Jil Sander Mens by Raf Simons S/S 07 Milan

[chicgarcon]

Golly, I was writing about the 80s influence and Kraftwerk, the movie Subway and cyberpunk on the Prada thread before I read about the version of Robots on JS runway from visconti...something is really in sync here with RS.

Anyway, it seems RS for JS is polarising - you either love it or hate it, likewise Prada - you either love the orange pvc shorts or don't. I won't argue with the haters, there's not much to say to subjective statements - "It's ugly!" "It's cheap!" "It's boring!" "It's too big!"? If it is about specific design elements, cut, volume, construction, line, precision, materials, influences, references, mood, attitude, etc. yes, but simply "it's ugly", well...

Btw, that's a super cool cocoon jacket ultramarine.

so one can't give any input without talking about "cut, volume, construction, ect" ?...and if they dont they're just subjective haters?

yeah ok.

 

[tott]

^ I think what Zazie is saying is that it would be more interesting if people stated the reasons why they don't like something.

"It's ugly!" "It's cheap!" "It's boring!" "It's too big!" doesn't really say anything. What makes you think it's ugly/cheap/boring/too big? Let's be constructive!

 

[faust]

^ I think what Zazie is saying is that it would be more interesting if people stated the reasons why they don't like something.

"It's ugly!" "It's cheap!" "It's boring!" "It's too big!" doesn't really say anything. What makes you think it's ugly/cheap/boring/too big? Let's be constructive!

That is a fair point, tott.

So,

The cuts are unflattering, the volume thing is overdone, because it completely dispenses with human anatomy.
The colors, except black and white, are horrific in their screaming neon gaudiness.
The fabrics - can't say much until I see in person - but the fabric on those raincoats looks like they came from Walmart.
Innovation factor is approaching 0. Except those buttons off to one side on the suit jackets (which were shown closed for a reason - chances are they will look stupid when worn open). Everything else is so plain, it hurts.
If I was to sum it up though... one four letter word comes to mind - it starts with capital "UG" and ends in "LY".


The pants look pretty good, though. There are a couple of redeeming looks if you go through an entire collection, especially sweaters paired down with dress pants.

 

[aldn]

I woke up this morning with no clue. I'll post reviews later right now i'm too freaked out..

LMAO! Yeah. Me miss Jil!

 

[chicgarcon]

That is a fair point, tott.

So,

The cuts are unflattering, the volume thing is overdone, because it completely dispenses with human anatomy.
The colors, except black and white, are horrific in their screaming neon gaudiness.
The fabrics - can't say much until I see in person - but the fabric on those raincoats looks like they came from Walmart.
Innovation factor is approaching 0. Except those buttons off to one side on the suit jackets (which were shown closed for a reason - chances are they will look stupid when worn open). Everything else is so plain, it hurts.
If I was to sum it up though... one four letter word comes to mind - it starts with capital "UG" and ends in "LY".


The pants look pretty good, though. There are a couple of redeeming looks if you go through an entire collection, especially sweaters paired down with dress pants.

bravo...B)

 

[arlekindearrabal]

i rather think this collection is truly innovative... i mean, volume for men in this type of silhouette is not something commonly seen, at least in high fashion...

the concept of luxury in actual design and cut is a fresh one that can't be easily dismissed.. no matter how hard i look, i certainly won't be able to find a raincoat with a cut as sublime at this red one:

men.style.com

as for the fabrics, i'll wait for some first hand accounts

 

[new_dawn_fades]

Points noted, but I see evolution here, but just really subtle - in cut (the one and a half breasted) and the achievement of floating structure away from the body with light summer fabrics instead of the heavier winter weights (with their inherent structure) that are easier to construct, in materials (amazing lightness, sheen, transparency that isn't like any you see of the others, eg. Prada's patent/pvc shine looks "common" next to his diamond dust polished sleek leather), and of course the stunning, carefully selected 3 colours. The blue is a dense, saturated Yves Klein, the brilliant red I recognise from a vintage Jil Sander piece I own, if this carefully picked 3 shades of colours to go with blacks, greys and silver are ugly, I can't imagine what it must make the Prada collection with its rainbow flurorescents married to "dirty" scribbly prints on baggy shorts and the flying long trenches...and don't even mention the cut and proportion, eg. compare and contrast the collars of the light volume coats, how a little space between them in this collection makes a difference.

But then what is obvious may not be apparent depending on where one stands, however, it seems the critics all concurred. It is a bit hard to believe these pieces will be confused with the cheap baggy mass produced things out there for rotund bellied men as some are claiming.

The silhouette seems like a problem for most of his critics, but I'd rather see something different from the others than the same old, same old,...also can't imagine how being different is "boring". Besides, it looks stunning on guys with the right body and attitude - you'd never look at someone wearing Jil Sander and think "Fashion victim!", but you will know that it's something in a league of its own and RS has similarly achieved this. There's a bit of an insider, future-forward "snob-appeal", even class thing going on, but if that's what he intended, he succeeded. Subtle luxury *is* aristocracy (of the mind and spirit if not of the blood), has always been. Jil Sander is an obssessive perfectionist minimalist - can't imagine what there is to vehemently hate in such an attitude. I think he will take off where early Dior Homme left off for the next fashion cycle.

Zazie, i think i may be one of few agreeing with you on these points, but i must say that i AM disappointed that i didnt see more..but i suppose im looking for signature RAF development..which we see in his own collections... now that ive seen some new pics.. i must say the tailoring looks great! I love the black and white pieces.. simple and sophisticated and thats what i usually look for. I remember reading one of Raf's interviews where he says that he doesnt usually design with a person in mind but an attitude.. i think he's trying to cut out a little niche for himself at Jil.. perhaps a more mature intellectual appeal like u said zazie?

the best part for me is that there is no cliched vibe about rafs clothes..let it be his mainline or Jil.. unlike Dior homme with is oh so indie appeal..and prada etc and its metrosexual balderdash.. fine everyone makes one or two nice wearable pieces here and there but I think the philosophy behind the design matters.. That being said, Id really like to know what some buyers think of this.... I suppose you either agree or disagree with rafs vision..

 

[ultramarine]

It all looks so cheap though. Theres being a minimalist, and then theres being plain out minimal when it comes to your designs (...)
This collection has no substance...the end. So he "used vintage red" Oh please

Yikes ... this collection is the most controversial from the season -so far- and well... I agree about not making any judgements until you havent seen the materials/fabric ... but at least we all can agree that this is no Tommy Hilfiger, right?

 

[bedtimestorynyc]

i do love the use of the colors, but i'm sorry, overall this is getting more and more laughable from season to season.
i say fire raf simons, and hire someone..... else

 

[Zazie]

Volume is unflattering? Balenciaga must have been making women ugly for decades. The tight, sexy X/V silhouette is so in-your-face and everywhere, it's getting tired, facile and common...all x & v. Anyone wearing JS now among others wearing Burberry, Prada, Gucci, etc. is going to stand out for seeming modern and severely elegant. The models he sent out look gorgeous, serious, intellectual *and* slim, so obviously the cut itself doesn't make them look fat. And if one is rotund to begin with, it's better not to truss oneself into a tight DH corset, so this cut even flatters certain body-types. However, I guess if you are the sort eager to show off a 20-inch waist at a "hipster" club, this isn't for you.

RF (and JS) isn't about, um, flattering the body, it's about flattering the appearance of the wearer, reflecting a certain attitude that sets him apart from the others. When the others are wearing shapeless, badly tailored things, he'd streamline his collection. When it gets all obviously tight and sexy, he goes aloof and elegant, but the expert tailoring and feats of construction are always there.

As for colours and materials, JS has always been lightyears ahead, those who own JS pieces *would know*. It is not at all necessary to defend impressions from flash pictures.

Btw, I didn't say this is "vintage red", I said this is a red from a vintage JS collection, meaning it's in the archive, there is a difference. And it wasn't just a red, translucent top, it was a top that shrouded the wearer in red light, like a James Turrell, and the seams and folds that are semi-visible are so expertly done, they are part of the "non" design. I see the same attitude and attention lavished on the light, translucent pieces here.

It seems Versace is also trying to do the light-artist, but her interpretation of Dan Flavin is so...wrong, obvious and shallow. I'm sure he's having a fit.

With so many loud vulgar looks out there, it's strange how it is so intolerable to have a quiet, seriously tailored line for men who are different.B)

 

[Zazie]

i think he's trying to cut out a little niche for himself at Jil.. perhaps a more mature intellectual appeal like u said zazie?... the philosophy behind the design matters.. That being said, Id really like to know what some buyers think of this.... I suppose you either agree or disagree with rafs vision..

New_Dawn_Fades, exactly. JS is always a different designer niche, it'll be considered a success if RS can keep the clients, because it's *really* expensive. My bf's take on this look isn't as serious - he wears the coats and skinny dark trousers with messy punk blonde hair. He's in architecture, so he has to look cutting edge but intelligent - the clients all wear Gucci and Dior, so he's goes to the Belgians, particularly RS, and now JS of course. For him, it's "investment", different from what he wears for clubbing.

 

[color_reporter]

Someone mentioned Prada is for short men and I agree. To wear clothes as starkly minimalist as presented here would require man to be in a very specific body shape- very tall, slim, and leg/arm proportions that still maintain shape in these bulky clothes. I love the concept behind the design but I can't picture myself wearing these clothes. I think I'd feel like I'm naked and defenseless against, well, my numerous imperfections.

 

[Zazie]

Someone mentioned Prada is for short men and I agree. To wear clothes as starkly minimalist as presented here would require man to be in a very specific body shape- very tall, slim, and leg/arm proportions that still maintain shape in these bulky clothes. I love the concept behind the design but I can't picture myself wearing these clothes. I think I'd feel like I'm naked and defenseless against, well, my numerous imperfections.

Sorry, I was half-mocking.. ...didn't mean to pick at physical imperfections. Surely a simple outfit like this suits the smaller frame better than a loud fashion statement. In the end, it's more important to suit the attitude and the personality than the physique, non?

 

[tricotineacetat]

In the end, it's more important to suit the attitude and the personality than the physique, non?

I have to disagree on that one... I think the cut is the most essential part of the garment - either it flatters your bodytype or not... so regardless of the attitude (i happen to believe that the clothing itself doesn't provide the attitude but the person who wears it), the proportions have to work on you.

 

[Angie C]

With so many loud vulgar looks out there, it's strange how it is so intolerable to have a quiet, seriously tailored line for men who are different.B)

Am amazed how this harmless collection have caused an endless amount of those "it's ugly" "I don't like it" comments (as Zazie pointed out, could at least be helpful to know what causes the need to share your thoughts to the world). So this is about the most provocative thing you could send out on the runway today... interesting...

I do not know more about RS for JS than one that is browsing a lot of glossies do, but it's so obvious what he is trying to do is introduce the use of volume in a "boxy" instead of the obvious fashionforward "balloony" way. Not so many others do that. And what isn't reconizable is often rejected.

I always thought there was an aura of *rave* about him, and I always assocciated his use of volume to like... technokids with huge rustling pants. Which could easily translate into the raincoats in the sheer fabrics.

I think this is a beautiful way to interpret JS. He has obviously done his homework, and I'm glad he do not totally feel "ja tvoi rabotnik" towards the brand.

 

[faust]

Am amazed how this harmless collection have caused an endless amount of those "it's ugly" "I don't like it" comments (as Zazie pointed out, could at least be helpful to know what causes the need to share your thoughts to the world). So this is about the most provocative thing you could send out on the runway today... interesting...

I do not know more about RS for JS than one that is browsing a lot of glossies do, but it's so obvious what he is trying to do is introduce the use of volume in a "boxy" instead of the obvious fashionforward "balloony" way. Not so many others do that. And what isn't reconizable is often rejected.

I always thought there was an aura of *rave* about him, and I always assocciated his use of volume to like... technokids with huge rustling pants. Which could easily translate into the raincoats in the sheer fabrics.

I think this is a beautiful way to interpret JS. He has obviously done his homework, and I'm glad he do not totally feel "ja tvoi rabotnik" towards the brand.

What a strange word to describe a collection, harmless. What does that mean? How can a collection be harmless or harmful?

The only reason it's producing any kind of a reaction is because it's Raf doing it, and Raf is known for being one of the best when it comes to how clothes are cut, which this collection is the reverse of. Also, it is because some people here are having an Emperor's New Clothes moment and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. Zazie, for example, is obviously talking to herself. Actually, she is directing a lot of it at my comments, without directly replying to my posts, which is kind of funny. But, she is doing this very selectively (for example, she completely refuses to recognise that I like volume, which I mentioned in one of my first reply - I just don't like the way this volume is done. I also love Raf - been wearing his clothes for over 8 years). She imagines that there are two types of people in the world, the skinny dior/flashy dolce types and those "intellectual" types. Of course, that would be convinient for her argument. She can't accept that there are intellectual fashion-conscious people who like volume, covert sexuality, depth, and romance in fashion, but think that collection is ugly, because that breaks her entire stance. She also completely refused to anser kLm's very legitimate question... It's kind of strange, really. If this collection works for you, by all means, buy it. Obviously it doesn't work for plenty of people (tricot, kLM, myself) who at least in these circles are known for having decent taste and some thoughtfulness. Can you accept that Zazie, and move on?

 

[Pastry]

can't we all move on and listen to each other..why some love this collection and others don't?

i knew this thread would turn into an argument, because it's jil sander and everyone is eager to show off their extensive knowledge of fashion history. that's excellent, i love reading those posts. but i think that knowledge is much better used when trying to explain why you like something or something is bad. when it gets personal, it's a mess. some comments start getting obnoxious.

so... i love this collection. if we're talking about it, it obviously means something. i do not think this volume is ugly. whoever said that fashion is meant to reflect our personality, was right in my book. the passerby might not give that oversized coat a second look, but you know what it stands for, and that's the best feeling ever.

i also have to mention that these are the sexiest clothes i've ever seen...

 

[dennissyh]

THE SIMPLISTIC OF THIS COLLECTION IS TIMELESS, THE

CONSTRUCTION, THE SILHOUETTE, THE FABRICATION AND EVEN THE

COLOUR PIECES ARE VERY INTELLECTURE AND MODERN. WILL LOVE TO OWN

THIS SEASON ENTIRE COLLECTION......... GREEDY ME......ADORE U RAF

 

[dennissyh]

Missed Your Msg Pastry, Glad U Liked It Too

 

[Angie C]

What a strange word to describe a collection, harmless. What does that mean? How can a collection be harmless or harmful?

Umm... sorry english is not my first language... my midrange is lost

But with harmless I meant... something like, that I don't think his main goal is to provoce, yet it certainly does.

Which, of course, is a good thing.