Hate is a strong word...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

Simply Irresistible?...

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...

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

Video: Givenchy Haute Couture Fall Winter 1999

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.

Cherchez la femme...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

Brown bag it...

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...

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