Prada F/W 09.10 Milan

[chloehandbags]

^^^ Absolutely not chloehandbags. I'm talking about the way designers have portrayed woman in fashion as having to go back to flashy, provocative, shiny clothes in order to avoid facing up to the recession. To 'have fun' and 'think positive' by partying all the time. Don't you think this is insulting to women? The fact that men are given a strength via a piece of clothing during these economic times, whilst a woman is not afforded the same strength? Instead she should just 'party the reality away' or something?

No, why should I find it insulting?

Do you find it insulting that food manufacturers offer you cakes and chocolate during these economic times?

Surely, following that logic, we should only be offered gruel, as to eat anything fun is to avoid facing up to the recession/depression.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of time for people to eat gruel (or the equivalent) and wear sack cloth and ashes, for real, if the economy falls apart entirely, won't there?

As Zazie very accurately says (Karma to you!), it's not as though Prada, realising the severity of the situation, made the waders and wellies from rubber and intends to sell them off for the standard price for these items, is it?

No she, as usual, made them from a luxury material (that renders them entirely impractical for their original use, please note [shades of Marie Antoinette, indeed!]) and will charge £1,000s for them.

Much as I love clothing, it disturbs me, slightly, that you (and many others, I'm sure) feel people (and particularly women) need to be empowered via the clothing designers offer them, anyway, rather than via their own strength of character.

The only way I believe designers can remove strength from women, if they are allowed to do so by the women themselves, is by making them feel they have to wear uncomfortable and impractical clothing and footwear, just to look fashionable. Other than that, it's really all just about superficial decoration and although these boots may well be comfortable, the clothing in the Gucci show looks far more comfortable to wear, for most (currently) normal situations, than the clothing here; as much of it looks stretchy and soft and the tops/dresses are often loose-ish.

Prada offers an empowering contrast for women with this collection because she gives them an alternative to the frivolity of the 80's (the era wherein going out was a way of life). It's, like she said, the rejection of 'party time', and the idea of facing up to reality.

I don't hate this collection, at all, the colours are great and I like the gladiatorial elements and the use of patterned velvet (if not all the patterns themselves); but I really don't need Miuccia Prada, or any other fashion designer, for that matter, to empower me with anything, thank you very much.

Even if I did, I don't think a pair of thigh-high leather fetish waders and a fur cave woman dress would do that for me, do you? Fun as the former are, in a way.

Besides, to me, this is '80s in a way. It is the part of the '80s where Sloanes wore tweed and green Barbour jackets and wellies to go to work in every day in the City.

Even the mussed-up updos are fairly reminiscent of that era, to me.

Fashion in the '80s was not all about partying all the time - many photo shoots in British Vogue involved freckled redheads, with frizzy updos, in rowing boats, as I recall and of course, Laura Ashley was huge.

Yes it's also reminiscent of the '30s, of course, but the '80s cannabalised the 1930s, as it also did most other eras and sent them back out onto the catwalks.

I also remember, as a child in the '80s, a lot of Greco-Roman looks. including studded-fringe footwear...

At the end of the day, I like strong looks if they're done well and are also aesthetically pleasing, but as I say, I don't really need my fashion to empower me, I need it to distract me, please me visually and cheer me up and if it comes to the point where I need a pair of wellies to grow my own food in, while civilisation crumbles around us, I'll buy/barter for a pair of Barbours (I would wear my mother's old ones, but they're too big, unfortunately [maybe I should get a pair of thick Pradaesque socks to wear with them?]), which I hope will actually be waterproof!

BTW, I'm very glad you didn't mean to imply that any woman who enjoys a bit of trivial fashion frivolity and nostalgia is, automatically, lacking in intelligence and confidence, as I would very much hope that most men are intelligent and lacking in superficiality enough to not draw a direct equation between a woman's choice of dress and her personality and level of intelligence.

I would hate to think that some men are so shallow that they only think women are intelligent if they dress like librarians and that they equate provocative, or frivolous, clothes with a lack of confidence and brainpower, as that seems, to me, to be only one step up from accusing a woman, involved in a r*pe trial, of 'asking for it' just because she was wearing a short skirt at the time.

 

[vithul_l]

style.it

 

[vithul_l]

style.it

 

[vithul_l]

style.it

 

[RedAzalie]

some pieces I really like , shoes are intresting. Big Boots are awful , and those furs... Suits with skirts are nice but not orginal. I love red dress with those velvet flowers(?).

 

[fiqary]

What? This is the worst fashion show so far! or probably is the worst!

What a tacky, cheap and ugly collection. All the cloths are not even good, even a 11 years old can do those stuff. Such a huge disappointment.

 

[KKnardi]

Huh? Facing up to reality? With $10,000 fur vests? With $7000 "waders"??

Let's face Reality - designer fashion is *never* about the bread and butter reality, it's a luxury, it's escapist. It's probably a fantastic dream of Miuccia Prada herself to nurse this particular "Outdoor/Country/Gladiatrix/Warrior Women" fantasy. Where else would you wear those thigh-high boots except to a party? It's like Marie Antoinette playing Country Girl milking cows with her fake "village".

All else aside, this is another relatively normal p-a-p collection spiced up with fur dresses and thigh-high waders and wool shorts. Most of it is just wearable suits, velvet devore and embroidered brocade coats, "Anna Wintour" stuff, but you need some "extreme" elements to feed to the press, so they have something to write about, eg. the new Warrior Woman. In fact, she has done this before, in her previous acid fur Urban Warrior collection, which was more convincing, consistent and innovative, and which started the trend towards textures. It was panned at that time but the texture trend remains with us today.

I agree, well written post!

 

[cavanaugh]

i actually see a lot of what miuccia does with miu miu here, i cant wait to see what is in store for prada's "little sister"...

 

[gr77]

This is why I never read fashion critics.I wonder if we would have seen the word "oustanding" as referrence to this collection if it wasn't made by Prada.

It's such a disappointing collection.Almost everything is boring and/or ugly

 

[anik]

I like some of the pieces,especially the last few dresses,those are absolutely fantastic.I'm not a fan of those boots though.

 

[chloehandbags]

...and if it comes to the point where I need a pair of wellies to grow my own food in...

BTW, I meant to say something like; '...and if it comes to the point where I need a pair of wellies to wear, while planting seeds to grow my own food...'; not that I'd grow my own food inside a pair of Barbours!

 

[helmut.newton]

Much as I love clothing, it disturbs me, slightly, that you (and many others, I'm sure) feel people (and particularly women) need to be empowered via the clothing designers offer them, anyway, rather than via their own strength of character.

I agree with you but I feel that fashion is one of the most crucial ways of expressing ourselves without words. You express your empowerment via the way you present yourself to the world.

And I guess Gucci could be as much a reflection of empowerment as Prada but I personally feel that it takes a lot of balls for a woman to wear something like a ill-proportioned coat/dress by Prada and wear it with as much confidence as she would something that flattered her body. That is empowering to me.

BTW, I'm very glad you didn't mean to imply that any woman who enjoys a bit of trivial fashion frivolity and nostalgia is, automatically, lacking in intelligence and confidence, as I would very much hope that most men are intelligent and lacking in superficiality enough to not draw a direct equation between a woman's choice of dress and her personality and level of intelligence.

I would hate to think that some men are so shallow that they only think women are intelligent if they dress like librarians and that they equate provocative, or frivolous, clothes with a lack of confidence and brainpower, as that seems, to me, to be only one step up from accusing a woman, involved in a r*pe trial, of 'asking for it' just because she was wearing a short skirt at the time.

Great point! I guess, subconsciously, men are conditioned to believe that women who dress provocatively are 'unintelligent' and 'frivolous' and women who dress otherwise are considered 'intelligent'. But hey thats society! I can't change it, I can only comment on it!

But the genius of Prada (for me) is that she always always offers a different kind of sexy for women in order to reject and hopefully change these prejudices in society against women.

 

[educo]

I definitely like a lot of it. The tailoring is great, particularly those jackets and dresses with the collars that stand away from the neck a bit, and the last few armored looks are fab, but overall I don't love it like I loved last season.

I'm not sure what it is really. Maybe I was hoping it would be even more aggressive because of the first images that were posted, maybe I was hoping it would look a bit more like the mens collection (thought I do like the color she used)...I dunno. But I don't think the whole collection lives up to the first impression it made. It's kind of like how I felt about Jil Sander, it wasn't taken as far as it could go.

Hold on to the soul who lives in my brain, here's my take:

The whole Roman/Spartan section ( which is TDF) is maybe a response to the pillaging and fight- to- the death battles the world has been witnessing, past and present.

The "River Runs Through It" section is what we have to look forward to!! Wading through chest deep carnage and SH*T!!!

And of course leaving women to report to janitor duty and clean it all up, hence that nappy, sweaty housewife-slaving-over-a-kitchen-stove-with-God-forsaken-bloodshot-and-dark-circle-eyes-look.

This has nothing to do with offering a "new" sexy. This is her reponse to the testosterone overload this world has seen and the upcoming consequences we are just starting to experience. It's obvious her influences were in places where masculinity plays the biggest role.

 

[educo]

This seems a little disorganized as a clear and concise self-enclosed aesthetic universe; something you'd expect from Prada.

I see nothing necessarily linking one piece to another apart from rubber and fur (both materials she has used in the past with greater focus and success).

What I love about this though is the total rejection of a flattering form. Those coats and suits were totally boxy and would make anyone look ten times heavier than they are.

I think what's genius about this collection is the "I don't care attitude". Whilst most of the design houses will be designing clothes for women to have fun wearing so that they forget about the economic times - Prada goes the exact opposite. She designs these unlfattering, almost minimal pieces to show that her woman doesn't care about putting up a trivial facade about the recession. She deals with it head on. This woman is confident enough with herself and intelligent enough, to not have to express herself with a 80's nostalgia or a trivial fashion frivolity.

To this sense of rejection I say bravo!

Don't get it twisted, this woman cares, that's why she's got an outfit to wade through the mess, so her other ones don't get messed up! She's dealing with it head on by wearing the appropriate clothing, not by not caring enough.

The fur is just another reference to the barbarism, like the Roman section.
Rubber boots, leather coats, very easy to wipe down when you got a messy clean up to do, (calling President Obama).

 

[chloehandbags]

I agree with you but I feel that fashion is one of the most crucial ways of expressing ourselves without words. You express your empowerment via the way you present yourself to the world.

And I guess Gucci could be as much a reflection of empowerment as Prada but I personally feel that it takes a lot of balls for a woman to wear something like a ill-proportioned coat/dress by Prada and wear it with as much confidence as she would something that flattered her body. That is empowering to me.

Yes, but with great respect, we're not supposed to be talking about what symbolises female empowerment to you, or what you imagine is empowering to a woman, are we?

We're supposed to be talking about women expressing their own empowerment.

How would you like it if I told you what you should wear and then implied that if you didn't obey me, I'd assume you were an idiot?

Perhaps it does take balls to dress in Prada, but unless one liked the look of it, why would one bother to employ them?

Who exactly is one trying to impress by doing so and even if one has a target audience in mind for this 'ball display', why should one have to dress in something one dislikes (assuming one does) to impress them?

Where's the empowerment in that?

I'm not remotely interested in trying to persuade the world, by sight, that I'm empowered - they can (and apparently do!) draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I'd prefer it if people like you didn't automatically class me as a fool, unless I wore Prada but, quite frankly, that is so far down my list of priorities, that it is of very little concern.

To me, empowerment is a state of being, not something one should have to prove and in fact, as soon as one tries to prove empowerment, by wearing something one doesn't like, one is no longer, truly, empowered, is one? One is just another drone, trying to prove one's worth (pleeease like meeeee!) and not rock the boat.

I have always dressed for myself - not for other women and certainly not for men, so, to me, wearing clothes one doesn't love, that are not comfortable and that don't flatter one, just to try to convince the world of something that may, or may not, be true about one's personality, is not being empowered; it is just yet another form of fashion slavery because, no offence, but it revolves around pleasing people like you!

It's not that I believe that all women should only wear things that are straightforwardly beautiful and ignore anything at all challenging (unless they would prefer to), but to go out of one's way to look far worse than one would naked, unless it is for some practical reason, just to impress strangers in the street (because once one opens one's mouth, the truth will out, either way), seems pretty perverse, to me and I don't equate perversion with power, personally (quite the reverse, in fact).

To me, true empowerment is not giving a rat's behind about what other people think of you. Which, unlike slipping into a Prada dress, is a lot easier said than done.

Great point! I guess, subconsciously, men are conditioned to believe that women who dress provocatively are 'unintelligent' and 'frivolous' and women who dress otherwise are considered 'intelligent'. But hey thats society! I can't change it, I can only comment on it!

You may not be able to change society, single-handedly, helmut, but you can certainly choose to reject things you don't like about it, or have found to be untrue, you know.

Thanks, BTW!

But the genius of Prada (for me) is that she always always offers a different kind of sexy for women in order to reject and hopefully change these prejudices in society against women.

As I say, I don't think so, sadly.

These prejudices weren't born from the clothes women wore and they won't die due to them, either.

On the whole, I really don't think fashion changes society, too much - it far more often simply reflects it.

A notable exception might be political slogans on T-shirts.

In fact, from what you say, it seems that by producing clothing that you seem to think is only worn by intelligent women (rather than by women who are simply trying to project that impression, true or not), Prada has apparently (inadvertently, I'm sure), cemented some of the old prejudices that have always existed, rather than changing anything for the better...

 

[sqekcx]

I love it. I really admire the one on Meghan Collison. That dark fur dress creates a great contrast with her pale skin.

 

[loladonna]

This collection is heinous. Reading through a lot of the comments I was wondering if I was looking at the same clothes as everyone else. Ill-fittng unflattering cuts in questionable fabrics. Had this gone down the runway in NYC no way would this be getting accolades.

 

[tctra]

..and the leader leads

 

[ApertureRomance]

It's interesting actually where her inspiration is coming from or at least the obvious initial inspiration that you can read from the surface.

Spring Summer she used mosaic style prints and now literal gladiator chic.

 

[Fontenrose]

The heavy wool suiting, wellies, and the frizzy up-do evoke the wartime UK "land girls" or "Women's Land Army" , who volunteered to do the heavy farm work when all the men left to fight the war. You could call that empowering.

www.peckfortonhills.co.uk

1940.co.uk

Well, maybe the uniform wasn't quite as nice as the WAACs. The wool suiting is very 40s.

galaxy.bedfordshire.gov.uk

"Despite severe weather everyone has stuck to the new work manfully."