Designers who are Giving me a Headache

Aaaaaargh so I haven't had access to mine own computer for the last little while, which means I haven't been posting because my sister's laptop doesn't have photoshop and you wouldn't believe how much low level photoshop I use in all of my posts. So I've browsed through all my drafts and chosen the one which will be easiest to do without the ol 'shop. Basically, Raf Simons and Hedi Slimane are giving me a real headache at the moment.

Firstly, Slimane. There are so many reasons I shouldn't like Hedi Slimane at Saint Laurent, but god his art direction cannot be denied! It trumps any short-comings in other areas, such as design and attitude. Popping Cara in front of that window, bringing back the skinny musician male bob, accompanying it with shoegazey Interpol nostalgia, it makes me understand the vision that is Saint Laurent Ready-to-Wear 2013. I'm feeling that neo-neo-nineties now instead of looking on incredulously. He's wily and cleaver, and because of it (and despite it) he's starting to grow on me.

And then Amanda Seyfried, who has gone kinda badass since she's been promoting Lovelace (which I am super psyched for because that one clip on Youtube is awesome) is wearing the starry cardigan in Elle and she looks an absolute dream. All thanks to Hedi.

And then there is Simons who I have always adored but who is also responsible for all of the half 'n' half pants at the moment. I am trying really hard to be supportive of Simons because it is undeniable that he is basically fashion's future. That is a cliche but I mean it: he is the future. And currently he is getting that future sorted, but gosh with Spring 2013 Couture he's making it very hard for me to believe in him. Yes you are freeing up couture but does it need to be so uncomfortable looking? I do believe that he's on his way to achieving his aims. But I don't have to like every step of the process.

Anyway, the two of them are keeping me very confused. I guess what one should probably take from this is that the world isn't black and white, but uh, grey. The last time I learnt that lesson (man this one's really not sticking with me) was from reading the last book in A Series of Unfortunate Events. If, like me, you stopped being a pre-teen, tween, teenager and "young adult" in the time between Lemony Snicket writing the first and last book then you probably never reached the end. I think I petered out around 10 or 11. But you should read those remaining books! I sure am glad that last year I got back on that horse again because I learnt a very good lesson about how the world is not divided into good and bad, but rather good shaded with bad and bad shaded with good. If only I had remembered that, and I could have applied it to Hedi (bad shaded with good) and Raf (good shaded with really, really bad).

We Need To Talk About Dior

Obviously, Dior is a show that needs to be discussed. I've been thinking about it for ages, and I still don't really know what I think about it, not really. Because, like, there were good parts, but then there were also, like, bad parts? It's confusing!

Me, still looking at Dior

But although it got reviews both good and bad, even the good reviews had a tinge of defensiveness about them. Like the reviewers know that there is something wrong with it, or that everyone else overwhelmingly believes there's something wrong with it. Because while there were aspects that I loved, there were some shocking moments too. And I have to admit, when I first saw it, I thought it was lacking one of my key ingredients to a strong collection: cohesiveness.

But let's start with the positives. It was the tiny details which tipped the collection into a success. They unexpectedtly popped up in dress-suits (the new pant-suit) and would have been completely lost on the viewer were it not for stage lights subtly glinting off them. These details, diamante lines and daisy embroidery, ranged from the relatively obvious:

To the very discreet:

Also excellent (I think. Not entirely sure) were the so-wrong-they-are-good mullety tails! Despite the odds, pretty elegant.

On the other hand, I have no idea what Simons was thinking here:

No no, seriously Raf, wtf? You think Kirsten Dunst or Marion Cotillard are gonna wear that on the red carpet? Think again.
So, a collection that doesn't entirely fit together, which sucks in places, yet... thumbs up from me. Maybe it's just that difficult things are more interesting than the easy. I'll be thinking about this for a while, so hats off to Raf for that at least.

all images from vogue.com

Paris Couture A/W'12 - Dior

So much has already been written about this show that it's hardly worth me writing about it too, but since I was so excited when Raf Simon's appointment was announced I figure I may as well jump in to the fray. Although I'm not sure if one can call it a fray since the responses have been almost entirely positive. In fact the only negative thing written about it - "One Critic Dares to Knock Raf Simon's Dior Debut" announced The Cut - wasn't really about the collection at all but about the set. Colin McDowell at The Business of Fashion wrote it was ostentatious, but really I think he was just clever and was rustling himself up some press for being the one critic to dare knock Raf Simon's Dior debut. So was the set, a million flowers lining the walls, ostentatious? Maybe, but it was also beautiful and oh lord I wish I'd been there to see it. Instead I'll have to make do with pictures and a video showing its creation.

   

What about the collection itself? Well, it's hard to write on actually. Everyone was expecting great things, amazing things, something revolutionary, which was very silly because of course we didn't get it. And so while we built ourselves up for disappointment, it wouldn't be fair to say that it was entirely disappointing either. The clothes were undoubtedly beautiful and nothing less than what we've come to expect from Simons, but while critics were talking about how the collection marked a shift for couture I felt this was the promise of a shift. Simon's hasn't quite arrived in this particular collection but I'm sure he will soon - and he said himself that the collection was "a blueprint", a statement I've taken to interpret as not quite the final product. 

I must admit there was an air that the collection had been rushed a bit, which would make sense considering Simon's had only a short time to acquaint himself with and utilize his new atelier. I always like my collections to fit together perfectly, to make one cohesive statement, and I thought the show was lacking somewhat. Dyed fur and Sterling Ruby prints in a single show seemed almost too much. And the inclusion of those dyed furs irked me, possibly due to their resemblance to Marc Jacobs' Jamiroquai hats. On a more positive note, he has married Dior's history and aesthetic with his more minimal one perfectly, although we all knew he could do that already. 

If this sounds unfair to Simons - judged in black and white the collection is most definitely a success - it is only that so much is expected of him now, after four incredible final collections for Jil Sander. And I'm almost certain that he'll live up to the expectations, which is all rather exciting!

runway images from vogue.com

Milan A/W'12 - Jil Sander

So this was Raf Simons last collection at Jil Sander. Which makes the whole thing pretty emotional to begin with, but factor in a serene set and soundtrack and clothes which carry a rare emotional weight and all of a sudden you have an unforgettable fashion moment. I got shivers looking at these clothes guys! Shivers! Which is usually reserved for in movies when there is slow motion and the perfect song and somebody is about to die or something.

Every critic has already written about them more eloquently than me, but god the poetry of those clutched coats. Elegance, poise, and vulnerability. I do wonder if it was a gesture of Simons' reflecting his current state of mind. That is probably a complete projection of my own, but that theory seems too wonderfully poignant to ignore. Or sentimental of course. There was also something too perfectly smooth about the pink coats. I just want to reach into my computer screen and touch them! They make me think of the smooth, delicious looking food you get in clay-mation. Anyone watch Pingu? As a little kid I wanted to eat those cakes so bad. So I guess what you can take from this is that I want to eat these coats.

A lovely story was created for the collection, a day in the life of a women. She spends the morning with her lover, takes the children to school, spending the day at home. Some suggested it was about the day in the life of a relationship, but something that Simons wrote in a 'Nostalgia' article for US Vogue makes me think that it was more about the individual than about the couple. While talking about his last three collections, the 'couture trilogy', he said:

"The last three collections have also been about the care and attention with which women put themselves together in that era [1950s]; an idea of prefeminist empowerment derived from that. They've been about women, and what women do, and what they do when they are with other women, the lives they have when you remove them from the culture of men. I talk a lot about this with my design team. What does a woman do all day, from waking up, her career, the husband, the kids, the moments when she takes time for herself?"

And while he was talking about previous collections, this sounds a lot like the story he constructed for this collection, and the ideas it explores. And of course around the time that this Vogue article was written, he must have been designing this season.

With all the sweetness there was never anything predictable about the collection, and the series of black looks at the end was a nice twist. Tim Blanks at style.com wrote wonderfully about the chaos it implied, the chaos that is unavoidable in even the perfect day. In particular he mentioned the black shine that peeked out of Julia Nobis' dress, and what a fantastic visual metaphor it was. And this is one reason that I love fashion criticism so much; if you get the right critic, clothes can be interpreted as intelligently, and as much can be read into it, as a painting.

Jil Sander has always been about tailoring, line and shape, and that those elements be conveyed as minimally and cleanly as possible. Which creates a strong identity for the label, but it also creates a lot of restrictions creatively. In the same article for Vogue, Simons said something about Jil Sander that I felt was very revealing: "It's a brand that can expand only when it goes out of its own borders, which were very strict and limited". What was so magnificent about Raf Simons at Jil Sander is that he pushed the label beyond the white shirt into unexplored creative realms with new colours, shapes and feminine identities - all that without ever compromising the integrity of the label. I'm sad he's gone, and I hope we see him again in womenswear as soon as possible.

And with that I leave you with this picture that holds a lot of the elegance that embodied Simons' designs.

all images from vogue.com