I say please explain!
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
Yes, it is a tour de force of: color, extremes, fantasy, volume, spectacle, exaggerations, proportions, the prowess of their ateliers mostly and a huge amount of shapeless printed dresses.
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
“What if Cecil Beaton’s famous photograph of Charles James dresses could be with black women?” Pierpaolo Piccioli’ …. Well … DUH like black women in big dresses!
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
I can’t decide If the influence is Incan or Mogol for the absurd headpieces and then sometimes I think they remind me of African tribal head pieces. What I can decide and see are a ton of wedding cake dresses presented for the sake of shock and awe. The supposedly wearable clothes couldn’t possibly be any simpler, less flattering or basic. What really came to mind was Maude aka Bea Arthur, Mrs. Roper of Three’s Company fame and Lovey Howell of Gilligan’s Island fame, so what I’m saying here is this was hardly a tour de force of clothes… it was all about everything BUT the clothes.
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
“The only way to make couture alive today is to embrace different women’s identities and cultures” and don’t you forget it .. apparently PP is tuned into a planet far far away
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
Prints, gimmicks, sight gags and everything from ruffs to yarn wigs and on top of everything else, 99% of the clothes made the models look thick other than one Grace Jones inspired hooded column and one hot pink sequined cowl number. Poor Lauren Hutton (in a drawstring waist dress…. Really?) looked like a smiling house frau in a before image for Weight Watchers.
 |
| CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
So I guess no one looks at the clothes just the kaleidoscopic effect and trickery of colors and patterns all at once all parading in front you in dizzying flights of fancy!
No comments:
Post a Comment