Marc Jacobs S/S 08 NYC

[BerlinRocks]

^I know a girl who won't be invited next season.....

 

[kuba01]

^^^

 

[Honeysuckle]

Genius!

 

[mimiko]

I love that frog clutch!

me,too

 

[spottie]

Ugh, felt like some weird juxtaposition of McQueen and Moschino to me. Sadly, it fell flat on attempted quirkiness ( if that was his intent).

 

[Jungla_Juana]

I love the use of avant-garde, architectural heels with completely classic black pumps.

 

[chloehandbags]

Yes, but ... what none of these have is an "actual" heel turned sideways like these. He's clearly riffing on this theme, but I haven't seen the sidewise heel before

Don't you think these A/W '07 Junko Shimada shoes have a sideways heel?

I agree that they are slightly less obviously heel-like (as they are curved and don't appear to have a heel tip), but it's already a pretty developed idea, IMO.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong, at all, with him using this idea, too; whether, or not, he knew that another designer had done it before. But posters were reacting as though it was a completely new idea, when it, in fact, wasn't.

I know the Manolos didn't have a sideways heel, but, at that point, we were trying to find where heelless shoes, in general, had originated. ​

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Whoops, forgot to give a credit for those photos.

As before, they're from Manolo Shoe Blog.

 

[trip]

Schiaparelli would be proud...But honestly i am happy to see a bit of surrealism back in fashion. It gives it a little more intelect. What i dont like tho is how he keeps going back to the f*cked up 50's housewife with the crayola colored tweeds and pumps. to me it looks like the more deranged version of his spring 2003 collection. Did anyone else get a feeling of a bit of Mui Mui fall 2007?


yes she would

a bit of mui mui a bit of this a bit of that but mostly marc the eternal club kid thumbing his nose at fashion's tendancy to take itself so seriously, albeit w/full on couture quality tailoring. the hats and shoes brought schiap to mind immediately but i also see the entire fin de siecle marching by in this mad-hatter, deconstruction of fashion now and then! pure art!thank God america has a marc jacobs and not just a ralph lauren

 

[Bidwell]

Fashion is based on the notion of getting an idea or not.
It is not a populace movement or one based on the common denominator.
That's for the GAP or H&M (who will undoubtedly integrate something of this like they do every season).

If this is a controversial collection (for whatever reason) that can only be good and perhaps wake some people up a bit and live a little!

Safe=boring= NY fashion

Besides every collection that is despised as "worthless" has brought with it resounding influence in one shape or another.
Do you think the japanese in 1982 were appreciated? No.
YSL in 1972 with the 40's collection? No.
Margiela and his first collections. NO
Westwood's clothing. What do you think?
Oh yes, and that kid at Perry Ellis in 1992, what's his name? No.

The same people that complain about the main line seem happy to buy the cheaper more accessible diffusion line anyway so the job is done.

Even the NY post writer called him a visionary in the end. Whatever.

I can only conclude that this is perhaps going to be an exciting season when we see something new piece itself in front of us. For better or worse, in sickness as in health.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Don't you think these A/W '07 Junko Shimada shoes have a sideways heel?

I agree that they are slightly less obviously heel-like (as they are curved and don't appear to have a heel tip), but it's already a pretty developed idea, IMO.​

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong, at all, with him using this idea, too; whether, or not, he knew that another designer had done it before. But posters were reacting as though it was a completely new idea, when it, in fact, wasn't.​

I know the Manolos didn't have a sideways heel, but, at that point, we were trying to find where heelless shoes, in general, had originated. ​

No, I do not--that was my point.

What heelless shoes usually look like is either an extended sole, or perhaps a donut wedge with pieces cut out. This is definitely not meant to be a heel turned on end.

So I think what was done here (the shoes) might be original, but I also think it's too ugly for words--and I like wild shoes.

This may all be artistically brilliant, I dunno, but I didn't see a single thing that would be useful to me. In my mind, a collection that fails to be useful is a bad collection (fashion is wearable art ...). I will also go on the record that I never changed my mind about the previous MJ collection I hated (Penn State).

It'll be interesting to see what turns up in stores ...

 

[KKnardi]

Marc Jacobs disappoints with a freak show

Suzy Menkes, iht.com
A bad, sad show from Marc Jacobs, running two hours late, high on hype and low on delivery, symbolized everything that is wrong with current fashion.

It is not just that, after a powerful and mould-breaking autumn season, Jacobs seemed to be lost in a dark and none-too-original vision of vintage clothes cut up to reveal satin underwear and worn by deranged women with surreal, deliberately ill-fitting shoes. (Think of short soles, so the shoe's heel hits the instep, like the ugly sisters in Cinderella's slippers).

The entire event was a parody of fashion now: the inexcusably late start as the 9 p.m. show began at 11 p.m.; the mobs of paparazzi snapping anyone half-known on the big or small screen; invitees treating the show like the ultimate party, although the whistles and roars turned to a whimper by the end. And in Jacobs's Alice in Wonderland world, the end was at the beginning, as the designer ran out whooping while the parade of models marched in reverse order down the catwalk. (Martin Margiela first did this more than a decade ago).

And so it was with all the tricks. Only a cute bag, attached to a bigger tote like Kanga and Roo, had a charming effect, while the concept of clothes sliced apart and attached to sheer voile was just a weak version of designs pioneered fashion eons ago by Comme des Garçons.

In fact, this magpie collection was vaguely comprehensive to fashion buffs because it was an echo chamber of existing ideas from John Galliano's haute romantic 1920s ladies to Jacobs's own foraging in the vintage closet. Yet even the most eccentric antiques shopper could do better than a cape flailing around over half a dress and the 1920s undies.
Of course there were things to pick out - not least the necklaces snaking round with duck's heads, the bumble bee medallion, lush suede gloves and dark-side-of-cute prints showing pigs and swans. A luxuriously tailored jacket made up for soggy, sheer pants.

But the no-expense-spared wooden set with video projections and the mad hats perched on bird's nest hairdos looked like a ghastly, ghostly parody of Galliano's fashion spectacles. Jacobs has always had his own kooky, individual vision. But there was nothing here to take fashion forward nor to continue the intriguing debate that the designer began last season when he offered adult content for women's wardrobes, rather than a freak's costume party.

 

[MissMagAddict]

source | wwd

Fabulous fashion or fairy-tale farce - by Marc Jacobs' lights, what's the difference? "It was the 'Emperor's New Clothes' - which is what fashion is," Jacobs observed of his own efforts. "And it was so entertaining."

Jacobs made the comment on Monday morning about the prelude to his spring show. Though well before the instantly infamous two-hour wait, he had already staged a version of the presentation the night before, that one filmed by Charles Atlas for screening during the main event. The girls were decked in full hair, makeup and phenomenal accessories regalia, Catherine McNeil with her surrealist hairbow-sunglasses photo-printed with Elizabeth Taylor's eyes perched just so; Uliana Tikhova with two pavé-encrusted mice contemplating her clavicle. But, like the emperor's, their clothes were in absentia. They wore only underwear.

By the time the real show started, the models were done up in - and often falling out of -inventive layerings that, though brilliantly fantastical, will dazzle all as brightly in their retail incarnations. The idea was about sex, even though his designs are often thought of as anything but. "Clothes aren't sexy, people are," Jacobs likes to say. But real sexy people aren't media sexy, all cookie-cutter steamy, cleavaged and ready for action.

Rather, they're quirky, insecure, perverse, experimental, aggressive, confused, reticent, all of which he wanted to capture by warping common clichés. "Every girl is a character - life in cartoon motion," he explained, adding that, after last season's conformist rigor, "I just wanted to have a ball - everything eclectic, funny, kooky."

To strengthen that point, he showed in reverse, his bow first, then the finale, followed by looks 56 through one. Bad girls wore black lace and satins with a fallen-angel halo or sparkly devil horns. (Hats off to Stephen Jones.) More wholesome types worked riffs on football jerseys. They were haute florals and adorable animalia, hussy sheers, slipdresses appliquéd with bras and panties, a dress festooned with strings, faux v.p.l. and undies galore. Many of the clothes came half sewn, slit or otherwise peekaboo, either real or trompe l'oeil. And arranged in off-kilter combinations, right down to the shoes with their heels attached the wrong way. It all made for a delightfully costumed experimental sexcapade.

Now, as for that wait, to ignore it or say it doesn't matter does an injustice to those rightfully offended by the two-hour delay of a long-scheduled event. Certainly after last night, some of those who attended were in no mood to forgive. The city tabloids vivisected Jacobs in their morning editions, the Daily News considering his late start worthy of placement on page three, while the Post posed the question, "What is wrong with Marc Jacobs?" Nevertheless, right or wrong, when it comes to its greatest talents, this industry allows to trump convenience, common sense and even manners.

John Galliano has leave, if he fancies, to masquerade couture as ready-to-wear; Alexander McQueen, to drag his audiences to lord-knows-what remote arrondissement, and yes, Marc Jacobs to be late. The day of reckoning may come for these designers, should their shows not always be must-see events. Until then, however, in each indulgence lies promise, the communal knowledge that after the bitching, eye-rolling and toe-tapping are over, the audience may have experienced something special, as happened Monday night.

 

[chanelnumber5]

oh my god, is all I can say. And in not a good way either. I normally love Marc Jacobs, what went wrong here??

 

[MissMagAddict]

From Cathy Horyn's NY Times Blog...

September 12, 2007, 10:22 am

The Sexy Thing

I see people were up before the birds to have a whack at the Marc Jacobs show. Such a delicious debate, I might add. (And “rules” about length and quality of comment on the blog? Horrors! Let’s build another prison.) About four minutes into the Jacobs show, after seeing the finale line and then the first of the cut-away dresses in bugle-beaded black silk or jersey over lingerie, I felt he had definitely done something different. All the time I say to young designers, “Give me a new contemporary version of sexiness. Show me something other than a sweetheart neckline, a corseted waist, and an Alaïa homage.” I’ve been waiting, and not seeing it. So when I saw the way Jacobs had stripped down those dresses, expressing a natural élan as much as a silhouette that any person can draw upon, he had my vote.

Of course the collection had a lot of other things going on it besides the sexy thing, like the sweet mouse prints and the odd “too small” shoes that at first confused people in the audience, but I twigged to those opening dresses and the black “stole” T-shirt with the black shantung shorts. How great would it be to see someone wear that on a red carpet? Bill Cunningham once said to me after a Yohji Yamamoto show that included some beautiful, spare black jersey dresses, “I’m always hoping I see someone at a party in a dress like that, but I never do.” We long to change a landscape dominated by banal, thoughtless choices.

I completely agree with that, while Yamamoto and Margiela have done similar styles and offered similar commentaries on our celeb-rule culture, Jacobs has a different kind of authority and influence. That’s just a realistic observation, not a comment on the creativity of the others. And I did not, at least in this Jacobs, see a reference to the last Comme des Garcons show, apart from the big hair. Tell me I’m wrong, but I didn’t see it.

 

[Oria]

sigh this show the time we waited . . . I digress.

 

[chloehandbags]

fashion is wearable art ...

I think you've hit the nail on the head, there.

 

[JuiceMajor]

Luving that Suzy!!! Never diagree with what she wrote!! As for MJ, think he is a little up his ar** at the moment. Would like to see all the fashion elite turning their back on him and see what happens.

 

[cake_batter]

i've always felt the press has been really hard on marc. every season his shows are either "genuis" or "a dissapointment."

i had another look at the collection and i love it even more. someone a few pages back mentioned "f*cked up 50's housewives and secretary" influences which i think are brilliant.

this collection is young and beautifully destructive. i can see all of young hollywood (mary-kate, mischa, chloe, nicole) wearing alot of this.

 

[DJGroove]

clothes are thank you but no, thank you

though i do love the harley quinn inspired black booties. so cute
and maybe some of the other shoes. i'd need to see close-ups to decide