Proenza Schouler S/S 2023 New York

[KoV]

vogue.com

 

[KoV]

vogue.com

 

[KoV]

I have to say I always feel like I have a more positive view on this brand than most others here, but I *really* like this collection in all its basicness.

 

[Fulton St Critique]

I have to say I always feel like I have a more positive view on this brand than most others here, but I *really* like this collection in all its basicness.

I can see why you like it. But I don’t know, to me it feels totally inspired by Nicolas, but I could be reaching. I just want them to be original. The first and the third looks are strong, the way the skirts moved was great, and I liked the cut of the yellow and blue calf-lenght overcoats- I love a strong and clean line.

 

[kikifoz]

I love playing spot the Celine collection. Spring 2017, look 14 and 38. A bit of Fall 2014.

They seem to also be exploring Pieter's Alaia and a dash of Bottega Fall 2020

 

[YohjiAddict]

Uninspired as it is, it’s very well executed. The flamenco undercurrent with those tiered sleeves and polka dots makes it feel more womanly than their usual output.

I don’t spot as many exact replicas as usual, which is definitely an improvement. Shoes are atrocious though.

 

[perhydrol]

I feel like they tried to reference their older collections with this one. That's a smart move considering the complete lack of grounded aesthetic of the brand. However, I just can't believe they tried to put Mulier's Alaia into the mix so obviously and thought nobody would recognize those inspirations.

 

[KoV]

Maybe I'm dumb and I certainly don't have anywhere near the knowledge of designers' history that many here do, but like... unless you're just knocking off exact looks, I don't see the issue. Perhaps if your main hook as a designer is originality, but that's not the case here. If you're drawing inspiration from collections several years or even decades old and especially if you have an array of influences and not just a single collection, I see even less of an issue. There are great artists whose work is a pastiche of existing work. My assumption with regard to every single designer (of anything, be it architecture, interiors, cars, shoes, etc.) is that it's not only common to be heavily influenced by others in your field, it's inescapable. Creativity doesn't emerge from nowhere, you are informed by what you see and if you're talented you can make it your own. No one is like "Dries Van Noten didn't invent oversize floral print dresses or baggy fisherman sweaters therefore he's a derivative hack for featuring them... and a khaki colored trench coat? He's copying Burberry blatantly!" There are immensely successful and highly praised collections that are very directly imitating the look of a bygone era or of another culture... all of that is other designers' work.

Maybe (definitely) I'm pushing it comparing Dries to these two, but I think my point stands. I would challenge anyone with exhaustive fashion knowledge to look at a collection from any designer and not see similarities and borrowed ideas from existing work. Whether it's a successful reinterpretation/homage/inspiration is another matter, but to me it seems easy to dismiss criticism that begins and ends with "reminds me of such and such collection"

 

[Lola701]

Maybe I'm dumb and I certainly don't have anywhere near the knowledge of designers' history that many here do, but like... unless you're just knocking off exact looks, I don't see the issue. Perhaps if your main hook as a designer is originality, but that's not the case here. If you're drawing inspiration from collections several years or even decades old and especially if you have an array of influences and not just a single collection, I see even less of an issue. There are great artists whose work is a pastiche of existing work. My assumption with regard to every single designer (of anything, be it architecture, interiors, cars, shoes, etc.) is that it's not only common to be heavily influenced by others in your field, it's inescapable. Creativity doesn't emerge from nowhere, you are informed by what you see and if you're talented you can make it your own. No one is like "Dries Van Noten didn't invent oversize floral print dresses or baggy fisherman sweaters therefore he's a derivative hack for featuring them... and a khaki colored trench coat? He's copying Burberry blatantly!" There are immensely successful and highly praised collections that are very directly imitating the look of a bygone era or of another culture... all of that is other designers' work.

Maybe (definitely) I'm pushing it comparing Dries to these two, but I think my point stands. I would challenge anyone with exhaustive fashion knowledge to look at a collection from any designer and not see similarities and borrowed ideas from existing work. Whether it's a successful reinterpretation/homage/inspiration is another matter, but to me it seems easy to dismiss criticism that begins and ends with "reminds me of such and such collection"

The problem with them has never been so much of the copying than the lack of identity. Everybody has a base, everybody copy. The most talented takes it to another level…
After more than 15 years in the business, you don’t know what they are about because everything they do is put recent fashion on their mood boards and creates collections from that. It’s so obvious.

Someone like Alexander Wang has a defined aesthetic. No matter if he copies Helmut Lang or whoever, you never look at his collection and doesn’t identify it as « his ».

It’s almost a running joke at this point with them.
Me personally, that’s what I hate the most in fashion and it’s also unfortunately what we see the most at NYFW. It’s different to be inspired by the mood and the aesthetic of the moment but the constant copy of recent fashion, I can’t.

 

[KoV]

*enters volft era and prepares to ride hard for Jack and Lazaro*

 

[reesewu]

Uninspired as it is, it’s very well executed. The flamenco undercurrent with those tiered sleeves and polka dots makes it feel more womanly than their usual output.

I don’t spot as many exact replicas as usual, which is definitely an improvement. Shoes are atrocious though.

Agreed. They remind me of those ubiquitous Balenciaga S/S 2013 skirts. Not surprising that I found them to be the best looks from this tired collection.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

A better collection than usual from them and feels a lot more in tune with what Proenza tried to be years ago before riding the coat tails of Philo's Celine.

The colours don't make much sense though. I don't mind a lurid green-yellow/chartreuse when executed well, but it's a bit meh here and also yet another collection that has pitted it against an azure. It's an odd choice.

In terms of originality, there's very little of it which is expected from these two. But frankly, it's genuinely hard to be "original" or "new" because at some point what you have just made has already existed before in some way whether one is aware of it or not. That being said, I don't think they have that much of a point-of-view at this point, so the propositions are always somewhat lacking because of the notable similarities they always have with other collections that have executed it better.

 

[gossiping]

the styling helps it, but i feel like if this was in milan or paris no one would really notice this

 

[THD96]

the styling helps it, but i feel like if this was in milan or paris no one would notice this

They already tried and failed to create any momentum with two collections they showed in Paris. They're quick to realize that the Paris crowd isn't easy to impress with the lack of identity or vision.
It's logical, why would they go for the knockoffs when they can still easily find the original on the resell sites?

They're smart to go back to NYFW because they can stand out since the majority of NY right now is a mess.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

I liked the bubble skirts at the beginning and some of the throwback 60s lounge-looks later on

 

[gossiping]

that's so funny, i cannot even recall them showing there says it all really.

 

[Phuel]

The problem with them has never been so much of the copying than the lack of identity. Everybody has a base, everybody copy. The most talented takes it to another level…
After more than 15 years in the business, you don’t know what they are about because everything they do is put recent fashion on their mood boards and creates collections from that. It’s so obvious.

Someone like Alexander Wang has a defined aesthetic. No matter if he copies Helmut Lang or whoever, you never look at his collection and doesn’t identify it as « his ».

It’s almost a running joke at this point with them.
Me personally, that’s what I hate the most in fashion and it’s also unfortunately what we see the most at NYFW. It’s different to be inspired by the mood and the aesthetic of the moment but the constant copy of recent fashion, I can’t.

I’ve always found them a non-event and hardly offensive, so all their watered-down ripoffs of greater designs have never bothered me. I do find that they have an identity… of sort; it’s the same one as when a department store’s in-house label would offer their version of the real thing, just that it’s more wearable, commercial— and affordable. It’s the brand of label and design that 3rd-rate fashion publication editors would wear. And these two have at least made the effort to edit a strong consistency of design with their collections— unlike so many of the new generation of American DIY “designers" that just throw everything they can think of up in a show and hope something sells. That they’re a decent looking duo may be their strongest asset in selling their brand to the customers whom are easily won over by handsome designers with less talent than looks. It’s more of a traditionally American thing (that’s unfortunately plagued even the French now— cuz apparently that Jacquemus person is considered hot, and he’s absolutely exploiting that angle to hustle his Shein-level of fashion).

They've never been anything remotely exceptional, and this is no different. However, it is admittedly nice to see an American collection where the designers are dressing women in a grown-up and feminine sensibility (dumb-looking footwear aside) when the rest of NYFW is dressing women as Walmart Exclusive Holiday Barbie, toddlers, homeless park squatters, and witless ravers.

(I’d love for Phoebe to return with a similar sensibility as Hedi did when he returned with SLP when she premieres her namesake label: Offering more classic, simpler staples than innovative designs. These two will be stuck in fashion purgatory recycling her Celine to the end of fashion times LOL)

 

[Lola701]

*enters volft era and prepares to ride hard for Jack and Lazaro*

I can’t wait for the next Celine show…
I’m already in my volft mode for the Tom Ford show Wednesday ahahah.

 

[Salvatore]

*enters volft era and prepares to ride hard for Jack and Lazaro*

Oh my god.
Anyway, this isn’t a bad collection at all. The ruffled flamenco sleeve situations are fun and I like the last three golden pieces. It’s all very non-descript and, at the current state of fashion, I will take that over these try-too-hard labels.

 

[StylishCynic]

Cathy Horyn panned the entire collection:

After substantial collections in the past year or so, Proenza Schouler looked generally weak.

The designers, Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez, said they wanted to bring more sensuality to the clothes, mostly by embracing Hernandez’s Cuban roots. Hence the flared pants and Flamenco ruffles, including knit dresses with huge belled sleeves.

But while many of the knit separates and soft tailoring in cotton-terry tweed looked timely — luxurious as well as easy to wear — some of the details and materials (for example, a black coat worn by Shalom Harlow with gold tassels) treaded close to the kinds of merch you see in the windows of wholesale establishments in the West Thirties.

And the thick-soled, padded platform shoes looked equally uninspired.

Source: TheCut