Prada Exhibits Biggest Hits Below the Belt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042702329.html
I don't get his point:
That was a presentation of skirts and this is a presentation of skirts. That was a demonstration of how a single model of skirt was cut and constructed on variety of ways and these are the variety of diff. models of skirts. That was a 15 min presentation of a collection and this is a 17 years of skirts show. NONE is pretentious.
I thought every skirt can do this. OK, may be not the mirrow "tricks":-P.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042702329.html
By Robin Givhan
Friday, April 28, 2006; C02
NEW YORK
In the windows of the Prada store in SoHo, skirts are in a perpetual state of twirl. They are attached to a hanging, carousel-like contraption that keeps them spinning as if worn by an invisible and tireless dancer. Below each skirt, flat on the ground, is a mirror. So it is possible to peer underneath the skirt, as a naughty schoolboy might, as it twists and turns in a way that suggests joy rather than provocation. Other skirts, displayed along the walls, go swish-swish-swish thanks to a kind of fancy windshield washer that keeps steady time below yards of silk and satin.
The skirts are part of the exhibition "Waist Down," in which designer Miuccia Prada celebrates the oeuvre of Miuccia Prada. The skirt show debuted in Tokyo in 2004 and moved on to Shanghai in 2005. The New York exhibition closes May 31.
The SoHo location -- designed by the architect Rem Koolhaas -- is referred to as an "epicenter" by Prada, not a mere store. No matter that the very definition of the word implies that it is limited to a single, central location, Prada has two other "epicenters": Tokyo and Los Angeles. Her Milan headquarters, in case anyone should wonder, is not an epicenter. For Prada, the center is wherever she says it is.
It requires an impressive amount of chutzpah to sponsor an exhibition of one's own work in one's own epicenter. And it demands a vertiginous level of bravado to accessorize that exhibition with a 266-page catalogue that sells for $120, as well as a commemorative cotton T-shirt priced at $75. (The T-shirts benefit a local children's charity.) The catalogue juxtaposes a photograph of each skirt alongside a full-page detail study that inspects a grommet with the same care and rigor as might be used to examine Caravaggio's portrayal of light.
The 100 or so skirts selected from the archive are among the most memorable, the most beautiful and, occasionally, the most impractical. A skirt from fall 2002, made of long metal chains, is described in the exhibition as "sensational" but the wall text also notes that "the 'frills' dangling below the knees flick and fly with each step, causing a bit of a nuisance to the wearer." There are no details on how many of those skirts were actually sold and eventually went on to scrape the skin off the wearer's knees.
Sixty-five of the skirts displayed are available for purchase in limited editions of no more than three. Each will cost anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000, a bit of news that leaves one thinking it might have been wise to buy that tie-dyed skirt back in 2004 when it cost only a month's rent rather than a full year's. (Those prices might also spark a sudden uptick in vintage Prada activity on eBay.)
Since Prada launched her first women's ready-to-wear collection in 1988, skirts have always played a significant role in her design aesthetic. She has favored full skirts with box pleats and A-line versions with a single kick pleat. There have been a few pencil skirts and micro-minis, but mostly Prada has focused on the kind of designs that connote ladylike propriety with just a bit of dowdiness thrown in to get fashion observers talking about subversiveness, politics and intellectualism. Prada's emphasis on skirts has always been in keeping with her desire to connote power and intellect using some of the most traditional markers of feminine, bourgeois composure.
Although most designers believe their work is worthy of serious appraisal and recognition, most designers, including Prada, do not consider what they do to be art. For all of their creative musings, they are well aware that they are undertaking a commercial endeavor. While they make clothes that are too pretty, intriguing, surprising -- and expensive -- to be lumped into the same category as a pair of jeans or a practical business suit, they know that to call it art would take away some of the reckless pleasure inherent in the wearing. No one wants to worry about dancing all night in "art" and getting it wet with sweat.
As a result, many of the industry's most talented designers work within a gray zone -- creating not-quite-art. They defy assumptions and raise expectations. They dabble in pretentiousness, but at their best, they don't succumb to it.
This is pretentious: A few years back the designer Rei Kawakubo put her Comme des Garcons collection on the runway in Paris. It was a meditation on skirts. One by one models marched out in subtle variations of a single skirt that from the beginning was not particularly attractive and only became less so as the show progressed. There were no tops or blouses worth mentioning. One quickly learned that counting skirts is a more direct route to somnolence than counting sheep.
There is nothing dull or repetitive about Prada's skirts. And there's only the tiniest whiff of pretentiousness. Inspecting the skirts as they spin and sway or adorn topless mannequins, one isn't bogged down by "Why?" The skirts are decorated with everything from Swarovski crystals to mirrors, patches of plastic and grommets. Some are light as a feather because they are stitched from organza and others practically stand on their own because they are encrusted with petals cut from mother of pearl.
Because of all of the accompanying folderol and because this is Prada, who enjoys being somewhat inscrutable, one might be tempted to evaluate the skirts as a form of art. But the artistry arises out of how a woman wears it, when she wears it and under what circumstances.
It may be possible to design skirts that on their own might be art, but these are not those skirts. These are the skirts that catch the air when they spin, whisper when they sway back and forth and sparkle if the light happens to hit them just right.
The Prada skirts are exceptionally pretty, and that alone is enough to justify giving them a second look.
I don't get his point:
This is pretentious: A few years back the designer Rei Kawakubo put her Comme des Garcons collection on the runway in Paris. It was a meditation on skirts.
...
One quickly learned that counting skirts is a more direct route to somnolence than counting sheep.
That was a presentation of skirts and this is a presentation of skirts. That was a demonstration of how a single model of skirt was cut and constructed on variety of ways and these are the variety of diff. models of skirts. That was a 15 min presentation of a collection and this is a 17 years of skirts show. NONE is pretentious.
It may be possible to design skirts that on their own might be art, but these are not those skirts. These are the skirts that catch the air when they spin, whisper when they sway back and forth and sparkle if the light happens to hit them just right.
I thought every skirt can do this. OK, may be not the mirrow "tricks":-P.
Last edited by a moderator:
