Jil Sander S/S 10 Milan

[brazilianbaby]

lovely

 

[Pastry]

I'm not entirely sure why there seems to be such a huge huge amount of praise for this collection. In fact, Im really unsure as to what perspective to look at it from. From the perspective of dressmaking/accessories it's got some expressive ideas.e. A dress with an open back and a bunch of fabric at the shoulder looks as if though the fabric in the back has been torn open by a blast and took rest on the shoulder of the woman.. the sole of a shoes appears to have been made of a knotty pine. A "flaw" in wood, a "flaw" in fabric.
...The desrtruction of familar forms, the destruction on Jil Sander...
Everyone seems to see a wellspring of ideas in it. I'm almost afraid something's wrong with me, because I don't. Well, of course deconstruction is not dead, it's quite mainstream at this point, no?

I'm just not sure this Jil Sander collection proposes a new wearable wardrobe or stimulates the imagintion too much either.

Again, help.

 

[Dkammern]

^im sort with you on that. im usually a big fan of raf's work for jil sander but for some reason i find there is something...missing. cant pin point what

i love how he experimented with details in tailoring, it gives what can be rather a mundane suit a youthful but still intelligible touch with the deconstructed details.
it is some of the dresses i find not very satisfying. perhaps it is a personal choice but it doesn't make me want to wear them

i think what happens is that we are used to Raf doing """"plain beautiful""" stuff for Jil Sander.
The previous seasons were so easy to like: the impeccable cut, the beautiful colours. it was like an established idea of 'modern' to which we were already used to.
this, however, is a bit more difficult. some parts look very much like his previous work, and that's not hard to like. but some others are a bit more of a challenge. they are things we are not used to, not what we expected.
it's complex. before, we just saw it, and we liked it. now we have to think why we like it.
... or that's how i see it

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

I'm not entirely sure why there seems to be such a huge huge amount of praise for this collection. In fact, Im really unsure as to what perspective to look at it from. From the perspective of dressmaking/accessories it's got some expressive ideas.e. A dress with an open back and a bunch of fabric at the shoulder looks as if though the fabric in the back has been torn open by a blast and took rest on the shoulder of the woman.. the sole of a shoes appears to have been made of a knotty pine. A "flaw" in wood, a "flaw" in fabric.
...The desrtruction of familar forms, the destruction on Jil Sander...
Everyone seems to see a wellspring of ideas in it. I'm almost afraid something's wrong with me, because I don't. Well, of course deconstruction is not dead, it's quite mainstream at this point, no?

I'm just not sure this Jil Sander collection proposes a new wearable wardrobe or stimulates the imagintion too much either.

Again, help.

I agree 100%. From a stylistic perspective, I love Raf's take on deconstruction. There is something relentlessly raw about it. It's very bare and exposed but the layers give a quiet sense of covering. However, because the deconstruction is so exposed and, for lack of better word, obvious, the pieces will be useless to a lot of women off the runway, imo. There will be no undying fascination behind the pieces b/c their purpose is so restrictive and limited. Now when compared to the deconstruction going on @ CDG or Yohji or Margiela - it is always apparent but it is subtle enough to still maintain a sense of functionality and wearability. It's also subversive enough to transform time and time again to suit the needs and desires of the wearer. Rei manages to make jackets that can be put on from either end function in the real world. I don't think Raf's front-side only, vest jckt. thing will work on anyone who isn't a walking editorial or in an editorial, for that matter. I guess it's safe to assume that these pieces will be subject to a major creative overhaul come sale time...

 

[Scott]

i dunno maybe stylistically deconstruction is a bit mainstream but the substance behind it,i still don't think the mainstream has really grasped. just ripping holes in jeans is not what i perceive as deconstruction.

WiW,you never know...that black dress with the knotted bits or the tailored pieces i could see being snapped up. this collection may be a bit more niche but raf is sort of a niche designer anyway. to be honest,i am really excited to see raf doing something more complex and innovative....it's been so safe....dare i say...almost staid these last seasons so to see him bringing his spirit out in this kind of platform is really really lovely to see. and to me it still maintains a certain balance. and remember he is natural menswear designer and we're so used to seeing that kind of dynamic expression in that....so for me this is really refreshing.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

I agree about his progression. He was a bit stagnate after that amazing s/s 08 collection. Personally, I find the obvious nature of the deconstruction used here to be both appealing and repelling. Appealing due to the visual texture it can add to a look and the primitive nature of it in general. Repelling, though, because it is so damn obvious. One of the aspects I like most about deconstruction is the journey one in embarks on in order to discover the 'properties' of a garment. To challenge the mind and the principles behind functionality and the like. Perhaps, I expect so much from Raf that I foolishly assumed his take on deconstruction would be that of an enigmatic puzzle. Though maybe the 'obvious' nature of it all is a new, fresh way to approach deconstruction?

 

[Pastry]

I agree 100%. From a stylistic perspective, I love Raf's take on deconstruction. There is something relentlessly raw about it. It's very bare and exposed but the layers give a quiet sense of covering. However, because the deconstruction is so exposed and, for lack of better word, obvious, the pieces will be useless to a lot of women off the runway, imo. There will be no undying fascination behind the pieces b/c their purpose is so restrictive and limited. Now when compared to the deconstruction going on @ CDG or Yohji or Margiela - it is always apparent but it is subtle enough to still maintain a sense of functionality and wearability. It's also subversive enough to transform time and time again to suit the needs and desires of the wearer. Rei manages to make jackets that can be put on from either end function in the real world. I don't think Raf's front-side only, vest jckt. thing will work on anyone who isn't a walking editorial or in an editorial, for that matter. I guess it's safe to assume that these pieces will be subject to a major creative overhaul come sale time...

Yes, that's what I'm struggling with. With Rei, Yohji, Margiela, there seems to be a consern for real life. I mean, fashion is a craft with the capabilities of art. And that's what showpieces are for, to make a point. But thought-provoking, wearable pieces are, dare I say, more of a design challenge.

That's what I'm struggling with. If the Prada collection (and I am just referring to Cathy Horyn's description of it, not comparing the design at all)was "in limbo", then this one is definitive of the term. The garments are not expressive enough to be a showpiece, yet they aren't wholly functional either.

I don't know...I suppose the fact that we're talking about it on these terms means something. And I'll always love things I don't understand. Maybe I'll see "it" with time.

 

[Pastry]

i dunno maybe stylistically deconstruction is a bit mainstream but the substance behind it,i still don't think the mainstream has really grasped. just ripping holes in jeans is not what i perceive as deconstruction.

WiW,you never know...that black dress with the knotted bits or the tailored pieces i could see being snapped up. this collection may be a bit more niche but raf is sort of a niche designer anyway. to be honest,i am really excited to see raf doing something more complex and innovative....it's been so safe....dare i say...almost staid these last seasons so to see him bringing his spirit out in this kind of platform is really really lovely to see. and to me it still maintains a certain balance. and remember he is natural menswear designer and we're so used to seeing that kind of dynamic expression in that....so for me this is really refreshing.

Yes, of course. I thought to what extent and on what levels deconstruction is accepted. Certainly, raw edges, turning things inside out, zippers, etc. are all small gestures of deconstruction that are mainstream in high and low end apparel.

And you're right, in that grand, gutsy gestures of deconstruction as they were envisioned of in the early 80's or so, are still an outsider practice. And I suppose, what I saw was a method of destroying clothes that lay somewhere between small and grand gestures of doing that. Again, the concept of "limbo" comes to mind.

In order to create, one must destroy. That is true. Maybe as a whole, the fashion world needs to push itself to destroy. That was one good point the collection made. Even with labels like Lanvin, which are not super thought-provoking design, there is that feeling of thinking twice about spending lots of money on something that is essentially a piece of hopsack with a fancy button (I am referring to a f/w coat I recently saw).

 

[Exclusive]

AHHHH i adore look 17 and the transparent knit is to die for !! Take out the metallic and jellyfish (6 looks from the end ) dresses , and this collection is perrfect .

 

[gius]

i don't think deconstruction is about destroying or destruction at all ,in the literal sense.. i think scott is trying to say that too. it's not raw edges, seams inside out.. something that looks destroyed. it's more of a concept, the idea of a jacket or what a dress is, what a dress means in society.. the purpose of a pocket, the closures in its most abstract form. it's those that are destroyed, taken apart, analysed....

if it's a door in a house.. what is a door really? as an idea, it is just a way to get from the exterior to the interior. a passage. this is how the door gets deconstructed...
and there are also other sides of it. a door also means protection, also means privacy.

i do see deconstructivist ideas but only a few pieces in this collection. and it's not the dresses that look like they are falling apart.



i like a couple of the white dresses with the torn parts hanging from the hips and such. they sort of make me think they are flowers.. but i am glad to see something other than flowers.

 

[gb_32]

the pockets in the white suits, all suits!! ♥♥♥
aaaaahhhh... beautiful.
and this
http://www.imagebam.com/image/03a0ad50156642

 

[Pastry]

gius, I completely understand what you're saying. And certainly, the collection is all about that idea. What is a dress today, what is a pant today?

I just wish it married that concept with reality; pieces you can wear. And like I said, I fear I may be too narrow minded and it just doesn't come through to me, but I'm definitely not a narrow-minded individual.

Limbo, contradictions..I feel incomplete.

 

[gius]

oh no i don't feel Raf is asking those questions at all. so i didn't really feel the collection is about deconstruction.. it's really more, destruction i guess.. so i'm curious to see if they will show the videos online that they put up before the runway show started. to see the inspirations.
i have been reading a couple of articles here and there lately about people who wear for example the lumps and bumps collection by CDG so i am sort of at a loss in terms of what is wearable and i am finding myself really attracted to the dresses that look like ripped paper. i would really like to wear that (as a woman). and a few dresses of the same idea, but maybe not wearing at a mall or somewhere open like that

the more i look at the show, the more it seems like it's not really overbearing at all. it's quite easy. and the suits are even in a conservative navy and tan. you mentioned function a few times i think, that seems interesting...

 

[kiddokiddo]

i don't think deconstruction is about destroying or destruction at all ,in the literal sense.. i think scott is trying to say that too. it's not raw edges, seams inside out.. something that looks destroyed. it's more of a concept, the idea of a jacket or what a dress is, what a dress means in society.. the purpose of a pocket, the closures in its most abstract form. it's those that are destroyed, taken apart, analysed....

if it's a door in a house.. what is a door really? as an idea, it is just a way to get from the exterior to the interior. a passage. this is how the door gets deconstructed...
and there are also other sides of it. a door also means protection, also means privacy.

i do see deconstructivist ideas but only a few pieces in this collection. and it's not the dresses that look like they are falling apart.



i like a couple of the white dresses with the torn parts hanging from the hips and such. they sort of make me think they are flowers.. but i am glad to see something other than flowers.

Well said. I love how you put it

 

[fashionismydrug]

I love the shoes, the detailing, and the unfinished hems. The fabrics seem exquisite and must be even more divine in person. In all, I love the collection.

 

[disco54]

that navy blue pant suit I MUST HAVE.....

 

[tricotineacetat]

It's not the first time that Raf's womenswear design team have looked at Yohji or Rei (and also Alaia and Helmut Lang for the more body-con looks he sported in the past) for inspiration and it's actually not to a big surprise to me, trying to build a bridge between the more classical pieces of these designers and the purity of Jil Sander's aesthetic, since both aesthetics somehow speak to the same post-feminist, somewhat art-y, adult customer. All of that worked well for the past seasons, with stand out collections such as FW'08 with it's beautifully-cut folded collar coats and dresses.

This time around, I'm less convinced with his outing. The frayed edges most of these outfits are sporting are way too obvious and methodic for the Yohji customer to appreciate these (she will actually miss the elegance and refinement there is in Yohji Yamamoto mainline and + Noir), whereas the classical Jil-customer will have a hard time incorporating the deconstructed touches in her work environment. I really wonder if an entirely different customer will then go riot for these clothes that to me, are stuck neither in the niche of an elegant, sartorial wardrobe of a working woman, nor the art-y gallerist owner or art critique that likes to shop at Belgian or Japanese designers...

 

[tricotineacetat]

I think it would be best to compare Raf Simon's collection with that of Francisco Costa's at Calvin Klein - more so since bost designers are obligued to tap into similar, aesthetic territory because of the respective houses' heritage and also since both have come up with fairly loose, somewhat rustic collections.

Next to Calvin Klein, these clothes look very 'studied' and unsensual, an attribute I often associate with Raf's design direction at Jil Sander.

 

[ettebe]

Some of the pieces are quite beautiful. Some of the fabrics I am not a fan of though :/

 

[mackos]

We have seen deconstruction, we have seen raw edges, unusual volumes, transparency, and things that seem to change or dissolve before our eyes.

That's what I wanted to say, he mixed all these things so well, it's really a great collection and I love it. Three or four pieces look sorta out of place, but I don't care, the whole thing looks wonderful + I just adore the heels. Can't wait for the video now!