Addiction To Chic

The Beautiful Fall...

2011-01-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

I have to admit that when I saw the first image from the Spring Summer 2011 Vuitton campaign it left me a bit underwhelmed. Besides not looking quite how I pictured it, I kind of felt like it could have been even more over the top than they were. I guess my attitude has always been if you're going to do gaudy, then do it big, you know? But I kept going back to that first image, and I suppose by the time the rest of the campaign made an appearance it had really grown on me. Now having seen the entire set (or what I assume is the entire set) I actually kind of love it.

For starters it perfectly captures the spirit of the collection, which was wonderfully flashy, fun and decadent. I love the kind of Tony Duquette-lite vibe, all of that glamorous chaos going on in the background. Combined with the sort of louche poses that Kristen, Raquel and Freja are striking and the lurid clothes the photos remind me of vintage Yves Saint Laurent Opium ads. There aren't any blatant similarities, just the hint of both the 70s and Orientalism in the styling, but there's still something similar about the feel of this. Going back to the poses, I like that they seem somewhat candid. I mean obviously they're not, but they don't seem as deliberate and precise as, say, the poses in the Gucci campaign. I have to say though that the one thing I'm not completely thrilled about was the choice to publish two separate images with the same clothes. There were a lot of looks shown in this collection, so it seems silly not to use different looks for each of the shots, but I guess that's a pretty minor complaint. Much as I've grown to like this campaign though I can't help wondering what Mert & Marcus would have done if they had shot this. I'm not necessarily saying that I wish they had, but I am curious about what it might have looked like if they did. Still, that doesn't change the fact that this is the first of Steven Meisel's campaigns for Vuitton that I've actually liked. I also have to say that these images don't do the photos justice. They look much better in print.

images from facebook.com/louisvuitton

Barbie Girls...

2011-01-07T18:58:00.009-05:00

It is my belief that the only thing worse than falling into a rut yourself is having to bear witness to somebody else's. Unfortunately a rut is exactly what we're witnessing with Gucci's advertising these days. Now realistically it's only been a year since Gucci first tapped Mert & Marcus to photograph their campaigns but because Gucci releases campaigns for more than just the main S/S and F/W collections it seems like it's been a hell of a lot longer. Also worth taking into account is that when the dynamic duo revert to their comfort zone, as they have with the Gucci campaigns they've shot so far, the result is instantly recognizable and, by this point in time, predictable. Sure every photographer has a signature style that they carry with them throughout their career, but I think Mert & Marcus's has the tendency to come off as repetitive because it's so specific. It's also a bit of an acquired taste. I myself have seen more than enough of their turquoise skies, bronzed skin, reflective crimson lips and highlight-laden tresses to last me a lifetime. I guess it's no wonder that none of their Gucci campaigns have impressed me. Here's the thing though; I don't blame Mert & Marcus for how tedious the campaigns are. As specific as their signature style is and as boring as it can become it's not the only thing that they're capable of doing, and in fact I tend to like what they do when they branch out a bit. Clearly the only reason that their Gucci campaigns have become completely indistinguishable from one season to the next is because that's what Gucci wants. Why Gucci wants to repeat themselves and have all of their seasonal advertising blur into one never-ending campaign of plasticized beauty I can't say for sure, but the only logical explanation is that it sells.

I can respect that this may work from a business standpoint, but I'm not looking at it from that angle. Aesthetically I'm just plain sick of this look. I mean I could learn to live with and even enjoy seeing this kind of hyper-glamorous unnatural beauty if the composition of the photographs changed a bit, which was the case when Mert & Marcus were the photographers behind Vuitton's ad campaigns. But there really isn't any change in any of the Gucci campaigns they've done. I mean how many times can you look at a photo of a beautiful young woman who's been airbrushed into oblivion shot from a low angle while striking ridiculously overdone poses in some sun-drenched exotic location while the solid mass of her so-shiny-it's-practically-sparkling hair is billowing down her shoulder like some caramel waterfall before the whole package gets boring? Clearly I have a low tolerance for it to begin with, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that I've seen it countless times before, but I know I can't be the only one who saw this campaign and promptly rolled their eyes at it's sameness. On top of the predictability this season's campaign in particular seems even more artificial than usual. I mean the satin clothes are practically glowing for chrissake. But bitching aside there are a couple of things I do like about it. For one the pops of bright color are extremely eye catching and very refreshing after two seasons filled with neutral clothes from the runway. They make a nice contrast to the ubiquitous turquoise sky and golden terrain. I also really like the models that were cast. Joan Smalls and Karmen Pedaru make a wonderful change from Natasha Poly and her cheekbones or everybody's go-to model Raquel Zimmermann. It's just a shame that two of the more beautiful models working today both look like they're the product of CGI in this campaign. It's also a shame that as long as Mert & Marcus are employed by Gucci this is all we're likely to see.

images from facebook.com/GUCCI

Return of the King Part II...

2011-01-04T21:00:00.005-05:00

What better way is there to start off the new year than getting a look at what was no doubt one of the most eagerly anticipated and hyped up fashion events in years. That's right kids, after nearly four months of waiting we, the viewing public, finally get to see Tom Ford's womenswear debut in full. By now I'm sure everybody has seen at least some of the teaser images that have been floating around the net. The clothes have shown up in a number of magazines and last month Harper's Bazaar previewed a handful of official runway images. Now I can only speak for myself, but seeing those eight or nine runway photos didn't satisfy my craving at all, quite the contrary in fact. They made me crave more. Well, now we have more and I'd say I'm satisfied.

Fabulous, no? The editing really creates a sense of excitement, of being there in the midst of it all. Watching it is actually kind of hypnotic, and even now having watched it, oh, a dozen times at least I still can't help but smile. Don't get me wrong, I'm crushed that it's been edited down to what is essentially a tease, and it sucks that we don't get to hear any of the commentary Mr. Ford was providing along with the show, but given the choice between a short video and no video at all guess which one I would choose. And btw, can I just say that I think the Karen Elson song playing over the footage is perfect for the presentation. I guess we'll never know if it was actually used in the show, but it's a great fit.

Before I go into the collection I have to get this out of the way first: I HATE the quality of the photography. I know that it was intentional, but I don't think all of the photos do justice to the clothes or the women wearing them. Now, I tried to be brief and concise while writing about this collection, I really did, but it just wasn't working. Each look left me with something to say, so bear with me...

The first look confuses me. Maybe it's the kind of thing you need to see in person, but I'm afraid I just don't get it looking at this picture and the video.
Love the painted fringe dress on Liya. Something about it combined with the big, intricate updo and the bohemian-esque earrings gives me a kind of mid-Sixties vibe. It's such a dramatic look.
The smokings on Emmanuelle Seigner and Lauren Hutton are pretty much perfection, end of story.

I'm in love with the entire look on Natalia Vodianova. From the pompadour down it's got a haughty sex appeal that really works. The skirt has a gorgeous silhouette.
I like the dress in different shades of pink, but seeing something so femme and girlish from Tom Ford is kind of throwing me for a loop.
The purple chiffon wrap dress on Joan Smalls is beautiful, although I don't know if I love the color of that bolero with it. That's also not the best picture of her, and she's gorgeous so there's really no excuse.
Karen's cobalt fringed dress is easily one of the most striking pieces in the collection. It's such a simple design when you think about it, but between that amazing color and the all-over fringe it makes for a look that's hard to forget. I think I preferred it with stockings the way it was styled in Vogue.

I die for Rachel Feinstein. She looks so sexy and vibrant and gorgeous. That red hair suits her perfectly, in fact the first time I saw her photo it didn't even dawn on me that it's not her normal hair color.
The words leopard print pant suit don't necessarily paint the prettiest of pictures, but damn is that suit fierce. I never say fierce, so you know it must be true if that's the only word that I can think of.
I don't really love Julia Restoin-Roitfeld in her leather skirt suit. The pieces are nice, but the whole look with the Winehouse hair, raccoon eyes and fishnet boots renders it a little vulgar.
Anja's white suede trench coat on the other hand is gorgeous, though highly impractical if you ever want to venture outside of your walk-in closet. Nice touch tying the coat in with his Private Blend fragrance White Suede.

I don't love the saharienne kind of look on Jac, but I think it's really just the color that's bothering me. Olive green really doesn't relate to anything else in the collection.
The white skirt suit is beautiful. I love the longer silhouette, and I'd really love to see a close-up of the stitching on the skirt.
The only complaint that I have about Chanel Iman in an overblown Prince of Wale's check smoking is that I might have preferred it with a fedora instead of that cloche. Other than that the suit is fantastic. So, so chic.
I really like Abbey's Faye Dunaway as Bonnie Parker look. It's no the most exciting outfit in the collection, but it's styled really well. It's got a great silhouette, too.

The look on Karlie and the leopard dress that came next seem like filler looks to me. They're not bad, they're just lost in a sea of impact-making looks.
Carolyn Murphy's look is impeccable, definitely one of my favorites. It's very simple, bordering on boring, but the styling of that little black dress really takes it somewhere else. I'm a sucker for an open back.
The dress on Daria has already appeared in two editorials, once in American Vogue and once in Vogue Paris, and both times it looked amazing. The silhouette is just so unlike anything I would expect from Tom Ford. Here though the shape has none of the drama or precision that it did in the magazines. I also don't like those shoes with it.

I didn't really love the metallic embroidered jacket Freja's wearing when it first appeared in Vogue. Even though it recalls Ford's last YSL collection it read as a little too dated to me. Apparently it's grown on me since because I really like the look here. The jacket photographs beautifully.
The styling on Victoria Fernandez is great. Lingerie under mannish tailoring seems like such a cliche, but clearly it works, and I'm digging the cat eye shades under the veil. You don't see enough veils these days.
Love Stella's outfit. That jacket is stunning. For some reason when I first saw images of this look I assumed the skirt was floor length. I think I might have loved it even more if it was.
Beyonce is wearing a lot of look, and I guess that suits her personality. The dress itself looks gorgeous in that shot. Unfortunately the lighting didn't do Bey any favors.

I still can't make up my mind about the gown on Marisa Berenson. On the one hand it looks like something that Travis Banton might have designed for Marlene Dietrich; on the other I'm not so sure that that's a bad thing.
I wish we could see all of Rita Wilson's look, although from what I do see I think I like it.
The tuxedo on Edita is, like all of the other suits in this collection, perfection. Cummerbunds are the new belt.
The painted fringe dress on Du Juan is actually the one look I'm having the most trouble making up my mind about. The print and colors are really beautiful and so unusual looking, but I'm not 100% sure that the whole look isn't too much.

I didn't really love the kimono-sleeved le smoking jumpsuit worn by Lou Doillon when I saw it on Lara Stone in W magazine last month. Seeing it now it takes on a whole new feeling. On the right woman, in this case Lou, that piece is unbelievably striking. It has entrance maker written all over it.
Julianne looks fabulous in her fringed and feathered gown, and judging by the picture she knew it. She was so fabulous in the video.
Considering that Lisa Eisner's gown is one of the simplest pieces in the entire collection it also happens to be one of the most dramatic, I think. That sharp column of black, barely touching the body inside and plunging in the front to show the top of the corset is so unlike anything that's been seen on a red carpet in god knows how many years that I can't help but love it. A dress like that is the perfect antidote to Marchesa-syndrome. To me it's the most Gucci-esque piece in the collection.
And finally there's Daphne Guinness in a look that only Daphne Guinness could ever pull off. It's so over the top, from the two-tone bouffant and patented Tom Ford smokey eye (which is a good look for her) to the feathered shoes. I love how the gown just seems to melt on her body. It's a lot of look, even more than Beyonce's, but it suits her perfectly.

Not that I'm surprised or anything, and I doubt any of you reading this are either, but I really ended up loving this collection. As plenty of people have already pointed out it's nothing new or radical, but that was never what Ford was about anyway. His strength was always his ability to take something old, or classic, or retro and rework it for the here and now. But while none of this is new or radical I do think that the overall feel of the collection is very fresh. These 32 looks are extremely dressed up and "done", which is the antithesis of what fashion and style have been about for years now. I love that the collection is unapologetic about that. Conviction to a mood is classic Tom Ford. As for the clothes themselves I think that there's a great variety. Not only are these clothes addressing women of different sizes, shapes and ages, they're addressing different styles and tastes as well. The woman who is going to wear the black column gown worn by Lisa Eisner probably wouldn't be the type to wear the sequined mesh sheath on Beyonce, just like the woman who'd choose a black silk tuxedo for an evening event probably wouldn't go near a ruched ballet pink georgette dress like the one Rinko Kikuchi has on. I think that's one of the best things about this collection, that rather than just talking about addressing different women Mr. Ford actually did. It's not about one specific look for one specific kind of customer like his work at Gucci and YSL was. At the same time though you can clearly see echoes of his Gucci and YSL women throughout, although to me it doesn't look distinctly like either of them, which I think that is a good thing. There is enough difference to separate his past from his present which definitely gives him license to play in the future. I'm extremely excited to see where Ford will take this collection now that he's back to doing what he does best, and while I know that this show is supposed to have been a one-off kind of event that doesn't mean I'm not holding out hope that Tom will change his tune and take up a more permanent residence on a runway of his own. If there's one thing that his hiatus from the fashion ranks made perfectly clear it's that fashion really isn't as exciting when he's not apart of it.

video and images from tomford.com

And to all a good night...

2010-12-24T17:29:00.004-05:00

See you in the New Year, kids.

image from guybourdin.com

Mrs. Draper, you're trying to seduce me...

2010-12-14T12:39:00.014-05:00

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the intersection between Hollywood and fashion. On the one hand I understand it and have come to accept that most American fashion magazine covers feature celebrities instead of models, that red-carpet watching has become a national pastime, and that celebs are considered integral to a designer's success. On the other I wish the boundaries between Hollywood and fashion were more clearly defined because the open border between the two nations makes it far too easy for things like Lindsay Lohan to happen to perfectly innocent couture houses. But in all honesty things like celebrities gracing our covers or showing up in a campaign isn't something that pisses me off on principle. As long as the result is good I'm fine with it. Unfortunately the list of quality ad campaigns with celebrity faces is a short one, so in general I don't look forward to the news that a celebrity has been cast. I think so many of them fail to impress because the designer and their team and/or the photographer and theirs seem to think that having so-and-so with the famous face in the campaign is enough to make the campaign. Every so often though there's an anomaly, a case where all of the chips - celebrity, design house, photographer, photographic elements - fall into place and you're left completely shocked that the end result doesn't suck. Such is the case with the hot-off-the-presses S/S 2011 Versace accessories campaign staring Mrs. Draper-Francis herself, January Jones.

There's no mixed feelings about this. Stunning, stunning, stunning. It is without a doubt the best campaign Testino has done for Versace, one that really reminds us of exactly what it is that he's capable of. The choice of celebrity should come as no surprise to anyone since Jones is often seen wearing Versace to events. She's gorgeous to begin with, but she looks absolutely incredible in the shots that have been released so far. I love that the hair and makeup so clearly recalls January's look as Betty, not to mention that her expressions, from wan detachment to icy determination, seem right out of the ex-Mrs. Draper's handbook. But let's be honest here, there's a sexuality to these images that I doubt anyone would associate with Betty Draper. The pin-up poses and teases of nudity are more sex bomb than ice queen. It's a great contrast, and it makes for images that are both aloof and alluring, kind of look but don't touch unless I tell you to. These accessory shots really have me wishing that January was cast for the entire campaign. Clearly she knows how to model, and honestly I'd go so far as to say that she's putting a lot of today's models to shame. Call it sacrilege if you must, but I think that photos like these could even give some of the greats a run for their money. Oh and January, consider your sins at the Met Gala absolved.

images from wwd, telegraph.co.uk and twitter/styledotcom

Shiny, shiny...

2010-11-27T23:00:00.000-05:00

In the year or so since I came into contact with my first Bond No. 9 fragrance I've spent a lot of time getting to know the line. For those unfamiliar with Bond No. 9 they're a New York based niche perfume line whose scents are inspired by and/or named after different areas of New York, mainly in but not limited to Manhattan. Bond's got a large range of scents, 40-something in all I think, so familiarizing yourself with the line takes some time. Having sampled at least half of their offerings I think I can say that I enjoy what Bond does. The collection is pretty varied in that there are different scents that will no doubt appeal to different tastes. Some of their fragrances are very classic, some are experimental, and some are just plain fun. Bond is also well known for their whimsical packaging. Many of the bottles are extremely eye catching and highly collectible.

At this point I'd have to say that my favorite Bond fragrance has got to by Silver Factory, which was the first in a series of scents that are inspired by Andy Warhol. Silver Factory is of course named after Warhol's legendary studio space that was famously decorated with tin-foil and metallic paint and which became a gathering place for the eclectic cast of people who surrounded him, everyone from socialites and Warhol superstars like Baby Jane Holzer and Edie Sedgewick to the Velvet Underground. Not only was the Silver Factory the place where Warhol created and produced some of his most iconic prints and films, it was for a time the epicenter of the zeitgeist.

Silver Factory the perfume is an incredibly interesting experience as far as fragrances go, which seems fitting given it's source of inspiration. The most prominent aspect of Silver Factory has got to be the smokey incense that's front and center from the first spray. The rest of the notes are pretty varied, ranging from grapefruit to violet to amber, though they all combine pretty seamlessly. The first time I smelled it there was something vaguely metallic about the first blast, which I was informed is deliberate, although the more accustomed to this perfume I've become the less apparent that metallic aspect is to my nose. Even still the smokey incense that really is the focal point of Silver Factory leans towards the cold side; to me there isn't really any warmth to it like there is with many other incense-based fragrances. I would guess the inclusion of floral notes like lavender and iris probably has something to do with that since they have a somewhat "cold" aroma to them, especially lavender. There's also bit of a sweetness alongside the chilly smokiness, thanks in part (I would guess) to the violets and the jasmine that are in the heart of the fragrance. As the notes blur together in a smokey haze the effect is really beautiful, and while it's not a completely bizarre smelling perfume it is pleasantly unusual.

As I was saying earlier Bond has quite a range of scents that will appeal to different sensibilities. Andy Warhol Silver Factory definitely stands out as something quite different, and I'd say it sits firmly in the "experimental" category. As such it will absolutely not appeal to everyone, particularly those who don't like bold, heavy fragrances. If light and transparent is your thing then I don't see you liking this at all. Floral fans shouldn't be fooled by the flowers that are listed among the notes because it isn't a floral by any stretch of the imagination. If, however, your taste in perfumes leans towards spice, woods or rich ambers then you might want to check this frag out. Silver Factory is marketed as a genderless scent, and to me it really is the epitome of genderlessness. Some might feel that it skews a bit masculine due to the overall lack of anything truly sweet or soft, but I don't really think that it skews one way or the other on the gender spectrum. If anything it's kind of androgynous, which is really how it should be considering who inspired it.

images from bbcicecream and saks.com; for more information visit Bondno9.com

Return of the King...

2010-11-15T16:49:00.000-05:00

It's been six long years since Tom Ford took his last bow on a fashion runway, although take it from me at times it's felt like an eternity. There have truly been moments when I have been keenly aware that something was missing from fashion, and not surprisingly those times have usually coincided with fashion week. What I'm about to say might sound like I'm giving Ford too much credit, but I honestly believe that when Tom left Gucci fashion lost a bit of it's luster and excitement, and it still hasn't entirely recovered from that loss. While his departure certainly hasn't been the only cause of that, nor has it been the biggest blow to fashion, looking back it does seem like his farewell was the beginning of the end. Slowly fashion has become less glamorous and less seductive, not to mention that any kind of mystique surrounding the industry has been completely obliterated thanks to factors like the increasing influence of celebrities in fashion, the insane popularity of fashion among people who don't actually know anything about it, and the marketing of fashion as yet another form of entertainment. It also just seems like real fashion moments have become fewer and farther apart. Not all designers can create true excitement with a runway show, or an ad campaign, or a fragrance launch and whether you like him or loathe him the fact is that Tom Ford was, and is, capable of working a fashion moment for all it's worth.

In the six years since he bowed out of the theater of fashion he has collaborated with Estée Lauder, branded his name on status symbol eyewear, created a line of successful luxury fragrances, launched a full-scale menswear collection, dressed countless celebrities in said menswear, opened about 20 free-standing Tom Ford boutiques internationally, directed a critically acclaimed film, and recently expanded into cosmetics with his new line of lipsticks and soon-to-be-released nail lacquers. Writing it all down in one sentence kind of makes you appreciate just how busy he's been, and lord knows a self-proclaimed perfectionist like Ford isn't going to let any product with his name on it escape inspection. But despite all that he's done in the last six years the one thing that his fans have been most concerned with was when Ford would finally go back to designing womenswear and showing on a runway. Back in September right at the start of New York fashion week, after years of waiting, speculation, and wondering "what would it be like?" the news spread like wildfire that Ford would finally be launching his women's collection with an intimate presentation at his Madison Avenue flagship. As the scoop leaked we found out that not only would celebrities be modeling the clothes but that photography of any kind was strictly prohibited. That news just about killed my buzz until the reviews from the show started pouring in the day after it took place. In all seriousness I cannot for the life of me remember a show that garnered such unanimously glowing reviews from those in attendance, and the descriptions of the scene, the clothes and the impressive cast of celebrities, style icons, veteran supermodels and in demand new faces that graced the catwalk only stoked the flames of anticipation. With the reviews there were a few snapshots that quickly made the online rounds, adding to the excitement. It was after the show that the reason for the media ban was announced; Ford would not only be relaunching his website with photos and video footage of the presentation come winter, but he would also be guest editing the December/January issue of Vogue Paris where the collection would be featured in it's entirety. What we didn't know was that American Vogue would also have a feature on Ford's women's debut and that the feature would be available before Vogue Paris. So here it is, kids. Savor it, because who knows how long it will be before we get more.

Gorgeous, not that I'm at all surprised. I don't know about you, but for me winter can't come soon enough. Needless to say that when it does, and when the rest of the features finally become available I will be reviewing the entire collection as soon as the euphoria wears off.

all images from vogue.com thanks to Flashbang at tFS

Walk on the Wild Side...

2010-11-01T19:50:00.001-04:00

Here in the Northeast fall is in full swing, and while I'm already sick of the shortened days and I'm absolutely dreading winter I do take some comfort in the fact that this time of year suits my perfume personality better than any other. I've already put all of my crisp citruses, beachy tropical stuff and light eau de colognes in storage and broken out the woods, incenses and ambers. Along with my regular lineup I have a whole slew of new samples that I've been dying to try out.

Thus far I've sampled about a third of the 21 individual scents in Tom Ford's Private Blend collection, which is his own niche-style line. Of those that I've sampled I've only ever worn four of them, and of the ones I've worn Tuscan Leather was the one that made the biggest impact on me. When I first smelled Tuscan Leather, and it was probably close to a year ago, I wasn't at all familiar with leather fragrances, but something about it called to me and I decided to put some on my wrist for the day. It didn't take long for me to love it. There is something very, very sexy about Tuscan Leather. I've always felt that there was something inherently sexy about leather clothing, but I always assumed that it's the look of it and, more than anything else, the attitude it conveys. I never really thought that the smell had anything to do with it's appeal, and frankly I still don't. But it could be that Tuscan Leather is so evocative of the way new leather smells that it paints a clear mental image of the way it looks and feels as well.

To me the spirit of TL is more Elvis' 1968 comeback special or Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" than pre-gentrification Meatpacking District or Folsom Street Fair. It hints at the wearer's bad boy side without going into specifics about what kind of kinky stuff they're into. While that smoky leather stage lasts the feel of this Eau de Parfum is very masculine, even to the point of being butch. At some point, I'd say between the 30 and 60 minute marks, the scent changes subtly. It's almost like a creamy haze spreads over the leather, softening the rough edges and taming the smoke without completely neutering it. That creamy, hazy, softened leather is what remains as the fragrance gradually fades out, and let me tell you, the fragrance fades out very slowly. While I've never actually timed it, I'd guess that one or two dabs of Tuscan Leather lasts for a solid 7 hours, probably longer.

I've truly enjoyed Tuscan Leather each time that I've worn it, and I'm thrilled that it's finally cool enough to wear it. It's probably the butchest, most unabashedly masculine fragrance currently residing in my scent wardrobe. Price notwithstanding (you could buy a decent leather jacket for the same price as a small bottle of this juice) I could easily see myself using it as an everyday kind of fragrance. To me there's nothing about it that's particularly dressy, not that it's really casual either. I guess depending on the setting it could go either way. What does limit it though is it's potency and it's strength. I couldn't picture myself wearing Tuscan Leather once the temperature tops 60° F. The name alone kind of tells you that it's a bit too heavy for the heat. To me Tuscan Leather is the perfume equivalent of a five o'clock shadow; a little rugged, a little dirty, and so very sexy. It's definitely my type.

images from musicaloud.com and fragrantica.com

Do. Not. Want...

2010-10-19T22:07:00.000-04:00

With the number of fragrances I've smelled so far easily in the few-hundred region I'm surprised to say that I've only just come across a scent that, to me, smelled exactly like something else. Oh sure I've smelled things that remind me of another fragrance, I mean half of the products on the average men's fragrance counter smell indistinguishable to me, but I've never smelled something that immediately made me think of another scent. This is just my roundabout way of saying that my first taste of Giorgio Armani's Prive fragrance line was not quite as exciting as I had expected.

The Prive line was launched sometime in '04 or '05 with a small selection of scents that were supposed to be more luxurious and more exclusive than Armani's popular mainstream fragrances, and between the packaging and the price he definitely achieved that much. With spray bottles that come housed in kotibe wood (that's the PR talking, not me) boxes and caps that look like polished semi-precious stones the packaging certainly fits the Armani image; elegance and restraint. And at $185 US for 1.7 oz of juice in it's elegant and restrained container the line does maintain a bit of exclusivity, but when I read on various websites that the plain refill bottles which go into the refined, elegant kotibe boxes had popped up at TJMaxx and Marshall's stores nationwide for around $30 it became my mission to try and score at least one. The two that I was hunting for in particular, Bois d'Encens and Cuir Amethyste, appealed to me for different reasons. Bois d'Encens, a spice, incense and wood affair, sounded like the kind of thing I'm always drawn to, and Cuir Amethyste sounded just unusual enough to be potentially awesome. I never did find any for cheap, and I honestly just put the Prive line in the "low priority" section of my list of things to try. As it happened I was on one of my semi-routine trips to Saks with my intent being to continue my exploration of the Bond No. 9 line and I happened to pass by the Armani Cosmetics counter. Standing there on a perfectly minimal and orderly shelf was the Prive lineup in all it's wood-and-stone packaged glory. I hightailed it over, found Bois d'Encens and went right for my forearm, which I normally don't do but since there were no blotters and no sales associates to find some for me I figured what the hell. Before moving on I decided I needed to smell Cuir Amethyste too, so I grabbed a tissue from the makeup display and doused it. It's tacky, I know that, but I didn't really care.

Bois d'Encens

I had a feeling I would like BdE, which is why I decided to wear it, but I was completely unprepared to encounter something very, very familiar to me once the top notes faded away. Yes folks, for all it's elegant, exclusive packaging and the insane markup that comes with it Bois d'Encens smelled exactly like something that I'd not only smelled before but have been wearing for years. That fragrance, in case you're wondering, is Gucci Pour Homme. I've owned GPH since about 2004 and have worn it pretty steadily since, so I was shocked and frankly pretty amused to find that the $185 Eau de Parfum that was currently on my arm smelled exactly like something that I already own. For those of you who aren't familiar with Gucci Pour Homme it's a woody incense fragrance that was released in late 2003. I've read comparisons between GPH and cedar/pencil shavings, but there isn't any cedar in GPH. That's apparently the heavy duty frankincense, which I'm convinced is the same type of incense used in BdE. Maybe not surprisingly the two scents were created by the same perfumer, Michel Almairac. To satisfy my curiosity I paid another visit to the Armani counter and took a test strip sprayed with the stuff home to see if it smelled differently than it did on me. Apparently my skin amplifies the frankincense because on paper the scent isn't exactly like the Gucci after all, although they do have a very similar vibe. I'm not really sure what to make of Bois d'Encens now, although the fact that on my skin it smells just like something I have a bottle of is enough to convince me that I'll never need to own it. Even if it wasn't so similar it certainly didn't wow me, and for $180 it better knock my goddamn socks off.

Cuir Amethyste

Cuir Amethyste on the other hand was a bit more interesting, although I really ended up hating it....a lot. On paper it sounds like a rich, lush mix of notes like violet, labdanum, benzoin, birch, rose, vanilla and patchouli. On my skin it was rich all right, rich in a tooth-achingly sweet, headache inducing kind of way. For a while there it was pretty hardcore powdery as well before the basenotes settled in. Oh, and it lasted a long, long time. I didn't really sense anything leathery about Cuir Amethyste, although there was a vaguely sourish something that seemed to fade in and out every now and then. I will say this much for Cuir Amethyste, it kept me coming back. I couldn't stop smelling my arm, trying to decipher what it was I was smelling. And it had a very noticeable progression from the top on down. On the tissue I first shamelessly sampled it on it was kind of nice and pretty unusual, a creamy, sweet/tart, rich concoction that actually did smell "purple" in a way. Apparently my skin just hates it, ruining anything that may be good about it by projecting the sugar coated violets through a megaphone and drowning out pretty much everything else. I also have to say that despite it's unisex marketing it skews a bit feminine to my nose, more feminine than I would personally feel comfortable wearing, and bear in mind that I'm not one to strictly adhere to gender classifications in fragrances. On the plus side I'm pretty sure that I won't ever be including Cuir Amethyste on my "to buy" list.

images from armanicosmetics.com

Camp Out...

2010-10-08T09:30:00.002-04:00

Louis Vuitton

Well, Paris fashion week has come and gone ending yet another season's worth of shows. I have to admit that this week in Paris has been sort of low on emotional reactions from me. That's not to say I haven't liked any collections, but there's a world of difference between liking something and having a visceral response to it. God bless Marc Jacobs for managing to stir something in me, and not a moment too soon. His collection for Louis Vuitton, always a must see, turned out to be just the high note I was looking for. Like his eponymous collection shown in New York which was easily one of my favorite collections this season, Marc's collection for Vuitton was positively brimming with glamour, color, sex appeal and fun.

The mix of colors, shiny fabrics, pop art-y animal prints, fringe, sparkle, transparency and a heady whiff of the Orient makes for a collection that's deliriously, deliciously over the top. All of the different ideas, all of the design elements and influences that Jacobs crammed into the clothes were cranked up to their loudest decibel resulting in a collection that's almost defiantly campy and excessive. Looking through the pictures and watching the video all I kept thinking was that this is kind of the idealized fantasy version of fashion that people who don't follow it have. In fact this is the idealized version of fashion that likely draws people in to begin with. It's so completely ridiculous and glamorized, so flashy and downright decadent, but most of all it's above the every day. I think that's what really draws me to it, that deliberately fantastical artifice. I'll be honest, following fashion with any kind of dedication can remove a bit of the glamour and fun from it. When you become very familiar with it some of the mystique is inevitably lost and when that happens you start to see that fashion can at times be really boring, which makes a show like this, loud, gaudy and ridiculous as it may be, a welcome dose of fun and frivolity. I don't know if I truly love the clothes themselves as much as I love the message of the show as a whole, but I will say that for the second time in a single season Marc Jacobs has made me, an ardent fan of black, absolutely adore bright color. That's no small feat, believe me. Say what you will about the level of taste or practicality shown in this collection but Marc is that rare designer who is so utterly attuned to the zeitgeist that he can give people, including me, what they're craving before they've even realized they were craving it.

all images from vogue.com

The next chapter...

2010-10-06T02:20:00.002-04:00

Alexander McQueen

Easily the most anticipated collection of Paris fashion week this season was Sarah Burton's runway debut since she took the helm of Alexander McQueen earlier this year. It must be daunting enough for any designer to follow in the footsteps of someone so iconic and so revered, so I can't imagine how that feeling of pressure and nervous excitement must be compounded by the fact that people are still coming to terms with McQueen's untimely death. On the one hand that's not an enviable position to be in, where not only are people's expectations high but there hopes for a successful debut are as well. On the other, if you do succeed it stands to reason that you will be embraced that much more warmly by all of the people - buyers, stylists, editors, critics, customers, and fans - who are watching. From the beginning people have been wondering what it is that Sarah will do with the label, and I think her resort collection served as a very strong mission statement. She kept pieces of McQueen's DNA, filtered them through her own sensibility and created something that was in many ways the perfect middle ground. It felt McQueen, yet it didn't try to be McQueen, if that makes any sense. But I digress...

After looking at the Spring Summer 2011 collection, taking it in and sorting it all out I feel kind of terrible to say that it doesn't wow me. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination and there's no doubt about it looking like a McQueen collection, but something isn't clicking for me. It's not the lack of runway theatrics, because her static resort collection clicked pretty easily], and it's not the lack of something macabre or perverse either. There's beauty here, that's not the issue, and the clothes look very well made too. I truly wish I liked this more than I do, but the most I can say is that I like the collection. It does what it needed to do, which is continue in the tradition of the label, but something feels off.

I just can't put my finger on exactly what's keeping me from feeling more for this collection. The best I can come up with is that I don't get a purposeful statement from what was presented. Pretty as the pieces may be they don't seem to add up to a whole, for me at least. And I hate to say it because I'm really rooting for Burton, but some of the pieces seem over-designed. The things I like best are the more simple looks like some of the tailoring and the few chiffon dresses that were shown. The more dramatic structured pieces, while very McQueen, just aren't working for me. Same goes for the elaborate prints, although I can't blame Burton for that. I'm honestly just burnt out on hyper-detailed photo/digital prints after seeing them everywhere for a solid two years, if not longer. Still, like I said, I'm rooting for Burton, and I really look forward to seeing her grow into her position and find her footing. Maybe in the long run this show will have served as something of a palette cleanser, something to bridge the end of one era and the beginning of another.

all images from style.com

Striptease...

2010-10-04T10:00:00.002-04:00

Haider Ackermann

Haider Ackermann has become one of the shows I consistently look forward to during Paris fashion week, and that mainly has to do with the fact that he consistently makes clothes that leave me breathless. I know that sounds like your typical melodramatic fashion hyperbole, but it's true. There's always something in his collection, be it an idea, a look or a single piece that stops me in my tracks, so to speak.

I don't know for sure what was going through Ackermann's mind while he was working on his Spring Summer 2011 women's collection, but if I were to go by what he showed it would seem that he had sex on the brain. Almost all of the looks he sent out onto his runway appeared as if they were either in the midst of falling off or as if they'd been hastily thrown back on and as a result there were copious amounts of skin on display, whether it was a neckline plunging down to the navel, a back that's completely cut out, or a skirt slashed open over the hip and up the leg. The double whammy of clothes that appear to be barely hanging onto the body and glimpses of naked flesh definitely gave the collection a bit of an erotic charge. The hints of kimono dressing, seen most prominently in ribbons tied and bunched into half-tied obi-like bows, as well as the few striped silk pieces that recall men's pajamas only added to the collection's overriding sense of elegant seduction and déshabillé.

I'm absolutely in love with this collection, as I have been with all of Haider's work for a couple of years now. Something about this one in particular feels more forceful, more assertive than I would normally think of his work being. You can see that in the colors, those bold splashes of crimson, yellow, emerald, cobalt, turquoise and purple that were used as a contrast to black. But you can also see it in the sometimes graphic way the clothes are cut. Those few skirts that are slashed along the hip, or the tops that look like a sliced up tuxedo jacket are a good example of that. Those qualities give this collection an entirely different spirit than what I've come to expect from Ackermann. It's still 100% in keeping with what he does best. Bright color aside there's no way you would mistake this for anybody else's work. One thing that's bothering me though is the shade of green that was used for a few looks. I'm generally not a huge fan of green, although I can tolerate it sometimes, but that particular shade is a huge turn off. I wouldn't have included it and I probably wouldn't have included the single turquoise dress either, but mostly because it's just kind of random among the other colors. Other than that this is yet another beautiful offering from Mr. Ackermann, which is exactly what I've come to expect from him.

all images from style.com

Bare Essentials...

2010-10-02T21:32:00.000-04:00

Lanvin

Imagine, if you will, a Lanvin collection stripped bare of all beading, feathers, fringing, draping, volume and jewelry. Easier said than done, right? That's because all of those things, which of course sound like a successful recipe for a drag revue, are at this point so much a part of Lanvin's identity that imagining a collection without them is like not imagining a collection at all. But the lack of all those things is precisely what defines the Spring Summer 2011 collection that Alber Elbaz whipped up. Compared to recent offerings this one is uncharacteristically spare, and it's probably better off for it. Don't get me wrong, I love what Alber does with embellishment and drape, but he's been on that train of thought for a while now. I loved (and still love) his Fall collection, but like I said when I reviewed it, the pieces that I responded to most were the sharp, simple ones that opened the show. At the time they felt fresh and this collection sort of picks up where those looks left off. The clothes for spring have been almost universally stripped bare of anything extraneous and as a result the clothes, from the zippered day dresses worn with flat sandals to the billowing skirts worn with what appear to be bodysuits, read more like sportswear than anything Elbaz has done in a while. In fact many of the opening looks, with panels of draping inset onto a fitted dress or those aforementioned billowing skirts, almost make me think of modern dance wear, the kind of stuff Martha Graham would have worn. Actually looking at it now quite a few of the looks make me think of that. Pieces like that chocolate off-the-shoudler caftan, the full, billowing nylon parkas, and even the few short chiffon goddess dresses in colors like rust, nude and lichen could be costumes for some kind of performance.

In place of beading, volume or heavy draping there are details like zippers, leather belts or harnesses, and tight Fortuny-esque pleating. Even the colors are mostly on the subdued side, save for a middle passage that included neon yellow, hot pink, crimson, and plum. Much as I like some of the pieces from that section I don't really get the color choices. Compared to the rich mineral colors that opened and closed the show they seem kind of jarring, pretty as they might be. I also don't get the four suits comprised of a jacket, matching skirt and matching skinny pants. They seem really odd for the sake of being odd, and that's never a good thing. As usual the collection is pretty dress heavy, though a number of them could be worn for day as evidenced by the choice to pair them with flat sandals and shoulder bags. Overall the clothes were easy to like and seem like they'd be really easy to wear, and while I kind of feel that the pendulum might have swung a little too far into the direction of "practical", robbing the collection of some of it's potential lust-worthiness, the bottom line is that these are still pretty clothes. It must be said though that the collection is extremely disjointed, like it's unsure of what it's trying to communicate. I don't think that's ever been an issue with a Lanvin collection before, so it's a little hard to process. Still, I think this might prove to be the right direction to take the house in moving forward. I don't think anybody wants to see Lanvin lose any of it's luster because it refused to change.

all images from style.com

Like a strand in the wind...

2010-09-28T01:00:00.000-04:00

Roberto Cavalli

In a way it makes sense that Roberto Cavalli, granddaddy of the glammed-up boho babe aesthetic, would have the final word on all things hippie-deluxe this season. In just 40 looks he managed to make every other collection that has toyed with the look seem so sad and half-assed by comparison, at least to me. Cavalli's been in an ongoing state of flux these last few years, trying, it would seem, to move his brand forward. Some of the results, like his F/W 2009 collection, struck me as positive steps in a new direction that still kept his aesthetic intact, while others have abandoned everything the label is about for reasons unknown. I guess I'm of the mind that if you're good at something you should stick to it, and what Cavalli is good at is super glamorous, super luxurious rock star clothes, which is exactly what he delivered for Spring Summer 2011, his 40th anniversary. I'm not even going to try hating this collection because frankly between the craftsmanship and the conviction of belief I think it's an extremely well done take on one of the season's prevailing moods.

On the Fashion Spot some threw out a comparison to Cher, and I can kind of see that. Hell, Cher was probably wearing Cavalli back in her early bohemian days with Sonny, so it's not far off the mark. But if the hair and hiphuggers are Cher then the more ethereal, floaty pieces trailing fringe every which way are pure Stevie Nicks. The dreamy sun-baked color palette certainly adds to the effect. I mean really, can't you just picture her twirling around in some of these dresses while singing Edge of Seventeen? Part of what makes Cavalli's brand of trashy, flashy fun stand out has always been his commitment to beautiful workmanship. Questionable taste aside the man and his staff have quite a way with leather, embroidery and printmaking, and this collection is a testament to those specialties. From the whipstitched crocodile, ostrich and python jackets to the lacing that held together pants and dresses the work that went into the clothes is obvious. To me that's one of the things that separates his take on this look from all the other designers who have done it this season, it really does look handmade, homespun even, but in the best possible way. Even the way it's styled seems somewhat authentic, like real women put these looks together with the things they own. It comes pretty close to looking and feeling one of a kind. The other thing that sets this apart from the crowd is how it really goes there. It risks being ridiculous in order to be convincing, unlike collections such as Gucci and Pucci which only dip their toes into the boho pool. Cavalli dove in head first and went as far as he could, and whether the clothes appeal to you or not I think that kind of commitment is something worth praising. Like Versace or Prada earlier in the week this collection is focused and uncompromising, which of course means that it won't please everybody. But since when is anything that pleases everybody worth noticing?

all images from style.com

The long and the short of it...

2010-09-25T22:20:00.001-04:00

Versace

If you were to play a word association game and the chosen word was Versace, I'd be willing to bet that "restrained" wouldn't be a response. Let's face it, there are dozens of adjectives that can be used to describe Versace, but words like restrained, minimal and spare aren't among them. Leave it to Donatella when she's in the mood for something different to change that perception.

Everything about the collection feels extremely focused and considered, from the restricted color palette to the sharply tailored (and limited) silhouettes. Even the house's signature Greek key pattern, which hasn't made an appearance on the runway in a while, was used very carefully in abstract painterly prints or as PVC/patent leather insets or appliques. Nothing about the collection, not even the silk fringe that was the only embellishment on evening dresses, felt excessive. But despite the rigor displayed in the clothes the collection recalls so much of the house's past. Watching the video I saw a lot of Gianni in the collection, although to me the collection doesn't feel burdened by references to his work. It's classic Versace but Donatella really made the look her own. None of Gianni's work that I remember was quite this slick or controlled. This being a Versace collection there's certainly no shortage of sex appeal, but this time around there's something about it that's very grown up and, dare I say it, sophisticated.

I haven't been this nuts about a Versace collection in a few years. Something about it feels genuinely fresh, unlike anything that's been seen from the house in recent memory. While the fall collection also had a graphic quality to it, I think this collection achieved much more appealing results. I do have a couple of complaints which I almost feel bad bringing up, but can't avoid. The first is the total lack of pants. I can appreciate that Donatella presented an extremely uncompromising vision - that's something to respect a designer - but considering how sharp the tailoring in this show was I wouldn't have minded a few looks based around this season's pant. But then I may just be idealizing that in my head and in reality pants would have lessened the overall impact of the presentation. The second complaint is the gowns at the end. To me they feel less like the logical conclusion of the collection and more like meeting an expectation. People expect gowns from Versace, and if we're being honest Versace does them well, but the three that made it onto the runway, all of them made of fringe built onto bodices and swinging from the skirt, weren't as strong as all of the pieces that had come before. They weren't necessary, and they weren't the best I've ever seen from Donatella, though I will grant that they also were not predictable Versace gowns, either. Ultimately the good far outweighs the bad in this collection though. It's a wonderful synthesis between past and future, and the result couldn't be more perfect for the present.

all images from style.com

Tourist Trap...

2010-09-23T21:29:00.007-04:00

Prada

Not many designers can manage to do something interesting with as tired a theme as resort-wear, but then not many designers have as twisted a mind as Miuccia Prada. In rapid change mode yet again (she is the queen of rapid change, after all) Prada ditched the headline making curves of her Fall collection for light, crisp, sometimes boxy clothes that combined such clashing elements as rugby or sailor stripes in a rainbow of crayon colors, prints inspired by baroque-era interiors, medical scrubs, the 20s, the 40s, the 50s, and souvenir t-shirts. The overall effect, at least to me, brought to mind a kind of retro tourism vibe, the look of post-WWII American or European women traveling to places like Cuba, Mexico and Brazil with a brand new wardrobe of clothes perfectly suited to a tropical climate. This being a Prada collection the results had a kind of intentionally cheesy and tacky quality to them.

While I don't necessarily love all of the clothes on their own, I can appreciate them for the most part. For instance, I don't actually like the three chemise dresses embroidered to look like souvenir t-shirts, but I certainly enjoy the humor of them. Same goes for the cartoon banana and baroque monkey prints, which I don't think many people would be able to pull of very convincingly. But they're still pretty clever. The pieces I do like are some of the colorful striped looks. More than sailors or rugby they make me think of beach towels, and that's really not a bad association when you're looking at summer clothes. I also love the fox stoles that a lot of the models were carrying. It's such a ridiculous idea, a fur stole for the summer, made even more ridiculous by the fact that they weren't even being worn. I'm especially fond of the striped ones. With the dangling tails they kind of look like the Cheshire cat from Alice in Wonderland. I don't know if anyone else got that, but it makes me smile, so who cares? One thing that this collection makes clear, yet again, is that Miuccia is undoubtedly at her best when she's fucking up a cliche.

all images from style.com

Crash and Burn...

2010-09-22T17:52:00.003-04:00

Gucci

I knew it couldn't last. The restraint she showed, the optimism I felt. They were temporary, erased by the new. Logically I knew that I'd probably be feeling let down, but I still hoped I wouldn't. This is my way of saying that the Spring Summer 2011 collection that Frida Giannini presented was such a drastic departure from the positively good collection she put out last fall and which won me over, despite my distaste for the woman's prior work. With this new collection she reverted back to her former tactics faster than you can say "stiletto", and it's killing me. Watching the show, which seemed to unintentionally be broken up into three separate collections, was upsetting because after last season I've seen what Frida is capable of. She's still no Tom Ford, and she never will be, but she can do luxurious, sexy, grown up clothes that positively reek of Gucci's essence. Why she decided to shoot herself in the foot instead of going 2 for 2 is beyond my comprehension.

The collection started out with jewel tone silk separates, tapered trousers, blazers, blouses, and tulip skirts and in their clashing shades of orange, jade, purple and cerulean accented with gold accessories and red lips it would be nearly impossible not to think of Yves Saint Laurent. He was the master of these kinds of lurid mixes of color. I wish I could say that Giannini's homage did the originator justice, but instead of looking artistic, beautiful and unusual Giannini's mix of colors just looked cheap. There was zero sophistication which, mean as it sounds, is a testament to her eye for color. She may like using it but in this case anyway it wasn't used well. Ignoring the color the pieces are no great shakes with their slight 70s vibe. Compared to Marc Jacobs collection, which went there and back, it's no wonder I find these looks completely forgettable. I do like the black blouse on Natasha though. Apparently the back was cut out.

The next section, which was significantly larger, was done in shades of beige, tan and black and had a vague "safari" flavor. You know what that means, harem pants, neat jackets in exotic skins detailed with lots of junk like tassels, fringe, and braiding, and a bit of ethnic beading to finish things off. Again this section recalled Yves Saint Laurent, though an entirely different side of his work. If the opening looks harked back to his vibrant disco days then this section was pure, unadulterated, mid-60s Saharienne with just a hint of Marrakesh thrown in to cover all the bases. It's a look that's been done countless times, and honestly Frida isn't adding anything remotely new to the theme. Save for the overload of details this was textbook fashion, the kind of ready-made go-to inspiration that designers latch on to like flies to a zebra carcass. While this was the largest section of the collection it was also the most uneven. There were some beautiful pieces, but between the over-styling and the over-embellishing that went on they got a little lost in the shuffle.

The third and final section was, unsurprisingly, eveningwear and for evening Frida referenced yet another moment in Saint Laurent's career, his African collection of 67/68, in all it's tribal beaded, feathered and fringed glory. After sending out three black jumpsuits with gold detailing that, were it not for the extremely dropped crotches would have been kind of pretty, Giannini sent out what were no doubt meant to be her "drama" pieces, the ones that end a show with a bang. It's unfortunate that, for me at least, the obvious work that went into making them is overshadowed by the fact that they are both overdone and unflattering. Watching the live stream, with the size 0 and 2 models walking down the runway in their fringed, beaded, and feathered dresses, hands thrust into side pockets, I couldn't help but think of how insane it is to make a dress that is already wide around the hips appear even wider by adding pockets. Frida's a woman, and if a woman is making dresses that look kind of bulky on a too-thin model (forget about a woman who actually has a waist and hips) there is seriously something wrong.

Besides feeling like a completely unfocused collection it also feels like a giant step backwards for Giannini. I've always felt that she has relied way too heavily on special effects and not enough on the basics of designing clothes such as cut, shape and fit. There are times when it feels as though she's thinking of the embellishments first and simply applying them to whatever garment will accommodate them, and there are others when it seems like she thinks she needs to work a piece to the nth degree for it to be luxurious or special. I don't understand why she'd revert back to this comfort zone after showing that she can in fact restrain herself and produce results that are better looking than when she goes for the glue gun. I also can't help but criticize the lack of continuity in this collection. Style.com namechecked Guy Bourdin and Chris von Wangenheim as two sources of inspiration, and while I could maybe grant that the bold colors that opened the show have a vaguely Bourdin kind of feel (and I do mean vaguely) I don't see much of Wangenheim's twisted sexuality here. I also don't see how photographers who helped define the look of the mid-to-late 70s relate to Marrakesh, safari or tribalism via YSL. Fact is those references come from an entirely different decade than Bourdin and Wangenheim. There's no real connection between them and Frida didn't succeed at creating one, which is why this one collection of 44 looks is broken up so jaggedly. There's no flow from those colored disco silks to the beige harem pants and leather jackets that came next, just like there's no flow from the desert tinged safari section to the glitzed up sub-Saharan tribalism that closed the show. Weird thing is I don't all out hate this collection. It's certainly not the worst that Giannini has done and some of the pieces, like those black jumpsuits which are really the only pieces that successfully merge all of the references, are kind of nice. But I can't say that I think the collection is very good. It's not. Like I said, I knew that last season would turn out to be a fluke, I really did, but I still hoped that it might be the start of a new chapter at Gucci. It was nice while it lasted I guess.

all images from style.com

Something Old, Something Nu...

2010-09-19T18:55:00.004-04:00

Engrossing myself in the world of fragrance has brought about many different emotions ranging from sheer boredom to pure ecstasy. Falling into the latter category is one of the fragrances I am currently obsessing over, Yves Saint Laurent's now discontinued Nu Eau de Parfum. Blame it on ignorance, but while this feminine release was still on the shelves I paid it absolutely no attention. I'm not even sure why to be completely honest. I don't think it was because it was marketed as a women's scent and I was not yet in my "I don't give a f*** how it's categorized" phase. I distinctly remember sampling Alexander McQueen's Kingdom when it came out in 2003, despite the fact that it was also sold at the women's counter. Honestly I think I was just unaware of it, shocking given my well documented obsession with all things Tom Ford. Nu was his first contribution to YSL's fragrance division after all, and having now smelled it for close to six months I can say that it was a great first effort. What a shame that it was killed off, because it's absolutely gorgeous.

the ad campaign photographed by Mario Sorrenti

I've very quickly learned that I respond well to incense fragrances in general, and that's exactly what Nu is. Mixed in are bergamot, black pepper, white orchid, sandalwood, vetiver and some other notes that vary depending on whose word you take for it. It must be the fact that any bottle of Nu is about 5 years old by now, but I got absolutely no bergamot top notes from the sample I ordered, not that I'm complaining. When I popped the cap on that vial I knew I was a goner. It was love at first sniff as the 'fumies say. That first intoxicating whiff was like a drug. First off, it's quite genderless. I had read plenty of reviews that had said it was, but smelling it in person convinced me of it's possibilities as a unisex fragrance. The white orchid does make an appearance but it doesn't scream FLORAL, it just kind of hints at it and combined with the incense and pepper, which really balance it out, the overall effect is at the same time exotic and urbane. It's quite stark in that the composition is very simple and also very linear, at least on me. My one complaint, which I guess is relatively minor, is projection. Even though Nu goes on strong it mellows out considerably, and while it's probably got more projection than a "skin scent" it's still relatively quiet. I'm honestly not sure what breed of perfume Nu would be categorized as (neo-minimalist oriental?) but like a lot of incense fragrances I find it both sensual and serene, not a bad mix of qualities if you ask me.

Like I said I'm obsessing over Nu, constantly scouring the internet and any of my reputable shady fragrance discounters for a good deal on it. But there's a part of me that's afraid to commit. It's this fear I have that after buying it, wearing it and enjoying it I'll find another incense that I like even more. I'm exactly the same way with big clothing/shoe buys, like the time I happened to be outlet shopping and popped into John Varvatos only to find that the entire store was 75% off the marked price. That means that the $1,500-ish leather jacket that looked fantastic on me was in the $375 range, the only catch was that it was final sale. I'm still kicking myself for not adding that jacket to my closet for fear that I'd find one I liked better. I never did, and the jacket was lost forever. There's also this little voice in the back of my head wondering aloud if I only want Nu so badly because it's rare. I mean I doubt I'd spend any time hunting something down that I don't like at all, but would I want to own it so badly if it wasn't for the fact that it's not easy to get? This is just a taste of the thinking that goes on whenever I'm about to go in for the kill. At this point I think I just need to take the plunge, if for no other reason than keeping my sanity.

image from mes-parfums.com

A clean slate...

2010-09-15T22:20:00.000-04:00

Narciso Rodriguez

Once upon a time at the beginning of the decade that is rapidly coming to a close, I was a Narciso Rodriguez fan. His razor sharp, super spare dresses that were cut to hug the female form were some of the sexiest clothes around, certainly some of the sexiest clothes being shown on this side of the pond. There was, I would guess, a two year period where I really grew to love his aesthetic and the way he dressed women. Sex on legs is actually a pretty apt way of describing it, though it never veered into Versace/Cavalli/D&G levels of skin and sin. But, as with all good things, he had to change things up to keep people interested. In the years since he has played with volume, movement, shape and color, and while there have been times when I've liked the results overall they never really whipped me into a tizzy.

But for Spring Summer 2011 he sent out a collection that, while not quite the same as the good old days, certainly shared some similarities. Back was his familiar long, lean silhouette that ended somewhere between the knee and the ankle, though this time around, with many of his dresses rendered in soft, fluid fabrics, it was as if all the internal structure was removed from his signature sheaths leaving a languid fabric shell that barely grazed the body. God only knows why but pieces like a long white satin t-shirt dress with a scooped neck or a slip made of contrasting panels of gray silk held up by spaghetti straps and slit up the leg just looked damn sexy. Granted I'm not an authority on what makes a woman sexy, but even still I'd stop and look if the right woman walked by wearing one of those dresses.

While I realize that the length and shape of the majority of these skirts are extremely uncompromising, they're the kind of clothes that make me wish more women could be flattered by them because it's such a beautiful way to look. I feel like I say this a lot, but I really, really hope that this collection signals a change in direction for Narciso. Plain as they are these clothes are a welcome return to what made me fall in love with his collection to begin with.

all images from style.com

Love to love you, baby...

2010-09-14T10:00:00.000-04:00

Marc Jacobs

One can always rely on Marc Jacobs to provide a solid jolt of electricity when fashion week is off to a slow start. It's not that the collections shown so far have been bad necessarily, it's just that most of them have been lacking a point of view. I guess it's not really a surprise that Marc's should stand out; it's just about as different from everything else that's been shown this week as it could possibly be. Everyone else is showing tons of white and barely-there pastels, Marc goes all out with rich jewel and spice tones. Everyone else does sharp, streamlined silhouettes, Marc does volume. And while I wouldn't go so far as to call the collection maximal, compared to the recent movement towards minimalism fashion has been experiencing there was a sense of frivolity and fun on Marc's runway that I just don't think you can achieve when you're stripping clothing down to their most basic form. I don't think this collection is such a departure from the beautifully restrained collection Jacobs showed last season. Yes this is louder and far more extroverted, but just like last season the focus here is primarily on the clothes. There's nothing conceptual about it, no message to decode, no figuring out what is and isn't meant for retail. Really the only difference, except for the surface stuff like color, shape and fabrication, is the mood. In that way this collection is last season's polar opposite. Whereas fall was sedate, soulful and romantic spring is sexy, vibrant and very, very glam.

While I was watching the live feed I kept thinking of "The Beautiful Fall", author Alicia Drake's non-fiction account of Karl Lagerfeld's and Yves Saint Laurent's individual but parallel rises to fame, a large part of which took place in Paris during the early 70s. In the book there is quite a cast of supporting characters, including model Donna Jordan who was something of a muse to both Lagerfeld and illustrator Antonio Lopez, and whose look must have inspired this collection to some degree. I also see bits of Donna Summer, Loulou de la Falaise, Pat Cleavland, Bianca Jagger and Jodie Foster's character in "Taxi Driver", not to mention vintage Saint Laurent and Chloe designed by Lagerfeld himself. Those are just the references I myself can spot, I'm sure I'm missing some. It's no surprise that the clothes are unmistakably retro when you can see style icons of the decade so clearly in the show, but that doesn't really bother me. Maybe it's because this particular look that calls to mind the transitional period between the early 70s bohemian and late 70s disco eras isn't something that's been big on the fashion landscape recently. There have been hints of it in stores with items like high-waisted flared denim and printed maxi dresses, but it hasn't been a main theme in fashion of late. Even though a lot of the clothes are fairly literal interpretations of the past I can still see a great deal of them appealing to women of today. Of course the styling, from the frizzed out Bourdin hair and vampy makeup to the flower and feather chokers and those fantastically kitschy parasol hats, really help make the look as fabulous as can be, but I accept the fact that those things probably won't catch on with the public. All in all this was a wonderful shot of energy in what's been a fairly lifeless New York season so far.

all images from style.com

Guilt trip...

2010-09-13T09:33:00.002-04:00

It's been a few months now since Gucci first announced the launch of their newest feminine fragrance, Guilty. My reaction to the news was ambivalence. Gucci has been churning out fragrances a lot more quickly than they used to, and while that doesn't automatically mean the products aren't good it does make you question whether or not enough time and care has been given to the new scent. It hasn't helped that the promotion for these new fragrances has seemed like too much, especially once you get to smell them. To be frank there isn't one of their newer releases that I really love all that much, although if you forced me to pick a favorite I'd probably go with Gucci by Gucci Eau de Parfum, and that's only because as a scent it's closest to the kind of stuff I gravitate towards. The appeal certainly doesn't have anything to do with the kitschtastic bottle it comes in, with it's engraved striped ribbon and chintzy horsebit charm. The other fragrances which have been directed by Frida Gianinni, Gucci by Gucci Pour Homme, Flora, and Gucci by Gucci Pour Homme Sport, strike me as utterly generic, to put it kindly. Not to beat a dead horse, but as with the rest of the brand Gucci's fragrances aren't what they used to be.

But enough back story. Despite my ambivalence towards yet another new release, the name of this new fragrance caught my attention. It definitely fits in nicely with Gucci's two most well known perfumes, Envy and Rush. All of them have names that connote a sense of danger and sin, and really what could be more old-school Gucci than that? I'm undecided as to whether or not I would have called this new one Guilt instead of Guilty, and I definitely would have called it Guilty by Gucci instead of Gucci Guilty, but sadly no one over at double-G headquarters asked for my input. Still, I think the name itself is good. Also good is the print campaign. The first shot that debuted with the announcement of the launch was, to quote Marisa Tomei, dead-on balls-accurate. In it actress Evan Rachel Wood, who I think is an unusual but interesting choice of spokesperson, kind of looked like iconic Gucci girl Georgina Grenville...at least to me. Who knows, maybe I'm just projecting. Maybe the familiar sight of a couple in a naked, sweaty, mid-coital embrace against a shadowy background looked enough like something out of Tom Ford's old play book that I was just visualizing Georgina's face on Evan Rachel's neck. Needless to say it's my favorite out of all the Giannini-directed Gucci fragrance campaigns for reasons that should be obvious.

(Tell me I'm imagining the similarities... )

However my love for the campaign ends with the photos. The TV commercial directed by Sin City creator Frank Miller might as well be another campaign entirely, because from where I'm sitting the look and feel of it is completely different from the still photographs. I don't think that Miller's neo-noir aesthetic suits Gucci very well. His aesthetic looks great in comics and in action films, but let's be honest, his work is designed to appeal mainly to heterosexual men, and this commercial is no exception. On top of that I find the blatant depiction of sex both trashy and banal (and again, something that would mostly appeal to men). While Gucci has always been about sex, it was never used so tactlessly. I find the print ad sexier simply because something is left to the imagination. That single photo is doing a better job at telling you what Guilty is supposed to evoke than the minute-long commercial is.

As for the fragrance itself, it's billed as a floral oriental with notes of mandarin, pink pepper, lilac, geranium, peach, amber and patchouli. Although I was determined to give it a sniff when it hit store shelves it sounds a little light weight for a perfume described as any breed of oriental. But when I saw that gleaming gold bottle (which has grown on me a bit since I first saw a picture of it) perched on it's display pedestal at Bloomingdales' fragrance counter I hightailed it over, made sure the SA was busy with someone else and liberally sprayed a blotter. At first I found it pretty, though as the notes implied, kind of light. I didn't remember there being anything heady or exotic about it whatsoever. So I forgot about it and left it to sit in my car. A day later when I accidentally found the blotter I had forgotten all about sitting in my cup holder I took a sniff and liked it a hell of a lot better than I had when it was fresh. Instead of the flowers and mandarin from the top what was left was a combo of patchouli, amber and something else that may or may not have been the remainder of the peach. I have a recently sprayed blotter in my hands as we speak and smelling it now over two week later it's more potent than I remembered it being, the florals are more pronounced and a bit powdery, though I still don't get much, if any, spice. Maybe I've just huffed my mother's vintage Opium one too many times and my nose has become jaded. Personally I could have gone for some incense or heavier spice or even a bit of musk somewhere in there. Frankly the drydown, which is nice, is the only thing that makes Guilty worth wearing, though I will say, considering the multitude of sugar bombs currently residing on the shelves at Sephora Guilty should provide a nice antidote for those who don't want to smell like a candy store. As for whether or not the name fits the scent, I'm not convinced that it does. To me the name suggests a hint of something corrupt or dirty, even if it's only fleeting. After all, guilt is the result of doing something that you know you shouldn't have done, or doing something that you've been told is wrong to do. Even if you repent the fact remains that you still did it. I wish Guilty had that implied hint of badness; it could have been really good if it did.

images from nstperfume.com, wwd.com, and mes-parfums.com

The Big BANG...

2010-09-10T13:50:00.002-04:00

I was excited when I read about Marc Jacobs' new masculine fragrance release earlier this summer. To be completely blunt I detest his original men's scent and regretted wearing it each time that I used my sample. Something in there, and I'm still not sure what, just did not agree with me. But even with the knowledge that the one MJ fragrance I've ever worn made me want to jump into the closest shower, I was looking forward to trying out his sophomore effort named BANG. Of course with the news of the new fragrance and a preview of it's fantastically ridiculous bottle that looks like some pretentious piece of abstract sculpture you're supposed to stare at very meaningfully while secretly not getting it, there was the very first glimpse of the ad campaign. Shot by Jacobs' go-to lensman Juergen Teller and starring Marc himself the ad is quite possibly the gayest thing I've seen all year, and trust me, that that's saying something. It's been floating around the net for a few months now, but for anyone who's not yet seen it, it's high time you did.

It's got all the essential ingredients for an Out editorial; abs, body oil, shiny stuff, random mismatched tattoos, stubble, a come hither expression (which is, ironically, not at all lust inducing) and a complete lack of clothing and shame. Now I know the ad is probably supposed to be at least partially tongue in cheek, but to me it just reeks of desperation and, oddly, insecurity. Once upon a time Marc was this nebbishy little downtown dude who just happened to be the coolest of the cool kids and didn't seem to care about fitting in. Over the last few years he's made himself over, and while I'm still a great fan of Marc the designer I honestly can't stand Marc the Chelsea scene-queen/pop culture icon. Something about his new image seems wrong to me, and this ad is just a glaring example of that. When I first saw the ad I remember saying something to the effect of "the old Marc would have found this ridiculous".

As for the scent itself I was intrigued by the list of notes that accompanied the announcement of it's impending launch. With an opening act of black, pink and white pepper and a combination of woods, benzoin, vetiver, moss and patchouli in the heart and base, it sounded like something I might be into. I managed to snag a sample while visiting the fragrance counter in late July when Bloomingdales was previewing it and I have to say, I'm not feeling it. The top notes are exactly what the name of the fragrance suggests, a big bang of dry, scratchy, spicy pepper. It's a bit like sticking your nose directly into a container of the stuff and taking a deep breath. That's how realistic it is. While it does have an appealing zing to it, and as unusual as an all pepper top is for a fragrance it gets to be really overbearing after the first minute or two. Thankfully it does chill out (eventually) and moves into a mellow spiced woods groove. With the traces of pepper it has an almost pine-y kind of vibe to it. Then again, since some of the notes are just listed as "woods" it could very well be pine. Or it could be that the mix of notes is playing a trick on my nose and creating the illusion of it. Whatever the case I'm not really a fan. For whatever reason pine is a smell, be it natural or synthesized, that I have never liked, so it's for damn sure I don't want it wafting from me all day long. Turns out though that I don't have to worry about it invading my nostrils all day because from start to finish the fragrance has only lasted 2-3 hours on me both times I've worn it, and while it does last it seems relatively tame as far as sillage goes. I guess this one just doesn't work with me. If I had liked what the scent was doing on my skin that would be a bad thing, but since the peppercorns outstay their welcome and the woods/resins don't combine to an effect that I find appealing the fact that it doesn't last isn't such a negative after all. I will give BANG this much, it's pretty unusual as far as mainstream designer men's fragrances go. There really isn't anything sweet or fresh or clean about it, and that opening is a little on the strange side. You'd be hard pressed to come up with something that smells similar if you were shopping the men's side at Sephora or any mid-to-high-end department store. I think it's worth trying for that pepper medley top alone, but I'd recommend spraying with caution.

image from mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander

F.Y.I...

2010-09-03T19:52:00.000-04:00

Okay, so by now I'm sure that anyone who has read this blog is well aware of my all-consuming obsession with fashion, and if there are any doubts keep in mind that the word "addiction" appears in the blog's name. It's that serious. What you probably don't know is that I also have a borderline unhealthy obsession with fragrances. It's still pretty new, but like a weed it took no time at all to grow. Funny thing is it didn't start because I had a genuine interest in scent. It started as a result of searching for a new scent that was different from the few that I already own and have worn for years. I'm a full fledged junkie by this point, scamming samples out of any SA who will give them and hording them like food rations. I figure that as with any obsession, talking about it can only help. So that's exactly what I'm going to do. Stay tuned...

And in case you were wondering no, I still haven't found that one new fragrance to add to my collection.

Hate is a strong word...

2010-07-21T17:53:00.013-04:00

But sometimes it's the only word that seems appropriate. When the first image from the new Gucci Fall Winter 2010 campaign hit the Fashion Spot, I was excited to see what it would look like. The collection itself left a good impression on me, so naturally I was hoping the campaign would do the same. Let's just say that my initial impression of it wasn't so good. But I was willing to hold off announcing my verdict until I saw more. Unfortunately seeing more didn't change my feelings at all, and I pretty much hate what I've seen of the campaign. Now frankly, I don't think that Mert & Marcus' style suits Gucci. Their work is always recognizable for it's hyper-fection (I know that's not a word, but give it time), and I think that their super exaggerated look has it's place in fashion, Gucci just isn't it. But these photos go beyond exaggeration; they're downright cartoony looking. Seriously, I look at them and I see a digital illustration, not a photograph. I'm assuming that's the point, but I honestly cannot stand the way it looks. The plastic Barbie and Ken doll quality is just extremely unappealing. It's also kind of odd considering that most of Gucci's appeal is based on the suggestion of sex. As far as I'm aware there isn't anything sexy about a Barbie doll. The poses are unappealing as well, and despite what seems like a lot of effort on Raquel's part, I don't see anything "fierce" about them. To me they just look ridiculous and far too modely. Back in the day you never would have seen a Gucci girl hamming it up like some contestant on America's Next Top Model, trying to out-pose the competition. She was far too cool for that. Apparently that's not the case anymore, and that also goes back to Mert & Marcus. Love 'em or hate 'em those poses are very much a part of Mert & Marcus' ouvre. Something about the color palette is bothering me too. Rather than enhancing the warm tones of the clothes, the goldness of the sand is just sort of washing everything out. It's just one big blur of different shades of beige paired with a shade of blue that's better suited to the ocean thanthe sky. Color wise I think the shots with black clothing are marginally better, although that's not saying much. But I think I might be able to look past the aesthetics if these ads had anything at all to do with the look and the message that both the men's and women's collection delivered. Both collections were slick, sharp and very polished looking, they wouldn't be out of place on the streets of any metropolis or in a dimly lit nook at the chicest of nightspots. However, the clothes do look completely out of place in a desert. I mean, I don't demand utter realism from my fashion ads, but the sight of a fur coat or velvet hiphuggers in a desert with the blazing sun glaring off of every surface is a little too ridiculous.

Oddly enough this isn't the first time a Gucci campaign has taken place in a desert. It's happened at least twice before that I can recall, and one of those campaigns, Fall Winter 2000 by Alexei Hay, seems to have inspired this one. There was even a shot of a model in a fur coat reclining on a desert rock (for the record I believe all of the backgrounds used in that campaign were fake/digital). I actually happen to like that old campaign quite a bit. I've been trying to figure out why I like that one and dislike this one, and I suppose it boils down to two things; while the backgrounds in that F/W 2000 campaign look intentionally fake the models themselves don't, and the incongruity of the backgrounds (there were also shots that took place in front of a freeway overpass and on a stormy beach) seemed intentionally weird, whereas this background in the Moroccan desert probably wasn't meant to be as incongruous as it is. Those ads didn't make sense, and I get the feeling they weren't supposed to. They were just supposed to be beautiful, unusual images, and that's exactly what they are. I don't think this new campaign has either of those qualities going for it. More than anything I'm just disappointed that this collection, easily Giannini's best and probably just a fluke, wasn't better represented in print. It deserved to be.

images from oystermag.com, stylelist.com and twitter/rushes via ThiagoMello at tFS

Paris, Je ne t'aime...

2010-07-08T22:12:00.006-04:00

Jean Paul Gaultier

You know it's like clockwork, twice a year at six month intervals I'm reminded of just how much I used to love Gaultier. I wish I still did but I just don't anymore. In fact there are times, like last season, where I don't even like Gaultier's haute couture. I've wondered if maybe I've changed, that I've seen more of fashion than I had when I first became aware of Gaultier's work, or that my taste has simply evolved, or maybe even that I just idealize his past collections. But then I've looked at those older collections, the ones that left an impression, the ones I loved then and still love now, and it's plain to me that it isn't me that's changed, it's Gaultier.

As for what has changed about his work, that's not as easy to pinpoint as it is with, say, Galliano's work at Dior. The general impression I'm left with is that these days there isn't much subtlety in Gaultier's work any more. It's a given that he's always liked to play with wit, subversion and kitsch, but these days it seems like those elements are the dominant ones, whereas in the past his couture collections were a wonderful mix of wit, intentional bad taste, faultless French chic and old school glamour with whatever his seasonal inspiration happened to be. Comparing his older work to his newer work is like comparing wry humor to slapstick. The former uses intelligence to make you laugh, the latter uses silliness. To me this season's collection highlights that difference between Gaultier's past and present extremely well. The collection was inspired by Paris via Yves Saint Laurent's infamous 40s collection of 1971. That collection, if not the most famous collection of Saint Laurent's 40 year career, is certainly one of the most famous. It's been extensively referenced by many, many contemporary designers over the years. The look of that collection is instantly recognizable; turban, red lips, a fox fur chubbie or stole, ruched jersey dress, stockings and heels. Once you know the formula you can see exactly where Gaultier found his inspiration this season, from the exaggerated knotted turbans (or hair styled to look like turbans), to the exaggerated rounded shoulders on coats and jackets, and the fishnet stockings with exaggerated Cuban heels that were actually a photo print of the Eiffel Tower. Notice I'm using the word exaggerated to describe everything. That was the overall effect; too much. Considering that the original Saint Laurent look is pretty exaggerated to begin with, Gaultier's riffs seemed more like caricatures than anything else. Paris isn't a new inspiration for Gaultier, in fact it's where he always seems to wind up even when his inspiration comes from somewhere else. That innate Frenchness is why so many people regard him as this generation's Saint Laurent. So it was disappointing to see him channeling that inspiration in such a cartoony, almost childish way this time around.

That lack of subtlety is really what bothers me about Gaultier these days. He just sort of whacks you over the head with how "witty", "ironic" or "chic" each look is, instead of letting you decide on your own whether they are or not. Even the shout outs to Saint Laurent, which have always been present in Gaultier's couture collections, are done in such a loud, obnoxious, tactless kind of way. I think it's safe to say that most people who are attending a Gaultier Haute Couture collection, whether as a client, critic, or editor would be able to recognize even the most subtle or subversive nod to YSL, so I really don't understand why Gaultier needed to scream them through a loudspeaker as if he were speaking to the hearing impared. And to me it's not just the styling or the presentations that have changed. I just don't think the clothes have the same magic that they used to, not for me anyway. Of course they're beautifully made, and of course his clients will buy them, but it's been a while since he sent something down a runway that took my breath away or made me do a double take. Even his extravagant show pieces don't do anything for me anymore, because they're usually so far over the top that they could make some of Galliano's mile-wide ballgowns seem almost subtle by comparison. I don't know, maybe this is the real Gaultier and all of those collections where he created sophisticated, sexy, chic, subversive clothes that were presented in an equally sophisticated, sexy, chic, subversive way were just the result of Gaultier holding back. If that's the case then I personally wouldn't mind seeing him shackle his more outlandish impulses.

Take a look at some of his older collections and see if you feel the same way.

Spring Summer 2001
Spring Summer 2002
Fall Winter 2002
Fall Winter 2003
Spring Summer 2004

all images from Style.com

Memento mori...

2010-07-06T18:00:00.010-04:00

Givenchy

I must admit that when it was announced a couple of weeks ago that Riccardo Tisci made the decision to scale back his Haute Couture collections for Givenchy, nixing a runway presentation and cutting the total amount of looks shown to the press down to 10, I wasn't thrilled. I could see the logic in his choice, because taking a still photograph of a garment up close is the next best thing to seeing it in person (which is what press and clients would be able to do). But I tend to prefer some kind of runway like setting, whether it's a traditional up-and-down runway or something more complex in the vein of old school Galliano. It's not even that I find a static salon presentation boring, it's that it's really hard to give context to a collection when you're simply photographing it in front of a wall. With music, lighting and set design you can create some kind of ambiance that complements the clothes. It also allows a designer to bring the audience into a world of their creation, to give the audience a more multi-dimensional look at what was going through their heads when they designed the collection. I also wasn't thrilled about the fact that last season's clunky, and honestly borderline ugly collection would be the last impression of a Givenchy couture show, until further notice at least. But I'm enough of a Tisci fan to have faith that he would deliver something special now that the focus would be entirely on an extremely limited number of clothes. On that count I don't think I was wrong.

Anyone who has been following Tisci's career at Givenchy can view the 10 looks he presented and see things that are similar to work he's already done. For the first time though I don't see that as a negative thing. My rule for designers is that if they're going to revisit something they've already done or rework a piece from their past they had better improve upon the original. In my opinion it's rare that that actually happens. I can't speak for everyone, much as I might like to, but I think that this time around Tisci actually did manage to take those old ideas and make them better. Each one of his ten looks had something familiar about them, from religious motifs to heavy beadwork, geometric cuts to intricate embroideries and appliques. But even at their most baroque, as in a narrow column dress completely encrusted in gold sequins and beads, the clothes didn't seem as labored as they sometimes have in the past. They were detailed to nth degree, no doubt about it, but I really don't think any of the clothes felt overwrought. Tisci's use of his inspiration felt completely under control as well. Even something like lace applique in the form of the human skeleton doesn't seem as gimmicky as it could have been. In fact, I think there's something really beautiful in that blend of purity and darkness, beauty and physical decay. You could also make the connection between the reminders of mortality as seen in the porcelain skulls that apparently adorn some of the white jackets and the seemingly imminent death of Haute Couture.

So yeah, I'm not entirely in love with this scaling back thing. At the very least I would have like to see a larger collection. But then I stop and think to myself that if scaling back was what it took for Tisci to make clothes that are this beautiful and this focused, then I really shouldn't have anything to be upset about, should I? If it wasn't for how small the collection was, I might go so far as to call this Tisci's best couture collection yet.

Unfortunately there's some copyright issue going on with the images Conde Nast is using at the moment, so you'll have to go to Style.com yourself to check out better quality images and rear views of each look. I'd recommend viewing them in full screen mode.

all images from WWD.com

In the golden afternoon...

2010-07-05T13:48:00.005-04:00

Christian Dior

I was absolutely not planning on having anything to say about the Dior F/W 2010 Haute Couture collection. That's pretty much why I stopped reviewing Dior shows, because I've had nothing to say about them except the same-old same-old; boring, stodgy, out of touch, beneath Galliano's capability. It gets tiring complaining about the same thing. But as it turns out I have something to say this season.

I don't hate it, not at all. In fact, there are things about it I quite like. For starters I like that Galliano took what is an extremely cheesy inspiration (flowers) that could easily have resulted in an equally cheesy collection of fusty Dior rehashes, and threw a bit of a curve ball. The clothes are flowery all right, but any flowers that inspired these clothes were probably seen on one of those neon black light posters with black flocked background, not in a garden. I honestly think that the black light poster comparison is kind of apt, because there is something delightfully tacky and kind of vulgar about this collection. Whereas a lot of Galliano's recent collections, both couture and ready to wear, have seemed like earnest attempts at doing tasteful, elegant clothing, this doesn't seem to be going for that effect at all. It seems like it was meant to be over the top and a little ridiculous. Why else would the model's heads be wrapped in colored cellophane like a floral bouquet? That little styling trick, coupled with the technicolor makeup and cartoony pompadours, was a nice touch that helped keep the collection from feeling stodgy. Same goes for the raffia craft ribbon tied around the waists of jackets and dresses. Overall there was something a little haphazard about things. This collection doesn't seem like it was the result of John and his team studiously poring over the Dior archives and painstakingly trying to recreate their beauty. Instead it looks like it came from the inside. It also looks like it was somewhat fun to create. The clothes may be tacky, or silly, or completely ridiculous, and they may not have that madcap spirit of old, but you can't deny that they have a certain liveliness to them that has been all but missing from the house recently. For me, that's the most exciting aspect of this collection. There's more passion in these 30 dresses than there has been in all the collections of the last two years combined. It also doesn't hurt that all I can think about while looking at this collection are those bitchy singing flowers from Alice in Wonderland.

Don't get me wrong though, this is still a far cry from what Galliano is capable of creating. As pretty as the colors and details may be, the fact is that these clothes are still not particularly contemporary. And I can't help but feel like it's kind of easy to look at flowers as a source of inspiration and just end up creating dresses that are meant to look like flowers. It doesn't take the strongest imagination to put hand painted petals cascading down the side of a dress. But on the plus side the clothes don't look like something Dior himself would ever have designed, so that's a bit of progress right there. Another positive is that for once the bright, borderline garish color palette makes utter sense given the theme of the collection, not to mention that some of the clashes are really quite beautiful and very well done. Even though this collection doesn't exactly erase the memory of the last few years it doesn't leave me wishing I hadn't bothered to look at it, either. That may not sound like much, but believe me, at this point that's high praise for a Dior collection.

all images from Style.com

Color me shocked...

2010-07-01T20:26:00.004-04:00

If I said that I've hated the ad campaigns Mario Testino has shot for Versace since 2005 it wouldn't be entirely true. Hatred is a feeling, and unless you want to count apathy I haven't felt a thing about any of them. My first experiences with Testino's work were his Gucci campaigns, and whether or not you liked those they were neither bland or predictable. When he took over from Meisel as Donatella's lensman of choice, I suddenly realized that I probably liked Testino only when Tom Ford and Carine Roitfeld were calling the shots. His American Vogue covers and editorials, ranging from pretty but banal to just plain banal, did nothing to convince me that I was judging too harshly. Now I don't want to make it sound like I always loved Meisel's work for Versace, because that's not the case. But even at their least interesting I can't remember any of his campaigns being mind-numbingly bland. Hell, even if they were the fact that I don't remember them that way should mean something, right?

But for some reason Testino's campaigns have always had this aura of lifelessness about them, and while that would be undesirable for most labels, it's downright sacrilegious for a label like Versace. Suck all the fun, sexiness and glamour out of Versace and there really isn't much left, is there? Needless to say Versace isn't one of the campaigns I look forward to seeing anymore. But still, curiosity got the better of me and I took a look at the campaign on the Fashion Spot and my jaw promptly hit the keyboard. It looks absolutely nothing like the work Testino has done for the house in the past five years.

I may just love it, though it's still too soon to tell. By Testino standards this campaign is almost edgy, and edge is something that Versace has been struggling to regain lately. There's something slightly gritty about the photos that compliments the mens and womens collections perfectly, and even though I wouldn't normally consider Versace gritty, the photographs are doing a pretty good job of making me reconsider. Quite frankly I wouldn't have thought Testino would be the photographer to make me reconsider that. Even at his best his work isn't exactly known for it's grit. This not only feels fresh for Versace, but very much of the moment. Lord knows I've bitched and moaned more than once when a designer or photographer falls into predictability, so to say that I'm thrilled about Testino doing something completely out of the box is kind of an understatement. And Kudos to Donatella and her team for knowing when to shake things up. I'm not at all surprised by the mixed response the campaign is getting so far; people don't like change, and neither Kate Moss or Gisele are in this campaign. But in fashion change isn't just inevitable, it's essential. So if this is a hint of the direction Donatella is going with the brand, I say bring it on.

all images from versace.com via tarsha at theFashionSpot

Turn the page...

2010-07-01T00:16:00.006-04:00

Alexander McQueen

Sometimes I kind of get the feeling that when a new designer is chosen to replace someone there's almost a desire for that new designer to fail, and a need to pick out their every flaw. My guess is it's a resistance towards change. I completely understand that, even if I've only ever experienced that once. But I think it's safe to say that Sarah Burton, the woman chosen from within the company to take the reigns after Alexander McQueen's death this past winter, has garnered quite the opposite response. When the news broke that she would take over as Creative Director of Alexander McQueen, people seemed positive about the decision. It's as though people don't just want her to succeed, but need her to. Let's face it, there is no one who can truly replace McQueen, but with his untimely passing leaving a gaping hole within the ranks of international fashion designers I get the feeling that people just want to see his name live on. That's where Burton comes in. Honestly I think that the position she's in seems more daunting than having a public hoping you'll fail. If expectations start out high and you don't meet them, it's all the more disappointing for everyone who was rooting for you. I wasn't going to judge Burton based on her first menswear outing shown earlier this month, and even now with the debut of the very first women's collection overseen by her for Resort 2011, I'm still not ready to completely judge whether or not she can shoulder McQueen's immense legacy. Ultimately her collection for Spring Summer 2011 will be the moment to judge her on. But I will say this, the collection of clothes that she showed is, in my not so humble opinion, a very promising start to a new chapter in the history of McQueen.

I guess nobody should be surprised by how "McQueen" this collection is. After all, Burton was his right hand for many years. Without being told that these photos are of a McQueen collection, I would have absolutely no doubt that they are. But this doesn't look like a case of one designer trying to emulate their predecessor, and it's not some caricatured version of "Alexander McQueen". Instead this looks like the work of somebody who was so in tune with the person she took over from that the change is seamless. You can see traces of something new in the hints of softness and the less aggressive spirit, but those hints of something different seem completely natural. There's nothing jarring about them at all. My biggest concern when is was announced that the label would survive beyond it's namesake was that the person chosen to replace McQueen would try too hard to follow in his footsteps and would end up designing on auto-pilot as a result. As much as seeing clothes that could have been designed by McQueen himself might appease some people, to me there would be something kind of soulless about simply trying to replicate another designer's personality. I doubt if anyone could question Burton's understanding of the McQueen DNA, after all she contributed to it, but I'm happy to know that she seems to have her own voice as well. It also doesn't hurt that she seems entirely capable of creating breathtaking clothes without the leadership of McQueen himself. I'll still wait to see her runway debut in the fall to decide whether or not she is the true heir to McQueen, but for now it seems like the label is in very capable hands.

all images from style.com

Simply Irresistible?...

2010-06-28T20:18:00.011-04:00

Each season the Lanvin campaign is highly anticipated, mostly because there's no telling what it will look like. Most of the time that anticipation pays off, with Alber Elbaz and Steven Meisel delivering unusual, striking campaigns that perfectly suit the collection they're selling. While I can't go so far as to say that the Fall Winter 2010 ads have completely failed at their mission, I have no reservations in admitting that I don't think they're the best they could have been, not even close. The weird thing is that, despite how below par I feel they are, they're still pretty dynamic looking. Mostly though I just don't think the spirit of the collection, with it's almost animalic rawness and an unmistakable aggression, was translated into the photographs at all.

First off, I don't like the coloring or the lighting that Meisel and Elbaz settled on. With all of the rich shades of brown, hints of warm, deep jewel tones and tarnished metallics that made up much of the collection I was hoping for and expecting the campaign to have the same kind of warmth and sensuality. Instead the lighting is cold and harsh, which works in some situations, but I don't love it here. I don't particularly love the styling either. I have a soft spot for Patrick Nagel's work, but it's been over two years since designers, photographers and makeup artists began revisiting the 80s and started channeling his white skin/black eyes/red lips look. As dramatic a look as it is, if I have to see one more model made up like one of his portraits or one of the girls in a Robert Palmer video I might crack. But the thing that's bothering me most is that there's something about this campaign that doesn't feel very "Lanvin". dior_couture1245 at the Fashion Spot brought that up, and as I looked at the images more I really did start to agree with him. Part of Lanvin's image is the slight imperfection in the clothes, or styling, whatever, and when you remember that, these super-slick, super-produced images seem very distant from the actual product. For an idea of what I might have liked this campaign to feel like, look no further than Dolce & Gabbana's S/S 2005 ads. I'm not suggesting that's how this campaign should have looked necessarily, although some similarities wouldn't have hurt in the least, but that's most definitely the vibe I pictured for Lanvin this season.

all images from WWD.com via Flashbang at tFS

Quoth the raven...

2010-06-25T00:54:00.008-04:00

I never thought I'd see a day when Tom Ford would be channeling Edgar Allen Poe for inspiration, and despite his new role in the directors chair I never really pictured him having an Alfred Hitchcock moment either. But if his newest ad campaign is any indication, Tom has a side to him that we've never seen before. Sure, he's tapped into the darker side of things with his fashion, but his brand of darkness has never been of the melancholy, terror filled variety, so seeing these new photos featuring that foreboding symbol of death, the raven, is kind of surprising.

There are many things we have already seen and might expect to see in any ad campaign that Tom Ford touches; ravens just don't happen to be one of those things. Bare nipples, however, are. But as predictable as a bare breast might be for a Tom Ford ad, a bird feeding on the blood seeping from a puncture in said breast is a completely bizarre and unusual sight. Overall I think the campaign is a nice mix of the twisted and the comical. I have to say, I had my reservations when I first read that Freja Beha Erichsen was cast as Tom's female model this season. While I'm not silly or immature enough to call Freja a "man" because she's on the androgynous side, I don't think she's the most sensual model in the world. That's fine of course, her look works for many other things, but for a designer who's M.O. is tapping into the most carnal of human desires you'd hope that the model chosen would match that. While my opinion hasn't changed in that respect, I do think that Freja looks good here. Nicholas Hoult on the other hand I have no complaints about. With those eyebrows of his he can pull of sinister pretty damn well. I find myself wishing it was a larger campaign, because even though the ravens look as fake as they probably are, the photos are pretty cool looking.

all images from tomford.com

Traveller of both time and space...

2010-06-17T21:18:00.004-04:00

Haider Ackermann

So in case you haven't yet heard Haider Ackermann, he of the draped leather blouson and sylph-like bias cuts, is launching a menswear line. Honestly the only reason I'm posting about it now as opposed to a month ago when it was first announced is because at the time the only thing I had to say was "OMGSTFU". That doesn't really make for the best blog post, you know? Apparently I missed a vital bit of info somewhere along the line though, because I was caught completely by surprise when I saw photos of his very first menswear presentation shown just yesterday at the Pitti Uomo shows in Florence. Not a half bad surprise at the end of the day, let me tell you.

I felt like I had a pretty good idea of what Ackermann's menswear would look like. After all, his women's collections do often have a slight androgyny to them. I was expecting lots of layers that mix tailoring and fluidity, pretty much monochrome colors, and lots of textures. In a nutshell I was really just envisioning more masculine takes on his feminine trademarks, and honestly that vision had me quite thrilled to see the results. While these preview clothes weren't a completely unforeseen curve ball, I have to say they're also not quite what I pictured, and I mean that in the best possible way. The clothing had a vague exoticism, kind of North African harem meets East Asian opium den, but with a decidedly Western sensibility. Silk robes, cropped trousers in brocade, patterned wool, and striped silk, slouchy shirts worn draped into belts and some gorgeous jackets with their sleeves pushed up to the elbow (naturally) were mixed and matched to great effect.

Even though there are multiple layers going on, none of the looks appear particularly heavy to me. I like the kind of adventurous vibe running through it. It makes me think of a man picking up different things during his travels that don't quite go and wearing them together; the black leather hooded vest paired with blood red brocade trousers with a gold pattern woven into them is a great example of that. Now, this being menswear I am of course looking at it with the question of "would I wear it" in the back of my mind. While I don't know that I could ever pull off the total Ackermann look (and frankly I don't think most men will have the élan needed to pull these looks off completely), I can absolutely picture myself trying to adapt it somehow. Not that that's hard, per se; some of the pieces are just downright lust-worthy (I'm thinking of that leather vest in particular). All in all it's a promising debut, and certainly enough of a tease to hold people's interest. You can be sure I'm looking forward to more.

all photos from style.com

Border patrol...

2010-06-14T22:14:00.007-04:00

Givenchy

This past year my relationship with Givenchy has been a little, shall we say, tepid. Riccardo Tisci's last few collections haven't done very much for me. It's unusual that I'm just kind of apathetic about his RTW and Couture collections, but his pre-collections usually do leave me a little cold. That's not the case this time around. For Resort 2011 he drew inspiration from artist Frida Kahlo, and thankfully it didn't rely on cliches, nor was it a parade of Kahlo look-alikes. Instead what we got were plenty of Tisci's signatures with a distinctly Latin flavor. Add in a touch of leopard print and plenty of the bold red that appears on and off in his work, and what you end up with is equal parts romance and passion.

I'm not sure what it is about this collection in particular, but I feel as though the familiar Tisci touches - the lace, the ruffles, the tailoring and the transparency - are combined to different effect. None of the collection is particularly new for Givenchy, but I think there is something fresh about this, although I can't pinpoint what that is. I almost feel like there's something more overtly sexy than normal here. I hope the upcoming Haute Couture collection also takes inspiration from Kahlo. Considering that Tisci's resort, men's, and couture collections that were shown within a few weeks of each other last summer shared many similarities, I won't be surprised if I turn out to be right. I'm definitely running the risk of getting my hopes up way too high, but just imagine the possibilities!

check out the full collection at Style.com

Video: Givenchy Haute Couture Fall Winter 1999

2010-06-06T17:30:00.007-04:00

It's a shame that Alexander McQueen's tenure at Givenchy produced such uneven results. I still remember seeing pictures from pretty much all of his collections at the house, and there was plenty of beauty to be seen. But unfortunately whatever tension was going on internally manifested itself in his work while he was there. Not surprisingly some of his most memorable shows for his own label came about during this period in his career, after all, his angst had to have an outlet somewhere. Tension and frustration aside, I remember some of McQueen's early couture collections for Givenchy suffering from a bit of an identity crisis, and on more than one occasion there were echoes (some louder than others) of John Galliano's work for his own label as well as for Dior. With that in mind it's kind of puzzling that this particular collection isn't better remembered or more highly regarded by people, because from what I can recall this collection looks the most like something by Alexander McQueen out of any of his couture collections.

It's not without it's faults, though. For one thing the presentation leaves a little to be desired from a showman like McQueen. While it produced a fantastic video, with closeups of most of the looks that highlighted the amazing details, it's also a little bit like looking at a museum exhibit. I can't imagine how frustrating that must have been for the audience. Also, there isn't much connecting tissue between a lot of the looks. Many of them really have nothing to do with each other, and even though I suppose that's not essential from a couture collection I personally think McQueen was at his most amazing when he was telling a story. But what's done is done, and after watching the video a few times already I think it's best to just approach each look individually and ignore the fact that this is supposed to be a collection. Like I said, it's some of the most "McQueen" looking of all his work while he was at LVMH, and the clothes are just mind-blowingly beautiful. Keep your eyes peeled for the tartan capelet made out of feathers, the tan leather skirt suit with raised flower cutouts, the white and pink beaded gown, and the seafoam frosted glass, yes, GLASS breastplate worn over a ruffled gown at the end. There's something so ridiculous about a garment made of glass, but there's also something tragically romantic about a thing so beautiful that is almost destined to break. Eleven years later knowing how McQueen's life would end, that seems rather fitting.

thanks to stylerunner7 at youtube for uploading.

Glamorama...

2010-06-04T20:04:00.009-04:00

Donna Karan

When it comes to pre-collections I usually find myself appreciating Pre-Fall more than I do Resort. I guess it's because more often than not resort ends up looking a little pre-packaged. Even though the season is meant to provide clothing for the transitional period between winter and summer a lot of designers seem to take the mini-season's name literally, as if every fashion-buying woman drops everything in the dead of winter to make a pilgrimage to a tropical climate. By comparison pre-fall isn't as pre-fab. So far none of the resort collections have made any kind of impact, at least not a positive one. There was a Bardot in St. Tropez themed collection at Chanel (not as much fun as it sounds), a positively cavity-inducing collection of pre-feminist cheese at Dior, and a mixed bag of Saint Laurent references at YSL that I haven't made my mind up about yet.

Donna Karan's collection, on the other hand, I've had no trouble making up my mind about. With a palette of black, silver, white and navy and a predominantly slinky, liable-to-fall-off silhouette it'd be weird if I didn't like it. Granted, it's basically limited to clothes that are strictly after dark, but considering that these clothes will show up in stores when it starts getting dark at around 4:30, I don't think that's such a problem. The first look says it all; black smoking jacket, gray silk wrap skirt and silver chain mail top, straight up glam from head to toe. I've never seen chain mail at Donna Karan before, but it actually makes perfect sense. That stuff drapes and clings like nobody's business, and Ms. Karan should consider playing with it more in the future. I'm picturing the results, and they make me happy. The other looks, from twisted jersey cowls to slouchy silk jacket and pant looks, and even a killer white tailored jumpsuit that was equal parts Marlene Dietrich and Studio 54 were equally glamorous. Let's not even get started on the handful of gowns that were shown. The final draped column in silver lamé is just too gorgeous to bear.

But even though 3/4 of the collection makes perfect sense despite how limited most of the clothes are in practical terms, there were a few looks that left me puzzled, and now that I think about it that happens a lot with Donna's pre-collections. There are always a few looks that don't quite fit, whether it's the style, the color, or the shape, though it's generally some combination of all three. This time around the sore-thumbs ranged from a voluminous opera coat that, in a lurid color combo, would have been right at home on a Lacroix runway, a frothy black circle skirted dance dress, and an icky star print that made it's presence known as a bulky parka and a transparent gown that displayed none of the ease, sensuality or technique that I expect from Donna's draping. They're minor quibbles, but when you're dealing with 25 or so looks, the sore thumbs stand out all the more. Since they're the minority they're easy enough to ignore. I just hope the limpid urban glamour that's the focus here is a preview of what's to come for S/S.

Check out the rest of the collection, including the duds, at Style.com

Everyone and their mother...

2010-05-15T21:35:00.021-04:00

That's who's been wearing the debut items from Gucci's new made-to-measure line, Gucci Première. Seriously, Cannes is only into it's fourth day and so far no less than five different women (not including Frida Giannini herself) have walked the red carpet wearing pieces from Gucci's couture line, some more than once. Now when I first read about this line about two months ago on WWD I nearly choked on my own tongue. All I could think of was the amount of bells and whistles a Gucci couture gown would be covered in, given some of the recent runway collections. Oh sure, I praised the F/W 10 show because I thought it was good, but that doesn't mean I have complete faith that Frida won't lose control and relapse into her sequin abuse problem if she's left unsupervised for too long. At the time the news leaked Gucci had no comment, and I forgot all about it...until this week when the steps at Cannes were swarmed by starlets wearing Gucci. Now the impression I get from what's been written about it, and what I've seen so far, is that it's sort of Gucci's answer to Armani's Prive collection, although if memory serves Armani's collection is permitted to be called haute couture by the Chambre Syndicale, which would mean that his clothes meet the standards of true couture. Gucci isn't promoting this as haute couture, but more as a made to measure custom service for red carpet types and rich people who want something exclusive. But custom made red carpet pieces are nothing new for Gucci, they've been doing them since Tom Ford was still at the helm, so I don't really know why they're launching this as a completely separate collection.

The first woman was, somewhat fittingly given her marital status to Mr. Gucci Group himself, Salma Hayek. Now I'll say right up front that I think this is a pretty dress, and I like that the sparkle is kept to a minimum and restricted to two specific locations. It's a little bit more interesting than all over beading. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't beyond sick of the one-shouldered thing. It's become such a ubiquitous look for red carpet events at this point. I also think that this particular specimen would have been better without that little drape falling on the arm. So yeah, it's pretty dress, but it's not all that remarkable and it certainly isn't something unique. Also, it must be said that I'm a little peevish in general about gowns with rear zippers. The only reason to put a zipper up the back is if you absolutely don't have the option of putting it on the side. I can't really tell how this dress is constructed from pictures, so I'll let it slide, but it's a little annoying because you can see the little bubble in the back where the end of the zipper is, and that's precisely why I hate rear zips. But still, Salma looks beautiful in it, and I suppose that's the most important thing.

Next up was Camille Belle in a navy column, also one shouldered and also featuring strategically placed beading. The dress is fine I guess, although the only thing that made me look twice was the way the beading sort of dissolves down the back, which is a beautiful effect. But everything else about this look is both bland and kind of mature. The dress itself, from the color to the cut, seems destined for an older woman, probably in the over 35 age range, if not older. There's something almost conservative about it, despite the bit of sparkle and the slit up the leg. The hair and makeup really isn't helping matters as it makes Belle look about 15 years older than she is. But most of all this dress just looks like something you'd find in any number of department stores or dress shops. It's a standard evening wear template, not something you can go wrong with, but not something that's going to turn heads either.

The dress Kate Beckinsale wore was, at least, somewhat interesting to look at...although I don't really like it. There's something about the mix of the very dense silver beading and the sort of ethereal look of the draped shoulders and flowing train that doesn't quite work. I don't think the armor like panels really work well against the soft, romantic silhouette and delicate beading in the drapery at the hips. I dunno, it just doesn't work for me. From the back it gets worse, because in addition to the weird clash of hard and soft, the sewing in the rear seam is a little fucked up, to put it plainly. It's the kind of thing any fashion design professor would teach you how to avoid. That puckering, and especially right on the ass, is not pretty. I don't know if it's because the fabric has lycra in it, or if the dress wasn't properly altered, or if it was just poorly sewn, but it's shoddy looking and that's a shame, especially with Gucci promoting these looks as the most exclusive of all of their products.

Camille Belle also showed up to an event wearing a short, fitted, off the shoulder dress completely beaded in a degrade pattern. The dress is boring as hell, but it's cute and sparkly and a hell of a lot more youthful than the other dress she wore. But it's been almost 3 years since every young actress and "personality" in Hollywood has had their stylist slather them in Crisco so they could slip into an Herve Leger bandage dress, which is exactly what this looks like, and I'm completely burnt out on that look. More than anything I just like the effect that was achieved with the beading. Also wearing a short, sparkly number was Giannini herself, making the rounds of events along with her coterie of clients. Her dress is another that I've seen a million of, from runways to department store racks. It's nothing I'm about to piddle over.

The dress that French actress Lea Seydoux wore was by far one of the most interesting dresses of the ones I've seen. It's also one of my least favorites. There's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way. I wish I could offer an explanation as to why, but I have no effing clue. I will say this though, at the very least it's not a predictable red carpet choice (I don't even know when I last saw a cap sleeve) so that's a positive. But other than that I think I might actually hate it.

Naomi Watts has the distinction of wearing my favorite dress out of the ones that have been seen so far, which isn't saying much, but it's something. I love the angular pattern that basically makes up the entire dress. Despite how blah a pale beige strapless column gown is by it's very nature, there's at least something really graphic to look at with this one. I would have loved to see this in a darker, more severe color, something to play up the sharpness of those pleats. I for one am completely over the pale flesh-tone thing that so many women seem to gravitate towards for the red carpet. At the very least if you're going to go for a neutral color, go for black. It doesn't have that aura of "meh" to it. Still, it's a pretty dress, although I'm a little concerned about the workmanship. It looks a little rough on the bust.

And lastly there was Mrs. Gucci Group again, although I have to say I detest this dress. There's something cheap about it that I can't quite pinpoint, but the two things that come to mind when I look at it are: department store evening dress on the 50% off rack at Lohmann's, or some novice fashion student's attempt at making a "Versace" gown. I doubt if that's the kind of association Gucci want's anyone to have while looking at any of their products, least of all a custom made dress for the wife of their CEO.

Now, I'm fine with Gucci wanting to up their exclusivity factor by creating one-off pieces for celebs. They're not the first and they probably won't be the last. But here's the thing, if you set out to create a line that promises exclusivity, you better make damn sure that the product makes good on it. None of these dresses are the kind that would really pop on any red carpet, and I truly think that were it not for the fact that Gucci was promoting the line at one of the biggest red carpet events of the year, nobody would look twice at any of them. I also find it hard to believe that a paying client would want a custom made dress that was so indistinct. No, ultimately the label in a dress isn't important if the dress is beautiful, but you wouldn't go to Chanel to have a suit made for you that looks like any other suit, so why would you want a Gucci gown that looks like any other gown? I'll be honest, even when I've hated them Frida's evening gowns and party dresses have usually had some personality to them. Take the dresses she did for fall, there's no way those would blend in on a red carpet. Even though a casual observer might not know right away that they're Gucci, they would no doubt assume that they're high fashion. These dresses however could be by any second rate red carpet designer. It's kind of ironic that the dresses which will be produced in quantity look more exclusive and unique than the ones that are one of a kind. And I know I'm guilty of bringing every Gucci related post back to Tom Ford in some way, but I can't help pointing out that his custom designed pieces while he was at Gucci and YSL got people's attention and stood out at an event. For proof look no further than the one-sleeved nude column covered with clear crystals that Nicole Kidman wore to the 2003 Met Gala. Seven years later and nude beaded gowns are a dime a dozen, but that trend can probably be traced back to that one Gucci dress. Simply put it had the wow factor that none of these new designs possess, but it wasn't some completely out there design. I guess in the end high impact dressing doesn't need to be ridiculous, it just needs to be well calculated. If these new looks are an accurate representation of what the Gucci Première line is going to be about then to be honest I just don't see the point.

all images from daylife.com, zimbio.com and getty.com thanks to Flashbang at The Fashion Spot

American woman, listen what I say...

2010-05-04T00:03:00.018-04:00

Well kids, it's that time of year again. That's right, it's Costume Gala time. What is it about the combination of fabulous fashion folk and starved to perfection A-list celebs that proves so exciting every year? Wait...I may just have answered my own question. That's exactly what's so exciting about it, because unlike at awards shows and premiers when celebrities are expected to dress according to some rigid fashion standard that will appease people who don't actually care about fashion, the Met Gala is an invitation to go a little over the top, to wear something more daring than normal. Well, that's the theory, anyway. Despite near unlimited access to clothing by all of the designers in attendance there are still many celebrities who go safe and unthreatening. Now I'm not one to criticize a starlet for choosing something simple, in fact in these days when the red carpet standard is a rigid mile-wide bulldozer of a gown with all manner of beads, sequins, feathers and ruffles by Marchesa, something simple but stunning is a welcome relief for me. Safe on the other hand....well, it doesn't really get my pulse racing. Unfortunately safe is largely what we got this year. Someone on the Fashion Spot, and I can't remember who, pointed out that in the past the best red carpet arrivals for the Met gala have been when the exhibit has a very specific theme, and naturally people dress to reflect it. Whoever it was that said it was absolutely right. I've watched the event since 2003's "Goddess" exhibit, and since then there have been a few years when the red carpet action has been off-the-charts. The goddess exhibit, the Anglomania exhibit in 2006, Poiret in 2007 and the Superhero themed 2008 gala all had people upping their fashion game, and the results were far more interesting than you're likely to find at your standard black tie affair. Needless to say for the second year running the Costume Institute team has gone with a pretty basic, pretty general theme and the attendees' fashions reflect that. This year, sadly, there wasn't one "wow" moment for me. Even Lady Gaga who skipped the red carpet entirely went safe in a Prada tux. So while there were some beautiful looks, and while there were some really bad looks, most of the night's attendees filled up the huge gray area between gorgeous and God-awful.

Anyway, enough of my b.s. On with the dresses.

The Good

Kate Bosworth in Valentino Haute Couture

It doesn't hurt that Kate is stunning regardless, but the fact that she picked one of my favorite pieces out of the mixed bag that was the Valentino HC collection for Spring scores points from me. I knew it was only a matter of time before some stylist snatched that dress, and frankly I'm surprised it took 5 months for someone to wear it. She looks gorgeous, and even though it's hardly a challenging or unusual look, it's styled (and worn) beautifully.

Donna Karan in Donna Karan

Love it. Yeah it's a predictable Donna Karan dress, but it's gorgeous. Donna is proof that her clothes work just as well on a woman with an average body as they do on someone who fits into the sample size.

Sarah Jessica Parker in Halston

So I was definitely in the minority of people who liked SJP's Chanel Oscar gown. The hair should have been more polished, but overall I liked the whole 60s vibe she went for, and I loved the dress itself. But she took a lot of flack for that dress, and while I get that it didn't appeal to most the fact is that she was one of the few attendees who did something unusual. Now I dare anyone to question her fashion cred. I don't even know what it is about her look that I love, I mean it's such a simple dress, almost boring except for it's metallic sheen. It's by no means the most interesting or fashionable thing she's ever worn. I guess it's just a case of the right dress, right hair/makeup and right accessories coming together to bring life to a look. Honestly I think this was my favorite look of the night.

Charlotte Gainsbourg in Balenciaga

I'll freely admit that I am one of, like, 10 people who don't swoon over Ms. Jane Birken jr. style-wise. I really only see her at events, and at events she is always in Balenciaga straight off of the runway. I don't think that wearing a runway look makes you stylish. It says more for your taste level than it does for you style or individuality. Needless to say the only reason I like her look is because I liked that dress. Not sure why it was cropped to cooch level though.

Diane Kruger in Calvin Klein

When I saw the first picture of Diane last night I nearly died because my first thought was "OMG is she wearing one of the white Gucci gowns from 1996?". Then I saw another picture and realized no, she is not. But still, her stark fitted white column looked fantastic. This is what I was thinking of when I said there's a difference between simple and safe. It's such a plain dress, a plain look in fact, but it just isn't the kind of dress that shows up on the red carpet these days. Were I Francisco Costa I might have cut out the back just to add a little something (although that might just be my obsession with the aforementioned Gucci gowns talking). My only complaint is the hair and makeup. It's not bad, I just would have gone with lighter eyes and a side part instead of center. Other than that she looks gorgeous.

Gisele in Alexander Wang

I do like the dress, and it DEFINITELY stands out, but even though I like the dress and even though Gisele looks great in it I don't think that's the kind of dress you wear to an event like this. It's not that it's too short or whatever, but that the look of it just isn't formal at all. I can handle a little bit of trash, after all I still count Courtney Love in John Galliano's destroyed Dior trashbag gown at the 2000 Golden Globes among my favorite red carpet moments. However this particular look is a little too trashy and clubby for the setting. But I'll lump it in with the good because ultimately I think Mrs. Brady looks good.

The Bad

January Jones in Yves Saint Laurent

Besides starring on one of my favorite shows January has quickly become a part of the list of women that I look forward to seeing on the red carpet at events. She's nailed it more than once, and she's taken some chances along the way. But this look is unforgivable. January, I urge you, repent now. Fire whoever styled you and start fresh, preferably with a new designer ally. And as for Stefano Pilati, I haven't liked his work in years because for years he's been neglecting his job of making women look beautiful. This is just the hot pink straw that broke the gay camel's back. He's dead to me.

Kristen Stewart in Chanel Haute Couture

I'll give her this, she's clearly trying to up her style ante, and in theory this dress is perfect for her. It's edgy, with that slight punk vibe from the mesh fabric, but whoever hemmed it completely botched it. It's too short, and that isn't helped by the platform shoes which I don't like with the dress. The top looks kind of fucked up too. Overall whoever was altering this butchered what could have been (and was, in it's runway incarnation) a striking dress. I also don't like what her peeps did with the hair.

Elizabeth Banks in Gucci

Poor girl. It's a shame that she and/or her styling team chose that dress out of all of the dresses Gucci showed for fall. I hated this one on the runway because there's way too much going on, and all of the surface decoration gives the wearer's body an indecipherable shape. From the front she looks bigger than she actually is because of all that extra fluff. From the side it's no better because those feathers just looks like a giant landing strip. You tell me, which sounds worse?

Janet Jackson in Lanvin

In case you don't recognize the dress, here it is on the runway. Now I realize that what I'm about to say will probably offend someone, but she doesn't have the body for that dress. It does nothing for her and she does nothing for it. I'm not a size Nazi, and I definitely don't think that only skinny women look good in high fashion, but if your body distorts the garment you're wearing to the point that it takes away from it's design, or conversely if a garment distorts your body to the point that it no longer makes you look good, that garment isn't for you. Besides that the styling is bad regardless....not that the Jackson's are known for their subtlety or taste.

Carey Mulligan in Miu Miu

Mulligan caught my attention during awards season when she was making the rounds of events and ceremonies while parading a variety of dresses and gowns for all to see. While I didn't always love what she opted to wear, her quirky choices piqued my interest because she usually managed to stand out. I personally loved her tool embellished black Prada gown and newly blond pixie cut at the Oscars in March, so I was looking forward to seeing what she'd wear to an even more fashion-conscious event. Turns out it was a dud. The lilac colored granny lace Miu Miu babydoll she chose couldn't have been more anticlimactic. I still haven't warmed to the collection it came from, and I just don't think it was dressy enough. On top of that I honestly think it's kind of ugly, like some relic in the Brady Bunch costume department.

Honestly, those are the only looks that I even had a strong reaction to, and at the end of the day none of them are particularly extreme; the good ones aren't mindblowing and the bad ones aren't horrifying. Pretty much all of the other looks were predictable red carpet fare. If you've ever watched an awards show you know what most of the people will turn up in; draped one shoulder goddess chiffon, Barbie-worthy mermaid dresses and big, beaded ballgowns. I certainly hope that this is just a slump and not a sign of things to come. If the last event on Earth where fashion trumps mass appeal goes down the same individuality-free, pre-packaged crapper that the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys, et al have gone down I honestly don't know what I'm going to write about when there isn't a fashion show happening each Spring.

all photos from zimbio.com

Cherchez la femme...

2010-03-11T15:24:00.004-05:00

Louis Vuitton

I really don't use the word "charming" to describe very much, least of all fashion. But it's probably the only word suitable to describe the Vuitton collection for fall. From the neat, perky little pony-tails bouncing behind the models' heads to the full, mid-calf circle skirts swishing as they walked the entire presentation was such a throw back, so retro and pretty that I'm finding it impossible to hate even though I know that I probably should. Both of Marc Jacobs' collections this season revisited the past, but where his namesake collection was a personal exploration of his own past, his Vuitton collection was a nostalgic trip back in time to the era that gave us one of the most enduring images of idealized femininity. With their breasts pushed up and out, waists belted and skirts flaring from the hip, the girls were the epitome of traditional womanhood. It's not at all the type of femininity I'm normally drawn to or inspired by, and yet like I said I'm finding it hard to resist. It's certainly not Marc's best collection, and truth be told his Spring 2001 Louis Vuitton collection was a much more interesting, contemporary take on the same era and look, but there's still a freshness to this despite how literal and familiar it is. Even though this is missing the hint of subversion that would be needed to make these clothes something other than revisited vintage, the look is something that hasn't been seen in a while. The message within this collection is far stronger than the ideas used to create it.

The shift away from hard, boyishly androgynous, extremely youthful, pseudo-edgy femininity has really been the driving force behind this season, so it seems appropriate that the most forceful effort was saved for last (well, last-ish anyway). On her blog Cathy Horyn pointed out how Vuitton in Paris and Prada in Milan served as bookends for the European shows, and as usual she's dead on. Let's be realistic, if the two designers who are, arguably, fashion's most accurate barometers for what's next have zeroed in on the very same idea, chances are it could signal some kind of overall shift. Had it been just one of them out on this limb by themselves, you might be able to brush it off as just another one of their seasonal fixations. But the combined powers of Marc and Miuccia aren't something to be ignored. We may just be in for some change come spring.

all images from style.com

In Bloom...

2010-03-09T11:15:00.004-05:00

Haider Ackermann

Haider Ackermann is one of those rare designers who actually measure up to the sudden new attention they're getting. As opposed to other designers who seem to let the hype go to their head and seem to think they don't have to work as hard as they used to once they have it, Ackermann's work has steadily improved, and considering that he was good before the attention that's saying something. This season, compared to the languid glamour and subtle exoticism of Spring, Ackermann went more structured. Two of the features that he's added to his signature leather/suede/wool jackets were undulating folds with concentric rows of top stitching or layered peplums that could be unzipped at the waist to fold towards the rear. The overall effect of the fluid folds in front and the more jagged, almost obi-like folds in back was of a giant, poisonous flower in bloom on a forest floor. The collection was beautiful in the textures that were mixed as well, most impressively in the intricately laser cut leather that was so delicate it looked liable to fall apart, like beautifully decomposed lace. Perched atop a narrow bottom half that included Ackermann's signature wraith-like skirts and leather leggings, the tops were like sculptures displayed on pedestals.

Technically I think this is probably his most impressive collection yet. The folding, curling shapes that are the focal point of the collection are really a marvel to behold. And the overall look is, as always, calmly beautiful and sensual in that way that's become his signature. But calmness and tranquility aside, I think these are some of the most extreme clothes Ackermann has ever shown, at least of the collections that I've seen. Somehow though the shapes aren't completely overwhelming. They don't look like architectural experiments grafted onto a body. the effect is more organic than that. While I wish there was a bit of color in here, like the touches of saffron, indigo, sky blue and blood red that have highlighted his most recent collections, I'm willing to overlook that the palette doesn't stray from Haider's signature neutrals. The clothes on their own are simply that good.

all photos from style.com

Hot Voodoo...

2010-03-06T16:05:00.009-05:00

Lanvin

The words "Lanvin" and "tough" aren't usually found in the same sentence. Commanding, assertive, bold; all of them could be used to describe what Alber Elbaz sends out on his runway, but tough? Not exactly. That could be why I find the Lanvin Fall Winter 2010 collection exciting. There's a hardness and severity to it that I've never really seen in Alber's work before and I'm really liking it. It's as if he took all of his signatures--the loose draping, the rounded shoulders, the soft tailoring--and sharpened them up. Those flattering sheaths are more angular, darts and seams are reversed to contour the body, coats are shaped like an inverted triangle with exaggerated shoulders and pegged hems, and those goddess drapes are pressed flat into place to form pleats. Combined with the blunt cut jet black wigs each model wore and the aggressive looking accessories, Elbaz showed off a different side of the Lanvin woman, one that's more than a little bit dark. Even the flamboyant feather embellishments look more sinister than Swan Lake, with patches of ostrich or coque feather sprouting randomly out of the torso and trimming edges. Overall the impression was of a woman caught somewhere between civility and savagery, human and beast. With the predominantly dark color palette of black, browns and beige with hints of plum, burgundy, blood red and burnished gold or bronze, there was a subtle hint of tribalism to it. As the collection progressed it became louder and more aggressive until metal, feathers and sparkle were combined for an effect that was almost bombastic. It always impresses me that Elbaz never quite loses control of the elements he's working with. When it comes to embellishment, beads and feathers can easily go overboard and turn ugly quick, but somehow he manages to make it work, no matter how random or extreme they might seem. That's definitely easier said than done.

I'm sure a lot of people would gravitate to the more ornate evening stuff towards the end, and with good reason I suppose. There's just so much visual interest, from the sharply pleated lame to the tufts of ostrich feathers, they're the kind of clothes that beg to be touched. But for me the most exciting pieces come earlier in the collection. All of those plain dresses with their sharp, angular cuts and the coats with their domineering shoulder line were what really drew my attention. It's probably because, while the over the top embellished stuff at the end is fun to look at and probably fun to wear as well, the simple, graphic pieces feel fresher. That's the overall impression I'm left with from this, it's fresh, a little jolt of something different to keep people's attention after a few years of softness, volume and draping. I have a feeling that combined with the showroom collection this season's offerings will probably resonate with more customers than Alber's spiraling togas and filmy satin do. Women can't be goddesses every day, can they?

all images from Style.com

Domestic miss...

2010-03-05T09:01:00.008-05:00

Balenciaga

If Ikea were to make clothes, what would they look like? That question could definitely have been what led Nicolas Ghesquiere to create the collection he showed for Fall Winter 2010. If you've ever shopped at Ikea, you'll have no trouble conjuring at least a vague image in your mind; bright, pop-y colors, lots of plastic and other synthetic textures, and a huge dose of mid-century modern decor. Throw all of that into a blender and that's sort of what you're looking at with the clothes. At first the whole thing comes off as another one of Ghesquiere's explorations of technology and futurism, but once you know that he was, in fact, looking a items in a home like formica cabinets, kitchen supplies, and even sleeping bags, that ends up being exactly what you see. The opening cocoon coats in patchworks of techno fabric and shaggy fur brought to mind the inside of a microwave. The colorblocked knitted dresses or peplum tops looked straight out of a late 60s kitchen. A trio of sweaters worn with geometric jacquard mini skirts almost looked like machine-mad afghans, while two top/skirt combos looked like high-tech crocheted doilies. Several looks fused a top with either narrow quilted pants or a mini skirt, the top unzipping like a sleeping bag to reveal prints that were a like a collage of magazine clippings and road maps or, with the skirts, a puffy down coat . They were probably the most interesting looks in the collection because they simply defy description or categorization. I can't even tell if they're a single piece or separates, let alone how they're built and how they work. And finally there were three dresses in fabric that looks like packaging peanuts, printed with those same magazine/map collages. That's the best I can do as far as describing the bubbling, grid-like fabric.

At this point I still don't know whether or not I really like this collection. For sure it's one of the most unusual and technologically advanced collections that has been, or will be for that matter, shown this season. But whereas last season Ghesquiere used the incredible techniques that have become his trademark to create easy to comprehend clothing, this season the result is much more challenging. What struck me about this was the combination of very familiar silhouettes with cutting edge technique. The shapes aren't anything unusual, they're mainly straight, kind of boxy, and very Balenciaga, but the textures, fabrics and the way they're combined renders these clothes completely new. The almost chemically bright pastels and primary colors that are used only add to the boldness of the clothes. As with any of Ghesquiere's collections there is so much to look at here, and when it comes to pictures the higher the resolution the better, but honestly it leaves me a little cold. It interests me, that's sort of a given, and I always appreciate the vision that Ghesquiere puts forth. But there really isn't any emotional tug for me, no feeling of true excitement, no jolt of electricity. Since the two collections have quite a bit in common, I can't help but compare this and spring and for whatever reason I prefer that collection to this one. I think it might have achieved the mix of the familiar with the advanced better, and ultimately it was filled with familiar clothes that were amped up to become something more. By comparison this feels almost stuck in concept mode.

all images from style.com

About face...

2010-02-28T22:51:00.014-05:00

Gucci

For me to say that I'm not Frida Giannini's biggest fan is something of an understatement. Anyone who has read either my blog or my posts on the Fashion Spot (which date back to the dawn of her career) can tell you without a doubt that I haven't always been kind to our girl Frida. So imagine my complete and utter disbelief to find that this season I was kinda impressed by her collection. That's right, I said impressed, so bear with me.

My issue with Giannini is three-fold; from the beginning she completely ignored the well established identity and aesthetic of the house, in her zeal to erase the memory of her iconic predecessor her collections were erratic and lacking in any kind of consistency, and the simple-minded trends/cliches she worked with gave the impression that her clothes were nothing more than luxed-up fast fashion. On top of those things her most recent collections have been too reliant on special effects rather than good design. By that I mean she spent too much time decorating basic pieces that, despite their astronomical price-tags and overt displays of "luxury", didn't actually seem all that luxurious. All in all her collections have been, to me at least, too self conscious, like after four years she still doesn't have the confidence needed to put her own permanent stamp on the Gucci legacy. Well apparently we may all be in for a change.

Giannini's collection for Fall Winter 2010 is hands down the best she has done in her eight-season tenure at the house. Gone are the gimmicks, the overwrought details, and the frivolous, youth-obsessed, flash in the pan trends. In their place are beautiful, sexy, timeless looking clothes for beautiful, sexy, confident women, not girls, women. Everything about this collection, from the rich palette of warm neutrals in contrasting shades, to the longer skirt lengths, and even the non-tricked-out accessories seem geared towards a more grown up clientele who doesn't need to flaunt their fashion cred. And unlike in past seasons this collection placed more emphasis on daywear, with sharp tailoring a focal point as opposed to flirty day dresses and party gear. Most of the day looks were built around this season's pant; narrow, low on the waist but not ridiculously so, and flared just enough to spill over the foot. In the past Giannini's pants, with their low waist, tapered leg and overall boyish look really didn't appeal to me, so it was nice to see her working on a new shape, especially one that's really flattering. With the pants she paired understated coats or furs that were luxe without being obnoxious and simple silk camisoles or blouses. As an entire look the pants, slightly oversized coats and silk button downs worn partially open definitely recalled Tom Ford's very first Gucci collection as creative director back in 1995, not that that's a bad thing. Mixed in with the pant looks were some sheaths with slashes along a bias seam held closed with polished gold hardware. Those few looks brought to mind the white jersey gowns with gold hardware that Ford showed in his iconic F/W 1996 collection which, again, isn't a bad thing. There were also a few looser draped dresses in smudgey prints or solid black before the collection moved into evening.

Let's face it, evening has always been a big deal at Gucci and it probably always will. In my opinion eveningwear has never been Giannini's strong suit, she's always showed a bit more skill with sportswear and casual dresses. But this time around, though I didn't love every look she sent out for after dark, I liked that the looks were more mature, more hedonistic and more "Gucci" than anything she's shown before. Most of the looks mixed python patterned lace or mesh with paillettes and ostrich feathers on the sleeves. Paired with coordinating patterned lace tights and metallic python sandals it was a lot of look, but because all of them were cut above the knee they avoided that sharp left into tacky territory. Sure, not all of them worked but the looks that did were really beautiful, and kind of unusual too in their mix of textures. A black one with a plunging v-neck held up by a metal collar worn with a bolero in ombré feathers had a beautiful degrade effect going on, from the opaque paillettes at the top down to the sheer tights on bare flesh at the bottom. The look reminded me, though very vaguely, of the beaded dresses and marabou boleros Tom did back in '04. Another, a cognac long sleeved dress with copper paillettes fading from top to bottom was also really beautiful. The best thing about these looks is that they're a more extreme, grown up take on glamour than what Giannini is known for. You're not likely to see some unkempt hipper-than-thou wild child pulling these looks off, that's for sure.

I think that this collection is completely refreshing coming from Giannini. It's not relying on anything but quality clothing and good styling, which is what made Gucci a powerhouse to begin with. It takes a bit of maturity to hold back and let the clothes be the focal point instead of a theme or overdone details. Are these clothes anything new? No. Are they bound to shake fashion to it's core? Probably not. But that's okay. I am still pretty shocked by how much I like this, although I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't be. The fact is that a lot of this bares a resemblance to Tom Ford's work at the house, especially in his disco-loving early days. Looking at this I'm left wondering why Frida spent so many seasons trying in earnest to avoid the territory he mapped out, because while this doesn't have the same heady punch of Ford's work, it fits his Gucci blueprint very well. This woman seems to be the softer, less depraved sister of Ford's femme fatale. She may not have that same predatory sensuality that leaves a path of broken men in her wake, but I bet she's got a few of her own tricks up her ostrich feather sleeve. Here's hoping we'll get to see them.

all images from Style.com

Retrofitted...

2010-02-25T23:52:00.006-05:00

Prada

The name itself may as well be fashion shorthand for rapid and startling change. Each season people wait with bated breath to see where Miuccia will go, and the results are pretty much always bound to captivate and alienate due to their unfamiliarity. While Prada doesn't reinvent the sartorial wheel with her work what she does is take things that are mainstream or banal and subvert them somehow, breathing new life into old ideas and changing the eye of the viewing public. A Prada show, more than any other, elicits a strong reaction upon first glance. It's always a love it or hate it kind of experience.

But this season rather than sending out something strange and unexpected Miuccia sent out a collection that was so quintessentially Prada it could almost be considered predictable. From the first look to the last it was a reminder of what the house has always stood for; traditional, nostalgic femininity with more than a hint of oddness. Retro geometric prints in icky colors? Present and accounted for. Intentionally frumpy, cheap looking knitwear? Also on display. Dirndl skirts and A-line coats? The collection was filled with them. Just like with Marc Jacobs' collection in New York this was Prada reworking her own past. But as familiar as all of the elements were, as unmistakably "Prada" as the clothes appeared don't for one second think that Miuccia wasn't changing everyone's eye. The first look out, a long sleeved black wool dress with a fluted skirt and molded bust was prim and almost dowdy in that Italian widow kind of way, except that the folds used to give the bust it's almost pointed shape looked like nipples. Many of the looks, like a a few sleeveless tops worn with some of the only pairs of pants in the collection, or a series of dresses in wool, melange cable knit, PVC or colorful mid-century wallpaper printed silk had rows of curving ruffles on the bust. A few other pieces had a single ruffle tracing the underside. And many of the slightly A-line coats were cut with an empire waistline. All of these details drew the attention right to the breasts, and more than anything else that was the focus of the collection. It seems like years since a voluptuous decollete has been a priority in fashion, and I find the shift away from a boyish, layered, unstructured shape completely refreshing. Mixed in were many takes on Prada's signature 60s prints in muddled shades of tan, brown, purple, mustard and blue, chunky knit or patent leather separates like skirts and pea jackets with double collars, and a few black felt pieces covered with dense jet beading. Paired with the big beehive 'dos, sexy pointed toe stilettos, bulky knee high socks and the occasional pair of exaggerated two-tone cat's eye glasses the entire collection was all mixed signals; quirky but chic, dowdy but sexy. But the one thing that was crystal clear was how womanly the clothes were. It was impossible to miss.

I'm still a little torn about the collection to be honest. On the one hand I love a lot of the clothes, and I love what the collection is saying. It's completely exhilarating to see something that requires a bit of a body to actually pull off. Not that all of these clothes will flatter everyone, but they certainly seem geared towards a decent variety of grown women with grown women's parts. I also think that the way Miuccia reworked all of her signatures was well done, and will no doubt appeal to a lot of different people. On the other hand, the look of this collection is completely familiar. Save maybe for the ruffles on the boobs this collection is made up entirely of traditional Prada elements. Even though it's a surprise because a) it has almost nothing to do with where fashion is right now and b) it has nothing to do with what Miuccia did last season there really isn't anything jarring about it, and for me that jarring newness is what I look forward to from Prada. But in a way it makes sense. Every so often Miuccia does go back to the template that made her famous to start with. It's a bit like a palette cleanser before her next bout of restless experimentation.

all images from Style.com

Oh make me over...

2010-02-18T02:49:00.009-05:00

Proenza Schouler

Last season was the first time I ever really loved a Proenza Schouler collection, so naturally I was looking forward to see what they'd send out for fall. But the problem I find when I get my hopes up for a collection is that they're rarely met. While I can't say that I love Jack and Lazaro's Fall Winter 2010 presentation, I do really like it. A lot in fact.

In a way it's a bit of a continuation of last season when they seemed to be exploring a bit of early 90s street and youth culture; skateboarding, surfing, graffiti. This time around the look is more grunge, a glamorized take on grunge obviously, but grunge nonetheless. Sharp, accordion pleated minidresses in dark colors were worn over trashy sheer mesh shirts with neat little collars in leather. A short A-line toggle coat was worn over a mini skirt, white blouse and black sheer thigh highs. Cropped pea jackets were paired with layered crop-tops and mini kilts. And varsity jackets were trimmed with fox fur in lurid shades of violet, teal or blue. Try to imagine the bastard child of Cher from "Clueless" and Courtney Love with some 90s-era GAP thrown in and you've got a vague idea of what the look is.

Then came a few graphic printed looks in a combo of black/white and cobalt/white followed by kaleidoscopic printed pieces in shades of green and blue. The prints used for these pieces were apparently made from manipulated photocopies of tartan plaids, not that you can really tell. There were a few cute printed baby doll dresses with black mesh cutouts at the collar and sections of sequin embroidery that really cemented the Hole-era Courtney Love comparison. The final five dresses, two with cutout sides and three draped with bubble skirts, were worn over crop tops. I didn't like any of them. The colors were odd and really stuck out among the rest of the collection, and the dresses themselves were just not very attractive. Unusual considering that one of the duo's strengths are great party dresses. These lacked finesse for the most part, and besides that the draped bubble dresses aren't anything you can't already find elsewhere.

Overall, a pretty cool collection, especially the first two-thirds of it. The way they twisted and subverted both preppy and girly was really well done. I love the idea of an over-sized varsity jacket with a bright fur collar worn with trashy thigh-high stockings and chunky platform clogs. Or of neat pleated wool dresses worn over a mesh top. Where the collection lost steam for me was around those baby doll dresses and other printed pieces. It's not that I didn't like them, but when you look at them compared to the amazing printed pieces that were done for Spring they don't quite stack up. Still, the dresses especially were cute, especially the yellow one. The final dresses were a complete dud in my book. Still, the collection has a great energy to it; tough but still pretty, boyish but feminine, cute but sexy. I never pictured myself liking the gradual return we've been seeing towards the early-90s, but I guess if it's done with a bit of humor and irony then it can actually be kind of appealing.

all images from style.com

Video: Chanel Haute Couture Spring Summer 2010

2010-02-18T02:37:00.003-05:00

Chanel

Almost a month later my love for the Chanel S/S 2010 couture collection is still going strong. Those gowns at the end look so much better in motion, and let me just say that the details do not disappoint in the closeups. The music got a little repetitive, and for whatever reason the best song was saved for the last minute when Karl took his bow and the girls took their final lap. I also think the editing was kind of chopped up in parts. Minor complaints in the end, though, because the show itself (save for the ever scowling and pouting Baptiste in that silly space suit) was gorgeous.

Brown bag it...

2010-02-16T00:21:00.007-05:00

Marc Jacobs

There's something about Marc Jacobs' new collection for Fall Winter 2010 that has the feeling of comfort food. It's familiar, and it leaves you satisfied, content, and all warm and gooey on the inside. Since about 2007 or so Marc has been pushing himself to expand upon the his reputation, moving beyond the cool, effortless, quirky style that made him famous. As a result his shows became more polished, the ideas he explored more avant garde, and his collections more challenging. All that paid off though, because he went from being fashion's darling to being a fashion leader. Somewhere along the line he also became a household name and something of a pop culture fixture. Now personally, I liked that he took his work to a new extreme. Regardless of the fact that he's been accused of pillaging other designer's work for ideas while abandoning his own identity, the truth is that besides putting a new spin on the ideas he was influenced by he also proved that he's capable of creating more than reworked vintage pieces and it-bags. But I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't a small part of me that didn't miss the good old days when things were simpler.

Well for next winter Marc seemed to be channeling those good old days, revisiting a lot of the things that made him famous to begin with, and the results couldn't be more refreshing. Stripping away the references, trends, themes, and statements Jacobs sent out the bottom line; clothes. But it was so much more than that. The lack of hype, the lack of forced newness was kind of like a statement in itself. It was honest, pure and simple to understand. Because Jacobs was drawing on his own past, his love of vintage, his love of quirky shapes, his love of sportswear and high/low parallels the show and the clothes had soul to them. Normally it's fun to try and spot the mish-mash of references that go into a Marc Jacobs collection, and to try and decode what it is that he's saying, but this time around there really doesn't seem like much of a need to go there. The mellow palette, made up almost exclusively of neutral colors with an emphasis on beige, brown, tan and cream was relaxing and practical, and the soft, rich colors made me think of the way fresh baked bread or warm sugar cookies smell. Beyond that all I get is a big dose of old school Marc Jacobs with a more grown up kind of polish to it.

From the A-line skirts and dresses to neatly belted coats with fluffy Mongolian lamb fur collars and cuffs, sharp wide leg trousers, sweet lingerie looking chemises, and finally evening gowns with a broken in, dishevelled kind of beauty the collection was filled with pieces that were both pragmatic and whimsical. This being Marc Jacobs, there were touches of wit in things like a sweater with trompe l'oeil "sleeves" tied at the neck like a cardigan or a peacoat with a misplaced center button that made the coat looked shrugged on with a slight flare to it. But for the most part the clothes were straightforward, and that's their strength. Even without the over the top styling, staging or statements the collection has managed to excite people, probably for no other reason than the fact that it's beautiful. The ease and familiarity of the clothes, coupled with the renditions of "Over The Rainbow" that provided the soundtrack made for a serene show that, cheesy as it sounds, cast a spell over the viewer. I feel like it's been a while since many designers, not just Marc, have shown a collection that had no greater ambition than to just be beautiful. More and more it feels like there needs to be some kind of hook, gimmick, or lots of flash to get people interested in a collection. The expectations of a designer have gotten so high that very few can actually meet them, let alone exceed them. Besides providing excitement on a runway, they're expected to deliver something unique, something flattering, something that's going to jump off the pages of a magazine, and something that women will need. Leave it to Marc, ever ahead of the game, to remind everyone that if you've got the goods they'll pretty much speak for themselves.

all images from style.com

Strange, I've seen that dress before...

2010-02-14T16:26:00.006-05:00

Altuzarra

It's a complicated frame of mind I'm in after looking at Joseph Altuzarra's collection for Fall Winter 2010. I'm torn between feeling that little jolt of excitement which comes from seeing a collection that I like, and feeling ashamed of myself for liking a collection that appears to be based almost entirely on an older collection by one of my favorite designers, which is largely considered by many of his fans to have been his best. See? Complicated.

Altuzarra's collection, his third since debuting his eponymous collection at New York Fashion Week last year, is, in a word, wicked. From the sheath-like pencil skirts and cinched waists to the buckled harnesses and pointed-toe pumps the look was dangerously sexy. It was also straight-up Gucci, F/W 2003 to be exact, with a touch of the iconic red velvet tuxedo from 1996 thrown in. The opening looks, comprised of fitted patchwork jackets with panels of shiny goat fur worn with pencil skirts spliced to the thigh and lace-up boots, pieced leather dresses or catsuits, and sharp, dramatic coats with harnessed closures made an instant impact paired with the spike heels and slick hair. I liked it right off the bat because there was nothing wishy-washy about it. Altuzarra went for it and made the first powerful statement of the week. There was a sleeveless jumpsuit with a plunging neckline worn with a mannish jacket shrugged on the shoulders that made for a cool, edgy kind of evening look, and a pair of skintight leather leggings had curving seams that were loosely laced together to show a winding sliver of skin. At this point any similarities to another designer's work were minimal, and if anything the collection seemed to be a continuation of the 80s inflected show he presented last winter.

It wasn't until look 21 that I kind of thought "hmm, that kind of looks like...", but I wrote it off as just a random similarity. They happen all the time in fashion. After a few more sharp black looks with lacing and cutouts Altuzarra sent out a series of looks in crimson velvet. The first, a fitted cocktail dress with body-con seaming and a satin tuxedo lapel was a sexy twist on two staple pieces. But then he sent out 3 different takes on a smoking suit, all in that same red velvet worn with matching velvet stilettos. Now, there is just no way that anyone who has either been following fashion for a while or is obsessed with Tom Ford's history at Gucci wouldn't recognize the similarities between these looks and an iconic look that not only appeared in one of Ford's most lauded collections, but also the campaign that accompanied it and on Gwyneth Paltrow at an event that year. But hey, if that was the inspiration, that was the inspiration. Altuzarra at least had the good sense to rework the suit from his own p.o.v. Unfortunately though he planted the seed of suspicion and that made me re-examine every look that came before it. Suddenly I was seeing similarities everywhere. The collection was good, especially considering that most of the early shows during each NYFW are filled with non-descript, non-impact clothing that is only meant to sell. That wasn't the case here. And some of the pieces, especially the coats and tailoring were really well done.

But those similarities, man. They were just too plentiful, and as much as I may like the collection, the fact that it seems reliant on another designer's work for inspiration bothers me. I'm actually willing to let the red velvet tuxes slide, same goes for the pointed toe pumps with the ankle cuffs that are nearly identical to the ones from Spring 1997. But so much of this, from individual pieces to the overall styling is reminiscent of Tom Ford's blockbuster F/W 03 collection that I just can't let it go. The dramatic upturned collars, the belted waists, the hobbling pencil skirts with body-con construction, the shaggy fur worked onto the sleeves, even the harnesses holding up some of the dresses. Like I said, I didn't even notice the references to Gucci until I had looked through most of the collection already, but once I did notice that's all I could see throughout the lineup. Really what this collection boiled down to was Gucci-lite with a hint of Edward Scissorhands thrown in for contrast. The examples I chose are just narrowed down to the obvious ones, but really the whole collection felt drawn from that Gucci show in some way.

(This is the aforementioned look 21)

(This one is vague, it's only up in the shoulders & sleeves)

I guess it's no wonder I like this so much, because to this day I still love the Gucci collection. Judging by the similarities, some more overt than others, I can only assume that Altuzarra either loved that Gucci collection too and it worked it's way into his collection without his realizing it, or that he actually was trying to channel it consciously. If it's the former, then it's unfortunate because anyone who notices how alike they are will probably jump right to the accusation that he was knocking it off. If it's the latter, then he's going to need to work on adding more of his own personality when he references another designer's work. At the end of the day though it might have been a smart move on Joseph's part, to target the woman who is still searching for a designer to cling to since Tom Ford left the scene and effectively ended the look he championed. It's not like the Ford woman is still shopping at Gucci, so why not cash in on that? I just wish that this had more of the spirit of old Gucci rather than just looking like it.

all photos from style.com and firstview.com

In Memoriam - Alexander McQueen

2010-02-11T20:47:00.008-05:00

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the news that Alexander McQueen has died. For the 10 years that I've been reading about, learning from and witnessing fashion, Alexander McQueen was a part of the experience. Whether brutally severe, aggressively sexual, achingly romantic, or as was common for him a combination of those things, his work never failed to amaze. The way that he could harness the powers of technology, sound, makeup, theater and clothing to not only express his own emotions but also manipulate those of the audience is no doubt what he will go down in history for. He was a designer who set trends, who changed the collective eye, who challenged convention and used fashion as a means of expression. But beyond all of that, he was simply a creator of beauty.

Earlier today I was thinking about how, more often than not, McQueen would close his shows with a final cinematic moment, a powerful image that would burn itself into the memory of all who happened to see it. From a model in a dress made of blood red beads standing in a circle of fire, to Shalom Harlow rotating between two robotic arms as they spray-painted her voluminous white dress, a yellow rainstorm falling over the models as they walked the plexiglass runway, or a voluptuous naked woman in repose wearing a demonic gas mask while butterflies hovered around her. In retrospect those final images are like a reminder that beauty is ephemeral, which is all the more reason to savor it before it ultimately burns out. But none of his finales illustrates this point more poignantly than this from Fall Winter 2006.

I think Style.com's Tim Blanks said it best today when he wrote...

For everyone left behind, there will eventually be consolation, however scant right now, in a body of work whose power will never die.

A brave new world...

2010-01-29T17:29:00.006-05:00

Last year when Pier Paolo Piccioli and Maria Grazia Chiuri presented their debut collection for Valentino during the spring couture collections I, along with countless others, was scandalized that these two designers were chosen to replace Alessandra Faccinetti after her unceremonious dismissal from the house. Besides being accessories designers up until that point in their careers, they sent out a collection that, save for the not-quite-perfect design and workmanship, could very well have been designed by Valentino himself. In his sleep, I might add. During the summer, with their second couture outing, they showed a collection that went in another direction entirely. It was more youthful, filled with thigh high hems and lace-y transparency, and it was done entirely in black and nude, a very unusual sight for a Valentino collection. It wasn't without it's flaws, but it showed some potential. Then in the fall they sent out a RTW collection for S/S 2010 that was almost perfect for where Valentino should be now. It was youthful, but not overwhelmingly young or trendy, it was far less fussy and "Barbie-esque", and most importantly it was incredibly beautiful. Regrettably it came to my attention a couple of weeks after the shows ended and I never got around to reviewing it, but it raised my expectations for the new design duo ten fold.

Now here we are a year into their tenure, and the couture collection they sent out for the new season could only be described as the polar opposite of their debut. Ditching the Paolo Roversi-esque romanticism of their ready-to-wear collection and replacing it with a sci-fi/fantasy spirit, their cyber-Eden inspired collection came as quite a shock to me, and I'm sure to every other person who looked at it as well. It was brash, loud, very, very young with an unmistakable clubby-vibe to it, and it looked nothing like something Valentino himself would have designed. Most people who posted about it on the Fashion Spot seemed pretty offended about that last part. Personally, I'm thrilled that it doesn't look like the maestro's work, because there would be no point in a new designer trying to imitate an old one. But as happy as I am to see that Piccioli and Chiuri have dislodged their heads from Mr. Garavani's perma-tanned ass, I'm not happy with the results. In their zeal to make their work distinct from the immense heritage of the house, and to attract a younger clientele, the collection was just too heavy handed and the clothes suffered as a result. Using a palette made up of both neons and pale shades of beige and blush, the clashes of color didn't always work. In fact, combined with the tight draping and color-blocked, cross-over panels the look was cheap in that Leger/Pucci 80s body-con kinda way. There were also some loose beaded or embroidered mini tunics, which were some of the more appealing pieces in the collection, worn over ugly ruched or beaded chiffon leggings, a couple of quieter gowns that wouldn't be out of place on a red carpet, as well as some that would (tiered ruffles in a mix of taupe, blush and hi-liter yellow), two ruffled mini-dresses in patent shark skin (one in red, the other in olive green), and a heinous caped jumpsuit. The jumpsuit itself wasn't anything offensive, unless jumpsuits just aren't your thing, but the cape was like an ugly acid trip; red, coral, hot pink and neon yellow worked into a pattern that looked like the petals of a man-eating plant or something. Way too much would be an understatement. Basically, for every piece that wasn't half bad there were two that were. Overall the collection suffered from over-design and a lethal dose of trendiness.

Now, while I don't think this collection was good by any means, I also don't think that it was wrong. Chiuri and Piccioli have shown that they do in fact have more to offer than their initial collection would have led us to believe. Clearly they know that in order to keep the Valentino name relevant, it needs to be of the time, and that's the one good thing I can say about this show. Regardless of how tacky or poorly conceived it may be, it is most definitely in tune with what's going on in fashion. I don't think you could say the same about Valentino's work for his couture line. His work was always perfect, but for the better part of the aughties it really didn't manage to surprise or impress. You knew what a Valentino couture collection would look like before the first stiletto hit the runway. I could see why dependability like that might appeal to some, but I've always loved the fact that fashion, unlike almost any other fine or applied art, is constantly changing. At the very least the duo's collections have gotten people's attention and have been anything but predictable since their first venture. But so far none of the couture collections that Chiuri and Piccioli have shown have been a total success and I have a feeling that it's because they feel more pressure in the couture arena than they do with ready to wear, and rightly so. Couture is the ultimate test for any designer. But for two hand-picked successors with a background in accessory design, and after the mini-scandal that was unfolding at the time of their promotion? Let's just say I don't envy them. Who knows if they'll ever really amaze with their couture. But given more time I think that they'll at least learn to hold back from over styling and over designing, and the ride should be somewhat exciting for us to watch. Their spring collection showed what they're capable of doing, both in terms of making clothes and making Valentino youthful and current. They'd be smart to stick to whatever instincts led them there and to avoid, at all costs, neon yellow chiffon.

all images from Style.com

I want candy...

2010-01-26T10:13:00.010-05:00

You know the old saying; sugar, spice and everything nice...

Well imagine if the little girl in question decided that she needed a bit of an edge. What you'd probably wind up with is Karl Lagerfeld's Spring 2010 Haute Couture collection for Chanel. In a show he titled "Neon-Baroque", he sent out a parade of clothes in the kinds of colors that would make most little girls swoon. Gone was the graphic black and white-based palette that usually dominates a Chanel couture offering, and in it's place were perky pastels as far as the eye could see.

Opening with the requisite Chanel tweed, Karl's update on the age-old classic this season was to trade in a traditional narrow skirt for culottes. Now, I'm all for doing whatever it takes to make pastel tweed seem a little less octogenarian, but culottes? Really?? Needless to say, not the Kaiser's best twist on the house's signature look. The semi-opaque lurex tights, chunky silver booties and fingerless gloves didn't exactly help. But some of the jackets had this amazing detail around the edges or next to seams, tiny little blotches of molten silver. Trimming the edges of the collar or the front of the jacket they were a modern alternative to the classic braiding. Around the shoulder seam they almost looked like metal stitches or medical staples holding the sleeve up. There were also a few straight-cut shifts with neat little stand up collars and glass/lucite tubes assembled into brooches at the neck before the collection moved soundly into "dress" territory. I've mentally blocked the fussy, lacey little numbers and the heavily beaded dresses with caped sleeves and landed right at look #31; a white pleated shirt dress with a soft pink tint at the hem. I wish I knew why that look caught my eye, maybe it's the relative simplicity compared to everything that came before it, but I find myself drawn to it. After that it was full on, pastry light confections that could put the Ladurée-designed food in Sophia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" to shame. If you've seen the movie, you know exactly what I mean. A short tiered dress came in Mille-feuille layers of delicately shaded pink organza. A coat reminiscent of topiary came covered in swirling mauve ruffles from the shoulder down. An empire line bubble dress and corresponding Balenciaga-esque cape were made out of tiny flat rosettes. And there were numerous softly draped options in icy shades of satin with ornate beadwork at the neckline.

But none of that compared to the evening dresses. In every conceivable shade of pale pink, with bits of yellow, coral, lavender and gray mixed in for good measure, the sweetness of these fluid columns of liquid satin was cut by the baroque silver embroidery. Most of the dresses featured one knockout embroidered detail. Take the coral one for example; under the sari like drape the bodice was covered with metallic silver sequins embroidered into swirls that had an almost armor-like look. The yellow one had a kind of breast-plate embroidered onto the top, covered with 3-D camelias in silver paillettes. Another one in pale pink had a pleated faux-wrap top with billowing kimono sleeves, and the skirt had horizontal metallic bands worked into it. But my personal favorite? The pristine white floor length shirt dress with pleated shoulders, starched collar and over-sized black necktie. It was so simple, with no embroidery or beading at all, only a brooch on the tie. And it was humorous too, with the not-so-subtle reference to Karl himself, but it was also just plain beautiful. After the gowns the rest of the evening pieces were mainly short, voluminous, and so light and frothy with layers of tulle and fragile ruffles that they looked like meringues. Honestly though they were just too pretty, too delicate, too sweet for my taste.

I'm truly shocked that I like this collection at all, let alone that I like it quite a bit. There's just so much in it that I normally turn up my nose at. I think it might be the sheer overload of all those things, the pretty colors, the softness, the sugary girlishness, that ultimately makes it appealing. I mean really the whole thing is so obnoxiously feminine. It's taken to such an extreme that it's almost aggressive, which of course makes it interesting. Then there is the balance from the space-agey elements, the silver, the heavy beadwork, that makes these clothes different than your run of the mill frou-frou. And for the first time in as long as I can remember Karl didn't completely overload on details. Even though the collection is called baroque, a lot of it (barring the passage that I've blocked from memory) is actually pretty spare by Chanel HC standards. All of those evening dresses, for example, have their embellishment contained to one area; the neckline, the shoulder, the hip, what have you. Most of the suits are only trimmed with those tiny silver dots, instead of the usual textural overload. Even the accessories, which any Chanel show is overloaded with, were kept to a minimum, just those Barbarella booties, tights, gloves and occasional bit of jewelry. So as much as Karl went full tilt with the prettiness, he actually managed to rein in the details and, for the most part, control them. I really never thought I'd see the day that I'd root for pastel satin, but I guess stranger things have happened, no?

images from Catwalking.com via Festat at tFS

All About Evil...

2010-01-23T02:13:00.009-05:00

For me the only thing besides the awe-inspiring, vertigo-inducing footwear shown on the Alexander McQueen S/S 2010 runway that made an impression was the film, directed by Nick Knight of course, that played at the opening of the show. In it model Raquel Zimmermann, lit in deathly shades of blue and naked as the day she was born, was writhing around in a state akin to ecstasy (really, the only way to writhe imo). Slithering around on the aforementioned naked model were dozens of snakes. It was an incredibly powerful image, a giant video screen dominated by a beautiful woman falling prey to the evils of temptation. Or, you know, not. Personally the video made me think more of Lilith, the personification of temptation itself, than of Eve, the mortal who gave into it.

TBH I'm not at all surprised that McQueen and Knight chose to adapt that image for the campaign. But whereas the video was haunting, dark and overtly sexual, the campaign is lighter, both literally and figuratively. For starters, you'd be hard pressed to find pythons or boa constrictors that haven't already been made into accessories in the colors that Knight dreamed up. Pretty much every primary and secondary shade on the color wheel is present and accounted for, and with the sheer amount of serpents both large and small the first impression of the shot is like a bomb exploding in your retinas. You don't know where to focus first, though the chartreuse snakeskin "armadillo" platforms, as they've been informally known, are a good place to start. Of course, those shoes are on someone's feet, and those feet are connected to a body somewhere under the swirling mass of cold-blooded color. Let your eyes adjust for a second and then you see her, though just barely, and that's where the otherwise striking image falls flat for me. All you see is snake patterns everywhere, dominating the entire image. While the intensity of the color and pattern makes for a strong first impact, any impact that the image of a woman tangled in serpents might have is completely lost. I cannot fathom why anyone would have chosen that snake printed catsuit as the wardrobe for this shot because it blends right in. That may very well have been the intent, but I don't think it makes for a great image. It's simply too much of one thing. Besides that, and more confusingly, with all of the extravagantly molded, printed and puffed mini dresses shown on the runway you pick a printed lycra catsuit to represent the collection? I mean granted, all that the runway collection amounted to was a bunch of beautifully manipulated prints, and that's exactly what the ad is trying to sell you, but again, the printed clothing is canceled out by the snakes. It's basically just part of the background.

So I'm torn about it. On the one hand it's a really cool image on it's own. Even though McQueen's ads don't show up in magazines, there is absolutely NO WAY you would miss this if it did. Plus it's the polar opposite of all the other ads this season which have been focusing first and foremost on the clothes. This is an unapologetic feast for the eyes by comparison. But the problem is that the eyes, or at least my eyes, don't really have anywhere to go once the initial bang of "Ooh, colored snakes" wears off. There really isn't anything else to look at after that because that's precisely what dominates the entire photograph. Quite honestly I think that she should have been naked, wearing only the shoes (and might I add, not those particular shoes). As it is the ad doesn't have the same dark eroticism going for it that the film did, which in all fairness could be partly because there's no motion. But they still could have achieved a sense of dangerous sexuality without the benefit of movement. And besides, it's not like this ad is actually selling you a product anyway, so she really didn't have to be wearing anything at all. The image would have been better had she not been. I think what's frustrating me is that I can totally see what could have been, and the fact that it's not is driving me crazy.

One pill, two pill, red pill, blue pill...

2010-01-18T23:16:00.007-05:00

Versace

Granted it's only a couple of days in, but so far the mens shows aren't quite blowing my mind...with one exception. The Versace mens collection for F/W 2010 is, without a doubt, the most gutsy and exciting collection for men that Donatella has sent out in years. For a while, I'd say since Versace began her quest to revamp the house and steer it in a more luxurious, modern and profitable direction, Versace menswear has lacked quite a bit of the verve and attitude that made it so much fun back in the early naughties. That's not to say that it hasn't been good. Ever since Donatella hired Alexandre Plokhov to head the mens collection the results have been consistently beautiful, with a new emphasis on streamlined masculinity and sharply tailored chic. But the attitude; it was just a little too tame. Granted Versace is a label that will never appeal to everyone, you either like it or you don't, but I think anyone who cares even a little bit about fashion would agree that at the end of the day Versace just isn't meant to be tame. Ever.

If this collections makes one thing clear, it's that you can only tame Milan's platinum blonde beast for so long before she breaks free of her shackles, ready to tear it up. The collection, in all of it's hard-edged, cyberpunk glory, is fantastic for the simple reason that you could not possibly have seen it coming. It was completely unpredictable. For the last few years Versace's menswear has been classic, very grown up and sharply tailored bordering on formal, with a strong focus on a mature sense of luxury and glamour. Imagine the polar opposite of that and you have the F/W 2010 menswear collection. For starters the look is pure youth; narrow tailored trousers in black or gray worn stuffed into multi-strapped-and-buckled patent boots, motocross pants in skintight black leather or a patchwork of fabric and patent, tops made of strips of leather slit open like Venetian blinds to show the skin underneath, and streamlined biker jackets cut narrow enough to give Rick Owens a run for his money. While this all sounds like the type of stuff that trendy young fashion boi types have been wearing forever, Versace and Plokhov upped the ante with the details. Those biker jackets, among my favorite pieces throughout the collection, aren't mere Rick Owens rip-offs; instead they're detailed with cut-work, padding, topstitching, or a faux-wrap shawl collar. There were some gorgeous knee-length coats, in particular a gray tweedy looking one with lapels and no collar, or for the more ballsy type a patent leather car coat. A few pieces had this weird bump detail, like studs pressed under the surface of the leather or fabric, kind of a punky take on ostrich leather. A gorgeous knit top in silvery-gray had panels of laddered fringe, while other tops were woven like a fishing net. For evening, thought it wasn't traditional by any stretch of the imagination, Versace paired sharply tailored jackets and trousers, or more of those leather pants, with tops in the house's signature chain mail. The few times I've ever seen it used for men, I haven't liked the results, but somehow these tops looked cool. Mixed in with the black and grays were shots of electric blue, cobalt, burgundy and purple, as well as some multicolored "laser" print tops (which were not among my favorite piece in the collection).

Honestly the only thing I don't like about this collection is the fact that I'm in no way cool enough to pull the look off myself. I don't have a multi-million dollar record deal to accessorize my outfits with, and to work these looks I think that may be a necessity. But broken apart most of these pieces aren't as extreme as they appear. The styling is decidedly fashion-y and to be honest I'm thrilled with that. I'm tired of having my fashion spoon-fed to me. If all I wanted was to look at nice clothes, I wouldn't devote my time to following fashion. An added bonus is the shock factor that this collection provides. In yet another Milan mens season when the results are less than lust-inducing, this collection is like an adrenaline rush. Versace and Plokhov seemed to throw caution to the wind and just do what they wanted to do without any hesitation. They didn't just put some patent trim on a classic coat and call it futuristic, they went full tilt with their inspiration. For that reason this show stands out, and will likely continue to until the mens collections wrap up in Paris by the end of the week. But then I wouldn't expect much less from a member of the Versace family. Donatella may fall into her ruts, indulging in too much glitz for a while, then reigning things in too much after that, but when the woman decides to make a change there is no such thing as doing it subtly.

Doll parts...

2010-01-12T19:46:00.009-05:00

Even though I didn't end up reviewing the S/S 2010 collection during the shows this fall, don't for one second think that I was just ignoring it. The truth is I really liked it. It wasn't a blockbuster up to par with the extremely high standards that Miuccia Prada has set for herself over the years, but there was something about it that appealed to me. Now the ads are popping up slowly and surely, and from the first shot that I saw it had my attention. A trend that seems to be permeating the new spring ad campaigns is that a lot of them are focusing mainly, or almost entirely, on the clothes and accessories. There aren't interesting stories, amazing locations and dizzying special effects on display, which forces the viewers (that would be us) to focus on the other things that make up a photograph. Those elements of a photograph that we can often take for granted or just not notice are coming through loud and clear now that some designers and photogs are stripping back to the bare essentials; model, clothes, hair, makeup and light.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the new Prada campaign. In the model's articulated poses and blank expression throughout the shots that have surfaced so far, the fledgling model looks more like a mannequin than a human. Besides the creepy plastic quality the most striking thing in some of the shots is the way that the image is cropped. The top half of the girl's head is missing, only showing everything from the lips down, and her legs are cut off right at the hips. The only color in the shots is the model's glossy vermilion pout. Feminists would probably have a field day arguing the subliminal chauvinist messages that an image portraying a young girl with no face contains. Let's not even delve into the fact that the faceless girl on display is in pigtails. Lucky for us fashion isn't a staunchly feminist universe, because chauvinism aside the images are pretty damn gorgeous. The last shot, in the floral dress, isn't as exciting to me for the simple fact that you can see more of the model's features. So take that feminazis! Sometimes a full face just doesn't make for a standout photograph. But truth be told I also don't love the poses in those two shots either. Overall it just isn't as interesting an image.

I absolutely love how minimal this campaign is. As with minimalist clothing, a minimalist photograph isn't just something that's plain. Meisel proves that point exceptionally well with this campaign, managing to fill the space with enough detail to keep the eye interested. In fact, the photos are good enough that you can almost ignore the fact that they are simply and blatantly pushing the product, and nothing more. They're not saying anything about fashion, about femininity, about beauty, about life...they're just saying "buy me", and that kind of honesty is rare these days.

images from Northern Star and honeycombchild at The Fashion Spot, and Love Magazine Blog

The thrill of the new...

2010-01-03T19:35:00.002-05:00

It's a new year and a new decade too. That can only mean one thing; New name. New look. Same attitude (as if I could get rid of that).

That's right readers, this fashion fiend has become a full blown addict, and with any luck you will too. Like any restless creative soul I got sick of what I had made and decided to move on. Plus that old title was too effing wordy.

So please make sure to edit your links, and keep coming back for more of the same potent mix of sarcasm and satin.

Here's to a fabulous 2010!!!

Meh...

2009-12-28T23:59:00.009-05:00

You know what kills me? What kills me is when you're looking forward to something and in the end all that excitement was for nothing. Anticlimax. Unmet expectations. Disappointment. Whatever you decide to call it, the feeling is a frustrating one. It pains me to say that it's exactly how I'm feeling about the hot-off-the-presses Givenchy S/S 2010 campaign, which debuted on WWD yesterday. Why was I looking forward to it you might ask, given that I was left feeling pretty indifferent about the collection? For starters, the cast. Oh it's not some eclectic ensemble of girls like it has been in past seasons, nor was there news that some super or another was making an appearance, not that either of those things would automatically whip me into a frenzy of breathless excitement anyway. But when I read that Tisci's go-to Givenchy girl MCB (that's Mariacarla Boscono to civilians) would be joined by Natalia Vodianova, my interest was piqued. I've made it clear that I'm by no means an avid follower of models, but I consider both Mariacarla and Natalia to be talented, which is an increasing rarity these days. I think I also have a soft spot for both of them since I can remember their individual rises to icon status. Plus, I was interested in seeing what Mert & Marcus would do with their second campaign for the label since their first effort was solid, though somewhat reserved by their standards.

As it turned out this season the campaign may as well have been by ex-Givenchy photogs Inez & Vinoodh, because it looked almost exactly like some of their Givenchy campaigns. That, my friends, is just the very big tip of the sucky iceberg. Granted M&M's campaign last season wasn't exactly their normal fare, but I just don't get the point of ditching every last thing you're known for, especially if it's in favor of something that someone else has done. On the other hand I have to question the decisions made by Tisci and his team. Why hire Mert & Marcus if you're not going to let them do their signature work? Granted their aesthetic can get a little grating sometimes, but it's distinct enough that you would never mistake it as another photographer's work. But this campaign, you would never guess it to be theirs. The fact that M&M resorted to a predictable Givenchy campaign formula of a group of models striking unposed poses in coordinating clothes is made even worse by the fact that neither Natalia or Mariacarla are at their best here. They're just sort of lifelessly staring into the camera, and on top of that Natalia's hair was inexplicably dyed brown. It does nothing for her, and paired with MCB she's basically overshadowed because she looks pretty much unrecognizable at first glance.

I will say this though, the clothes are shown very well, especially in the middle shot, and at the end of the day that is basically the point of an ad campaign. But then you could argue that a good campaign should do more than just display the product, it should make you crave it and if it's a really good ad, crave the life it's portraying as well. The thing is that there really isn't anything to hate about the campaign, but there really isn't anything to love about it either from where I'm sitting. Okay, so maybe that's not entirely true. There is one thing to love; Simon Nessman. He makes the campaign worth looking at more than once, for no other reason than the fact that he's unnaturally beautiful. It's shallow, yes, but it's as good a reason as any to pay attention to something. And really, you'd probably be lying if you said you didn't like the view of him as well.

images from WWD.com via Flashbang at the Fashion Spot

On pointe...

2009-12-12T12:14:00.005-05:00

Campaign time is apparently right around the corner, and what better way to get into the spirit of things than to marvel at the stunning first image from Jeurgen Teller's campaign for Marc Jacobs. Given Jacobs' inspiration for the season (dance, theater, performance in general) the campaign could really have gone in any number of directions.

If the first shot is anything to go by, we're in for a gorgeous, dramatic and truly funny campaign from Teller and Jacobs. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see more.

No, you're eyes aren't fucking with you. That really is a toilet she's standing in. More to come as the story unfolds.

image posted by Luxx at tFS from Models.com

Video: Haider Ackermann Spring Summer 2010

2009-11-21T21:16:00.009-05:00

I confess, even though I have become a devoted fan of Ackermann's I have never once seen his clothes in motion, and actually that's kind of a mild tragedy. The man's designs are incredibly fluid as well as multi-dimensional, so not being able to see them move is like not being able to see Monet's water lillies in color. You can't really appreciate it. But this season I (and all his other groupies for that matter) have gotten lucky, because a full video of his mesmerizing spring show was published and let me just say that it doesn't disappoint. The designer and his team clearly know how to create a mood, and in a way I think creating real atmosphere for a fashion show is probably more difficult that creating a full on spectacle, because you're relying on a feeling to do the work that theatrics would otherwise do for you. In that way the presentation almost, almost reminds me of Tom Ford's old Gucci shows; spare, straightforward and hypnotic. The dim lighting pierced only by a spotlight at the beginning is pitch perfect for Ackermann's glam/gloom aesthetic, and even the slow, melancholic pace or moody, minimal soundtrack (things that would normally grate on my nerves) don't deter from the beauty of the show or from the clothes themselves. And I have to say, the image of Olga Sherer gliding down the runway with that haunting piano in the background, her smokey gown quivering while she moves is literally killing me. To. Die. For.

But don't take my word for it...

video from JalouTV.com

The body beautiful...

2009-10-04T03:18:00.010-04:00

Ann Demeulemeester

It's rare that I ever swoon over an Ann Demeulemeester runway show. Clothes aside (and her clothes are always beautiful) her vision can at times be a little unrelenting. Don't get me wrong, I know that Ms. D has her clientele and knows what they want. She doesn't invest much time in thinking about what's trendy or of the moment. Some might say that's part of her appeal, others might dislike her for that very reason. I personally fall somewhere in between. I don't mind that she sticks to her aesthetic, it's just that sometimes I wish there was a little more variation from season to season. While Ann may not spend much time thinking about fashion's next direction, that doesn't always mean that she's completely out of the loop either. In a season where so many designers are revealing skin, Demeulemeester decided to cut away at her signature layers and bare some flesh...in her own way of course. The collection she showed for Spring 2010 reminded me of two of my favorite Ann D collections of the past, S/S 2001 and S/S 2006, which could explain why I like it so much. Then of course there's the undercurrent of sex and bondage that's on display. I mean really, it'd be kind of strange if I didn't like it at least a little. Keeping the silhouette predominantly lean, with an emphasis on short skirts and black leather, Demeulemeester's band of nomadic poets looked tougher and sexier than they have in quite some time. Her artfully destroyed jewelry and soft, flimsy layers were replaced with chains of zippers and bare sternums. Her trademark cropped, boyish trousers were shown in black leather and paired with everything from roughly beaded tunics to matching leather bandeaus. Belts were made of zippers that had been undone so as to fall apart in places, making them look more like harnesses than belts. Those zippers also appeared sweeping down the lapel of jackets and coats, dangling down the front of tops like fringe, even wrapped around the models' faces (romantically, of course). Balancing out the aggressive elements of the collection was a black and white print of birds, which I honestly wasn't a big fan of. Normally I like Demeulemeester's prints, but overall the avian motif didn't really do much for me. Worn with most of the looks was a leather cummerbund/girdle kind of thing that gave the silhouette a high waisted look, and also prevented the looks from baring too much skin all at once. I love the look of a plunging neckline that's been interrupted by something that has the look of fetish wear. For evening, or at least Demeulemeester's version of evening, washed leather vests or slouchy jackets were worn open over long, sylph-like skirts that dragged along the floor. Accessorized with those multi-harnessed belts or a thin chain collar dangling from the neck and attached around the waist, they were an edgy update of a cliched evening silhouette.

Like I said, I think the reason why I like this collection so much is because it's not territory that she always explores. It's not often that she goes for a really tough, aggressive, sexy mood; her vision has skewed more romantic and soulful these last few years. So it was a welcome change to see her embracing sex and severity. I also like that the lines of the clothes are kept close to the body, stripped down to their simplest forms instead of layered, gathered and voluminous. While I would give anything for her to delve into color more, like she did last spring, it's nice to see her shaking things up even a little bit.

Haider Ackermann

I've been aware of Haider Ackermann since about 2007, and in the two years since first seeing his clothes on Luisaviaroma.com I have followed his work and slowly fallen in love. On the surface there are some similarities to his fellow Belgian Ann Demeulemeester, as well as to Rick Owens. But once you look closer it becomes easier to spot what makes Ackermann distinct. For one, he uses sensuality and sexuality much more freely than Demeulemeester or Owens does. His clothes, from his twsited, super-soft leather jackets and fluid tailoring to his languid, soigné goddess dresses, are designed to exploit the female form. He has no qualms with baring flesh, cutting away fabric to reveal shoulder, back, hip or leg, which gives his work an erotic edge that isn't really to be found in the work of many of the designers whom he can be compared to. Perhaps that's due to his background. It seems natural that someone who was born in Colombia and raised in Belgium would design clothes that are a clash between passionate sensuality and moody romanticism. It also seems natural that Ackermann developed a bit of nomadic streak in his work. This season his mind went to India, though not being one for themes the results were anything but literal. In a way though the inspiration suits Ackermann's talents perfectly. On the one hand you have the elegant, regimental tailoring of the English colonial period; on the other you have the sensual wrapping of saris. That basically sums up the two things that he is best known for. Whatever led Mr. Ackermann to his inspiration, it produced what is probably my favorite collection of his thus far.

Opening with one of his signature washed leather jackets with attenuated shoulders and sleeves pushed up past the elbows worn over a short, twisted mini dress in what looks like suede that was slashed open across the hip bone, he didn't seem to stray too far from the look that has become his trademark. Sure, the silhouette was shorter, and the dress was more body conscious, but the look was instantly recognizable as his own. Then followed a number of riffs on a safari jacket. One was sleeveless and worn with cuffed leather shorts, while another in black leather was lengthened into a kind of mini dress. Yet another had been hacked away to create a halter top that was worn with a long bias cut fishtail skirt. Around look 7 was when the sari-esque elements came into play. A charcoal mini dress had cutout cold shoulders and was wrapped at the waist, while an asymmetrical top had one sleeve and was paired with slim pants in wrinkled washed satin. In the soigné department, a mannish safari jacket with face framing collar was worn over a mini skirt with a billowing train. All of these looks were in varying shades of black and gray, which isn't surprising as Ackermann tends to stick to fairly monochrome colors. Look 13 then was quite a surprise coming from him; a golden yellow silk military vest paired over matching draped shorts that swooped up across the front of the vest.

After that the collection lightened up. There was another head-to-toe yellow look of a cropped jacket worn over a draped halter gown with that same double-length skirt (which would appear throughout the collection. Then came a few looks in deep navy satin that were the perfect contrast to the bright yellow that had come before them (and which I wish there had been more of). After those three navy looks the color lightened even more into pale icy blue for a clingy v-neck column gown and an asymmetrically wrapped mini dress, faded blush for a halter dress and suede jacket combo, a soft sand colored jumpsuit in softly metallic looking fabric, and some pale, vaguely military inspired looks in beige and taupe before the collection moved into dark browns and finally black. Closing the show were three black looks, a single sleeved gown, a jumpsuit with cutout shoulders and a keyhole neckline, and finally an asymmetrical one shoulder goddess gown designed to bare one breast.

Like I said, I think this may be my favorite Haider Ackermann collection of all the ones that I've seen. His signatures are all there, the draping, the sensuous tailoring, but there's something more. Maybe it's because the pale color and the unabashed display of naked flesh is so on track with where the season seems to be going. Maybe it's just that all of the elements he's become known for seem to be amped up a bit more; the color is more unusual, the sex appeal is more overt. I'm honestly not sure what it is. It's also interesting to note that this is probably the first time that Ackermann's collection has been so much apart of the trends that are going on, but I'm sure that was purely coincidental. He's just not a trendy designer. Still, it doesn't hurt that he managed to give everyone what they want and expect from him while also managing to be a part of the moment. Whoever said you can't have your cake and eat it too clearly didn't work in fashion.

Lanvin

What can I say about Lanvin that hasn't already been said before by those with more colorful vocabularies than mine? Beautiful, glamorous, feminine, flattering, timeless; all of them work. This season, in addition to all of those things, Alber Elbaz injected his collection with more than a little bit of sex, and a big dose of good old-fashioned fun. It sounds kind of cheesy when it's put that way, but really, that was the most exciting thing about this collection; it was all about the joy of going way over the top. If you look at this collection and last season's collection side by side, they'd appear to be polar opposites. But last season, besides the restrained glamour and echoes of wartime austerity, there was a hint of eccentricity. That's nothing really new for Elbaz, his collections always have this slightly askew feel to them, but last season the effect was a bit more pronounced...at least to me. This season however the volume was turned up all the way to 11. The collection seemed to revel in that beautiful eccentricity. The show opened with sharp, fitted dresses and skirts that were finished with exaggerated, exuberant ruffles that traced the edges of a top or the waist of a dress creating a peplum. Skirts were cut tight and cropped well above the knee, while dresses or tops with deflated puff sleeves fell assymetrically off the shoulders. This whole opening section had echoes of Elbaz's F/W 2007 collection, with it's focus on exaggerated mutton sleeves and sculpted ruffles. Here though the effect was sharper, more aggressive in a way. Paired with the models' messy chignons, smoky black eyes, mile long legs, as well as the cinematic lighting, these looks made for some of the most overtly sexy looks that I can ever recall on a Lanvin runway. Mixed into the sharper looks was a beautiful asymmetrically draped ecru dress that was twisted to one side. Even that though had a sexuality to it because with the dramatic lighting and the softness of the farbic, it seemed to blend into the models' skin. There was also a one sleeved draped black jumpsuit, a surprisingly trendy moment in the collection that was a sign of what would follow.

From there Elbaz began to lighten up, both in shape and in color. After the parade of monochromatic looks that had come down the runway, out came 5 draped dresses, some slinky, others more structured, in different shades of red and pink. Two in particular caught my eye and were a good indication of the new-found sex appeal to be seen throughout the collection. Both were softly draped with a wrap skirt that opened on the side, one with a draped v-neck and a single rolled up sleeve, the other seemingly tied and knotted around the neck and falling off one shoulder. The beauty of them was that, sexy as they were, they looked like they had simply been flung onto the body and artfully arranged; like they would fall into a puddle of fabric on the floor at any moment. That's the beauty of Lanvin though, as haphazard and spontaneous as the clothes appear, they're always perfectly made. There were two looks in leather, one a black dress with puff sleeves, the other a draped chocolate blouse worn with a black skirt, that offset the prettiness well, though I do think that they would have been better had they been shown with the more aggressive opening looks. After them Elbaz moved into soft makeup shades of blush, pale tawny orange, beige and taupe. This section of looks, all of them falling in soft drapes or gathers, tied in perfectly with the whole super-soft, super-pretty lingerie mood that's become the dominant theme this season, though the clothes never really referenced lingerie. Then came two more jumpsuits, one in a faded cocoa color, the other in a pinkish taupe. The fabric of the brown one almost had the look of loose Fortuny pleats, and worn with a jeweled belt and whopping enamel and brass snake collar, it definitely recalled the era when Fortuny was at the height of his popularity.

Up until now there was no embellishment on the clothes, but it almost seems like Elbaz made a conscious decision to not only embellish the evening clothes, but to go as far as he could with sparkle and glitz. First came a fleshtoned one shoulder jumpsuit completely covered in beadwork, accessorized with a jeweled belt and layered necklaces. A beaded t-shirt was worn with a draped skirt that had clashing beadwork lightly scattered on it. Another ensemble paired a matching top and pants completely encrusted with brass colored paillettes with a beaded track jacket, again finished off with huge layered necklaces. And finally a trio of sparkling party dresses, one each in green, sulphuric yellow and red, had contrasting pieces of black that almost looked like a t shirt layered under the dress. Mixed in with the over the top beadwork were simpler draped options. Two floor length dresses were slit all the way up the thigh. One in khaki was almost like a draped shirt dress, while the other in washed black was gathered on one shoulder. Again these looks were uncharacteristically sexy for Elbaz, but they still had the languid ease and unfussiness that is associated with Lanvin. There was a beautiful navy jumpsuit with those same destroyed Fortuny-esque pleats, a simple full skirted dress in pleated teal silk, and the final look which was a nude body that had randomly draped bright pink tulle covering it. It kind of looked like cotton candy.

Needless to say, I love, love, LOVE the collection. The one thing that Alber Elbaz consistently does is create beautiful clothes that make the viewer (and I would assume the wearer as well) feel good. I love the feisty twist that he gave the collection. There's a sexiness to it that feels both right for now and fresh for Lanvin. Don't get me wrong, Lanvin is always sexy, but it isn't usually so overt. I also love how deliciously over the top this all is. In almost any other designers' hands (save maybe for Lacroix) accessorizing a fully beaded, brightly colored party dress with multiple statement necklaces, bracelets and earrings would be way too much. For whatever reason though, none of this comes off that way to me. Instead of being tacky or loud, it reads as quirky and fun, and fun is something that fashion is in desperate need of right now.

all photos from Style.com

'Tis the season...

2009-09-21T18:39:00.009-04:00

In a way New York Fashion Week is like Christmas; you have to open a bunch of gifts you didn't want and won't use before you get to a good one. That's really the best description I can come up with for it, lot's of filler with some moments of excitement. While that makes looking through the shows annoying, it also makes it possible to review the ones I like all at once.

Donna Karan

Last season Donna Karan presented one of her most perfect collections in years combining glamour and sensuality with modernity and authority...not that that's anything really new for her. She's always been about that. But included in the mix was a nostalgic kind of femininity, something really elegant and pulled together that brought her collection to a whole other level. I was definitely curious to see where she would go for spring. Donna, like many women, has two very different sides to her. One season she goes after the spirit of New York, delivering on the powerful female mantra she laid out in the 80s. The next she's following the Zen path towards serene sensuality with a distinctly Eastern feel. I can't recall a collection where she managed to fully blend her two opposing sides into the same collection...until now.

Inspired by the elements, specifically the sea and the breeze blowing off it, Karan maintained her tailored, hourglass silhouette from fall. The opening look said it all; a chalky gray nipped waist jacket with a wide portrait neckline worn with a simple pencil skirt in a lighter shade of gray. The pieces were typical Donna Karan staples, but with a twist. Below the latex ribbon tied waist on the jacket, random crinkles shaped the upper hips and added texture to the look. As it turned out texture and rippling crinkles would shape up to be the main focus of the collection. There were echoes of last spring's Prada collection in the focus on textured fabric treatments, though here the rumpled effect was used more sparingly and focused on one area of the garment. There was a strapless top in linen with tight crinkled texture at the waist worn over a pencil skirt in fabric that had the texture of crepe paper party streamers. Burlap jackets were left to fray around the edges which gave them the look of tweed. A gorgeous peach blouse reminded me of the dolman sleeved tops she showed last season. From the back though it was cutout to reveal the shoulders, and what appeared to be bat wing sleeves from the front weren't sleeves at all. And a fiery red tube dress with gray trim was shown under a matching sheer textured coat.

From there the collection continued on the way it started, though now the feminine tailoring was punctuated with the occasional soft, ethereal look. A flowy red and gray printed organza skirt which was worn with a simple fitted tank introduced an ethereal, almost balletic feel that balanced out the sexy urban tailoring. There were also chiffon or printed organza wrap dresses, one in an icy gray that was among my favorite pieces in the collection, a fantastic degrade washed leather jacket, softly draped goddess dresses that fell off the shoulder or wrapped tightly around the body, a drop-dead skirt suit in chalky white python and a simple full skirted white cotton shirtwaist-come-cocktail dress. Of course this being a Donna Karan collection there were a number of stunning, effortless looking evening dresses on display. My personal favorites were the asymmetrical white jersey toga with plunging neckline and the fiery red satin column with draped bust. Like I said last season I just don't get why Donna's gowns don't end up on more red carpets. They look like they'd be extremely comfortable, and they're stunningly gorgeous on top of that. Why any starlet would choose a frou-frou bulldozer of a gown over something sleek and sensuous is beyond me.

While I don't think the collection was as perfectly realized as her last (there was the addition of some unfortunate looking chapeaux, a criminal offense imo) it did a pretty good job of picking up where that one left off. And like I said, this collection was a great blend of Donna's two opposing sides. It was completely urbane; chic, sleek and practical, but the soothing grays and beiges combined with the rough textures that appeared throughout gave the collection an earthy quality that, I think anyway, provided a wonderful contrast. Donna's always been telling women that they can be it all - mother, executive, seductress and goddess - and this collection was a good reminder of that.

Marc Jacobs

In a way fashion trends work like a pendulum. At some point the pendulum swings out far enough that the only way it can go is in the other direction. As far as Marc Jacobs is concerned, last season fashion swung as far as it could go in the tough, studded, shoulder-padded, leather legging-ed, mini-skirted 80s redux that has dominated runways for a few seasons now, and the only logical thing to do was something else entirely. His logic isn't entirely off either. Style.com quoted him as saying that "it's not such an individual expression", the it in question being the predominant look of the moment. That would definitely explain his collection for next spring, because it couldn't be farther from what's going on right now. Combining what seemed like miles of swirling, pleated ruffles, lingerie, menswear and a touch of Zandra Rhodes' trippy bohemian spirit - all of which was styled in a bizarrely layered way - Jacobs sent out a collection which he claimed was inspired by the stage. There was a hint of kabuki in the model's whitened face makeup and burgundy bow lips, as well as the modified geta platforms that were worn with every outfit. Some looks were topped with ruffled Pierrot collars, while the layering of others suggested a dancer in rehearsal mode. Dresses in pastel pink or white came smothered in those swirling ruffles with pearl trim, while masculine pinstripe suiting fabric was softened with ruffles edging the lapel or trousers. One jacket in sapphire blue had a huge lamé ruffle forming a bib down the front. It was worn with matching shorts, which were worn over sheer chiffon track pants in a lighter shade of blue. An olive green military jacket was belted under the bust and worn over ruffled hotpants. Vintage-style bras were worn over crisp button downs or knit tops, and pencil skirts cut at mid-calf had mesh girdles built into the waist. There were pastel jacquard ankle length circle skirts, candy striped harem pants, and dresses or outfits in pastel colored plaid with ruffled trim. All of this was just in the first half of the show.

The second half of the show was what interested me more. Those ruffles that had appeared throughout the show were now shown in candy-colored metallic brocades and were used to completely cover some of the garments. Even though the clothes were girly to the point of being ridiculous, there was something almost humorous about them...not surprising given Marc's obsession with subversion. If anyone can make pastel ruffles just a little bit off, it's Marc. There were some beautiful chiffon dresses in pale mint, pink or white with layered hankerchief edges, a black skirt ensemble in a cutout fishscale pattern that was embroidered in sequins and trimmed with ruffles around the shoulders and cuffs, and a dress reminiscent of vintage Paco Rabanne was made of sequined red and burgundy ovals that were linked together. The last look was one of the most traditionally beautiful things in the collection; a white organza dress with delicate black spirals swirling across the bodice and skirt like wisps of smoke.

Honestly, I wish I could say I liked the collection more. I definitely get it, and the fact that it's so different from almost everything that's been going on for a while now is refreshing, but I just don't think this made for one of Marc's most compelling collections. More than anything it just doesn't move me, one way or another. Here's hoping that the Vuitton collection is more convincing.

Rodarte

Probably one of the best things about Rodarte's Spring 2010 collection was the fact that, despite the Mulleavy sisters' references, there was a lot that could be seen in the clothes. This season the sisters concocted a fairy tale about a girl who's burned alive and reincarnated as a condor forced to survive in a barren, apocalyptic world. From that tale though they created looks that called to mind everything from Mel Gibson in "Braveheart" and the warrior queen Boudicca to voodoo shamans and grunge. Every look in the 35 piece collection was shredded, frayed, patched and just generally destroyed to perfection. Given the inspiration the color palette was suitably dark, earthy and strong, ranging from burnt browns and tans, faded burgundy and plum, a few shots of chartreuse and black. Some fabrics were bleached or tie-dyed, while others were printed with a faded tartan and all of them were pieced together in the sisters' signature collage construction. Almost all of the looks were comprised of short dresses, with a few pairs of slashed and zipped cigarette pants thrown into the mix and a finale trio of gowns. Like last season that left me a little frustrated. I totally get the Rodarte aesthetic, and I can totally appreciate their approach to design, but I don't really understand why, for the past few seasons, they've been delivering collections that are comprised almost exclusively of dresses. They've done beautiful separates in the past that were no less special than their fantasy dresses and gowns. Just like last season I'm wondering why they didn't show them on the runway. I know that they have to have made them for retailers, so why not show them? The problem with showing one dress after the other, all of which use similar techniques and fabrics to achieve their effect, is that they appear extremely similar. Instead of noticing the subtle differences between each dress, most people will zero in on the similarities. Take the first three looks; each of them were short, comprised of a streaky tan skirt and a top that mixed gray plaid, a shot of chartreuse and a bit of mauvey tie-dye. Each of them was draped differently, but because they were shown one after the other they looked more similar than they did unique. The collection moved from those first mini dresses through to woven or crocheted patchwork tunics with fringe dragging on the floor, tops pieced together with thick bands of black separating each fabric, pieces made from swirling bands of leather with bits of skin peeking through, and finally a series of black dresses and gowns. If Rodarte's swirling, draped gowns with transparency on the torso have had an ethereal quality in the past, the ones shown this season were more menacing than goddess-like...not that that's a bad thing.

While the collection didn't disappoint me, I am reaching a point where I'd like to see something else from Laura and Kate. Don't get me wrong, I love what they do and I love their twisted view of femininity, but I think they're kind of selling themselves short by focusing on one very specific thing and reinterpreting it with each collection. Also, I want to see more of their separates front and center. Take their S/S 2008 Anime collection, which was really where they started exploring this more artistic approach to designing and was the collection that introduced both their streaky handpainted fabrics and cobwebby knits. But there was quite a bit of variety in the clothes, as well as in the fabrics and colors. I'm starting to miss that. I'm almost positive that if this collection had been shown last year I'd be over the moon for it, but since things are getting a little routine in Rodarte's alternate universe I think it's time to move forward.

Vera Wang

Vera Wang is one designer who I've always liked but never really loved. It's like, I can see where she's coming from and I find the results really beautiful, but it's never really been my thing...until now. I'm not sure what she did differently for Spring Summer 2010, but the things she's become known for came together in a completely fresh way. For the first time her collection was imbued with a bit of an edge, and that edge did the clothes a world of good. Working mainly in black and shades of gray with a few pieces in a periwinkle print, the overall look of the collection was ornate but worn with a street sensibility; think a black draped dress with a capelike sleeve worn with a chunky necklace and wicked black platform sandals, or a silver crinkled halter top paired with a puff of black tulle for the skirt worn with a jeweled chain belt slung around the hips. A crinkled black jacket was paired with a white blouse and black origami-folded mini skirt with an asymmetric hem. The look was very Vera, but with an almost goth feel to it that felt completely new for her.

One of my favorite looks was a dark navy sleeveless wrap tunic with tuxedo lapel worn over matching pajama pants. It would make such a sexy evening option for the artsy type who likes her elegance to be slightly askew. Overall the embellishment was kept to a minimum, which could be why this collection felt more hip than any of her past collections. The only real embellishment was the incredible jewelry done in collaboration with Philip Crangi. Seriously, from the dangling bibs of beaded spiderwebs to the chunky crystal flowers suspended from chain cuffs, the jewelry was to die for. Other than that though the only decoration on the clothes was the texture, swirls of tight pleating across a skirt, densely packed tulle ruffles covering the front of a mini dress, or a shoulder outlined with mongolian lamb fur.

Oddly enough what made this collection stand out for Vera was it's restraint. By streamlining the clothes, minimizing the details and condensing the lineup she really seemed to pull everything together better than she has in the past. The clothes also had a more youthful, sexy spirit which, balanced with the dark romance, feels contemporary. Sure, most of the clothes are in black or putty gray, but since so many other designers this spring and every spring douse their collections in super-bright color, I say that this collection is a welcome relief for the retinas.

Proenza Schouler

If Vera Wang's collection offered some relief from all things neon, the Proenza Schouler boys seemed to revel in it. Added to the intensely bright color were bold tropical prints, tie-dye and megawatt sequin embellishment. In type it sounds like the kind of thing that I'd hate on principle alone, but for some reason I have yet to figure out, I really liked it. The silhouette throughout was short, save for the two pants looks they showed. Some of the first looks paired sporty button down shirts with draped skirts that looked like jackets or sweatshirts if they were tied around the waist. There were two great shifts, one in cobalt and one in turquoise, that wrapped asymmetrically and buckled low on the hips. Shirtdresses in crisp white or tropical blue tie-dye had extended button plackets as if there was a second shirt wrapped around the bottom, and were shown layered over black and white tie-dye knits. There were a few intensely tie-dyed mini dresses with angular layered hems that had feather shaped paillettes peeking out from underneath. I have to say, I really like the clash of the casualness of a tie-dye tank top with the glitz of the sequins.

After those tie-dyed dresses was when they turned the color, print and sparkle up to 11. Tank dresses were beaded with iridescent bugle beads, trimmed with those feather paillettes and finished off with a bit of black chain mail. Tent dresses in purple or green came trimmed in a patchwork of beading, sequins and feathers that formed a print-like effect against the fabric. One of my favorite looks was a cobalt long sleeve top that looked a bit like a rash guard which was tucked into a jungle green beaded skirt. It was glammy and totally party ready, but just like with those tie-dye dresses it had a casual athleticism that worked as a perfect contrast to the sparkle. After a few looks that combined bikini tops with feather embroidered full skirts which I didn't really love, the boys sent out stiff silk mini shifts in multicolor prints that had the look of tropical fish. Some had ostrich feathers peeking out of the hems, others had plastic sequin fringe on the straps. The prints were absolutely incredible, and coming from someone who doesn't really like print or bright color, that's saying something.

Like I said, I have no idea why I like this collection as much as I do. Don't get me wrong, I've always appreciated Proenza collections, but I don't know that I've ever really loved one. I think it might be that this one is more over the top than their past collections, more fun and brash...I'm not sure. One thing's for certain though, if I were a skinny, leggy 20-something with a big enough credit line I would be all over those dresses.

all photos from Style.com

It's the end of the world as we know it...

2009-09-09T20:06:00.003-04:00

...and it's not even 2012 yet.

Earlier today it was announced, and I'm still trying to process it as I type this, that Lindsay Lohan has been hired as the artistic adviser for the house of Ungaro. Back in July the designer Esteban Cortazar left his position after Ungaro's management told him that they were pursuing Lohan to be his collaborator. According to an article posted by the New York Times, the deciding factor in his resignation was when he was made aware that his bosses wanted Lindsay to take a bow with him after showing the collection. Now before you judge this as a temper tantrum from a diva designer, consider this; the person who takes a bow at the end of a fashion show is the person to whom credit is given for the collection. They are the person held responsible for either it's success or it's failure. With that in mind, would you want to share what is essentially equal credit with someone who doesn't really deserve it?

I didn't think so.

Add to this the fact that the person who will be given half the credit is a celebrity who, it must be said, is more well known for their tumultuous personal life, substance abuse issues and immature behavior, and you really can't blame Cortazar for leaving. I mean, you smell smoke, you get the fuck out of the building, right? Cut to now. Hired alongside Lohan is an unknown designer by the name of Estrella Archs, who has done stints at Prada, Hussein Chalayan and Nina Ricci among others. As for her, I wish her luck, but I don't see her lasting too long since as it stands none of the four designers who have preceded her have managed to jump through hoops the way that management wanted them to. As it stands, the record for longest stint post-founder is held by Giambattista Valli, who was chosen by Emanuel Ungaro himself to head the Ready to Wear when Ungaro stepped down to focus on couture. Since then there have been 3 different designers in just under 5 years, not one of them lasting more than 3 full seasons. At that rate of turnover, it seems illogical to blame any of the designers for not doing a good enough job because none of them were given enough of an opportunity to really make their mark. I mean seriously, there's even an unspoken rule in fashion that you can't fairly judge a designer until their third season (or something to that effect). How on earth could any of them be expected to establish their vision, please editors, create buzz and make the house money in that amount of time? It's an unrealistic expectation. Now Ungaro CEO Mounir Moufarrige believes that the only way to make the brand money is to give some creative control to a celebrity, and a washed up irrelevant one at that.

Quoted on why she's well suited to this position, Lohan had this to say:

"When I say I love fashion, I really do,” she said. “I live and breathe fashion and clothing. There are so many designers I really admire and look up to. It’s such a rush for me. There’s this Balmain motorcycle jacket, and when I got one of the few they made without the shoulder pads, I literally screamed."

Just as I said when I ranted about Kanye's pending foray into fashion design, that "I really love fashion" catchphrase is always the justification for these celebrities, and it's usually preceded or followed by something to the effect of "I've always wanted to be a designer". I have news for Lindsay, for the last three or four years it seems like everyone and their mother has "lived and breathed" fashion, and everyone thinks that wearing what's trendy and "fierce" automatically means that they're designer material. Let me be the first to tell you, if that's all it took then it wouldn't be so hard for those of us without connections or money to make it after we learn what we need to know.

Here's my $.02 on this whole thing; I think this is probably the best example that we will ever get of just how messed up so much of the industry has become in such a short amount of time. It's absolutely disgusting to me that a celebrity with no skill, talent or training in fashion has been given such a responsability, and equally disgusting that the company is using such a low-brow tactic to garner attention for the label. This goes so far beyond my frustration with celebrity vanity labels because at the end of the day, those don't matter and they never really will. They put their name on something and entertain the delusion that they're a "designer" for a few years before people lose interest. But this, this is big. This is handing a piece of control over the creative direction for a 40 year old fashion house to someone who has absolutely no knowledge of or experience in fashion design. Things like this just make it that much harder for fashion designers, and the fashion industry itself for that matter, to be taken seriously. Furthermore what Moufarrige's decision basically says is that designers are irrelevant and unnecessary, that all you need to sell your product is a celeb with a proud legacy of tabloid cover stories. I'm sure I sound like an overly dramatic queen or a raving lunatic (it's six of one, really) but think about it; How long will it be before Moufarrige decides that he doesn't need Archs and gives the reins to Lindsay alone? How long will it be before other desperate CEOs decide to do the same? I'm not saying it will happen, but this officially means that it can, and that's a scary thought.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going into my dark corner to reminisce about the days when designers were designers, actresses were actresses, and Lindsay Lohan was a child star.

The agony and the ecstacy...

2009-09-02T17:12:00.006-04:00

When I had heard that Jennifer Connelly would be appearing in a Balenciaga campaign for the second time, I wasn't exactly jumping for joy. Given David Sims track record as the photographer of Balenciaga's campaigns since 2002, the resulting campaign thoroughly sucked, and seemed to rely solely on the fact that there was a famous face starring in it, as opposed to actually doing anything interesting with that famous face. But for F/W 2009 Ghesquiere enlisted a new lensman, Steven Meisel. That gave me hope, though not much.

My ambivalence about it only grew once I saw the first image. It was kind of awkward, the colors were dull, and the hair and makeup team took the striking Ms. Connelly and ruined her. Reclining on a chaise with fried, semi-teased hair and smudgy burgundy eyes she looked like the drunken aftermath of a Valley of the Dolls theme party. So I wrote the entire campaign off as a failure (having only seen the first image, but I'm like that) and didn't think much more about it. A few weeks later I happened to pop into the thread on tFS and the newest image posted did more than just catch my eye. Jennifer was sprawled on the floor, gripping the chaise which had toppled over, and her face was tilted back in a look that was somewhere between ecstasy and pain (the good kind, obviously) . I liked it. A lot actually. So much so that I wanted to see more. Now the whole campaign has been unveiled, and even though it's not perfect, there is some gorgeous going on.

First off, the girl can pose. Some of what she's doing looks intensely uncomfortable, but you'd never guess it by looking at her face, and I'd expect nothing less of an Oscar winner. The poses are really the most striking thing about the campaign. They're just not the kind of thing you see every day in fashion photography. I also love the rich, warm color of the set. Coupled with the lighting, the whole image has a beautiful painterly feel to it. I'm guessing that's the point here actually, because some of the seemingly random props (a guitar, a bust, unrolled bolts of silk draped across the furniture) are the kinds of things you would see in renaissance or baroque portraiture.

Of course with the good comes the bad, starting with hair and makeup; it's just wrong. I can see what they were going for, but it looks like the screwed up, beauty school version of it. Plus, I just don't think that smokey eyes suit Jennifer very well. It's not her look. I'm also a little disappointed in the styling. They neglected some of the more striking looks in the collection, instead picking some of the duller pieces from a lineup that was extremely rich and colorful. Don't get me wrong, I'm still not a firm believer in the collection itself, but I do think there were much more photogenic pieces in it to choose from than some of the ones seen here. I also think the lack of variety in the looks and colors that they chose, focusing mainly on the blurry, streaky prints in muted colors from the second half of the collection, ends up taking away from the individuality of each image. In the end it's a solid campaign that has a lot going for it, but just misses the mark on being really good. It has, however, made me far less cynical about the whole celebrity-as-model thing. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

all photos from Balenciaga.com