kimtch said:i admit that i am a bit confused when people talk about the 'intellectualism' of prada...can someone please explain to me how her designs are intellectual and why people call muiccia an intellectual designer?
I'm not sure if there is a textbook reasoning for her being called "intellectual", but in my opinion, it would go something like this:
Her designs don't and can't appeal to the immediate senses. They're not sexy, nor are they particularly eye catching. For example, when you see some of Tom Ford's designs, or some (older) Versace, or some Dolce & Gabbana, you are often affected instantly on a gut level. You are attracted to it (or the person wearing it) whether or not you could ever wear it yourself.
Not so with Prada. In fact, in many cases, Prada makes you look like an androgynous humanoid. Thus, to find the "appeal", I think that one would have to look to a certain "intellectual" attraction, something that your mind likes irregardless of whether it will work with your physical body. In many cases... it doesn't... but this, too, is part of the appeal (I guess).
Though I like some of the things that she does, I'm not saying I buy into it OR this definition... I think that often it is easier for fashion editors and critics to throw around the term "intellectual" than to actually make "intellectual" clothes, but nevertheless this is my opinion as to what they mean by the word when applying it to Prada.
John