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

Just as in the 90s, the economy is starting to affect design houses that have to clamp down. For some, this means bowing out of doing runways shows, such as recently announced by Cacharel and earlier by Givenchy. Those shows, integral to the marketing aspect of the business, are expensive to produce and are usually the first to get trimmed in austere times. Another casualty is cutting back on production, such as the expense of producing supplemental lines, such as pre-fall.

Pre-fall was only a recent addition to fashion calendars and instrumental in releasing new ideas ahead of the more established collection seasons. They are also used for filling shops with items to keep sales and clientele interest. It is, however, a luxury for houses to maintain. When crunching the numbers of collections formally released for Pre-fall and comparing them to last year, it’s hard not to notice that the economy is definitely at play: 139 were released formally last year versus 75 this year (well, so far; Versace just released theirs the other day).

Another item of notice is the level of experimentation and willingness to push design forward. When an economy is robust the ideas explode forth. Customers with more spending power are able to participate in the game of having whatever is next, a sentiment fashion is only to keen to oblige. During the 20s before the crash, easy access to capital fueled spending and interest in fashion; its evolution and exploration of modern silhouette is the foundation of many of our designs today. The go-go 80s saw fashion gain importance and evolution because there was an economy (even if much was on credit) to support it. In this case the modernity we now find familiar was considered avant garde at its time, with artful draping, asymmetry, and experimental cuts, hemlines and layering now mainstays.

Today you can see the cautiousness in many (but thankfully not all) the collections coming out. Some pieces continue to be within a range of utilitarian acceptability that borders on mediocrity while others are pretty but on the whole unremarkable; what that says for today's consumer isn't very flattering. Many are cut in classic shapes to appeal to the thrifty consumer looking to have pieces that outlast trends. Yet the textiles and subtle details incorporated are meant to set them apart from each other and to nod to the fact that they are for today’s woman…just as in the 90s.

So many of the collections hold little in the way of surprises that cannot be shared unless one is told about the materials or one happens to see close-ups of the intricacies put into the garment, meant to be appreciate d by a consumer’s close inspection. For those who are within proximity of major marketplaces they will have the opportunity. For those who are not so fortunate, the marketing will fail to inspire to any serious degree if only because other fast fashion outlets will offer similar items at more competitive price points.

This happened before, and it started the beginning of the end for some labels who could not last in the face of such brutal competition with a shrinking base of affluence. For those smart enough to see this aspect of history repeat, they played this round well. For those who failed or are failing to honor history, a form of fashion Darwinism awaits. For them it’s too bad but I guess they had to be there.

Go Back

Post a Comment


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