Canadian designer Mark Fast has only been showing at London Fashion week for a couple of seasons now, but he's already cemented a reputation. The Central Saint Martins graduate focuses on knitwear -- but we're not talking about twin sets here. Fast makes knitted dresses for the nightclub set -- dresses so tight and so slashed and so revealing that the corollary to Fast's reputation is that when it comes to his clothes, regular-sized gals need not apply. (His first collection was made in only one size.)
Okay, great! So far, so good. Except that what resulted from this decision was that Fast's lead stylist and casting director quit in a big, skinny huff backstage when he refused to back down from his decision to use these ENORMOUS women in his fashion show.
Oh, for pete's...
Now. The question isn't whether Fast should have used models in larger sizes. That's a yes. It's a great idea and I think all of us who love fashion can applaud it, regardless of our own personal sizes. Inclusiveness = good! The question is also not whether, if the stylist they were using couldn't come up with better undergarment alternatives than the ones that came down the runway, perhaps Fast should continue his search for a show stylist, because obviously this person is not at the top of her game. Disgraceful.
Neither is the question whether or not it's ridiculous to paint the woman above as "plus-sized." Yes, she is obviously a bit larger than most of the women stalking down the runway in these holey knee socks posing as dresses, but she looks perfectly normal to me. This is not someone who screams "special sizes" to me. As a matter of fact, while the two models above were easy for me to pick out
in comparison to most of the typically-bone-thin girls in the rest of the show, the third "plus-size" model eluded me. I seriously wasn't sure which other of the models was supposed to be so gigantic that she caused a career-ending hissy fit on the part of this stylist. Which tells you a little something about the degree of change we're talking about here -- that degree being not too damn much.
So, bully for Mark Fast for taking a stand for all the real-life women in the world and speaking up for body diversity and all that jazz. He deserves our sincere appreciation. But the real question?
Why would anyone of any size want to wear any of these clothes?
Because my friends, I don't care how heavy or skinny or curvy or bony or whatever you might be -- that is one ugly dress.
Not just for this collection, but ongoingly. Overjoyed and delighted. I really do feel like Isaac is a guy after my own heart and that if we ever met we'd be "crazy besties" (which is gawdawful fashion mag-speak for best friends) and not for nothin' but redhead here would be more than happy to function as muse and walking billboard for a guy I think is one of the most consistently fabulous designers working.
I love Isaac Mizrahi because he loves a lot of the things I love. He likes day wear that is easily turned into evening, or at least cocktail, wear. He loves color -- uses tons of it. He has a sense of humor and it shows in his clothes. He is ironic about himself, but not about his customers, which means that season after season he creates clothing because he wants to please people. Not to astound or puzzle or challenge them -- he wants women to put on his clothes and feel beautiful & happy. "I still believe," Mizrahi said, "that fashion has to be gorgeous and colorful and fun." Good googly-moogly, we could use a few more like him.
This collection was inspired by Fred Astaire, an icon long worshiped for his effortless male chic (would that be chic-ismo?). Astaire famously used ascots and neckties as belts, and this ribbon on the waist of these fantastic loose trousers pays homage to that. The women-are-sexy-in-menswear thing is a bit of an overused trope in fashion, but clichés are clichés because they are true, and the power and confidence a woman gets from a perfectly fitted pair of trousers can't help but translate into sex appeal.
Such a great jacket, with that big flounce detail. I wish I could find some detail shots from this show, but no one seems to have any. (This really grates my cheese. Style.com will show me 9000 obsessive photos of Alexander Wang's dumb tightey-whitey-inspired whatever-they-ares, but they can't be bothered to show me the seaming on this jacket? Ppppflflflflflflffltttttt to them, is what I say.)
(Also, while I'm on the subject of Style.com, a website, mind you, on which I rely very heavily, can I just whinge for a moment about the unrequested video ads that keep popping up? It is the MOST annoying thing to be trying to look at photos and have your screen be unceremoniously hijacked by a video Ralph Lauren ad. If I want to look at the ad, I'll click on it, thankyouverymuch.)
No detail shots means I can't quite make out what kind of fabric this adorable, perfect sheath dress is made from. It has texture, which I love and which keeps it from being too basic to be interesting.
That's a Twenty Year Dress, that is. You could wear that forever.
Just the other day I was saying how difficult it is to do underwear as outerwear and do it well, but here's a great example of it.
What a great bustier. Sexy without being tarty. And I don't have to tell you how much I love that skirt, do I?
Jumpsuits are tricky. This one is wonderful.
This collection seemed very much about paying tribute to different golden eras of Hollywood. Usually when some mind-numbing cable television personality stands in front of a camera on the red carpet and drones on about "old Hollywood glamor," you can expect to see a starlet in a bias-cut charmeuse gown. But there were other moments of great Hollywood fashion besides Jean Harlow, and I adore this 20's-inflected dress. It plays with the "flapper" idea without being too literal. And oh, my goodness, I would rock that dress, ifIdosaysomyself.
This is too desperately short for real life, but I forgive it because of the movement and shimmer and sparkle that is somehow more bouncy and fun than the usual heavy-duty glitz of a sequined dress. Compare this to one of the crystallized suits of armor that have been coming out of Balmain lately:
How could anything so sparkly be so glum? That dress doesn't look fun, that dress looks like a chore.
This, however?
Not a chore. And yet another dress I would rock. Poor Isaac, designing all these clothes for a muse he's never met...
Here's that flapper silhouette again. Note the pink tulle peeking out at the hem. Does that not make you squee a little bit? It does, admit it.
This dress? Floats. It floats, like a flower on the breeze. Stunning. One of my favorite things about Mizrahi is how much he can do with a very simple shape. So flattering -- and would that not be a spectacular wedding dress?
This is less simple, but still a long way from being overdone. The starkness of that chalk-white, perfectly plain bustier against that shreddy tulle skirt is enough to give yours truly the vapors. What a beautiful, beautiful gown.
I've saved my favorite for last.
This was a jaw-dropper for me. I gasped so loud I startled the cat. I haven't seen very many things that I think are more perfectly me than this outfit. As I just said, I am a sucker for the strict tailoring paired with the over-the-top flou, and we all know how much I love tulle. I took one look at that and decided I had to have it. Unortunately, my checkbook does not agree with my racing fashionista heart, so I'm going to DIY it. I've already gotten started -- I bought a knit tube skirt from American Apparel (longer than this one, FYI) to use as a base, and I've found the perfect ballet pink fine-gauge tulle. There will be much draping and pinning (and consternation, probably) before it's all done, but I think I can pull it off. I have a couple of good alternative for the jacket, and I just get all kiiiiinds of happy imagining the various shoe alternatives I could work with this outfit. (Complete Fashionista Accessories Geek-Out, coming up!) I'll keep you posted & let you see it when it's done, don't worry. If I pull it off, you must all promise to invite me to every party and/or formal function you attend for the next six months, so I have somewhere to wear it. Deal?
Cathy Horyn, on her blog, mentions "that sublime quality of feeling that Mr. Mizrahi manages to inject in his fashion shows" and (as usual) I wholeheartedly agree with her. Besides the exuberance and wit in his clothes, there is also a quality of generosity and almost a tenderness about them, as if they were all made as a gift for someone he loved very much.
I'm going to do something unusual and post a video of the whole show here. Watch it. It's about seven minutes long, and it's seven minutes of joy. Not a bad way to start your Monday.
I have been having a heck of a hard time trying to get a review written of the Marc Jacobs show. I don't quite know what to say about it, because I don't quite know what he's trying to say. Reviewers are reporting that Jacobs says he was inspired by the ballet and by musical theater, and also that he's tired of the downtown Goth look of black leather and studs that's been ubiquitous for a couple of seasons now. He wanted to give women more opportunities to express their individuality, he said. He just had fun, he said.
Is all of this designer-code for, "I dunno. I just threw a bunch of stuff out there"?
No, I don't really believe that. Jacobs is too thoughtful a designer for that. I think he's capable of truly great, truly groundbreaking design. I don't think this collection is it.
I couldn't even get a really good handle on how to present it to you. There were some great tailored coats
there were some ruffles,
(LOTS of ruffles)
and there were coats combined with ruffles.
Yeah, the pants... We need to talk about those pants. Because while I've heard my friend Plumcake advocate for the return of the bloomer/pantaloon, I think she's a lone voice in the wilderness here. I just don't see women going for these pants. I can imagine a few second-tier starlets being talked into them by their stylists while their common sense is otherwise engaged by amphetamines of various flavors, but I don't see these flying out of the stores.
These are a slightly less "WTF??" version, but still... I don't see it happening. If there's one thing we've learned in the last few seasons, it's that real-life women (the ones NOT in the fashion industry and over the age of 24) are extremely resistant to funny-shaped pants. You can narrow or widen the leg a certain amount, raise or lower the rise, crop or lengthen a bit, but basically? We want pants that look like pants. Not nappies or bike shorts.
There were several exits that featured the under-as-outerwear thing. Jacobs has played with this before, notably the Spring 08 "Deconstructed" collection, and I thought it was more successful there. Does it need to be explored further? Personally, I don't think so. It's SO hard to do this well. Occasionally someone hits it bang-on and it's marvelous, but most of the time it's just teetering on the edge of tacky and tipping over all too often.
I wanted to like the ruffles, but these
are just not the kind of ruffles I like. This kind of ruffled/pleated trim reminds me too much of tacky polyester little girls' First Communion dresses, or tacky polyester quinceañera dresses. And this dress in particular looks like a fallen tree that's been overgrown with some sort of lichen or moss or something. (Betcha that's the first and last time I ever use the word "lichen" in a fashion review.)
And don't even get me started on the shoes from this show
Yech. Those look absolutely impossible -- proof that just because a shoe is a flat doesn't make it wearable. They do point toward a Japanese influence, however. Often in a runway show you can get a better clue about what the designer is shooting for from the accessories and hair and makeup than from the actual clothes. Jacobs often mentions how influenced he is by Rei Kawakubo and other Japanese modernists.
You can really feel that in the proportion of these jackets, and the piece-y-ness of all the looks.
There were certainly some things I liked. There was a short sequence of looks where I felt like I was beginning to get my bearings a bit.
I liked the long, narrow shape here, the detail without clutter, the really, really gorgeous insets on that skirt. but then he tossed out this thing
and it all went to hell. Oh, lordy, I hate that.
This jacket, however
I do not hate. This jacket I loooooove.
If I were going to pull one thing out of this collection to put into my own closet, it would be that jacket.
I also really liked a section of long, handkerchief-y dresses
Love the suspension neckline on this, and the fabric, and the droplets of pearls around the edge. I think that's lovely. I like them in spite of their asymmetrical hems because the dresses aren't about the hemlines, the hemlines are just part of the dresses, and I like the movement and lightness it gives them. He played even more with the embellishment
I really like this dress, although I think I may like it in theory more than I like the idea of actually wearing it. I can't help but admire the work that's gone into it. Jacobs really went to town with the sequins -- we may be reaching the sequin apotheosis soon, friends, good heavens it must have been good to be a sequin manufacturer the last few seasons.
Again, I think I'm responding more to the cleverness of the way the sequins were used than the actual garment. And even more so here
Wow. That's just... wow. I love open-work, and sequins, and sheerness...
I hate the shape of those pants, and the gimmicky use of underwear. You are going to see a LOT of this in fashion magazines this winter, the editors are going to lose their stiletto-clad shit for this. I do not think you will see it anywhere else.
The editors are right, really, whether or not you want to wear the actual clothes. When the history of fashion for this era is written, Marc Jacobs is going to be an important name, but his influence can take a long time to trickle down into the mainstream. Is he ahead of the curve? Is he just lucky? Or does his influence have more to do with his endless capacity for self-promotion than his design talent? I don't know the answer to that. I do know that I often really love Marc Jacobs' designs. I also often don't like them much at all, and don't understand what he's trying to say with them. You can say, Oh, it's just fashion, why does it have to "say" anything? But if you view fashion design as an art form (and I do), you can't help but look for some sort of cohesion in the artist's vision. The great thing about fashion as an art form is that its artists have a chance to either scrap what they were doing and start off completely fresh every season (Miuccia Prada), spend a lifetime ongoingly refining and elaborating a defining vision (Ralph Rucci) or something in-between. Looked at with a long, looooong lens, Marc Jacobs' trajectory makes sense to me, with a few loops backward and forward as he goes. I think he does have a vision, but I don't think he's necessarily working toward something; I think there's a good deal of spaghetti-against-the-wall stuff going on. That indecisiveness gives me a little aesthetic indigestion sometimes, but that's probably more my issue than his.
This was the last exit in the show. It's a dress I'm not really crazy about as a dress, but I do adore the effect of it.
Like scribbles on tissue paper. Beautiful. As with so many things Jacobs has made, I don't want to wear it, but I do like looking at it.
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get this review up, and that I haven't gotten more out there about the runway shows happening. It takes me a while to write these silly posts -- longer, I'm sure, than their merit justifies, and I'm having a busy week or two right now. Please bear with me, I'm hoping to get some serious work done over the weekend.
Ralph Rucci, as I have stated here many times before, is one of my very favorite designers. His line is called Chado, which is the name for the formal Japanese tea ceremony. It's an apt name -- Rucci's clothes have a quiet grace that echoes the stately beauty of classical Japanese art.
Unlike a lot of my favorite designers (Miuccia Prada springs to mind as an example), Rucci doesn't drop a lot of design bombs -- his collections are remarkably consistent from season to season, and always recognizable. The silhouette is nearly always quite simple, almost severe, with very subtle embellishments.
One of his favorite motifs is this sort of sheer insert. Other hallmarks include unusual, complicated, detailed seaming and extremely rich fabrics (lots of double-faced cashmere and gorgeous silks).
This makes his clothes both unbelievably beautiful and ungodly expensive.
These are investment pieces (again, are you listening, Alexander Wang?) of the highest order, which is what you would (and should) expect when you're shelling out four figures for a jacket. Rucci's color palette is primarily neutrals and consistent from season to season. If you have the means to procure them, these are the sorts of clothes that form the spine of a lifetime wardrobe -- the perfect pair of pants, the jacket that finishes every outfit to perfection, the cocktail dress that can be worn for twenty years. You don't see Rucci on trendistas, because he doesn't follow trends. Rucci has his own inner design compass that he follows with remarkable consistency and purity. He's not as well-known as many designers, doesn't get that red carpet press, doesn't show up on the cover of Vogue. He just quietly, beautifully works away making stunning, perfect clothing season after season.
The Spring 2010 collection featured several pieces with all these wonderful feathery bits, which you can imagine pleased Style Spy no end.
Just love all that peeping out from underneath the hem, and love the swing-y bell of that skirt. Note also that sheer inset at the waist -- I couldn't find a picture of the back of this dress, but I'll bet the whole thing is sheer. Lovely.
Rucci often features several pieces in printed fabrics in every collection. According to Nicole Phelps's review on Style.com, the Spring 2010 collection was inspired by Pina Bausch, the choreographer/dancer who passed away this year and I believe that is her actual photograph printed on the dress above.
I'll spare you my usual nattering on -- these clothes don't really need a lot of commentary. There aren't any drastic design shifts or statements to comment on, just really, really beautiful, finely-crafted clothes.
Rucci's clothes are my aspirational garments. Bargainista shopper that I am, I don't run into his stuff all that often, and even discounted it tends to be out of my range.
Oh, that makes me dizzy, it's so beautiful. I understand why starlets don't wear his clothes -- they aren't flashy enough for the red carpet, they don't obviously compete with the skin-tight spangles favored by most folks at awards ceremonies. But imagine being the woman in a room filled with Elie Saab excess and Badgely Mischka foofaraws, wearing the black dress above. Serene, I think, would be a good adjective to describe you. The photographers might not be climbing over themselves to take a photo of you. But I do not think you would care.
And my favorite, saved for last
Perfect. Truth, beauty, and pockets. What more do you need?
