Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'History of Style : A Remembrance of Things Past' started by YohjiAddict, Nov 1, 2020.
Business of Fashion
Business of Fashion
Business of Fashion
Had the lighting been just changed to spotlights along the runway in a darkened room, the mood would be so much more appropriate for his brand of ethereal beauty (... but then the photographers would be cursing the presentation for poor lighting LOL).
I’m kinda surprised of this being part of Tim’s favorite shows.
Personally, I love the Fall Winter 1990 collection. It was more my taste and the presentation really made sense.
Gigli is a color master and it’s interesting to find some links to his work in Alber and Haider’s work.
Gigli is a bit like Montana for me. It’s a pity that despite their talent, they haven’t managed to make the transition from the 80’s to the late 90’s. Gigli was maybe more versatile and managed to survive from a technically POV but I feel like the essence of his work kinda disappeared over the years.
^^^ Somewhere and sometime by the mid-90s, he seemed to have lost his unique essence-- or just straightup abandoned it. Which is surprising since his brand of deeply multicultural aesthetic remained relevant throughout that decade— just look at Gaultier’s work from the 90s-2000s… along with Galliano and McQueen). And in that sense, he was very one-note and couldn’t translate beyond the signature of dreamy Byzantine princesses. With Montana, I could understand the stale and irrelevancy since he spiralled further and further into substance abuse. It’s obvious how much of an influence he was on McQueen; the latter’s The Girl Who Lived In A Tree collection may as well be called Tribute to Gigli. I wondered if Romeo just lost interest in fashion???
He had issue with his business partner in the 90's and maybe it influenced his work. Considering that he continued to consult and teach fashion over the years, I don't think he lost interest in fashion. He was maybe more against the practices of the "fashion industry".
That being said, the 90's weren't particularly kind to independent designers. The success of Karl at Chanel changed drastically the industry in the 80's but the massive success of Versace or Armani at that time also changed the paradigm of the industry. Suddenly the possibilities of expansion of independent brands became insane. It was harder to keep up and very few of them survived.
Romeo more or less lost what made him so special after F/W 96, he experimented with other aesthetics but it was never the same again, I do believe his versatility was limited to begin with. He understood the early 90s better than some of his peers, but the decade was quickly evolving...it doesn't help that he lost ownership of his name. Montana is a great example because his signature style stopped making sense after the mid-90s, even if at the start of the decade it was stil desirable.
Karl's great success is that, better than anyone, he knew how to adapt and respond to current styles, there's a radical change between Chanel at the start and end of that decade.
I'm on the photographers side, I detest fashion shows where the lights are too dimmed...the beauty of this pictures is how clear they are, he has other shows in darkened rooms and the pictures are grainy beyond belief.
P.S: Tim's article should be corrected, Gigli's Paris debut was not this season but the one before. If you want, I can upload some pictures.
^^^ Yes, please upload!
Romeo teaching fashion is at once exciting and sad. When I was in school, I always had this attitude that teachers at a design/fashion school were individuals that just failed in the industry (… and that none of my teachers were remotely inspiring also contributed to my attitude…). If I were a student now, I’d be so excited to drink in everything he had to teach.
Romeo, Rifat Ozbeck and Martine Sitbone comes to mind of promising 80s-talents that sadly never realized their full potential. Montana is a strange one: looking at his mid-80s designs and show, they were literally the blueprint of 80s-fashion caricatures. He only had a few brief years of design genius— ending in his snow queen-esque tenure at Lanvin. Then it was over. Romeo’s fashions were never of the moment, and at their best, so transcendent beyond mere high fashion. I’d like to think that had he continued, his designs would have evolved similar to the most romantic of McQueen’s. But that's likely being too generous and nostalgic for his brand of gentlewomenly beauty.
^Also the press didn't help even Yohji or Gaultier who we now think as defining forces of the 90s were called out for not being like Helmut or whomever, critics weren't playing games like nowadays...
Martine Sitbon shows I liked but she had no sense for editing, everything but the kitchen sink. It didn't help that Ann D was her cooler, chicer and more of-the-moment rocker cousin.
Oh! I’m so into what you said about designers teaching fashion. But I also think that part of the path of being a designer is the moments of low or failure...But I think you need a great deal of introspection and peace to teach and face the fact that at one point, somebody is going to remember to you that you are here because you failed.
But I remember in a interview, Karl said that he reached for a short period of time in Germany (in the 90’s I think) and he expressed how he hated how entitled the students were and how it made him not wanting to do it. Maybe having a designer who « failed » is a great way to humble students...
Out of all the designers you mentioned, the most heart-breaking is probably Montana. I saw him one time in Paris at the time when he worked with Paul and Joe and it’s really heart-breaking to see him physically.
I think what happened in the 90’s/early 00’s was very violent. You had a whole generation of designers that defined the idea of newness and who at one point made irrelevant a lot of designers of the 80’s (the 80’s killed all the surviving Couture houses of the 70’s), who quickly became irrelevant themselves.
I think the pressure of expansion (those RTW designers suddenly had to do perfumes to survive) and the twist when Luxury became the word to define Fashion ultimately killed a lot of those talents.
The success of Helmut, Prada, Gucci changed the whole perception of fashion. Helmut made people look edgy with jeans, a shirt and a blazer...No femme fleur à la Mugler or Cyber-glamazon.
But do you really think Romeo could have evolved like that (if he wanted). His fashion was very rich in fabrics, in tones, in volumes. What I think was amazing about McQueen or Galliano was the attitude and how, they have managed to give more with less. And that’s why maybe their work felt more relevant...
^^^ No— I don’t feel Romeo had the dangerously sharp ambition nor design vision of McQueen. Not many do: That brand of extraordinary, potent, visionary storytelling and worldbuilding. combined with innovative tailoring skills to conjure this magical aesthetic is matched only by Gaultier. And maybe Galliano. Helmut and Tom I adored and were most drawn to, but they were never even close to the level of those three. And Romeo could never match McQueen’s creative vision nor his masterful, inventive construction. We are very fortunate to have experienced McQueen/Gaultier/Galliano in our lifetime.