Thierry Mugler F/W 11.12 Paris
- Thread starter tarsha
- Start date
Lovemusic22
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 1
Full Collection - HQ's Part 1
vogue.it
vogue.it
Lovemusic22
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 1
Part 2
vogue.it
vogue.it
Lovemusic22
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 1
Last Batch
vogue.it
vogue.it
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
this won't last too long.
mistress_f
Hell on Heels
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,238
- Reaction score
- 364
some of this looks very very cheap. take that latex outfit for example. atsuko kudo does it better. what formichetti is showing here looks like it came straight out of a cheap sexy shop. not to mention those see-through animalier things...
KhaoticKharma
Amour Comme Hiver
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,550
- Reaction score
- 3
Looking at HQs, I'm a little surprised at how tame it is; I suppose it makes sense, given that fashion is entering a much more practical phase (and this is probably as practical as you can get with a name/brand like Mugler), but it's still a little shocking in how un-shocking it is. Either way, there are definitely a few great editorial pieces in here that I'm excited to see in print.
Tentacl Ventricl
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 0
My penchant for a hot fierce goth come wintertime is too large for my thumb to go in any other direction but up.
Ok there's nothing new here, it doesn't progress the history of design, but I don't think that's the intention. It's delivered with a tongue in cheek irreverance, a **** you nonchalance.
I think that's a lot of why an early poster says he wants to see this in editorials. The characterful posing (also the non commercial lighting) gives the show more of an editorial feel than most shows, makes us think 'editorial'. I don't think we will see too much of this in editorial. Last AW it'd have chimed better, slotted in alongside the DSquared offering for instance. But hey, who gives a flying. Keeping the hotgothfemmefatale fires burning is alright by me singular voice or not.
And as for more expressive models on the runways - hey why not. With live streaming the nature of the fashion show has changed. No longer just for an audience of pompous print editors and erstwhile buyers present in physical proximity, it's now a democratic entertainment, a spectacle with an audience who knows, ten times the circulation of any single nation Vogue in print even at it's peak. So why not blur that boundary and make shows have a more editorial flavour.
This btw is not model talk. For sure there's another place for identification and suchlike and I don't want any of that in this forum either. But in terms of the vibe portrayed by the models in general in a show, that's fair comment I'd have thought because, as here, it does aid in the interpretation of a collection.
But what I really want to say is to those who say it's not Mugler. Really? Are you sure? The sexual power, the irreverance, the use of unusual or fetishistic fabrics, the architectural bodycon, the theatrics, the showmanship, the celebrity, the humour, and ultimately, yes, the sale of perfume. Isn't that exactly the essence of Mugler?
Indeed, we might even say that it's the future of the fashion show to become much closer to a Muglerian spectacle.
Quite what, or who, is, or was, print editorial for anyway? Why not go straight from an editorialised livestreamed show to the sale of perfume, cut out all the extraneous steps in the middle.
Unfortunately the inability of all too many models to remain upright - which can only be attributed to a lack of rehearsal - and Gaga overhamming it in a far too efforty attempt to showsteal, gave the footage an amateuristic aspect. Yet there is a strangely seductive quality to the footage as pure spectacle. I've watched it twice already and I'll admit, guilty pleasure stylie, I'm drawn to again. Unlike V&R's virtual reality or the Pugh/ShowStudio arty video, like it or not, we might just have seen the shape of things to come.
If the timing of the Galliano removal is a PR stunt designed to give an LVMH brand some press exposure, I think the guy who bought up Mugler (and Clarins I believe) somewhat stole a march with this. I can see it shifting a shedload of perfume off the back of the brand recognition it undoubtedly creates amongst the neteratti.
Be purist about it if you like but don't be blind to the fact that everything is commercial strategy and in terms of moving web traffic this was just about as savvy a use of the fashion show as we've seen yet.
Ok there's nothing new here, it doesn't progress the history of design, but I don't think that's the intention. It's delivered with a tongue in cheek irreverance, a **** you nonchalance.
I think that's a lot of why an early poster says he wants to see this in editorials. The characterful posing (also the non commercial lighting) gives the show more of an editorial feel than most shows, makes us think 'editorial'. I don't think we will see too much of this in editorial. Last AW it'd have chimed better, slotted in alongside the DSquared offering for instance. But hey, who gives a flying. Keeping the hotgothfemmefatale fires burning is alright by me singular voice or not.
And as for more expressive models on the runways - hey why not. With live streaming the nature of the fashion show has changed. No longer just for an audience of pompous print editors and erstwhile buyers present in physical proximity, it's now a democratic entertainment, a spectacle with an audience who knows, ten times the circulation of any single nation Vogue in print even at it's peak. So why not blur that boundary and make shows have a more editorial flavour.
This btw is not model talk. For sure there's another place for identification and suchlike and I don't want any of that in this forum either. But in terms of the vibe portrayed by the models in general in a show, that's fair comment I'd have thought because, as here, it does aid in the interpretation of a collection.
But what I really want to say is to those who say it's not Mugler. Really? Are you sure? The sexual power, the irreverance, the use of unusual or fetishistic fabrics, the architectural bodycon, the theatrics, the showmanship, the celebrity, the humour, and ultimately, yes, the sale of perfume. Isn't that exactly the essence of Mugler?
Indeed, we might even say that it's the future of the fashion show to become much closer to a Muglerian spectacle.
Quite what, or who, is, or was, print editorial for anyway? Why not go straight from an editorialised livestreamed show to the sale of perfume, cut out all the extraneous steps in the middle.
Unfortunately the inability of all too many models to remain upright - which can only be attributed to a lack of rehearsal - and Gaga overhamming it in a far too efforty attempt to showsteal, gave the footage an amateuristic aspect. Yet there is a strangely seductive quality to the footage as pure spectacle. I've watched it twice already and I'll admit, guilty pleasure stylie, I'm drawn to again. Unlike V&R's virtual reality or the Pugh/ShowStudio arty video, like it or not, we might just have seen the shape of things to come.
If the timing of the Galliano removal is a PR stunt designed to give an LVMH brand some press exposure, I think the guy who bought up Mugler (and Clarins I believe) somewhat stole a march with this. I can see it shifting a shedload of perfume off the back of the brand recognition it undoubtedly creates amongst the neteratti.
Be purist about it if you like but don't be blind to the fact that everything is commercial strategy and in terms of moving web traffic this was just about as savvy a use of the fashion show as we've seen yet.
Stars as models is sooo Heatherette, and Heatherette is sooo the worst brand ever. However, Gaga didn't do wrong. She wasn't out of place and she actually did good. The collection is not the best I've seen but to be a first it's not bad, although some garments look very Armani.
^ At least Heatherette didn't pretend to be "interesting" and "artistic" and "deep". Heatherette was just non stop loony silliness, but for the fun of it. This collection, on the other hand, is just so deceptive because it tries to be what Mugler was; boundary-pushing, explicit and frightening. This is none of the above. Thierry Mugler (for me) was most famous for pushing the female body to new and frightening architectural limits. This doesn't give off anything like that. It's just a bunch of Lady Gaga costumes.
I actually kinda miss Heatherette lol.
I actually kinda miss Heatherette lol.
Style Savvy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 8,342
- Reaction score
- 765
Wow, this show was full of live! Reminds me of the fashion shows of the 90s. Bravo Formichetti!
á la Balenciaga
Active Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,749
- Reaction score
- 2
wow....they all looked fierce!!
Ugh, this is Cartoon Mugler - there is no design in this! I own a few vintage Mugler, and the genius in construction is jaw-dropping, a highly complex dress that wraps impeccably around the torso in curved seams could hang on just one little hook. Sorry to say, this shows a stylist should not fill the high-heeled shoes of a legendary designer!
kiddokiddo
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 4,545
- Reaction score
- 1
Similar Threads
