That is a lot of fashion to look though, and there is still more to go. New York is done and London is in full throttle.

Contrariness seems to be the order of the day in presentations. Some designers look for more sellable romantic and softer looks while others are going for the harder edge, reflecting the dichotomy of the women’s psyche as she takes on roles that reinforce and defy convention.  Yes, we have many that mix the two and while that is nothing completely new, we don’t have a past frame of reference for the kind of mixology going into collections in this century but that it exists is indicative of where we are. We are willing to have that conversation.

Designers are keen to look forward and yet they seem to incorporate a myriad of past references. One can pick out the peplums and simplicity of the 40s and the modern empowerment and simplicity of the 60s cuts. The hard geometry of the 20s and 60s is prevalent as well in many collections. The armour of padded hips of the 50s and box-like shells and shoulders of the 80s mix with the varied elements of the 90s such as laser cutaways that tempt but still offer control. All these are thrown together iun hybrids yet within recognizable constraints of cut. It must be very hard during trying economic times to put profit above a desire for innovation.

There is creativity yet creativity restrained, and it is something editors noticed and were not shy about recognizing that fact. In all the mixes and mash-ups we still have familiarity. Some designers that were breaking the molds a season earlier have dialed back the innovation to something more familiar. Who can blame them? Business is business and unless one has ample coffers one cannot always afford to boldly go where others are hesitant to go (the others being the customer).

However, looking at the late 80s and the early 90s aftermath during that recession, one can see why designers may be hesitant to go for broke creatively least they go broke financially. The issue is when too many fall within the frame of salability and collections start to become one vast blur of trends. Here identity can be lost and surplus designers who offer much of what their peers offer may result in similar results to that in the 90s: a mass culling of redundancy.

At a later point more specific references will be tapped as collections are explored in depth.  In many of the pickings it is a play of strengths, and the proliferation of hard cuts, geometry, stripes and structure designers are sending a message of strength. Is it for us…or for them?