earlyfallpicnicindolceandgabbana asked:

Could you elaborate? I'm a student and a franco fan who is totally confused as to why the majority has reacted SO negatively but seem somehow unable to back it up with a legitimate why. I've found the show studio panels outrageous and catty.

I have written about both the winter womenswear and spring menswear Moschino shows. Here is what I said about the latter. Charlie Porter in The Financial Times had a different opinion to me. And I am also a fan of Franco. At one time, I was a fan of Jeremy Scott too.

"The good, the bad, the ugly – fashion shows are sometimes all three, and frequently that’s their strength. That’s because fashion isn’t about just looking pretty, particularly when it’s elevated by a catwalk showcase. Those shows are also not purely about product. They’re aspirational aesthetic proposals, about shifting the goalposts and introducing something fresh and new. A fashion show should question, and provoke, as well as try to hawk us something new off the back of it.

That’s the way I look at fashion shows anyway. And, perhaps, it’s the root of my problems with some of the more simple-minded shenanigans we’ve seen at London Collections: Men, as well as the source of my admiration for some of its trickier proposals. I like designers who are trying to say something different and original. I dislike designers trying to make a quick buck from some old tat.

Jeremy Scott showed his Moschino menswear collection in London this evening. I say “menswear” but almost half comprised women’s looks. That’s fairly incidental. For men or for women, Scott pastiched luxury, appropriating Chanel and Louis Vuitton iconographies as prints, reinterpreting Hermes ribbon-crossed silks as denim separates and their Birkin straps and padlocks as biker-jackets and baseball caps, as well as lookie-likey backpacks and duffle bags. There were some tinkerings with flags and Coca-Cola-y artwork too, as if Scott were reducing prior symbols of luxury and longevity to expendable, mass-market consumables.

But that’s looking beyond the surface. Which is way, way too deep. The most telling motif was simple “Moschino” branding where the “S” was substituted for a dollar sign. That’s the motivating factor in Scott’s ‘Schino – monetary gain, and an American pop sensibility.

It all felt very familiar – not just those flags, but that faux logo gimmickry. You see the “real” fakes on many a dodgy street-corner stall, while their barely-legal “ironic” counterparts are sold at many a high street store. Brian Lichtenberg, the Californian-based designer, has created a decent business wittily re-interpreting luxury logos, devaluing and re-valuing them.
Scott’s offerings have antecedents close to home: Franco Moschino was the originator of those kind of visual games, a direct descendent from Elsa Schiaparelli’s surreal trickery of the thirties.

Is Scott continuing that lineage? I would argue no. Scott isn’t following on where Franco left off. He’s rehashing and reissuing Franco faves, already worn and tested. That’s all very well – fashion houses have become obsessed with defining their own “codes”, presumably with the aim of ensuring a given brand outlives whatever designer helms it.

The trouble with Scott’s Moschino is twofold. Firstly, those almost-illegal trademark twists have become part of popular culture, co-opted by other high-end designers and high street hawkers alike. Their ubiquity means their contemporary impact is deadened. Secondly, despite the house originating them, the simple act of stitching a Moschino label inside these gaggy clothes is not transformative. It doesn’t make them any more valid or interested than those legions of near-identical mass-market counterparts, and neither do their heftier-than-justified price tags.”

Anonymous asked:

How do you get the courage to buy very expensive clothes when you think this money could have gone to a person who is in need, and some people don't even have enough money to buy a sandwich and you could have just bought a normal coat at average price. This thought always kept me from buying anything designer, maybe I am overthinking it? What do you think ?

By the same token, why buy an expensive mobile phone? Why buy an expensive computer - or even any computer, when you could just use internet cafes? Why have paint on the walls, or curtains at your windows? Where would you stop? I admire people who can strip themselves to bare essentials for survival, but I can’t do that.

There isn’t much of a moral argument, bar the fact that the workers who create more expensive clothes have more comfortable conditions, are better paid, have healthcare plans etc. Which, of a fashion, is a justification. If you buy cheap clothing, there is an argument that you are perpetuating sweatshop labour, and in turn raising demand for lower and lower prices, meaning people are paid less and poverty worsens.

It’s complex. Do you think people buying cheaper clothes are giving the difference to charity? Or just buying other things?

Anonymous asked:

Alex,something struck my attention when watching showstudio's panels. Critics who are defending Saint Laurent collections are using this argument: "If you go to the stores, the quality is A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.". For me those critics are losing their credibility with those statements. At those prices, it is the least we can expect. Am i wrong?

I agree with you. Plus it’s not even that well made. Certainly not well made enough to justify the insulting lack of design. I think.

Anonymous asked:

Tom Ford is the 2000-2010's version of Azzedine Alaia. It is very sexy, it slightly vulgar but the quality is exceptional, women are wearing it in their workplace and men love seeing them in his designs. His collection was so good!

This is a very interesting idea. I’ve grouped him with Yves Saint Laurent (the man) and Lagerfeld, someone doing exactly what he wants and not giving a damn about “fashion,” per se. Alaia also fits into that. The fact Tom is showing in LA is interesting. That feels quite Alaia too, when he used to drag everyone back weeks after the collections to see his clothes when he was ready. With Tom it’s place, rather than time.