Prada S/S 2026 Milan

[John Bennet]

At this point one can really predict most of the reactions here to the latest Prada show, it's literally the same comments every season no matter what those two send out

Did you not get the memo? This is certainly not a place for nuance, just a yearning for a non-existent idea of a past Prada, Miuccia worship, and recycled Raf insults!

Edit: loved the collection btw

 

[Cocteau Stone]

I do see an attempt to reference the Fall 2002 collection, especially with the dissected cami-slip dresses (they follow very similar design lines and with a similar thought with the fabric pairings). I'm just thrown off by the fabrics. I've been hating the fabrics in their collections for a good while because they keep choosing the densest and most "plastic" looking fabrics for the sake of over saturated colour. That's fault on both of them.

Similar sentiment to the Jil Sander show where it's not bad, but the materials are sooooo wooden and trite. Either the fabrics they chose or the way they used them has no life to them. We also didn't need the gloves. We really didn't need them at all. Palms feel sweaty at the sight of them.

 

[brandon J pierre]

It's not bad. A play on feminine hood and what women are supposed to do and were VS what they're not supposed to wear.We've seen it before but it's not bad.

Those long skirt, overall things are absolutely horrible. Why would you show that. Broken
Down i just see very feminine pieces and masculine pieces the mix didn't work they didn't really get to do the root of the enter tanglement of male and female roles.

 

[Demna]

Miuccia doesn't give a f*ck anymore.

 

[fruitdots]

It's mixed bag, per usual. I like it when Miuccia does ugly, and I don't like it when Raf does. Their two modes of ugly are fighting it out here, so I like the looks where Miuccia wins, and I dislike those where Raf does.

 

[visvim2001]

I don’t get why people think ugly = intellectual. Do you see an ugly person on the street and think, “oh, he must be a genius?” No. It’s just ugly.

 

[jeremydante]

It's clear that there were references to the Prada archives. I liked the collection.
But the reference from past Prada looks is a clear indicator of where fashion is going - safe.

I loved the volume on the skirts and the Black bags that seemed to be a shoulder and top handle combo.
I need a better look at all the bags in this collection. If anyone has detailed shots from this collection, load 'em up!

 

[fruitdots]

I don’t get why people think ugly = intellectual. Do you see an ugly person on the street and think, “oh, he must be a genius?” No. It’s just ugly.

That analogy makes no sense. We're talking about design, not intelligence.

And the quick answer to your question is that "ugly" clothing (or art, etc.) often makes apparent what is socially perceived as beautiful or tasteful. In doing so, it tends to show how this perception is both contingent and potentially malleable. At times, this leads to movement or change in the social structure of taste. So "ugly" clothing is considered intellectual sometimes because it produces a particular response in which we question our received aesthetic assumptions, or feel them being challenged.

 

[tomtakesphotos]

I'm trying to understand why Raf Simons would build a women's collection around a look from Prada men's 1996/1997, basically a short sleeved military shirt with epaulettes and matching trousers.

View attachment 1415342
(Prada)

looks like some of what he did at CK too, but he did it in multi contrasting color

 

[Demna]

...and Luca Di Stanio is so annoying. Needed to say it.

 

[yslforever]

I don't see the trash, it's just Prada being Prada, and better than FW25, at least because the models look washed and fresh, and not out a psych ward. And it's always so commercial too.
Except the bloomers which, I agree, are diabolical, and intentional, to make "uglier" looks and create discomfort. But those are some usual, expected, Prada-isms, there are several per seasons.

It's still one of the Milan best so far, after Jil Sander and maybe Loro Piana.

 

[tigerrouge]

That analogy makes no sense. We're talking about design, not intelligence.

And the quick answer to your question is that "ugly" clothing (or art, etc.) often makes apparent what is socially perceived as beautiful or tasteful. In doing so, it tends to show how this perception is both contingent and potentially malleable. At times, this leads to movement or change in the social structure of taste. So "ugly" clothing is considered intellectual sometimes because it produces a particular response in which we question our received aesthetic assumptions, or feel them being challenged.

That works best when it takes place within the realm of art - if catwalk presentations were a piece of performance art, ahead of anything else.

But Prada shows are part of a giant commercial circus that's all about making profit underpinning the notion that you're intellectual for... buying bags with a recognisable logo and the newest perfume. Because that's the Prada experience for most people.

Some brands sell sex appeal or the stereotypical essence of a particular country, Prada has just decided to sell 'intellectualism' because they had to find their own furrow, and differentiate themselves from other existing brands, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are doing anything deep.

It's the fashion equivalent of people taking photos of themselves owning a lot of books, it doesn't mean they've read and understood them. Just because you buy Prada doesn't mean you're using your brain in a different way to the non-Prada plebs, it just means you're trying to signal to the world that you're smarter because of your choice of shoe or handbag. Buying Prada is easier (and a lot more visible) than getting a PhD. The considerations that lead to Prada are still very superficial choices.

Although I'm saying this while being aware of all the tangents we could go on, about consideration of appearances.

 

[yslforever]

That works best when it takes place within the realm of art - if catwalk presentations were a piece of performance art, ahead of anything else.

But Prada shows are part of a giant commercial circus that's all about making profit underpinning the notion that you're intellectual for... buying bags with a recognisable logo and the newest perfume. Because that's the Prada experience for most people.

Some brands sell sex appeal or the stereotypical essence of a particular country, Prada has just decided to sell 'intellectualism' because they had to find their own furrow, and differentiate themselves from other existing brands, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are doing anything deep.

It's the fashion equivalent of people taking photos of themselves owning a lot of books, it doesn't mean they've read and understood them. Just because you buy Prada doesn't mean you're using your brain in a different way to the non-Prada plebs, it just means you're trying to signal to the world that you're smarter because of your choice of shoe or handbag. Buying Prada is easier (and a lot more visible) than getting a PhD. The considerations that lead to Prada are still very superficial choices.

Although I'm saying this while being aware of all the tangents we could go on, about consideration of appearances.

100% spot-on.
It’s fashion, the business of selling people ideas of themselves, especially the most vapid ideas because they are sometimes crucial to the persons.

The good thing is it’s not permanent, one can change fits, undress and live in pajamas.

 

[fruitdots]

That works best when it takes place within the realm of art - if catwalk presentations were a piece of performance art, ahead of anything else.

But Prada shows are part of a giant commercial circus that's all about making profit underpinning the notion that you're intellectual for... buying bags with a recognisable logo and the newest perfume. Because that's the Prada experience for most people.

Some brands sell sex appeal or the stereotypical essence of a particular country, Prada has just decided to sell 'intellectualism' because they had to find their own furrow, and differentiate themselves from other existing brands, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are doing anything deep.

It's the fashion equivalent of people taking photos of themselves owning a lot of books, it doesn't mean they've read and understood them. Just because you buy Prada doesn't mean you're using your brain in a different way to the non-Prada plebs, it just means you're trying to signal to the world that you're smarter because of your choice of shoe or handbag. Buying Prada is easier (and a lot more visible) than getting a PhD. The considerations that lead to Prada are still very superficial choices.

Although I'm saying this while being aware of all the tangents we could go on, about consideration of appearances.

Art too is a giant commercial circus—there's no outside to capitalism here.

& I'm not convinced that Prada is necessarily, or always, doing something deep. But sometimes someone like Miuccia shifts conversation/perception. I'm not yoking this to any sort of political claim. Aesthetic terms can shift without there being a positive social change as a corollary. But it's still important to distinguish what's happening here (or with CDG, etc.) from what's happening somewhere like Zuhair Murad.

 

[visvim2001]

That analogy makes no sense. We're talking about design, not intelligence.

And the quick answer to your question is that "ugly" clothing (or art, etc.) often makes apparent what is socially perceived as beautiful or tasteful. In doing so, it tends to show how this perception is both contingent and potentially malleable. At times, this leads to movement or change in the social structure of taste. So "ugly" clothing is considered intellectual sometimes because it produces a particular response in which we question our received aesthetic assumptions, or feel them being challenged.

why do beauty standards have to be ‘received’? one can find an artwork aesthetically pleasing or not, even if he or she has no prior knowledge of art. being transgressive like Willem de Koning for its own sake has no intellectual value in my eyes. people buy fashion because they want to look good. I’m not saying that the same dress will flatter everyone, but choosing to look bad on purpose isn’t a show of smarts to me. that’s why I would like people to stop describing Prada as intellectual, or at least explain clearly what intellectual value they find in diaper pants.

 

[NakedAndAfraid]

The loose tank top-skirts reminded me of NG Balenciaga and early Hussein Chalayan. I like those references, and I do applaud them for getting a reaction in this day and age. I wonder if they felt the need to compete with Demna's trolling now that he's in Milan calendar?

In the video so many of the looks seemed to add unflattering bulk/volume to the models bodies. I just can't see anyone wanting that at those prices. I have been pretty neutral towards recent Prada and I liked the grunge of the current FW season.

The square embroidered neck with epaulette shirt underneath will haunt my nightmares, just looks suffocating... Visually and literally.

 

[LadyJunon]

why do beauty standards have to be ‘received’? one can find an artwork aesthetically pleasing or not, even if he or she has no prior knowledge of art. being transgressive like Willem de Koning for its own sake has no intellectual value in my eyes. people buy fashion because they want to look good. I’m not saying that the same dress will flatter everyone, but choosing to look bad on purpose isn’t a show of smarts to me. that’s why I would like people to stop describing Prada as intellectual, or at least explain clearly what intellectual value they find in diaper pants.

The thing that Miuccia had always had the tendency to explore "uglyness" in her collections. The 50s-style underwear, the 70s prints, the noticable use of synthetics as a luxury fabric, the dodgy colour combinations are all markers of classical Prada collections, but it was her ability to make said "uglyness" seem beautiful, which earned Prada the "intellectual" label. That isn't so much the case these days with these generally luridly coloured, ill fittng collections, but the brand can always abuse the label it earned.

 

[fruitdots]

The thing that Miuccia had always had the tendency to explore "uglyness" in her collections. The 50s-style underwear, the 70s prints, the noticable use of synthetics as a luxury fabric, the dodgy colour combinations are all markers of classical Prada collections, but it was her ability to make said "uglyness" seem beautiful, which earned Prada the "intellectual" label. That isn't so much the case these days with these generally luridly coloured, ill fittng collections.

And the beauty came, in a Kantian sense, from the "free play" of the viewer's imagination as it was confronted by the peculiar or indeterminate or "ugly" aspects of Miuccia's work.

 

[brightfutureinprada]

it was typical prada and the ugly chic was underlined like never before since Raf started imo
to be honest it felt like miuccia had the minimum input, at this point
having said that it was the first time in 2-3 seasons when i felt the sudden urge to get another credit card purely for these looks.... and im not getting younger.

 

[Lorenzogi]

Sad to see Raf limiting himself to lPrada archives. Sad to see him as her apprentice. He is beyond this clownery and the Jenner/Kardashian clan and i know he hates it. 😥 Miuccia is a fake intellectual money obsessed devil. To hell with your silly K-Pop stars and vapid asian clirntele.