Jil Sander S/S 2013 Milan

[karina_zb]

The shoes are just "off" enough I think they are my favourite part. Is there a video for this?

 

[jeffandtheworld]

Am I the only one who think this is a boring collection? I tried to get this but I just could not. I miss Raf for Jil Sander.

 

[Thefrenchy]

^ Good God, when will people stop with those "I miss Raf for Jil", "I miss Hedi at Dior Homme" or "I miss Galliano at Dior" We get that in too many threads! GET OVER IT, THEY ARE GONE AND NOT COMING BACK! Fashion is not about looking back, it's about looking forward.

 

[Uemarasan]

I may also be suffering from minimalism fatigue. And I'm taking the point being advanced by Uemarasan and Scott that perhaps Jil is more about utility. But..if, broadly, this be minimalism (utilitarian minimalism?, minimal utilitarianism?)...

Because minimalism is about purity of form, about line, - if a designer fails to make any statement in the silhouette (or inject something from outside minimalism) the work can very quickly disappear into the trap of being all too vanilla, drab, pious, modest, provincial. This collection, I'm afraid, is frightfully dull. In all of those ways. What can we really say of the Jil Sander Jil Sander woman? That she's clean, that she works, that she's quiet, that she's modest. I'm sorry but she really isn't very interesting at all. She's a repressed throwback.

To those who would give a positive review, help me see it - Is there really anything novel or interesting about the silhouettes of this collection?

Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement.

She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week.

I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism).

Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design.

People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

 

[HeatherAnne]

I'm a big Jil fan, and I know I'm supposed to get excited about this, but I just can't. Everything is tailored beautifully, but I'm really only liking about half of the silhouettes. I'm just sort of ho-hum about it, obviously not bad but I really don't think it's that great.

 

[Morphe]

Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement.

She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week.

I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism).

Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design.

People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

I see your point and I completely agree with the last paragraph but overall you managed to overly intellectualize, over-analyze, overread and overthink a good but simple collection with hit-or-miss sillhouettes that looks modest, non-threatening, but is widely considered to be a good attempt at modernizing the Jil Sander brand identity [semi-succesfully IMO].
Sure, we wear clothes everyday and Jil is/was a designer who puts focus on the fabrics, the details, the quality of her products but telling me she wanted to distance herself from her designs is as true of a statement as claiming Ann D. doesn't design clothes for basically herself and her hubbie. All designers are narcissists more or less and their designs are complete projections of their own lifestyles and personal ideologies.
I could be wrong though so in this case, forgive me.


PS. This collections feels more severe compared to her past offerings. I remember quite a few past collections with some cute flowery numbers, colourful prints and flowy dresses. And it was Vukmirovic who had a sportier, more minimal approach to the brand.

 

[thirdlooks]

Very of the moment collection. Personally I miss Raf's touch on Jil Sander but this is alot better than the menswear collections she put out. Nothing stands out as incredible to me but the overall presentation is very consistent and bodes well for her next womenswear show.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

Maybe it's like this - you see it or you don't; taste is a fickle thing, and it's hard to "convince" someone to like something they don't.

But for me this collection is transcendent. As a woman, i.e., someone who would actually wear these clothes, this collection appeals on so many levels. It looks comfortable; it looks modern; it looks well designed; it looks stylish; some of it, one might even argue, looks sexy. Take, for example, look #10, that long white sleeveless jacket with those fitted neon-red-orange pants; to me that is a strong and attractive look - long, sleek bare arms, with a cool elongated silhouette, and then that spike of colour on the legs. Or what about the cut of the top in look #23, which almost fetishizes the shoulder, the way it's cut around it and emphasizes just that body part. Or perhaps the body hugging pencil skirt and jacket in look #27: fitted and black. It's subtle, but to me it's there. Still, Sander balances that subtle appeal with looser looks, or more severe looks, with many different looks. Easy, clean, & varied. Nothing is in your face. Except, maybe, the craftsmanship, which is clearly sublime.

This is clothing that doesn't shout; it whispers ... to me, that can be tantalizing.

Hell - you know when you craft a piece then lose it. Darn. The nutshell gist. Can come closer to Jil having seen Paris. But relatively she's solid functionalism to the feminine divine in the hands of Raf, Ricardo, Phoebe, Costa et al.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement.

She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week.

I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism).

Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design.

People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

a well written exposition much of which I'd follow. I do think though that I get to integrate a couple of remade points from the original, now disappeared, response I made to NoPJs.

What Jil's offering this season delivers is the requisite quietitude of minimalism (call it the Zen calm if we will). I note you raise sustainability etc. I'm afraid that hairshirt eco piety is a leftover from early 90s green minimalism. The trail to the erstwhile, the campaigny holier-than-thou, the political, was what ultimately killed off that ecru linen strain of 'functional' minimalism. That way was light but unbearable. Since 2009 (Costa earlier) he, Costa, Phoebe, Miuccia and Raf have, somewhat tortously at times, been reinventing minimalism. Where they have arrived at, particularly this season, is spiritualism and sex.

Note how sheer, stripped down and/or dripping wet all the aforementioned designers have been this season. Jil is solid, functional, wearable-commercial, yes. But, in relative terms, her work, along the heat axis, is, I'm afraid, vanilla. Safe. You are saying so yourself.

On that point that one should'nt bludgeon Jil to the intellectual realm - well, ok, treat her as some sort of diffusion line then, derivative? I mentioned silhouettes in my earlier piece. I've realised that Jil's shapes for the season in fact are derived from those of Comme de Garcons and Prada last season. Pushed back to be more commercial yes, but those houses do have intellect. But you'd rather I just allow that, because of the commercial wearbility you wish for, I say the shapes are second cycle copies rather than insustantiating a notion of Jil being 'in dialogue'? We don't want any depth in our Jil? So long as it is nice to wear in the sense of non-controversial, modest, non-wasteful and such?

I've realised that you've an easy answer to my final point there - no that's not what you want - you said so. So, fine, Jil is for you then. But don't let the understanding of what Jil is stave you off from an appreciation of what she isn't. Her lack.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Not Plain Jane and Phuel have already given very eloquent responses, but I just want to add that Jil Sander as a designer is never about the novel, the trendy, or the chic. Her designs are not meant to be overly intellectualized, over-analyzed, overread, or bludgeoned into some kind of great aesthetic statement.

She already made it clear what her mission this season was: reset to zero. I think she succeeded in rescuing the integrity of her label from the aesthetic and intellectual burden of Raf Simons' legacy. What you find too vanilla, pious, modest and provincial I see as a purity of design. This is the antidote to all the superficiality, excess, and frivolousness that is Fashion Week.

I actually think this is the most, if not (along with Comme des Garcons) the only, relevant collection shown this season. Relevant in the context of the grander scheme of things, the world outside of fashion, because Lord knows that the industry can be so isolationist that it fails to be in dialogue with the rest of reality. Whereas the worlds of art and design are actively engaged in human lives, the world of fashion continues to recycle and regurgitate itself, clinging to old and obsolete ideals, celebrating the most inane of gods ("rivalries", "reputations", iconicism).

Jil Sander has always sought to erase herself from her designs, to avoid making voluble statements through her clothes, to veer away from paying homage to "fashion". She wants women to dress well. She respects their needs. And she believes in beauty, in craftsmanship, in skill in achieving this. There is utmost discipline here. Nothing is wasted. Not a sleeve, not a button, not a cuff, not a dart, not a zipper. In her own way, she takes part in the idea of sustainability, perhaps the most signficant issue now in the realms of art and design.

People can say it's only fashion, but it's not "just" fashion because it does participate in the fabric of our lives. It is an important business that thousands upon thousands make a living from. And there is the very simple fact that we wear clothes everyday. Clearly those who make clothes have a responsibility to address that which is beyond runways and retail shelves. It's so disappointing that even now there are so few voices that do that.

Bravo, well said!

 

[Deleted member 7575]

What Jil's offering this season delivers is the requisite quietitude of minimalism (call it the Zen calm if we will). I note you raise sustainability etc. I'm afraid that hairshirt eco piety is a leftover from early 90s green minimalism. The trail to the erstwhile, the campaigny holier-than-thou, the political, was what ultimately killed off that ecru linen strain of 'functional' minimalism. That way was light but unbearable. Since 2009 (Costa earlier) he, Costa, Phoebe, Miuccia and Raf have, somewhat tortously at times, been reinventing minimalism. Where they have arrived at, particularly this season, is spiritualism and sex.

Note how sheer, stripped down and/or dripping wet all the aforementioned designers have been this season. Jil is solid, functional, wearable-commercial, yes. But, in relative terms, her work, along the heat axis, is, I'm afraid, vanilla. Safe. You are saying so yourself.

On that point that one should'nt bludgeon Jil to the intellectual realm - well, ok, treat her as some sort of diffusion line then, derivative? I mentioned silhouettes in my earlier piece. I've realised that Jil's shapes for the season in fact are derived from those of Comme de Garcons and Prada last season. Pushed back to be more commercial yes, but those houses do have intellect. But you'd rather I just allow that, because of the commercial wearbility you wish for, I say the shapes are second cycle copies rather than insustantiating a notion of Jil being 'in dialogue'? We don't want any depth in our Jil? So long as it is nice to wear in the sense of non-controversial, modest, non-wasteful and such?

I've realised that you've an easy answer to my final point there - no that's not what you want - you said so. So, fine, Jil is for you then. But don't let the understanding of what Jil is stave you off from an appreciation of what she isn't. Her lack.

How obtuse of you to write off something like sustainability as a passe trend from the '90s. Or did you?

.... enough of THAT tangent...

Pardon me, I've only jumped into the conversation with this last comment, as it's been a bit tedious, but I think you are missing the point. Jil Sander is not designing for fashion discourse, for the runway, or for the overall entertainment machine fashion has become. It's not that she eschews depth or involving herself in any kind of dialogue, rather, unlike many of the others, she is not straining to be a part of it. Vanilla, pious, boring? Whichever, but I like to think Sander is designing for reality, which, if you watch the news and not the catwalk, is quite exciting enough. I believe Jil Sander works with belief, and I think Uemarasan would agree, that fashion should not be difficult. No runway shockers, no dissertations, no convoluted explanation of an explanation, just real clothes.

Personally, I'm more excited to see women of a certain age dressed in these clothes than some pseudo-intellectual post-helmut lang hodge podge.

But, whatevs, we all have different ideas of fashion and clothes that enchant us and we are obliged to pursue our own preferences.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

But, whatevs, we all have different ideas of fashion and clothes that enchant us and we are obliged to pursue our own preferences.

Exactly. Fashion is multidisciplinary. She may open herself to aesthetics or to sociology, to art, to business, to shopping. She lives in all these places. But perhaps dwell on this. One can have the aesthetics of fashion, the sociology of fashion, the art of fashion, the business of fashion. But can one have the shopping of fashion? It sounds awkward doesn't it? Better say the purchase or consumption of clothes? Or products? Note - the word 'fashion' dropped away. Perhaps we can't buy fashion. Shopping, in fact, is mere consumption of product. An activity which doesn't necessarily contain any 'ideas' whatsoever.

Yes early 90's minimalism is dead. Post millenial minimalism is a whole different kettle.

 

[Morphe]

You all fellas should become authors . All this literary talent is going wasted. F*** Jil! Come and help me with my tedious assignment, please.

[sorta serious about this request]

 

[Uemarasan]

I see your point and I completely agree with the last paragraph but overall you managed to overly intellectualize, over-analyze, overread and overthink a good but simple collection with hit-or-miss sillhouettes that looks modest, non-threatening, but is widely considered to be a good attempt at modernizing the Jil Sander brand identity [semi-succesfully IMO].

Hmm, personally, I don't really see what I've done as going beyond the acceptable parameters of critical thinking, but there really is a thin line dividing intellectualizing and overly intellectualizing something. All I've said is that to appreciate Jil Sander you simply have to look at the purity and discipline of her designs. In a way, this purity and discipline are ideals that very much belong to the conversation about sustainability that is taking place now in art and design.

To overread and over-analyze this is to say that this represents a leavening of female identity from the sacred bread of fashion, body of worship, with pragmatism as the yeast that detaches the feminine mystique from the messianic masculine which has always determined and purposed clothing for women according to male whims and ambitions. Fashion is the battleground for the Holy War between the sexes!

I think saying that all designers are by nature narcissists is a bit of an over-simplification. You could say that all human beings are narcissists since every word and action we undertake is really a reflection of our lifestyles and ideologies, but my point is that Jil Sander doesn't believe in crafting a fashion "identity" for herself in the way that others designers have: Galliano, McQueen, Jacobs, Gaultier, Decarnin, Cardin, Quant, Schiaparelli, and yes, even Demeulemeester. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing (I think Schiaparelli is still perhaps the greatest designer), but the reason I appreciate what Jil does is that I see in her clothes a turning away from this general tendency not just in fashion but in the arts.

Also, although the above observation has been "widely considered", clearly I don't share their sentiments. Is it overthinking to go against what this unidentifiable, faceless mass of "everybody else" has come to accept? I'd like to hope not.

 

[Uemarasan]

Yes early 90's minimalism is dead. Post millenial minimalism is a whole different kettle.

There seems to be some kind of miscommunication, because it seems that you are collapsing minimalism together with sustainability, or that I gave that impression in my response?

When I refer to sustainability I am not referring to the 90s Ferngully, Michael Jackson Earth Song, Captain Planet and the Planeteers brand of earth-hugging consciousness. I am referring to the serious scientific and political discussion of already palpable consequences, not just environmentally speaking but also with regards to human development, social justice, and economics. How is this dead or dated? The recent Venice Architecture Biennale was actually criticized for not doing enough to address issues of urbanism and human scale by still worshipping at the churches of the starchitects. Yves Behar and Architecture for Humanity are now among the most influential and important voices in design. Castaing-Taylor and Paravel's Leviathan is cinema's use of anthropology, essay, and film to stimulate discussion about biological systems and human presence. And when the most recent Olympics and the upcoming one were designed with sustainability expressly in mind, I can hardly call that a mere "leftover" from the 90s.

And when I say I admire Jil's purity, integrity, and discipline, I am saying that these are aesthetics that could very well fit into the paradigms of sustainability. With respect to what is going on outside of the industry, what else marks someone like Wang Shu's designs but the three ideals mentioned above? This is why I think what Jil stands for and has always stood for remain entirely relevant. That she achieves this without the need to make an aethetic statement, to follow a trend, to start a trend, in fact without the need to participate in "fashion" dialogue speaks volumes about the honesty of her approach. She makes clothes in this manner, for these simple and almost pure purposes and beliefs, and, intentional or not, I see this way of working and creating as fitting into the current milieu of social intelligence and awareness.

Mutterlein has already summarized and reiterated what I want to say better than I could ever hope to. Thank you for being so articulate.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

There seems to be some kind of miscommunication, because it seems that you are collapsing minimalism together with sustainability, or that I gave that impression in my response?

When I refer to sustainability I am not referring to the 90s Ferngully, Michael Jackson Earth Song, Captain Planet and the Planeteers brand of earth-hugging consciousness. I am referring to the serious scientific and political discussion of already palpable consequences, not just environmentally speaking but also with regards to human development, social justice, and economics. How is this dead or dated? The recent Venice Architecture Biennale was actually criticized for not doing enough to address issues of urbanism and human scale by still worshipping at the churches of the starchitects. Yves Behar and Architecture for Humanity are now among the most influential and important voices in design. Castaing-Taylor and Paravel's Leviathan is cinema's use of anthropology, essay, and film to stimulate discussion about biological systems and human presence. And when the most recent Olympics and the upcoming one were designed with sustainability expressly in mind, I can hardly call that a mere "leftover" from the 90s.

And when I say I admire Jil's purity, integrity, and discipline, I am saying that these are aesthetics that could very well fit into the paradigms of sustainability. With respect to what is going on outside of the industry, what else marks someone like Wang Shu's designs but the three ideals mentioned above? This is why I think what Jil stands for and has always stood for remain entirely relevant. That she achieves this without the need to make an aethetic statement, to follow a trend, to start a trend, in fact without the need to participate in "fashion" dialogue speaks volumes about the honesty of her approach. She makes clothes in this manner, for these simple and almost pure purposes and beliefs, and, intentional or not, I see this way of working and creating as fitting into the current milieu of social intelligence and awareness.

Mutterlein has already summarized and reiterated what I want to say better than I could ever hope to. Thank you for being so articulate.

Thank you too Uemarasan. I respect that in you also. And that we've been able to have a lively discussion without getting tiffy. And that you've extended my understanding of Jil's work. I will just say that if that's her ethic then, given when she came to prominence, if it's always been her outlook, then she is essentially of that early 90s movement you see as necessary to propigate but which I'm less sure about.

I guess I just like trends. It's kind of tied up with that sociological thing of reading where fashion is proposing we go in how we represent ourselves in society. Then seeing who's following who and stuff.

As almost a humorous aside, I hope you'll see, on the whole climate change eco thing - I read that warming phenomenen could be attributed merely to planatary movements including spatial relationship to the sun, alignment with MilkyWay etc. If it is to do with the cosmos there's not a lot we can do about it so we may as well party or do whatever Connects, if you want to go there, don't have to, to some stuff to do with winter solstice 2012. The Mayan calendar.

 

[donyan]

While I love this collection , and have always adored Jil I do feel it is slightly dated- not the clothes per se, but the way they present themselves (does that make sense?) This collection could very well be from the mid-nineties, and while I'm sure the clothes will look amazing in real life (contrary to a lot of collections here) there is something missing.

 

[Uemarasan]

Thank you too Uemarasan. I respect that in you also. And that we've been able to have a lively discussion without getting tiffy. And that you've extended my understanding of Jil's work. I will just say that if that's her ethic then, given when she came to prominence, if it's always been her outlook, then she is essentially of that early 90s movement you see as necessary to propigate but which I'm less sure about.

I guess I just like trends. It's kind of tied up with that sociological thing of reading where fashion is proposing we go in how we represent ourselves in society. Then seeing who's following who and stuff.

As almost a humorous aside, I hope you'll see, on the whole climate change eco thing - I read that warming phenomenen could be attributed merely to planatary movements including spatial relationship to the sun, alignment with MilkyWay etc. If it is to do with the cosmos there's not a lot we can do about it so we may as well party or do whatever Connects, if you want to go there, don't have to, to some stuff to do with winter solstice 2012. The Mayan calendar.

The rest of the world continues to be very much involved with the sustainability movement. It seems like only the fashion industry continues to play dumb... Well, those at its forefront, anyway.

Hmm, a fashion celebration in the midst of utter nihilism. That would have made for an interesting narrative. I think McQueen did a collection that perfectly encapsulated that (F/W 2009).

I'm sure people are tired of my long-windedness already, so apologies for that. Anyway, I think I've exhausted all that I have to say here

 

[rip_ian curtis]

PS. This collections feels more severe compared to her past offerings. I remember quite a few past collections with some cute flowery numbers, colourful prints and flowy dresses. And it was Vukmirovic who had a sportier, more minimal approach to the brand.

That's not correct. I guess you are referring to the collections she did during her brief return in mid-2000's. Those designs were not quintessential Jil, more likely some forced mass-market commercial offerings probably dictated by her then-boss Patrizio Bertelli. However, if you take a look at her iconic 90's collections you'll see what Jil really is about. Those collections might also be the reason why people perceive this collection as boring. She used to work with a lot more interesting fabrics, and especially her knitwear was super high-tech at the time, but I don't see that in this collection. I hope she will focus on these elements for the autumn collection.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

The rest of the world continues to be very much involved with the sustainability movement. It seems like only the fashion industry continues to play dumb... Well, those at its forefront, anyway.

Hmm, a fashion celebration in the midst of utter nihilism. That would have made for an interesting narrative. I think McQueen did a collection that perfectly encapsulated that (F/W 2009).

I'm sure people are tired of my long-windedness already, so apologies for that. Anyway, I think I've exhausted all that I have to say here

Now you really went and made it fascinating! B) I will return, with a discussion of McQueen AW08/09 and show how ecopiety and one type of nihilism in fact have much in common in their choking off of immersion in the present, in the embodied world of the here and now. Fashion is of course necessarily joined up with the now and the body, the pleasure in it, the body's, visualisation as a sensuous living form situated somewhere in space.