The World of Fashion Critics

[Bidwell]

I will admit to glossing over commercially successful collections that break little ground. Perhaps critics have the same problem but have to write something regardless, especially when they have columns and sites. Ms. Wintour has the luxury of evading all that is not standard for her publication but that is the norm.

In this day and age of Project Runways and twitter, everything is scrutinized by not just the established critics but the world at large. It has regretfully turned fashion into some sort of circus competition, WHICH IT IS NOT.

I always say creativity is not a race.

One really shouldn't compare designers (as I often read on TFS) but one can fall prey to this in the heat of viewing show after show...

Ms. Horyn did not mention that fashion presentations have always had restricted viewings and in the early days even required payment from sketchers (who would eventually copy and sell the designs). Selection is nothing new. From a designer's point of view, why waste a seat on someone who will denounce the work you have spent half a year producing. These days, a collection can be torn apart in 24 hrs, months before the public has first hand experience in the stores! Business is business after all...

 

[Dkammern]

i cannot agree more. tim blanks also alerts the viewer to some of the other things going on at the house -- historically and in the moment -- that inform the collection. his coverage of the balenciaga spring 2003 collection and his interpretation of the scuba experience as something erotic made me look at that collection IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIGHT than i ever would have on my own. that's criticism at its height.

simply saying something to the effect of "carolina herrera is irrelevant" is criticism at its lowest ebb. i mean, we can say that here as a gut reaction, but i'm sorry, i expect more from a new york times columnist who has sat through her show. like, why say anything at all?

The problem with Tim Blanks however is that he tries to get so "informative" (isn't he more of a reported, rather than a critic?) that when there's really nothing to talk about, you feel like his just trying to keep up with an established word count (i'm thinking way overintelectualized reviews on rather lame dsquared shows)
I guess it has to do with how style.com works.
The "review+full collection+backstage+close ups+video" structure is very useful in terms of comparing one collection to another, yes. however, in a supposedly creative field as fashion, one misses a bit of an adhocratic approach to their way of covering fashion weeks.
It all sends such a puzzle-like message of a lack of freedom that i can't help wondering how detailed their output procedures are. in other words, is it them speaking, or the conde nast advertisement contracts?
While the written reviews hardly point out any negative remarks of the collections (one bit of it prevented them from getting to D&G for quite some time), i can't even think of a video that ever has (which yet again makes me think of him more as a reviewer than someone who does criticism)

 

[Squizree]

^ It's tricky with Style.com because some of their "critics" act as reporters and end up writing a summary of a collection more than an actual analysis.

 

[homeboy]

Silence and neglect are very powerful tools used by Anna Wintour who has adopted the most business minded approach as a fashion critic. This is very important to fashion houses especially when their advertising is virtually ineffective next to a 600 word slaying by an editor.

 

[Squizree]

^You're right, but not all editors can use that tool. It works for Anna W. because shes a very well established editor with a huge reputation and works for one of the most prestigious fashion magazines in the world. If a random editor from another magazine tried this method it wouldnt work because they're just not important enough for designers to worry about.

 

[mikeijames]

^You're right, but not all editors can use that tool. It works for Anna W. because shes a very well established editor with a huge reputation and works for one of the most prestigious fashion magazines in the world. If a random editor from another magazine tried this method it wouldnt work because they're just not important enough for designers to worry about.

cathy horyn could CERTAINLY afford to do this. here's one of her latest blog posts which made my vein throb over givenchy:

June 26, 2009, 8:27 pm
Paris: Boys Town
By Cathy Horyn


Tonight, as the spring men’s collections rolled on, John Galliano used an abandoned public swimming pool as the setting for a show that made reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, Lawrence of Arabia (the Peter O’Toole Lawrence), Abel Gance, and the photographs of Wilhelm von Gloeden. Let us board another magic carpet! Been there, done that, even if Galliano’s staging is amusing—with an assist from the genius of makeup artist Pat McGrath. The clothes, or at least the styling of the clothes, lightly evoked images of tribal leaders, giving the show a contemporary news wash.
The day was long, and decidedly a mixed bag. Strong collections included Junya Watanabe, who focused on the trim, boyish, waist-nipped jacket (shown with white trousers), and Comme des Garcons, where suit jackets had a patchwork of materials, including tie silks. Rei Kawakubo also had vivid collage-print trousers, and white jackets with black plaited trim around the edges.


Viewed straight-on, Rick Owens’ clothes may seem a bit ho-hum, but the silhouette is actually interesting—the insect male treading out in black leather vests with necklines that puffed at the back, a kind of half skirt over soft trousers, and new variations on his chunky black trainers. With so many designers doing some version of North African or Middle Eastern trousers and layers, or imitating the languid-effete style of Lanvin, here is Owens projecting his own hard vision of the contemporary male. His men’s collections seem to allow him another creative outlet, and he’s making the most of it.


I found Riccardo Tisci’s collection for Givenchy just plain tedious. Heavy layers, black and white trousers in broken star patterns, gold metal stars scattered across tops, gold chain mesh t-shirts: a chaotic collection that tried to bully you into thinking this banal stuff was loaded with contemporary significance. Who were these dudes? On the whole, the clothes made me think of footballers who wear free designer clothes.
Raf Simons held his show at twilight, on a beautiful terrace overlooking a garden. Four or five dark suits opened the show, identical to ones he presented last season. So he was continuing the tailoring story. I’ll have more to say about the collection tomorrow, but Simons is really holding a separate conversation here. He focused on silhouette (all about the belted waist and shoulders), beautiful fabrics, a sophisticated taste level and an extraordinary sense of military-like precision. All elements you don’t find elsewhere.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

in a season where you could literally go to any barneys/ron herman/jeffrey and re-create the watanabe look from pieces on the sales rack, how dare she call tisci's work BANAL. also, there's something elitist -- almost racist -- about her footballers' remark: which footballer -- and i guess she means soccer players since we don't refer to them as footballers in the country in which she gets published -- receives free clothes from any fashion house in this recession? or is that some sort of over-intellectualized swipe at the beckhams of the world who get clothes -- i don't know -- for actually modeling for high fashion houses? okay, i'm done ranting.

 

[Squizree]

I read that review!! And I felt so bad for Tisci. I think he's been doing a great job lately. And even most of his collections dont really reflect the original vision of Givenchy I still think he's right for the label. I find him a very fashion-forward individual and he wants to start something new.

I think Cathy's footballer remark is rather random, but initially I thought of David Beckham too. Though I'm not sure, it's a really random thing to say.
I do agree that "banal" isnt the appropriate word for the collection but heavy layering has always been in Tisic's collections ans he does seem to overuse it often.
I personally loved the golden stars.

 

[BerlinRocks]

i thought Givenchy was s***, too ...

but here is a sort of problem i have with fashion critics ... but it's not their fault, i guess.

it's that they want to give transparency by telling all the references (that are certainly written in the press files !) and have this (great) freedom ... but when it comes to talk about the silhouettes no word at all about the stylists ....

these women always describe a silhouette, the stylist has work on !

some of them should seriously take note, there !
it's clear Emmanuelle Alt has HUGE impact on Balmain's collections - never heard of her in a column .... Only Roitfeld is known for having build Gucci a success with Testino ...


Panos has had a great impact, it seems on Givenchy last collection.

 

[mikeijames]

I do agree that "banal" isnt the appropriate word for the collection but heavy layering has always been in Tisci's collections and he does seem to overuse it often.

Main Entry: ba·nal

Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈnal, ba-, -ˈnäl; bā-ˈnal; ˈbā-nəl\

Function:
adjective

Etymology:
French, from Middle French, of compulsory feudal service, possessed in common, commonplace, from ban

Date: 1825

: lacking originality, freshness, or novelty : trite

m-w.com

i don't know in which world cathy horyn lives, but i don't see men dressing like this right now....this is nothing if not novel. and what footballer wears leggings?! okay, i'm really done ranting now....

men.style.com

 

[Squizree]

I wasnt the biggest fan of the collection. It might have been boring and maybe non-contextual but I dont think it was banal.

I think it was fresh and somewhat new and original, but to me it appeared to be not well put together or it was missing something. But definately not trite.

 

[mikeijames]

i thought Givenchy was s***, too ...

and that's fine, but it's different when a new york times' columnist says it. i mean, i wish the blogosphere had as much sway with stakeholders and decisionmakers as the fashion elite, but it's not that way. also, by the time the consumer actually gets to vote with their dollar, the dye has been cast and the words won't get taken back.

 

[mikeijames]

footballer? footballer!

But definately not trite.

i'm sorry to keep going back to this....but this got presented at junya watanabe....and she qualifies this as strong. a simple google search of footballers finds that they wear this look ALL THE TIME. (and i actually enjoy this look, to be honest, but i'd never say it constitutes a "STRONG" collection).

men.style.com

(attached is a picture of real madrid footballer iker casillas from kickette.com)

 

[homeboy]

^You're right, but not all editors can use that tool. It works for Anna W. because shes a very well established editor with a huge reputation and works for one of the most prestigious fashion magazines in the world. If a random editor from another magazine tried this method it wouldnt work because they're just not important enough for designers to worry about.

The reason Anna stands above other fashion critic is because she has excellent taste and is a visionary just like the designers themselves, while most fashion critics are..........merely fashion critics with little or no demonstrated creativity -- especially those who are just columists. Her work as the editor in chief of Vogue speaks for her authority and righteousness as a critic while others only have negative adjectives to resort to in order to make themselves noted.

 

[Spike413]

I didn't take the footballers comment quite so literally, and I don't think it was meant to be seeing as it just doesn't make sense when it is. I think what she was saying was essentially that the collection looks like it's for people who merely wear what they're offered of designer clothing without actually knowing or caring about what fashion and style really are.

That's just my take on it though. For all I know I could be reading far more into it that Cathy intended anyone to.

 

[b9409]

Horyn hates Tisci - everyone knows that. She has never written anything nice about him - EVER as far as I can remember. I think it is something rather personal.

Critics opinions matter only a little. They hate Frida: Gucci sells like hot cakes. Theykens is another good example in the opposite way. Of course not everything is about sales, but that is how the paychecks of these editors and journalists are also getting paid in this business.

I also somehow understand Armani's position.

Of course she can somehow find a way to see his collections even if she is not invited (I mean this is the 21st Century) but why should he waste a space in the front row to a woman who never writes anything good, but sounds plainly condescending and didactic, about one of the most successful designers of the entire fashion history and his latest efforts? I can understand why he would give up on her - she can badmouth him all the way she wants whether she sits in the front row, or in her hotel room in front of some computer eager to see some clothes. Putting someone like Beyonce or Cate Blanchett in her seat will guarantee more press coverage and relevance for him anyways.

I like Tim Blanks, but he is always nice. Which is a good thing actually. I, for one. cannot stand Sarah Mower and her pedestrian BS. She just writes whatever her agenda is. She is utterly beneath contempt and an unpleasant person to begin with. I have written about my distaste with that woman before here.

Menkes is great, but we all know she has her faves too. But they all do. Horyn is an exceptional woman and journalist, but if she is this opinionated about everything that is fashion at large, then she should also find another angle to channel her knowledge and critical point of view rather than just writing about seasonal collections.

 

[b9409]

June 28, 2009, 8:05 AM
Paris Men’s: Here and Yonder
By CATHY HORYN


I was merely warming up, A. Neto, on the subject of Givenchy. It was late when I returned to the hotel, after some midnight scrambled eggs at the Flore following the Raf Simons show, and my thoughts were fresh and not entirely in order. You are not suggesting, A. Neto, that I be concerned about being banned from a fashion show, nor are you saying I should watch what I say. Nonetheless the possibility occurs to you simply because I have said something sharp about Tisci’s collection. I have really said nothing. This was a lazy, pretentious, overwrought collection marked with the slight tear stain of Michael Jackson’s legacy, since, according to Tisci, he was to make clothes for the pop star’s concert series. If other designers, like John Galliano, were asked to make clothes for Jackson, we didn’t hear from them. They had enough good sense not to say anything. Besides, many designers are usually involved with making clothes and accessories for a performer’s tour.

Yesterday, while going around to the shows, a number of editors said to me, “The Givenchy look is contemporary—a lot of young guys dress like that.” And I replied, “That’s great, but it doesn’t mean the look is interesting.” To me, the Givenchy collection—the gold mesh top and leather shorts, the gold-studded tartan, the layers of baggy shorts over leggings, the Moroccan ethnic influences—smacks of the work of a stylist, rather than the specific vision of a designer. The collection has a cadged look of picking things up from here and yonder, notably Comme des Garcons. This method just betrays insecurity—the insecurity of a designer who doesn’t have a meaningful, real vision. No doubt the references in the collection could be explained by Tisci, but the best shows are generally clear to us—as well as the result of some kind of magic.

One of the difficulties I have with Tisci is that he is utterly humorless as a designer. This is not a problem for Bernhard Willhelm, who at times completely captures the silliness of fashion. His setting was a kind of artist’s studio, or maybe a children’s play room—the floor was set with easels, stacks of old books and covered with plastic sheeting—and the first model came out wearing an army helmet mounted with a pair of G.I. Joes. The clothes were clever variations on jungle or camo prints, with ponchos, shirts and fatigues done in a collage of fabrics and spiky textures. Very sweet and funny—and innocent.

.....(the article continues)

She can be quite irritating.

Her beef with him is personal I think. She is not criticizing: hers words are full of sheer and heavy insults. In a world as bland and mundane as mens fashion, I say everyone works as a stylist. Let's be honest: what are Slimane, Ford or even Simons?

They are all re-cutting and reforming either Saville Row or Giorgio Armani, with embellishments and clever styling. On the other hand, isn't that what every designer DOES today - sell an image within a vision rather than just well-made clothes?

If she wants humor, she should go and watch Bill Maher. I do not see Margiela or Rei doing anything light-hearted or 'humorous'.



http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

[Squizree]

Horyn hates Tisci - everyone knows that. She has never written anything nice about him - EVER as far as I can remember. I think it is something rather personal.

She has...ONCE! I remember it kinda clearly. It was after his Haute Couture S/S 07 collection for Givenchy (which just so happens to be one of the greatest Givenchy collections ever made - if not THE best).
Cathy said that Tisci had finally achieved a degree of romance in his clothes for once, unlike all his other collections which lacked it. And I think she also said that this connected him to the original Givenchy.

For the most I agreed with her.

 

[mikeijames]

...I like Tim Blanks, but he is always nice. Which is a good thing actually....Horyn is an exceptional woman and journalist, but if she is this opinionated about everything that is fashion at large, then she should also find another angle to channel her knowledge and critical point of view rather than just writing about seasonal collections.

i don't understand why she can't take issue with a collection without becoming insulting. i believe anna wintour achieves this through omission. i believe tim blank does this by letting audience members express negative commentary. why hasn't a writer as accomplished as horyn found a way to disagree without being disagreeable?

 

[Squizree]

No doubt the references in the collection could be explained by Tisci, but the best shows are generally clear to us—as well as the result of some kind of magic.

This is when I start hating her comments. Her idea of "some kind of magic" is so vague. It could be magic to the rest of us, and surely it is! Just because the references are invisible and unclear does not mean that they're not there. Maybe she's the one who's just not looking hard enough.

Either way, 99% of the time Cathy is a remarkable critic and she knows how to support her opinions with sufficient evidence, but there seems to be more than just fasion critisism here.

 

[Squizree]

i don't understand why she can't take issue with a collection without becoming insulting. i believe anna wintour achieves this through omission. i believe tim blank does this by letting audience members express negative commentary. why hasn't a writer as accomplished as horyn found a way to disagree without being disagreeable?

You might have answered your own question. She could just be a person looking to establish herself as the Perez Hilton of fashion so to speak.