Marc Jacobs S/S 11 New York
- Thread starter Nicolasa
- Start date
helmut.newton
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,708
- Reaction score
- 6
Does anyone know how to extract the HQ of the details from Style.it? The details of the collection are amazing. And the shoes are on a whole other level - glitter platforms and heels! 
fashionista-ta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,327
- Reaction score
- 838
I suspect he wouldn't disagree with you ...
If I were going to have expectations of him, which I've given up on, I'd be disappointed in this after last season, which was truly outstanding. But you really just have to take Marc as he comes. He's directional, not consistent ... or you could say, consistently directional.
PS I'm still interested in the complete set of regular pix. I'm not gonna click on all the HQs
Last edited by a moderator:
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
Gorgeous! Real eye candy - especially after all the camel lately (which I also like, but in a completely different way).
I'm a complete sucker for maroon and fuchsia, anyway, but they look even better when worn together; especially along with the dark red and red-purple.
The egg yolk-yellow touches are also brilliant, as they're reminiscent of the colour of stamens - which feels absolutely right, to me, as a lot of the looks are like giant, wearable flowers!
Also really like the blush pink and tan combo, of course...
In fact, I like almost everything about this collection, including the accessories and the hair and make-up.
Definitely see mid-to-late '70s YSL and also, Missoni and Sonia Rykiel, as others have said; it's like a smörgåsbord of the most delicious looks and colours of the time.
Don't really care if it's original, or not, TBH - it works and nothing is really original, anyway.
I'm a complete sucker for maroon and fuchsia, anyway, but they look even better when worn together; especially along with the dark red and red-purple.
The egg yolk-yellow touches are also brilliant, as they're reminiscent of the colour of stamens - which feels absolutely right, to me, as a lot of the looks are like giant, wearable flowers!
Also really like the blush pink and tan combo, of course...
In fact, I like almost everything about this collection, including the accessories and the hair and make-up.
Definitely see mid-to-late '70s YSL and also, Missoni and Sonia Rykiel, as others have said; it's like a smörgåsbord of the most delicious looks and colours of the time.
Don't really care if it's original, or not, TBH - it works and nothing is really original, anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I for one don't really care what the fashion press, the buyers, or his clients think. They've already subscribed to his vision; I haven't. I don't see how that invalidates any criticism directed towards him. Yes, Marc Jacobs is commercially successful, but, again, I don't really care. Money is not my barometer for success. I think this is close to crap, no matter what those aforementioned people or what his bank account says.
Redundant and superficially vapid. The epitome of today's fashion. This collection is going to be a hit.
Last edited by a moderator:
stefanelle
the power of will
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 6,238
- Reaction score
- 0
I need to agree about it. not that I attended the show too, but I have the feeling that I was amazing in real. All the colours, various fabrics and atmosphere it creates. Seems not that interesting at first, but my oppinion has changed after another time looking through the collection and checking the datails
mikeijames
no tom ford, no thanks.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,879
- Reaction score
- 5
my larger point remains: does marc jacobs really concern himself and should he concern himself with what those in the blogosphere think if it's so unrelated to every other tangible measure of success? when it's in line with everything else, i could see a designer taking note, but when it's so boldly out of step, one begins to question relevance.
after all, he's designing for his customer......he can't really afford to just put out stuff to please those who would never step foot in his boutique anyway.
Marc Jacobs doesn't have to concern himself with the criticism. He can design in whatever way he sees fit, but that should not prevent anyone from calling him out on what he's doing.
I think your larger point is contestable. This is why these forums (and the blogosphere) exist, to provide a place for discussion and deliberation and argument. This isn't a glorified shoppers united forum. People look at fashion from vastly different perspectives: some are interested as buyers, some as clients, some as stylists, some as writers, some as historians, some as designers themselves. Since I'm not a transvestite and therefore not a potential client for this collection, I'm interested in the design aspect of fashion, and that is how I measure its success. I disagree with you: my parameters are obviously tangible, but they're much harder to quantify. I'm interested in cut, silhouette, technique, texture, fabric, concept, idea, vision, design solutions. Success is not only a commercial proposition (and we would be living in an unfortunate world if it was). If people simply wanted to sing praises about how a collection is successful in terms of the money it makes, then they can put up a giggly fansite or work for PR. Last time I checked, the Fashion Spot is neither.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no way that Pierre Berger or any of the haute fashion bourgeoisie at YSL will stomach a designer who does mimicry. I don't mind tributes or inspiration, but to just take something great in a historic moment and more or less reproduce it, that is a bit disrespectful of the original. To continue the YSL heritage, they need a designer who is heir to Yves himself, a sensitive, brilliantly elegant, equal parts debonair and flamboyant designer, and most important of all, an authentically skilled, creative, *original* talent who will be respected by fellow designers.
Marc Jacobs has a great eye and a fantastic marketing, PR and business mind, but I can't for the world of me think of any particular invention or contribution the likes of YSL's "Le Smoking" that he has made to fashion. I can list lots of designers who have contributed something new and unique, eg. Comme des Garcons, Martin Margiela, Ann D., Dries van Noten, Nicholas G., Rick Owens, etc., can't picture MJ among them.
I'm sure Marc Jacobs doesn't really care about what we think of him in the online world, he has been doing the same, um, "tributes", over and over again. As long as it rakes in money, the magazines get ads, it's good.
Marc Jacobs has a great eye and a fantastic marketing, PR and business mind, but I can't for the world of me think of any particular invention or contribution the likes of YSL's "Le Smoking" that he has made to fashion. I can list lots of designers who have contributed something new and unique, eg. Comme des Garcons, Martin Margiela, Ann D., Dries van Noten, Nicholas G., Rick Owens, etc., can't picture MJ among them.
I'm sure Marc Jacobs doesn't really care about what we think of him in the online world, he has been doing the same, um, "tributes", over and over again. As long as it rakes in money, the magazines get ads, it's good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was not too fond of this collection. I give Marc credit for using bright bold colors as it seemed many designers stuck to neutral colors, but lately his vision has not been too clear (IMO). Some of the pieces I did love but I agree with many people, it is very reminiscent to YSL and Sonia Rykiel.
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
Eek!
You do realise that fashion is supposed to be enjoyable and saleable too, though, don't you(?) and not just some sort of academic exercise, with the sole intention of making the designer look clever and innovative (whether they actually are, particularly, if you dig a bit deeper, or not)?
The truth is that, as far as I can see (short of some radically different new fabrics and/or techniques being created), at this point in time, almost anything that could have been invented fashion-wise and still look half-decent (along with much that didn't!) and function properly as clothing has already been done.
I'm all for innovation, where it can be acheived without the result looking uglier than its inspiration - but, unfortunately, it is so often the case, now, that beauty is sacrificed on the altar of so-called innovation, that I will take derivative over fugly, any day.
Although, having said that, I don't feel this collection is solely derivative, anyway...
I think the reason it may look it, superficially speaking, is because it is so adeptly done.
If you look at this in a few years' time I think you will, almost certainly, be able to clearly see that it was a 2010 take on the mid-to-late 1970s - but, by its very nature, the 2010 'take' will, of course, be quite hard for us to detect now.
Presumably for that very reason, I think some people feel they need to see some sort of obvious awkwardness in collections, to prove to themselves, somehow, that something is a sufficiently original 'take' on an earlier design?
Whereas, personally, I'd prefer to not to have to see (or wear!) that obvious awkwardness, if at all possible and to just know that people will always add a touch of themselves and their time to their designs, whether they want to, or not.
Just think of movies from a few years, or decades, ago that were set in even earlier times.
When you watch them a few years later, you can always see the year they were made, from the costumes - often, even more clearly than the era they were supposed to have been set in, itself.
Even though, when viewed at the time they were made (in the 1970s, or 1980s, or whenever), they may have looked almost completely convincingly Victorian, or Art Deco, or 1960s, or whatever.
Of course I know that. I am not naive or blissfully oblivious to the realities of the market. Fashion has to sell. However, as I mentioned above, I am NOT interested in that aspect of the industry, so I couldn't care less about the COMMERCIAL side when forming an opinion. And seeing as I DO NOT wear women's clothing. I've already outlined what I find important in fashion in my post following the one you quote: technique, vision, and design solutions. Did I say a designer has to be clever or innovative in particular in order to be successful? No. I despise the obsession that people have with originality as if it were the end-all and be-all of quality. There are several excellent designers who are not particularly innovative or clever. Alber Elbaz, for one. Personally, a designer is only successful if he or she is a good designer. Emphasis on design. It's as simple as that.
I also dislike that just because I say that I could not care less about the accounting books that I am automatically pigeonholed as someone who thinks fashion should be some sort of academic or artistic exercise. So if I don't think sales should matter, I think fashion shouldn't be beautiful or functional? Please. Let's leave the extremism behind and not so easily stereotype opinions into either/or, black and white, and draw the line dividing art, academia, design, and commerce in so simplistic a manner. In the same way, I think the idea of beauty is constructed personally and by social forces, so I really don't believe there should be a "default" or "accepted" notion. People can see a beautiful collection here. I don't.
I don't know why you're bringing up the timeliness of cinema, because, really, is it that important that the movies were box office hits when they were released or that they were expertly made? Citizen Kane (although I personally do not like it) was not a runaway success, but it survives and is important because of Welles's skill, technique and vision and not because people bought tickets.
The bottom line is I don't think Marc Jacobs is a good designer, whether he sells or not. Period. Now I hope people will stop putting words in my mouth.
Last edited by a moderator:
disco54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 1,644
Eek!
You do realise that fashion is supposed to be enjoyable and saleable too, though, don't you(?) and not just some sort of academic exercise, with the sole intention of making the designer look clever and innovative (whether they actually are, particularly, if you dig a bit deeper, or not)?
The truth is that, as far as I can see (short of some radically different new fabrics and/or techniques being created), at this point in time, almost anything that could have been invented fashion-wise and still look half-decent (along with much that didn't!) and function properly as clothing has already been done.
I'm all for innovation, where it can be acheived without the result looking uglier than its inspiration - but, unfortunately, it is so often the case, now, that beauty is sacrificed on the altar of so-called innovation, that I will take derivative over fugly, any day.
Although, having said that, I don't feel this collection is solely derivative, anyway...
I think the reason it may look it, superficially speaking, is because it is so adeptly done.
If you look at this in a few years' time I think you will, almost certainly, be able to clearly see that it was a 2010 take on the mid-to-late 1970s - but, by its very nature, the 2010 'take' will, of course, be quite hard for us to detect now.
Presumably for that very reason, I think some people feel they need to see some sort of obvious awkwardness in collections, to prove to themselves, somehow, that something is a sufficiently original 'take' on an earlier design?
Whereas, personally, I'd prefer to not to have to see (or wear!) that obvious awkwardness, if at all possible and to just know that people will always add a touch of themselves and their time to their designs, whether they want to, or not.
Just think of movies from a few years, or decades, ago that were set in even earlier times.
When you watch them a few years later, you can always see the year they were made, from the costumes - often, even more clearly than the era they were supposed to have been set in, itself.
Even though, when viewed at the time they were made (in the 1970s, or 1980s, or whenever), they may have looked almost completely convincingly Victorian, or Art Deco, or 1960s, or whatever.
Well said!
birdofparadise
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 7
I like Marc's girl.
I immediately watched the show video again after Proenza's livestream. I am intrigued by how alluring the sweaty satin, the oversized flowers, the dark, seemingly smudged eyes in high def seemed to be. This is a woman who seems somehow enlightened by her fearlessness, by her proximity to some kind of sensuality, possibly to love.
I think certain comments alluding to his supposed lack of innovation or newness may be accurate in the sense that it never seems to be about the clothes with Marc. He uses style to allude to the confusion and difficulty of our times, to deal with them directly. To remember and forget, to observe this cycle and then finally to break through to some kind of understanding.
There was a freedom in those girls that I did not see at PS; Proenza's chicks just seemed on their way to Le Caprice or something like that, they just seemed rich. There were no flashes of spirit, of difficulty, of spunk or grit whereas with Marc it felt like, yes, the joke could possibly be on you but what would come next could make it all worthwhile. It wasn't about the clothes, it was about the woman.
I immediately watched the show video again after Proenza's livestream. I am intrigued by how alluring the sweaty satin, the oversized flowers, the dark, seemingly smudged eyes in high def seemed to be. This is a woman who seems somehow enlightened by her fearlessness, by her proximity to some kind of sensuality, possibly to love.
I think certain comments alluding to his supposed lack of innovation or newness may be accurate in the sense that it never seems to be about the clothes with Marc. He uses style to allude to the confusion and difficulty of our times, to deal with them directly. To remember and forget, to observe this cycle and then finally to break through to some kind of understanding.
There was a freedom in those girls that I did not see at PS; Proenza's chicks just seemed on their way to Le Caprice or something like that, they just seemed rich. There were no flashes of spirit, of difficulty, of spunk or grit whereas with Marc it felt like, yes, the joke could possibly be on you but what would come next could make it all worthwhile. It wasn't about the clothes, it was about the woman.
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
Sorry if you feel I put words in your mouth - that wasn't my intention, at all.
I was just talking generally about people who (I suspect?) feel they need to see a sort of obvious awkwardness, to prove to themselves that a design is original and 'now'.
I know you didn't say that that was how you felt, personally and I wasn't trying to point fingers at you (or anyone in particular).
It was more of a realisation I came to, a while ago, that stemmed from general observation, more than anything else, really.
BTW, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make about film?
I mentioned cinema merely in terms of costume design - I wasn't making a point about the success of films, at all.
I just meant that, when we look back at movies from previous decades, the costumes in them are, invariably, very much of the era the film was made, aren't they? In fact, often to the extent that it is perfectly possible to date the film very accurately by the costumes alone and that this is the case even when the film was set in another period, again.
So say, for example, you were shown (today) a historical drama that was made in the 1970s, but which was set in Victorian England, you would not only see Victorian England in the costumes, you would also, almost certainly, see the 1970s very strongly in them, too.
Now, this would be despite the fact that the designer was, almost certainly, not a fashion designer, but a costume designer and so would have, presumably, been trying their best to produce costumes that were an accurate facsimile of the clothes of Victorian England and that didn't even hint at the 1970s (or their own personal taste).
However, had you watched that same film at the time it was released (or shortly after), you might have wondered at how authentically Victorian the costumes looked and not seen the 1970s influences in them at all (or barely).
So, even when someone is trying their best to represent an era accurately, a bit of their own time (and preference), almost invariably, slips in - so, of course it will, even more so, when the designer is a fashion designer (rather than a costume designer) and is merely inspired by an era, rather than attempting to mimic it exactly.
It's just that it is often far harder to see these influences, at the time of production.
So, IMO, there is really no need to attempt to add an obvious touch of the present (unless you really want to, for some other reason), as it will slip-in unheeded, whether one wants it to, or not and in fact, doing so might make one's designs seem overly contrived and/or awkward.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at?
Last edited by a moderator:
^Yes, I seem to have misread your previous point about movies. Now that you've explained it further, it's much clearer now. Good insight about these specific types of films (historical, period, and genre). I'm reminded of how the costumes (and set design) in 2001 are obviously not really of the future but Cardin's idea of the future, which ironically came to be inseparable from 60s fashion. Looking back and looking forward are equally answerable to the present that they are coming from.
In a way, yes, I can see how that applies to what Marc Jacobs is trying to do when he quotes these particular eras. What bothers me is his wholesale subscription. Barely any irony or reconsideration or rediscovery. What speaks of our times or even his personal vision (as I don't mind what is hermitic)? Fabric, color, pattern? Nothing particularly striking or unique. His propositions are the same propositions that designers in the 70s made, and the redundancy of this kind of fashion is what turns me off. I see fossils, ossified concepts, not living, breathing ideas. Actually, you could make the case that Marc Jacobs is simply practicing academic exercises when he makes these "tributes" (as per Zazie), albeit very commercially successful ones. Same with any designer that blindly references the past.
Some might be able to argue that this collection is representative of the cycle of ideas and styles that is occupying fashion right now, and this therefore makes it timely and relevant. However, I have a personal distaste for that particular characteristic of the industry these days. In that respect, I feel fashion is defacing itself, recycling itself into oblivion.
In a way, yes, I can see how that applies to what Marc Jacobs is trying to do when he quotes these particular eras. What bothers me is his wholesale subscription. Barely any irony or reconsideration or rediscovery. What speaks of our times or even his personal vision (as I don't mind what is hermitic)? Fabric, color, pattern? Nothing particularly striking or unique. His propositions are the same propositions that designers in the 70s made, and the redundancy of this kind of fashion is what turns me off. I see fossils, ossified concepts, not living, breathing ideas. Actually, you could make the case that Marc Jacobs is simply practicing academic exercises when he makes these "tributes" (as per Zazie), albeit very commercially successful ones. Same with any designer that blindly references the past.
Some might be able to argue that this collection is representative of the cycle of ideas and styles that is occupying fashion right now, and this therefore makes it timely and relevant. However, I have a personal distaste for that particular characteristic of the industry these days. In that respect, I feel fashion is defacing itself, recycling itself into oblivion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Does innovation= awkwardness? That's a strange strawman, especially when I raised the example of YSL's "Le Smoking", Dries van Noten, among others. Innovation can be an invention of new materials, eg. Prada, or prints, eg. Dries van Noten, Basso & Brooke, Marimekko, of new technique, eg. the Bias, or shape, eg. Dior's New Look, the examples are countless, none of which is "awkward". Of course "awkward" is ultimately an entirely subjective judgment - what's "awkward" to some may just be "edgy" to others. Marc Jacobs himself copied "awkward" Comme des Garcons' clothes on clothes collage just two seasons back, with tiny shirts sewn on the models' clothes, and was called out for it in the press.
Innovation = Coming up with something original, that's more accurate.
Fashion will be dead if all designers do is to copy each other.
Of course the copycat designers will protest that there's nothing new under the sun, etc., but well, no one is accusing the *large* majority of designers, out there for doing it. And even Nicholas G. had the grace to apologize for that one instance when he took an idea of a 70s designer for his collage dress.
Otoh, those who cannot tolerate something new and unseen might just kill off innovation.
Innovation = Coming up with something original, that's more accurate.
Fashion will be dead if all designers do is to copy each other.
Of course the copycat designers will protest that there's nothing new under the sun, etc., but well, no one is accusing the *large* majority of designers, out there for doing it. And even Nicholas G. had the grace to apologize for that one instance when he took an idea of a 70s designer for his collage dress.
Otoh, those who cannot tolerate something new and unseen might just kill off innovation.
Last edited by a moderator:
disco54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 1,644
Well after seeing all the spring collections , I still think this is the best to me , is it derivative ? YES . but its a 2010 take on it . People said the YSL influence but even YSL's collections significantly referenced the late 30s and early 1940s , in fact his most famous collection was in 1971 titled collection 40 , and it was widely panned for being vulgar but it ended up greatly influencing fashion in the early 70s. This collection has something very real and playful , many designers have forgotten how to have fun .
