashion week be about commerce. There should be some art, too." That's a sentiment a lot of designers would get behind. But what Subkoff is up to here isn't quite art for art's sake. It's more like craft for craft's sake, which is a perfectly noble pursuit, but one that didn't necessarily square with the pomp and circumstance of the presentation. At any rate, we wish the happy couple well.

style.com

I have to agree with Maya Singer...
I think the presentation is more impressive than the clothes.
Some of them just look like vintage dresses with little applique flowers sewn on...
more craft than art

 

[Scott]

^but of course,that's what IOC was in it's initial inception when she was working as a duo with matt damhave. i dunno i kind of prefer this direction than the standard p-a-p stuff she was doing.....at least here it gives her more of a medium to be a little more experimental. the work she was doing of late was kind of cheap and boring.

 

[lucy92]

i love it. each one of these pieces are an attention-grabber. i'm not keen on most of the apllique and patchwork stuff but without it works for me.

 

[Urban Stylin]

nice presentation, love the clothes also

 

[Psylocke]

I think the cute presentation worked very well here. The clothes aren't groundbreaking but beautiful and the adorable presentation didn't overshadow the collection itself. Really lovely. I'd wear every single one of those dresses

 

[Not Plain Jane]

There are so many wearable and yet dreamy dresses here. Forget the aisle; send me back to a romantic time and I will don every one as a free bird (like, hmmm, during the Gatsby era?). Actually, forget that. I will wear them now, any day, any where.

Well done! Rebirths are almost always good.

 

[Kristen May Lee]

just read the review... it is in fact the relaunch of Imitation of Christ:

style.com

I have to agree with Maya Singer...
I think the presentation is more impressive than the clothes.
Some of them just look like vintage dresses with little applique flowers sewn on...
more craft than art

I've always been confused about how I feel about this line. I love the idea of art for art sake. This project seems to keep going without profit? I would love to know the secret to backing a constant vanity project. The collection before this weeks was absolutely gorgeous and well made and sellable. This current piece is a fun presentation but I don't see how hundreds of hours could've been put in unless you are adding up the hours the original designers gave them. Anyone care to share? I'm intrigued about how it still is here on so many levels. Perhaps the mystery itself is the root of selling outrageous prices for certain pieces?