Style.com's Top Ten S/S 09 collections

[STYLEOClDE]

balenciaga, chanel and dolce&gabbana look amazing.

 

[Whitelinen]

It never ceases to amaze me when these lists come out how some people throw around these accusations that Style.com is biased or purely after advertising bucks simply because that particular person doesn't like the collection themselves.

Like them or not, Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton and Balenciaga are always among the most interesting, influential and progressive collections that are presented each season, and Spring/Summer 2009 isn't an exception.

Personally, I don't give two hoots if some magazine doesn't have the same views as I have when it comes to fashion (I rarely read fashion magazines). However, I just simply do not understand why everyone gets so worked up about this list... which everyone can see is not based on what editors liked but what will sell well and thus be good to their magazine. It's not like fashion editors pick their personal favourites. Of course, in an idealistic world, they would do so. But unfortunately what concerns the editor and the magazine is how they can make profit in order to keep up their magazine. It is business.

They cannot fill their list with innovative people, because people who are doing something avant garde unfortunately do not translate to the common fashion buyers' mind. If everyone who bought fashion/fashion magazines was genuinely interested in it as a craft and an art-form, sure, this would be a different situation. Style.com could fill their list with all sorts of oddballs. But since most fashion customers are after status and label, they have to include designers like these. People want safety - now if never. Thus, this is the list of "Best(selling) collections of S/S 09".

It baffles me if some people see this list as some kind of an "art" list and get all angry about someone not being featured because they made a beautiful/interesting collection. This list is not about that. It is about money and image.

All right, you think Jacobs & Ghesquière are, at the moment and every season, taking fashion forward and that their collections are interesting. But that is your opinion. There is nothing that you can say in order to make it sure that your opinion is the absolute right one - because it is not. It is just an opinion. Just like some here are disappointed that their favourites weren't included.

In my opinion, their "taking fashion forward" is mainly sparking a new trend in emulating fashions of some decade in the past and making a big brouhaha in the press because the names "Nicholas Ghesquière" and "Marc Jacobs" sell extremely well. Which is fine - it is my opinion. Just like yours is yours. Only an opinion. Neither of these opinions are absolute truths which everyone else should learn to accept as their own. Let's not try to patronize others just because they disagree with our opinions.

More than looking at who are featured on this list or not I think more interesting is to take a look at the values behind compiling this list.

 

[morgan38]

I thought for sure Jil Sander would have made the list.

The rest aren't really a surprise.

 

[Spike413]

^ I respectfully disagree, WhiteLinen. Ghesquiere and Jacobs are two of the most influential designers working in fashion today. That isn't entirely an opinion on my part. By whatever means, whether reinventing the past or inventing a dress that literally changes color in lighting, they are among the few designers who are always pushing fashion forward to some degree or another. I don't always like what they do, in fact neither of them are designers that I personally am particularly devoted to, but I do realize that they are among the leaders of fashion. Of course money plays a role, I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. But there is a reason why even people on tFS who consistently hate their work take the time to look at their collections, and it's not because they are getting paid to do so. It's because those designers, for whatever reason, spark interest in a large number of people....even if that interest never pays off.

But that's not even the point I was getting at. I just think that it's unfair for people to accuse this list of being a biased money making ploy simply becausethey do not like the collections on it. My point was that there's a difference between not liking something and saying it was so fundamentally bad that the only reason it's on this list is because their position was paid for. In one of my posts in this thread I actually said that I didn't really like Dries Van Noten or Balenciaga, but I can absolutely understand why they are on this list.

I suppose the point I was trying to make wasn't as clear as I thought it was, and I appologize for that.

 

[birth.of.mode]

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ann demeulemeester , marc jacobs and ralph lauren!

 

[surrealseven]

I quite surprised why McQueen isn't on the list

 

[birth.of.mode]

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ann demeulemeester , marc jacobs and ralph lauren!

 

[BerlinRocks]

(....)

But that's not even the point I was getting at. I just think that it's unfair for people to accuse this list of being a biased money making ploy simply becausethey do not like the collections on it. My point was that there's a difference between not liking something and saying it was so fundamentally bad that the only reason it's on this list is because their position was paid for. In one of my posts in this thread I actually said that I didn't really like Dries Van Noten or Balenciaga, but I can absolutely understand why they are on this list.

I suppose the point I was trying to make wasn't as clear as I thought it was, and I appologize for that.

I'm talking for my part ....

But I'm sorry, this is not because I hated these collections that I think they are here for money. I'm thinking some of them are on this list, because they are HUGE advertisers !!! c'mone !
R.Lauren, Chanel, Vuitton and Dolce are HUGE MAJOR advertisers ....
It's life, it's fashion industry and economy. That's the way it works. Those houses give money to fashion magazines and they are waiting for free ad in exchange ....
and it's the same in editorials (with a huge difference, though ... but it's not the subject) ....
I'm sure some in this Top 10 has nothing to do with the fact they are advertisers (Balenciaga is there, imo, because he is considered as a very important designer nowadays .... He is the new Miuccia Prada)

So this is nice that you can enjoy MJ and MJ for Vuitton and Ghesquière for Balenciaga (or Balenciaga by Ghesquière/ Vuitton by MJ) being included into this list eventhough you don't like it because you understand those people are genius and important for fashion ....


that's great of you. I would like to be like that ....
though ...
I wonder what else you do approve eventhough you don't like it .....

I think WhiteLinen's point of view is much more suitable and intelligent regarding their headline .....

Making clothes has always been one part fortune-telling—what will women want to wear in six months' time? With the economy in shambles, designers' prognostications are more divergent then ever. Our top ten shows run the gamut from elegant pragmatism to giddy opulence. In other words, there was something for all tastes and styles.

regarding your posts in the D&C thread which are most of the time very intelligent and well written (and even managed some times to make me rethink about one or another collection), I think there you totaly missed the point ....

 

[Whitelinen]

^ I respectfully disagree, WhiteLinen. Ghesquiere and Jacobs are two of the most influential designers working in fashion today. That isn't entirely an opinion on my part. By whatever means, whether reinventing the past or inventing a dress that literally changes color in lighting, they are among the few designers who are always pushing fashion forward to some degree or another. I don't always like what they do, in fact neither of them are designers that I personally am particularly devoted to, but I do realize that they are among the leaders of fashion. Of course money plays a role, I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. But there is a reason why even people on tFS who consistently hate their work take the time to look at their collections, and it's not because they are getting paid to do so. It's because those designers, for whatever reason, spark interest in a large number of people....even if that interest never pays off.

But that's not even the point I was getting at. I just think that it's unfair for people to accuse this list of being a biased money making ploy simply becausethey do not like the collections on it. My point was that there's a difference between not liking something and saying it was so fundamentally bad that the only reason it's on this list is because their position was paid for. In one of my posts in this thread I actually said that I didn't really like Dries Van Noten or Balenciaga, but I can absolutely understand why they are on this list.

I suppose the point I was trying to make wasn't as clear as I thought it was, and I appologize for that.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here with what we mean with "pushing fashion forward". I mean pushing it forward as in being innovative in a way that makes a mark in fashion history, like Chanel's corset-less sportswear in 1910s-20s, Dior's New Look in 1947 and Yohji & Kawakubo with the deconstructed fashion in 1980s. Perhaps you meant taking fashion forward as in sparking new trends, not necessarily changing fashion?

How can you tell apart who is just angry about their fave collection not being on the list, and who actually just thinks that the list is about what sells and shouldn't be like that?

 

[J'ador-DioR]

I would have replaced Chanel with Jil Sander and Louis Vuitton with Gianfranco Ferre.... those were the stand out collections for me this season along with Dries Van Noten and Preen.

The last Givenchy collection I truly loved was Fall 07. Everything else he has produced was simply not up to par. Even his S/S 06 effort was miles better than his last 3 seasons of RTW.

 

[birth.of.mode]

yeah i would have replaced vuitton..with ferre

 

[KKnardi]

I quite surprised why McQueen isn't on the list

my thoughts exactly! and from all of milan the chose d&gabbana? prada had a far more interesting concept(except the mount everest shoes ) than d&gabbana.

 

[MUXU]

i dont think prada this season is very strong...so go figure it is not on the list. i mean, all those 'shocking' naomi-in-westwood like falls even made it onto free metro newspaper...

im so surprised ann made it to the number 1 spot! i thought her collection was great but didnt think vogue would be thinking along the same lines since ann seems almost un-'Vogue' like.

i think marc did a good job on his collection and LV collection even though it is not my personal favorites.

i do think givenchy deserves to be on the list just because tisci made it so bold this season...despite some outfits looking rather bad but it was hell perversive

edit: yes! how come mcqueen isnt here? i think alex finally got out of that nostalgic thing and really gone back to what made mcqueen so interesting

 

[dancorpse]

Yohji Yamamoto should be on the list...

 

[thiago:)]

I don't agree comlpetely with this list, but I like it.
Loved to see Balenciaga, LV, MJ, Chanel, Dries, Ralph Lauren, Lavin and Ann.
I thought that Alexander McQueen deserved a place there.

 

[Spike413]

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here with what we mean with "pushing fashion forward". I mean pushing it forward as in being innovative in a way that makes a mark in fashion history, like Chanel's corset-less sportswear in 1910s-20s, Dior's New Look in 1947 and Yohji & Kawakubo with the deconstructed fashion in 1980s. Perhaps you meant taking fashion forward as in sparking new trends, not necessarily changing fashion?

How can you tell apart who is just angry about their fave collection not being on the list, and who actually just thinks that the list is about what sells and shouldn't be like that?

Usually when I say pushing fashion forward, I mean it in a more immediate, understandable way. Not necessarily in a defining movement that alters the course of fashion forever.

There were some posts where I sort of got the sense that people just didn't like the collections, so they basically trashed this list. I would never have responded to it the way I did if I didn't get that sense. It wasn't meant to be an accusation really, more of an observation.

And BerlinRocks, there really is no reason to dissect my post or my opinion. I was merely expressing how I think it's best to approach something like this. Nobody has to agree with me or even understand where I'm coming from, and I wouldn't expect anybody to. That's the beauty of expressing our opinions.

 

[BerlinRocks]

don't you think it's kind of revelant that - i'm not sure, but i think - style.com is the only one (concerning condenast website) doing this list ?
vogue.fr nor vogue.co.uk nor style.it are doing this ....

oh and back to spike ...
on your blog, it seems you're doing a top 10 as well, non ?
i think you're wondering something good ....
your blogpost was too long for me to read it completely at that moment .... so i don't know if you answer your own question through your top 10. but that could be a good top 10 to do with this question in mind ....
here it is ...

But let me pose a question, if you were going to spend $1,000 of your money on what is essentially a luxury item in troubled financial times, would you be drawn to basic, dependable clothes that you could find elsewhere for a bit less money, or would you buy the bold statement piece that feels a bit special?

http://spike413.blogspot.com/2008/10/rundown.html

 

[disco54]

Well LV and MJ deserve a spot there because IMO , they were the best shows , his LV show captured the spirit of french with cliches but came out looking new ,ditto his MJ line which was Americana

 

[LolaSvelt]

I could so see Sarah Jessica Parker in that Ralph Lauren outfit!

 

[ysljunkie]

balenciaga was just cheesy this time around, and why won't they just let go oh Ralph L.