Menu

Fashion Observed


Trend observations with a sociological eye from afar...

by Darryl S. Warren  

Follow  on Twitter:         @FashionObserved
              on Instagram:   @fashion_observed_ 
              on Facebook:      /FashionObserved
              on Pinterest:      /FashionObserved

Exactly How You Want It

The predictable listing of trend items observed will come. This blog thrives on dealing with them, examining the aspects to find social context and continuity based on precedent.

Chief among the observations was the frustration observed within the fashion pages of the New York Times, as fashion critic Cathy Horyn expressed lament of finding fashion somewhat retrained, writing lately, instead of being truly free-spirited, some of these designers have begun to seem as malevolently insistent as an Oompa Loompa chanting, “If you are wise, you’ll follow me.” More recently, Business of Fashion contributing editor Colin McDowell wrote that many of the recent London shows featured banal shapes hidden under a riot of digitally created patterns, sometimes in the crudest of colours. Just imagine if there was an embargo on the use of colour and pattern and designers had to show clothes in toile. We would then see plainly just how bereft of technical skills some of the most lauded of London designers actually are”.

Publications rely on advertising, and commentary can be a delicate process as insulting a designer can translate into potential lost revenue. But something is different here. The difference is that, for many of the offerings, they are utterly correct and right to bring it into conversation. If designers want to weather and survive fiscal situations such as these the worst thing to do is repeat history. Unfortunately, history seems to be better appreciated for design inspiration rather than fiscal strategy, especially given the cornucopia of decades milled for inspiration this season.

Designers cannot be blamed for the restraint exercised these past few seasons. Save for a few braver designers, most are towing a fine line and with good reason. With interactivity allowing designers more connectivity and communication with their customer base, they are hearing what their customers want, and giving them just that…just as in the 90s when designers reigned in the creative explosion the decade before for the sake of keeping their business interests intact. The same reasons apply, and current global circumstances make it seem wiser to do so.

Of course, in listening to their public, they are producing essentially the same things. Colour and textile provide the identity variation but Mr. McDowell stated it more accurately that, outside of cosmetic variations the cuts are essentially the same. With the proliferation of fast fashion outlets to offer competitive choices the designers, in failing to provide variations immune to such efforts are unwittingly putting themselves sat risk of being undercut. And eventually out of business…just as in the 90s.

Right now the variety of hallmarks form various decades are really more a list of “best of” silhouettes that sell. Elegant simplicity of 40s daywear, the ease of short shapeless shifts, 20s or 60s inspired, the careless ease of the hippy 70s, the cool familiarity of 70s done 90s, the sport comfort of 90s sportswear and the protective ease of looser 80s cuts and the no-fuss formality of the New Look 50s are like a checklist that will find fans and guaranteed sales from a population weaned off of a decent arts education that would empower people to understand things like balance and proportion so they can make more secure choices to express individualism tastefully, and trained via bland “best/worst dressed” lists and mediocre make-over shows that pigeonhole insecure people into convention and conformity . We have seen this combination work gently and subtly over time to produce a population that celebrates mediocrity and have forced our creative class to submit in order to survive.

The incredibly candid supermodel Iman Abdulmajid, in an interview with W magazine said it well:  I think true style has a focus, and when you're at this age you can't meander and second-guess yourself. It's okay to be on the worst-dressed list. It's okay! That's called having your own personal style. And a lot of times when people say or write, ‘What was she thinking?’ you can say, ‘She's f-ing wearing Yohji Yamamoto, goddammit.’ 

If we want fashion to move forward, we will have to retrain the population to better understand why something is tasteful through broader means and allow our society better avenues for expression without letting the leash become so loose that the public loses confidence and shuts down its exploration (much in the way of the end of the 70s or the early 90s when creativity swung too far to the ridiculous, setting off a rebound into conservative dress).  And through this (hopefully), the environment will aid and encourage designers to explore and facilitate the evolution of fashion.

As fashion itself has pretty much repeated what was offered since the last year, you can look at my past articles and marvel the stagnation that economic fear has brought; much of what I wrote still applies. Of course I will pull through the collections to find the stirrings that are within (and there are a few). Until then, what you see on the runways is what you get. Look around…deep down the bulk of you asked for it.

Go Back

Post a Comment
Created using the new Bravenet Siteblocks builder. (Report Abuse)