fashion exposed salon show: akela key

(images via fashionising)

a trade show in melbourne, the salon shows of fashion exposed are, i don’t know, supposed to acquaint people with upcoming styles or some such nonsense.  isn’t that what they’re all about?  anyway, akela key had one of the nicer presentations thus far, the little details distinguishing the otherwise-would-have-been-run-of-the-mill fare. 

without quite enough images available to sufficiently analyze what is going on, i think we might still enjoy them. 


thoughts on emmys fashion

(some chick named lo bosworth.  i don’t know who she is, either, but i have seen her crop up in magazines from time to time.  as one of my fashion school teachers used to say, “the fabric is telling you what’s wrong”.  um.  in case you’re wondering why her dress looks about to split midsection.)

opt generally strives to avoid celebrity-themed topics, of the opinion that it has little to do with fashion and no good can come of it, but it’s a slow season & i’m fuelled with bitchery, so perhaps we’ll just spend a moment assessing the emmys looks.

as i’ve usually stated, i don’t think celebrities have much to do with fashion, considering that, much of the time, i think they’re basically akin to assessing a model on the runway.  (and not often do i hear mariacarla boscono being lauded for her looks as she’s taking a turn at givenchy)  and with big-name events, this is even more true.  to be sure, a few girls do select looks for themselves, but…would rachel zoe have a television show if most of these chicks were actually pulling their own clothes together?

(christina hendricks, in zac posen, from some show, seems to be famous largely for her physique.  she really is beautiful, so it’s unfortunate she tends to dress in such large creations as to make her head seem disproportionately tiny.)

however, that’s not really the subject on which i wish to dwell at the moment.  what rather astounds me in these situations, looking though the “best and worst dressed” isn’t the interesting sartorial choices some make (that i will argue vociferously are largely misunderstood by the general populace rather than a genuine foible—after all, these chicks are paying someone to dress them.  do you really think they’re going to make the, ahem, “mistake” of wearing something that doesn’t have much of the fashion community behind it?), but (to disagree with my last point) that many of them make the simpleton mistake of dressing incorrectly for their body types, or easier (and worse) selecting something that doesn’t fit properly. 

i don’t think i even want to know what rachel & her ilk pull down in personal handmaiden fees, and yet, more frequently than we care to see…they can’t even get the dress to fit at the bust correctly, or give the chick a little more room in the waist so she doesn’t look as though she’s added a stone since she picked out her gown? 

(kate gosselin, who, as jezebel aptly points out, has an unfitted bodice.  giving an otherwise very attractive lady breasts made of clay that have also undergone some kind of surrealistic torture.)

perhaps it’s that many of these girls are beholden to companies, getting paid large sums to wear their clothes, say their name on the red carpet, in the hopes of getting a little extra press.  but, still.  again.  do they not have tailors at these joints, or reps to say, “that color washes you out”? 

it’s a little disturbing so many are so swayed by celebrity fashion when, given all the advantages available to them, they so often still can’t get it right.

christian dior haute couture fall 2006

(images via style)

that is right.  in the days before the law stated each collection must be equestrian or cute french girl, christian dior put bits like that on their runways. 

the a/w 2006 haute couture collection was inspired by “Joan of Arc, Siouxsie Sioux, Botticelli, and the forties French film actress Arletty”, and though to be sure there were beautiful gowns aplenty, they weren’t of the sort we’ve become accustomed of late to the house putting out. 

this show has long made me rather sad, as it has always represented (in my mind) galliano’s departure from the land of the fanciful, the couture creations solely for the purpose of art, those to dazzle us in a museum somewhere, as after this season, he has largely traversed the lvmh-paved path of those heiresses from faraway lands with names most of our peers can’t correctly pronounce (nor identify on a map) whose pores excrete cash and whom, for all their money, still can’t seem to stress the importance of stuff like this on designers, rather than this

although galliano has long been aficionado of the romantic, i’ve long appreciated this collection for his slight departures from formula.  yes, he’s certainly pushing the whole “bloodied in battle” thing he so loves (even without the blood), but he’s managed to forgo his usual (and, i find, annoying) flippy little peplums and nipped-in waists in favor of a slightly altered silhouette, something more flowing, more fifties by way of the actual christian dior. 

it’s also a little sad for me, as marvelous as this show is, was, he is wont to keep it up anymore.  perhaps he hasn’t the talent, perhaps he has moved on, perhaps arnault’s henchmen keep him down, but when people regularly announce the impending doom of couture, i no longer feel what i once felt, at that. 

perhaps couture will eventually come to an end, perhaps soon, but with this gone, so has the head, and all we’re watching is the body still spasming. 

marc jacobs spring 2009

(images via style)

i know i’ve said it before, but much of the time, i don’t get the obsession with marc jacobs.  indeed, some of the time, he gets it, he does (as with the s/s 2009 collection), but much of the rest of the time it almost feels he’s simply getting a laugh from those he manages to bilk out of thousands for his tongue-in-cheek garments not so dissimilar to the more fashionable days of the hamster lady (i called her such because she chilled with her hamster in a cage on the sidewalk outside my building while drinking out of bottles disguised in paper bags & having meaningful discussions with the errant youth passerbys) i know.

however, for the season in question, i was taken by his work, and, for the moment, i got it.  it wasn’t following a trend, it wasn’t merely about styling, pairing sweatpants with heels or underpants with a blazer & calling it “daring fashion”.  this was creating a signature by blending a miasma of styles, bringing us some wholly new to help re-define the moment. 

this was his brush with americana, his art piece, and, it felt, his letting go (at least with the clothes, although bags & shoes pushed it much as ever) his rabid desire to be cool.  although many a girl would want to push some part of this collection, it’s hard to see most of the ny social set in pieces so wholeheartedly un-sexy, so derivative of a period where the pop and sparkle of short, body conforming dresses with weapon-like heels isn’t important.

this felt, to me, his ode to the type of creative girl who does make her own clothes from goodwill finds & scraps on the floor, rather than the “yuppies who live in lofts”  (as one acquaintance drily describes myself), regularly attending art functions & sipping wine without ever actually getting glue in their hair or participating in creativity themselves

i think it’s easy to cast someone else in some idyll description without knowing exactly who they are, but sometimes i have a hard time not seeing marc & his girls that very way.  living some version of the artisan life without ever knowing what it feels to have dirt under one’s fingernails, no money to buy food, and an eviction notice looming.  this collection may still be heavy on the glitz yet, but it seems he has a fairer idea of who that girl is and may remember her from time to time, in-between his lavish fur coats.