NYFW : A Repetitive Bore?

[purplethistle]

I don't think NYFW is necessarily boring. However, the perception of it being boring could be because there are probably to many shows which have the effect of not-as-impressive shows getting way to much media attention and also more designers being shown to have had similar sources of inspiration from the environment around them.

 

[Mutterlein]

I've become really surprised by how many people continuously insist that New York is somehow the inferior fashion week. I think a large part of it is that the expectations that so many people have of what fashion is supposed to be have gotten so far away from what fashion actually is that we now live in a time when beautiful clothes just aren't enough anymore. I can't say I'm not guilty of occasionally falling into that trap, but to write off a whole week because most of the shows were ultimately unremarkable - yet hardly offensive - seems kind of shortsighted.

From where I'm sitting the designers in London, Milan and Paris can be, and often are, just as unremarkable and boring in what they do as those in New York can be. I mean, just because the show is wrapped up in a big, dramatically styled bow doesn't make it any less predictable. Take McQueen for example. People rave about it, and yeah, it's consistently beautiful under Sarah Burton's direction, but the runway collections are made up of fairly expected clothes that will never even end up being made. Yeah, the first impression is always nice because the drama is ramped up to extreme levels, but in the end it's no riskier than, say, what Ralph Lauren does. They both stick to a formula, it's just that the McQueen formula involves such a level of showmanship that it bamboozles enough people into believing it's actually something new. Gucci is another example. Yeah the clothes always look different on the surface, but can anyone honestly say that the collections are actually inspiring or directional, that they push fashion forward? Ultimately the house is just as reliant on tried-and-true cliches as Michael Kors, Gucci's just better at putting enough unnecessary crap on their clothes to make you forget that they're inspired by the most banal subjects and ideas out there.

I guess I've come to a point, after looking at fashion for so long, where I realize that monotony has absolutely nothing to do with a particular fashion week, or location, or group of designers as a whole, because the beloved and revered European shows can be (and in many cases, are) just as boring as the New York ones. They just put on a better show.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a huge difference in caliber, both technically and conceptually, in what is shown in New York and what is shown in Paris, even in Milan and in London. New York has its own culture, its own schools, its own media and its own retaliers who over the past couple of decades have produced a very specific culture and perspective on fashion. And unfortunately it is a perspective that does not recognize or encourage ideas and talent the way Paris, London, or even Milan do. Are there boring clothes shown in Paris? Of course. Are there exciting clothes shown in New York? Of course. But overwhelmingly the news each season comes from Paris, a little from Milan, sometimes London, and rarely ever New York.

And this last season for New York was just horrific, just truly awful. Miguel was exciting as was Thom Browne but those were only two. I liked Tess Giberson but she is not going to conquer the world with those clothes. Then you have the darlings, all the celebrated young talent who were an embarassment to American design, shamelessly referencing Paris fashion. New York has a bad reputation for being commericial and unsinspired and it has earned it.

 

[Spike413]

To elaborate on a point that Tentacl Ventricl's post was making, about how any given fashion week is ultimately what you make of it, if you gauge each fashion week using the exact same criteria, if you don't take into account that each of the four fashion capitals represent something different that's a reflection of the designers who present their work, it goes without saying that you're going to be bored.

If you go into NYFW wanting the theater and couture-level craftsmanship that you find more commonly in Paris, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Likewise, if you go into Paris Fashion Week hoping to see an unobstructed view of how to dress (meaning not drowned in an idea, a concept, a provocative new look) then you're also going to be disappointed. I think that the only way to judge whether or not an entire fashion week was boring is to hold it up to bar it's set for itself.

 

[Spike413]

I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a huge difference in caliber, both technically and conceptually, in what is shown in New York and what is shown in Paris, even in Milan and in London. New York has its own culture, its own schools, its own media and its own retaliers who over the past couple of decades have produced a very specific culture and perspective on fashion. And unfortunately it is a perspective that does not recognize or encourage ideas and talent the way Paris, London, or even Milan do. Are there boring clothes shown in Paris? Of course. Are there exciting clothes shown in New York? Of course. But overwhelmingly the news each season comes from Paris, a little from Milan, sometimes London, and rarely ever New York.

And this last season for New York was just horrific, just truly awful. Miguel was exciting as was Thom Browne but those were only two. I liked Tess Giberson but she is not going to conquer the world with those clothes. Then you have the darlings, all the celebrated young talent who were an embarassment to American design, shamelessly referencing Paris fashion. New York has a bad reputation for being commericial and unsinspired and it has earned it.

None of that changes the fact that I, personally, can find the same-old theatrics and pyrotechnic special effects from the atelier just as boring as a pair of typical black pants when that's the only thing you can expect.

I mean not for anything, but one of the few Paris shows that I truly had a great reaction to last season, that I still think about, was Givenchy, and I doubt if anyone can say that it was a) as avant garde or new as we know Tisci can be b) astounding in it's technical achievements or c) mindblowingly original. I personally didn't find it to be any of those things, and yet it struck a nerve, clearly for a lot of people if the reaction here was anything to go by. Yet, it was probably Tisci's most straightforward, easy to process and commercial collection in his tenure at the house. It was a lineup of great, mostly wearable, cool looking clothes at the end of the day.

And as much as I respect your take on this, your post still reflects your taste, which is fine, but just because you thought it was an awful New York season doesn't make it so.

 

[Mutterlein]

None of that changes the fact that I, personally, can find the same-old theatrics and pyrotechnic special effects from the atelier just as boring as a pair of typical black pants when that's the only thing you can expect.

I mean not for anything, but one of the few Paris shows that I truly had a great reaction to last season, that I still think about, was Givenchy, and I doubt if anyone can say that it was a) as avant garde or new as we know Tisci can be b) astounding in it's technical achievements or c) mindblowingly original. I personally didn't find it to be any of those things, and yet it struck a nerve, clearly for a lot of people if the reaction here was anything to go by. Yet, it was probably Tisci's most straightforward, easy to process and commercial collection in his tenure at the house. It was a lineup of great, mostly wearable, cool looking clothes at the end of the day.

And as much as I respect your take on this, your post still reflects your taste, which is fine, but just because you thought it was an awful New York season doesn't make it so.

No, I can objectively say that Paris leads, that the collections shown there set the direction for the apparel industry. I can easily offer you the allegience of American designers to Phoebe Philo, Nicholas Ghesquire, and Ricardo Tisci as an example. And I don't even care for Celine, Balenciaga, or Givenchy but it is clear as day that while you may find some collections in Paris to be boring, Alexander Wang, Altuzurra, Prabal Gurung, and Proenza Schouler do not.

And I can tell you that Givenchy collection, without any big showy tricks, is going to be widley copied and it is directional. My assestment has nothing to do with stage theatrics, I am concerned only with clothes and the message. And when you consider them for what they are, as straightforward as they seem, they were filled with a lot of new and fantastic ideas. Do not misunderstand where I am coming from.

My excitement does not come from my own personal enjoyment as personally I actually like boring clothes (I loved Calvin and The Row), rather, it comes from the expectation of new ideas, new propositions and new directions that will lead the way. Yes, you can't evaulate each fashion week with the same criteria, but even then, even when you recognize New York for what it is, it is only, overhelmingly with few exceptions, derivative.

You can scoff at people who criticize NYFW but the reality is that it is full of much lesser designers and it wasn't always this way. If you consider what American designers had once been capable of you will find no excuses for what they are doing now.

 

[Prairie]

Repetitive? Kinda. Bore? NO!

 

[Dutchhie]

I felt it was one of the better New York seasons in a long time.

 

[Spike413]

No, I can objectively say that Paris leads, that the collections shown there set the direction for the apparel industry. I can easily offer you the allegience of American designers to Phoebe Philo, Nicholas Ghesquire, and Ricardo Tisci as an example. And I don't even care for Celine, Balenciaga, or Givenchy but it is clear as day that while you may find some collections in Paris to be boring, Alexander Wang, Altuzurra, Prabal Gurung, and Proenza Schouler do not.

And I can tell you that Givenchy collection, without any big showy tricks, is going to be widley copied and it is directional. My assestment has nothing to do with stage theatrics, I am concerned only with clothes and the message. And when you consider them for what they are, as straightforward as they seem, they were filled with a lot of new and fantastic ideas. Do not misunderstand where I am coming from.

My excitement does not come from my own personal enjoyment as personally I actually like boring clothes (I loved Calvin and The Row), rather, it comes from the expectation of new ideas, new propositions and new directions that will lead the way. Yes, you can't evaulate each fashion week with the same criteria, but even then, even when you recognize New York for what it is, it is only, overhelmingly with few exceptions, derivative.

You can scoff at people who criticize NYFW but the reality is that it is full of much lesser designers and it wasn't always this way. If you consider what American designers had once been capable of you will find no excuses for what they are doing now.

But what you're now talking about is whether or not Paris Fashion as a whole is influential, which I don't think anybody is denying or was even discussing in the comparison between the fashion weeks, and which is based more on fact than on opinion. Influential and boring are two entirely different things at the end of the day, or at least they seem to be considered such by most of the people who've offered their take.

Just because something's influential doesn't automatically make it exciting. Yes, Paris fashion week leads as far as trends go. No, it is not immune from showing collections that are repetitive or predictable, to some anyway.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Paris is the place with most quality. The best textures, the best tailoring. I mean, that's just something that's a given. That does not mean that every Paris show/collection is better, it just means that the average quality is decidedly superior in Paris. That they have the sense to put on a good show to go with it is just a symptom of the same thing - their understanding of drama and elegance is simply better than the American counterparts.

That said, NYFW is a tough act to follow because the quality this year was very high indeed. Ralph Lauren was better than in years, Calvin Klein had received a small injection of pure Rick Owen - just to mention the most glaring examples.

 

[Carmilla]

I think part of the problem is that people who look at the clothes are not necessarily planning to buy them. If I am looking for pretty pictures to post on my blog, make graphics, tumble, declare my identity through brand loyalty (how many Chanelforever who own nothing from the label?) then I am probably gonna be more interested in more avantgarde/showy fashion shows or only care for recognizable brands (Gucci, Prada, Chanel, and so on). People who work in the business anw people who are actually going to buy the clothes are going to have a different perspective, and probably valuing wearability, craftmanship and comfort more. Of course the categories can intersect, but there is a big difference betweem what's gonna pe popular on tumblr and which designers are gonna influence streetwear. Let's not forget model stans who are in only to see if their favs are being casted. So, on which account do we consider a fashion week boring or exciting?

 

[MulletProof]

The article I referred to suggests that there are great things going on in New York Fashion, but the event is to long, to much the same, and should be edited. Due to the importance of New York on the world fashion stage, more should be done to reflect this importance.

Hi Blanc, welcome to tFS!. Please feel free to paste said article in this thread, if you wrote it, just state it (written by me) and if someone else did, just add the name and original source (no clickable links or personal links that could be interpreted as self-promotion).

 

[Mutterlein]

But what you're now talking about is whether or not Paris Fashion as a whole is influential, which I don't think anybody is denying or was even discussing in the comparison between the fashion weeks, and which is based more on fact than on opinion. Influential and boring are two entirely different things at the end of the day, or at least they seem to be considered such by most of the people who've offered their take.

Just because something's influential doesn't automatically make it exciting. Yes, Paris fashion week leads as far as trends go. No, it is not immune from showing collections that are repetitive or predictable, to some anyway.

But I do consider directional, newsworthy, collections to be very exciting. And when there's no news it' a bore. Simple enough?

 

[Not Plain Jane]

NYFW was great: I saw plenty of excellent clothing, silhouettes, fabrics and colours - and a tremendous variety at that. It seems quite cynical to declare "NYFW: A Repetitive Bore" - seriously? One thing that struck me this New York FW was the amount of "shine" and even lacquering of clothing. I also noticed a plethora of ultra-rich fabrication: brocades, leathers, furs, metallics, etc. There were striking looks from the avant-garde like Threeasfour and Thom Browne, but there were bold and excellent collections from the NYFW stalwarts too. Why are people complaining? I don't get it.

Speaking from a personal perspective (and anyhow, the view always contains the viewer; don't kind yourself about being objective), Paris is my favourite fashion week because I like a lot of the designers there; London is second because I like its playful-edginess; NYC is third because, again, I like some of the designers, and I like that we see so many; Milan is my least favourite, with the exception of a few designers. Generally I see more I like during NYFW than Milan, to be honest. I find Gucci, Versace, Cavalli to be on the tacky side of the fence. Prada, Miu Miu and a few upstarts are always exciting to follow though.

Anyhow, just thought I'd put in my two cents.

Interesting topic Blanc101

 

[loladonna]

The irony in declaring NY "repetitive" is that many of the major houses in Milan/Paris have re-used (and abused) certain design elements so much that other designers are accused of copying them when they employ rather basic design flourishes. For example:

Ruffles= "That's so Valentino"
Pastel, Ladylike, Tweed = "That's so Chanel" (See Oscar De La Rentas FW 2012 )
Studio 54/70s= "That's so Gucci"
Retro 30s/40s= "That's so Prada/Miu Miu"
Lace detailing= "That's so McQueen"
Bows,embroidery, and voluminous skirts= "That's so Dior"

It gets really old.

I do think people pay lip service to the notion of wanting to see fresh and new. A look a the thread views tells the true story. Lesser known designers get much fewer views while the bulk of people flock to threads to see the big names produce their expected trademark (i.e. predictable) collections.

 

[pennyfei]

Loladonna's got a point. We all admit Milan and Paris fashion weeks are influential and trend setting but enough with the copying references. Didn't Alaia once say that everybody in fashion copies?

 

[MulletProof]

I haven't read the entire thread.. all I know is that I found New York extremely exciting this week . Probably all due to Miguel Adrover's return, what a highlight.. it totally brought hope to a city that unlike the others, seems to spin around money 90% of the time. And then there's Tess Giberson now, I don't know what happened to Matthew Ames this season but I assume he's still there too!, Maria Cornejo, Sharon Wauchob, Theyskens.. there is A LOT of talent in New York right now. It is a more ruthless business though and that's what has worked as a disadvantage in the past, you see other cities (like Paris) step it up in moments of uncertainty and come together with brilliant ideas that not only bring hope to an entire industry but also to themselves.. they save their own business by working double, in New York every time the economy collapses, many people vanish, you don't hear from them again, so you're left with the Jason Wus, the Thakoons, they're the ones that seem to receive support because.. I assume it must sell faster than an Ames' skirt! and because there's a certain woman that gets to handle all that and create success according to her (rather basic) taste. In a way, the fact that they have such a powerful residents also makes a creative business quite vulnerable.. and weak, and as a result you are likely to end up with a 'repetitive bore' when harsh times comes, because like everywhere else, only the strongest survive and strength has a price in this world too . When you go through a positive phase, like now, to me it can be as relevant as Milan and London together. Paris is a whole other topic because it also has a peculiar way of functioning that lets.. air.. in, and it's not limited to the industry of fashion.

Again, it's the way of doing business and the state of the economy what makes or breaks New York fashion imo..

 

[misspepe]

Preview of the Original Article: NYFW: Truth Be Told It's A Bore

Hi Blanc, welcome to tFS!. Please feel free to paste said article in this thread, if you wrote it, just state it (written by me) and if someone else did, just add the name and original source (no clickable links or personal links that could be interpreted as self-promotion).

Hi Mullet Proof,

Thanks for the tip.. Here is a snippet from the original article I wrote.

I am always very critical about New York Fashion Week. Every year I gripe and moan about the extended schedule, and the fact that editors have to sit through eight days of back to back shows, featuring hundreds of the same version of the little white dress. Yes, commercial fashion and sportswear are the all important points of New York Fashion Week, but is it really worth eight days of an already jam packed, international schedule?.....

Thankfully, in recent times, designers such as Alexander Wang, Proenza Schouler and Rodarte have emerged from the sea of silk jersey, and added weight to the schedule. No longer is New York Fashion Week considered the Marc Jacobs show, as this other handful of young designers have made the event creatively and commercially relevant. However with over 100 shows, and less then 10 included on most editor’s ‘must see’ lists, the quantity out ways the quality, diminishing the importance of America’s premier fashion event.

 

[TianCouture]

To say that when there is no "new" it's a "bore" undermines everything fashion stands for. We have seen plenty of seasons of no "new" that have not been boring, and we have seen plenty of seasons with "new" that are dreadful...the two simply do not go in hand. And as I have been saying for seasons, and I'm sticking to my guns, we are about to hit a point in fashion where literally everything has been done. And to me, that's fine.

Everything really does start to look the same, or similar at some point, and when designers push to hard for "new" "innovative" and "ground breaking" work, it really just gets lost in translation. And it may not, for some, put food on the table, which, at the end of the day, is the point. Like it or not, fashion is a business. Very few designers are able to do this well...

But to doubt the quality or importance of NYFW is to doubt the importance of all fashion weeks. I don't care what anyone says, there are strong collections and weak collections everywhere that all contribute to pushing fashion somewhere. It may be two good collections in NYC and six in Paris, but together they push fashion somewhere, they define a trend for a season...and isn't that the entire point?

I loved NYFW. People actually talked about the collections. I got mad at people, got into arguments: it created a dialogue. I think as fashion progresses, people are going to have to accept that. The new face of fashion may be to create discourse. It may not be a new dialogue or discourse, but it tries it's hardest to represent fashion and define seasonal trends in a manner that allows for growth...

I also think it's just trendy for people to poo-poo NYFW...it sounds so "cool" and "Look, I know what I'm talking about-ish..."

 

[TianCouture]

The irony in declaring NY "repetitive" is that many of the major houses in Milan/Paris have re-used (and abused) certain design elements so much that other designers are accused of copying them when they employ rather basic design flourishes. For example:

Ruffles= "That's so Valentino"
Pastel, Ladylike, Tweed = "That's so Chanel" (See Oscar De La Rentas FW 2012 )
Studio 54/70s= "That's so Gucci"
Retro 30s/40s= "That's so Prada/Miu Miu"
Lace detailing= "That's so McQueen"
Bows,embroidery, and voluminous skirts= "That's so Dior"

It gets really old.

I do think people pay lip service to the notion of wanting to see fresh and new. A look a the thread views tells the true story. Lesser known designers get much fewer views while the bulk of people flock to threads to see the big names produce their expected trademark (i.e. predictable) collections.

YES! So true. Other fashion weeks are so repetitive the I think we have associated certain stylistic qualities to European houses...maybe if they expanded the perimeters of their minds to more than just their repetitive ways, things wouldn't always look the same and NY wouldn't take the flak...as it is, NY goes first. The person that always goes first gets the most criticism...it's like the association principle!

 

[DevonDevore]

I agree with Carmilla. Sometimes people forget that the show is to present clothes to be bought first and foremost and a display of ideas second.

With that said~the one thing i find boring is predictability. People may criticize Alex Wang and say that he is undeserving of the attention he receives, however I disagree. I think he is simply for the fact that you don't know what direction hes going in. You can't pin him down and say "oh hes gonna do a one shouldered dress in 6 colors and put some minor detail change on it!" or "oh hes gonna do a series of clothing thats exactly the same but change the fabric!" The same can be said for other young designers and even some older ones.
As stated by others, I do like to see what Paris brings but Paris IS THE MOST REPETITIVE! With the exception of a few shows you can almost see the show in your head before it happens.
Lanvin-One shouldered dress will make a appearance. or 2. or 4.
Balmain-"the rock star" look
Dior-more references to the past Dior
Mcqueen-Intricate detailing/clothes meant to be seen not worn
Chanel-knee length skirts in 345 different colors and the chanel tweed blazer to match them all paired with clogs.
Elie Saab-nude dress that float that are basically cut the same but all have a little flourish somewhere to make them different

Shall I continue?