27 January 2010

Um...

(Before I get into this, I would like to disclaim that it was at my husband's urging that I say what I am about to say for the sake of honesty and just putting it out there. I know there will be a fire in fashion hell with my name on it but...c'est la vie.)

...what in the name of walking short hell is this?



I feel like Kyra Sedgwick in Singles when she starts slamming Xavier McDaniel and Campbell Scott says, "dare to rip the X Man" but really Karl? Really? This is like a futuristic nightmare alien version of everything I don't think about when I think Chanel -- as in Coco, not Karl. The shoes, the scary, shiny opaque tights and WALKING SHORTS?? (Honestly, Givenchy had them, too, and I am just not basketball coach enough to don something so completely not sexy.)

I don't understand, to take this a step further, after sitting through 66 images of the show and thinking repeatedly, what the hell? what the hell? what the hell? how someone like Suzy Menkes (Editor for the International Tribune), can openly call Galliano out for continuing to find his inspiration in historical references (hello, every designer on earth...guilty!) and not look forward to the future and reinvent the house of Dior when at least his show offers things that are wearable, interesting and, dare I say, fabulous? Who is going to wear this? Ivana Trump? So I'm going to say it...I am so O-V-E-R Chanel. It's just not what it once was. It's just not and you can't convince me otherwise.

(And p.s. to Suzy Menkes, although I'm sure she knows, in the face of an economic downturn that threatens to render couturiers jobless, any businessman - or woman - would be smart to go back to what they know and shelf conceptual for awhile. Besides, in this "gray" world, we need pretty and pretty is a big, excuse me, fuck off ball skirt with a corset or riding habit, black leather gloves and a whip.)

Phew. Ok, back to Chanel. I will, of course, say that it is still Chanel and therefore you have to know the craftsmanship is superb and fabrics divine. And there were a few pieces that really caught my eye (below -- the yellow is especially gorge). AND I will go further to say that I know the impact is greater when you are actually front and center to a show, but still....quel snooze.



Then we have Gaultier. Yes, of "Gaultier, darling, Gaultier." The critics are crazy about the collection he showed today. I liked this.



It was all very South of the Border meets indigenous tribal warrior (except for this). And that's all I'm going to say about that.

And then there was Valentino...yeah, um. Not feeling that either. Do I just have on my negative nancy (non-designer) pants today? I miss Valentino. Real Valentino. This drive to attract the younger client I think is misled because I don't think the younger client who loves Valentino wants to be inspired by Avatar. I think, too, the blue painted shoulders to reflect that inspiration and the chiffon masking on the models just takes away from a name that doesn't really need all the embellishment for recognition. It's Valentino for Christ's sake. You could send a model down the runway with no makeup, jewelry OR shoes and it would not matter. Don't ruin that. Being current and interesting while being timeless and sophisticated IS possible. (I will say, however, that I liked the color palette. It was a nice departure from all the icy pastels everyone else is using.)



And then there's Givenchy who, although committed the horrible crime of walking shorts, did thrill me otherwise. Tisci is a bit of genius. His style is edgy and romantic -- the perfect dichotomy:



Finally we have Elie Saab who offered a veritable underwater world full of sea nymphs and mermaids. Or at least that's how I saw it. I haven't been gaga over Saab the past few shows as the pieces seemed too sedate and too focused on entertaining a certain clientele but this -- this is just simply beautiful. And truly simple and beautiful.




Until tomorrow (when I try to be a little more positive).
xoxo, kvlm

No comments:

Post a Comment