Pucci ... Margiela .. resort 2016

Let’s speak of “what ifs and whys.” What if you saw these collections and were not told who they belonged to? What if reviewers were not given a press release? Why do brands obliterate rebrandings? Why do designers honestly believe the claptrap that falls out of their mouths?

Let’s follow up with a few more questions here: does anyone honestly believe that even the most skilled and astute of fashion writers could say that “this Pucci” has anything to do with the Dundas or Emilio Pucci of the past? Why is anyone excited about Margiela? Has JG lost his mojo? Does anyone even consider that fashion is actually a business of selling clothes to those who can afford them? The question that begs to be asked is simply “will anyone really buy these clothes?”

With all those questions asked, Pucci is up first here and if this is a reimagining  of the brand then let’s say it has moved right on to nightmare or possibly just a “me too!” To speak of the “genetics” of Emilio Pucci in the same breath and to offer a collection such as this is beyond absurd. My eyes and my powers of  intelligence tell me these are unappealing and possibly just plain ugly generic clothes that have the Emilio Pucci label attached. Someone would need to explain to me why you ( a company) spends years building up the brand which possessed this new sort of Euro trashy rock star sensibility (which is meant to be a compliment) and trade it in for a Gucci 2.0.  If the reason is that the clothes were too sexy and too over the top and they didn’t sell when Dundas held the reins … well, wait and see what happens now when these clothes collect dust on the racks!

As for his capsule collection created by “le pauvre” Galliano... well... what’s to say? What immediately comes to mind is “some things are better left unsaid!”... Or in this case shown! Having never been a fan of Margiela, I would never presume to think I know too much about the history and “genetics” of the brand but I do know when I see silly blah blah blah inspired clothes! Yeah, so there was a barely discernibly long haired boy wearing women’s clothes... so much for gender bending or cross dressing! My conundrum here is simply this... Has John Galliano gotten lost in the myth of the mysterious Margiela and given up his own identity? Why is there no reimagining here and is this just an extension of what was?  Where is Le grand Galliano? You know the one I mean... the one with vision, skills and design prowess? Did Renzo just hire him for brand hype? And if so what a waste! It looks to me as if the talent has been caged and restrained to the point of being who really cares who designed this stuff?

My condolences to Pucci and my wish would be that Galliano unleashes himself in the future!

Givenchy resort 2016 by Riccardo Tisci

There are many things that can be said about the brand and its designer. “Ricky-ticky” (my name for him) has shown us season after season that he might have multiple person disorder as almost every collection is an about face from the previous and this season is no different.

Rarely, if ever, have these eyes seen leopard used in such an unappealing and almost profane way. One really doesn’t care that its use was inspired from some arcane Mapplethorpe photo especially when the end result is so unappealing in every imaginable way. While on the subject of unappealing we should discuss the varying shades of pea green that Ricky-ticky seems to find pleasing to the eye. In my experience there is no one nor any reason to wear this color in any of its varying shades and BTW no one ever heard a client say “oh I look so great in puree of pea green!” actually the color should be the de rigeur shade for prison uniforms or road maintenance crews!

While on the subject of visual offenses, let’s talk about the flounce hems which look like they were never fully attached so in essence the garment looks as if it is unfinished and no this is not deconstructed, this is just plain absurd.  While discussing so called silhouettes, let’s talk about that there was something oddly Marc Jacobs-ian and Wangish (Balenciaga) about the collection.

Now we can speak of what was somewhat appealing and some of which were beautiful. One thing that you learn from seeing 10 years’ worth of Givenchy collections is that Ricky-ticky does have talent. He is a master tailor and when he wants to, he is a superb dressmaker. The rather bland man tailored suits had a pristine almost sterile quality to them. They were razor sharp but mostly generic. Then there was the case of the draped jersey tops, dresses and gowns which were just short of exquisitely rendered and designed and quite a palette cleanser within this “sybillish” collection. The jersey pieces almost had me overlooking that shade of green! An amazingly modern take on sexy and at lack of a better word “ day clothes” was the 3 piece turnout made up of jeans, python blazer and wrapped tied jersey top. New? ... No … but refreshing within this collection and amongst the season in general.

In the eend it must be said AGAIN, no one really gives a crap about your faux intellectual inspirations, the client want wants clothes... clothes that make them feel good about themselves. Designers of this era, for the most part, seem to have forgone any sort of signature that defines their brands and that is sad for any number of reasons. Today we offer lots of unsightly and seemingly generic clothes that happen to be attributed to the “it” brand of the moment. Eventually, and maybe it has happened already, consumers want clothes that are identifiable with a designer and not just another graphic printed tee shirt or another shapeless white dress or another pair of full legged puddling pants.

Maria Grazia Chiuri & Pierpaolo Piccioli for Valentino resort 2016

Here is a list of what came to mind after seeing this expansive collection that reeks of hubris, excess, money, ethnicity and well, a lot of subpar looking clothes, no matter the price, the quality or the brand. We have every kind of Indian known to man, we have every part of the east… from middle to far to near, enough folkloric florals to fill a flower district and then there were those hideous patchworks which reminded me of cheap mistakes from times gone by.

What was shown today, IMHO, is at least 3 collections all clumped up to be shown as one bloated repetitive collection that reminds us who has this look covered more than anyone and with more craftsmanship than anyone.  One would think that with all that was shown … the standout piece would have been something other than a full length camo anorak/field jacket with an embroidered fire breathing dragon on the back. A collection of this enormity is ennui inducing on so many levels but what MUST be kept in mind that this is a collection that requires dissection. There are so many “parts” to the puzzle but the real gems are to be extracted from the total looks that were presented.

One would think that a brand with this kind of power would refrain and not succumb to the trite and silly styling which included bad shoes, “Frida” hair, hippie earrings and braids; such gimmicks are like pandering which is beneath the brand’s reputation.  You would think that Maria Grazia Chiuri and Pierpaolo Piccioli might have exercised a bit of restraint pertaining to the powers of editing. Yes, editorially speaking, these clothes are an open and shut case of extravagance but one realizes that these clothes are far beyond the reach of more than 99% of the population which in a way renders them “useless” unless of course they are loaned, given or appear on a printed page, to say that the clothes for the most part are prohibitively expensive is like saying a Maserati is just a good family car. This all reminds me of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!”

Anyone who reads me knows that the brand in its current over embroidered, over embellished, overly prissy but impeccably made incarnation evades me for the most part. Where are the spectacularly beautiful day and evening clothes that women of a fashion aristocracy can wear to suit their needs? Which also brings up where are the exquisitely tailored suits of times gone by?

Burberry Prorsum .. by Christopher Bailey ... men's spring 2016

Almost every single review of the past women’s collections and now men’s has spent some time discussing the Omni-ambi-bi-a-sexuality of that collection but not here! What needs to be spoken of here is that in the 60s and 70s when some men were focused and eagerly awaiting the newest creations from International Male, Ah Men, Lew Magram or the back pages of Esquire and GQ. The end result was the same, all in search of those sexy, possibly taboo, articles of clothing that more than exemplified, or maybe that’s overstated, the peacock eras of menswear. In a way these catalogs and ads were oddly prescient as is evidenced in the current Burberry Prorsum collection for Spring 2016.

Christopher Bailey flexes his gender bending brand muscle with his heavy and almost all inclusive use of lace. Some of it, well to me, very little of it, is appealing despite its press worthiness. What was most intriguing to me was the standard chesterfield coat with lace replacing velvet and the addition of the lace to a very standard issue trench, and then there were a few quilted pieces which were especially appealing along with the cashmere joggers, the tasseled loafer, long scarves and the new giraffe print.

This is a collection based solely on fabrication and not much more. Yes great jackets and outerwear but that is a given in any Burberry collection. What I found to be most intriguing here is that the collection had some sort of nerdy 50s vibe that was built on short sleeved shirts, narrow ties and tie bars, geeky color combinations and high water pants. Yes the joggers are lust worthy and very few of the lace pieces the same but as a whole ….yawning!!!!