So now Paris is Fashion struck (Is there any time it isn't?). Well what I mean is, the shows have moved over to the fashion capital, and three days into the week, here's what has been offered so far.
Let's begin with ma première passion, Galliano for Dior. Forget for a moment you saw the grand Dior 60Th anniversary collection, even then, from the couture crazed master, what you would, I would, anybody would expect, is a magnanimous show, with enormous proportions skillfully tailored into extended designs, and lots of drama of course. That's Galliano. But there was a surprise element this time. The collection was actually down to earth, I am telling you. Call it the taming of l'enfant sauvage, but he really managed to present a stunning collection without the mad child element.
Okay let me not glorify him anymore, and discuss the collection instead. The theme was Sting's "Englishman in New York" which Galliano beautifully interpreted though old school glamour, revival of the twenties through forties styling, complete with pinstripe pantsuits and cabaret styled lingerie dressing. There was shimmer, there was shine, there was definite glamour; there was chiffon, charmeuse, beautiful draping, shoulder pads (ek!), sequins, lippy cat print, embroidered jackets, suspenders....too many elements, tied together to fit just right.
Yohji Yamamoto's collection would have better fit a fall/winter category - all black with some silver, and a little bright florals- is not what you want to see on a spring collection that is to follow a grey winter. I am not, by any means, saying he is not a genius. He ranks pretty high in my personal list of creative designers that are out there, But this collection didn't do much justice to his génie. The theme was overused, feminine cross masculine. And although the collection fell short of my expectations, I cannot, not praise the shaping, texture and proportions he showcased. There were lethargic jumpsuits and full bodied hoop skirts, with draped dresses flowing in between the gaps. There definitely were a few admirable pieces in there - admirable not for the we arability but for the construction and design.
I understand the whole "future is now" thing fashion has been gyrating towards. But even with that I have difficulty understanding Balenciaga's collection. Okay I confess, I did like the whole beetle armoured outfits at first, and a few prints were just fascinating. So I was expecting a whole morphing to take place to complete the collection. Instead, the bettles paraded, one after the other, in what seemed like the same design, in different prints and colors. And in the end they morphed into robotic figures (again the duplicates in various colors). My interest was hinged on the architectural structuring and the construction of the fabrics that are otherwise used to drape feminine curves.
Vivienne Westwood's collection is named 56 (after the number of days the British Labour government proposes to hold terror suspects in jail without trial), although I think, a better name for it would have been "from the curiosity closet onto the runway". What happens when the inspiration of a collection comes from various unrelated sources? It results in a clueless untied collection. But it indeed was an interesting and beautiful mess (as tagged by style.com). There was an array of colors, fabrics, patterns, and design elements; all loosely packed to resemble borrowed fairytale figures. It was crazy but fun, and c'mon that's what we expect of her, don't we?