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

A fashion student comes in with lofty aspirations and a willingness to slog through arduous efforts to be heard, to get their voice out, and to make their mark as they throw their passion into the wind, hoping above all to carve a legacy and join the ranks of cultural relevance and  (hopefully) cultural influence in the same manner that Christian Dior or Gabrielle Chanel have done for our twentieth century.

It’s not an easy task. Countless hours are spent to learn about the different materials available, how they move, drape, feel and look, especially as there are variations of finish as well as chemical processes to alter their performance and appearance. Then there is learning how to control it, cut it, shape it and make it do what your imagination wants it to. There is the learning of the materials’ limitations, of its character. There is also the manner of how to cut it, fold it, and have it reflect the idea stirring within.

Some designers, such as Alexander McQueen or Alber Elbaz, spent long hours in apprenticeship and countless hours in formal education while others, such as Cristobal Balenciaga or the successor to his house, Nicoas Ghesquière, are self-taught and poured their heart and soul into learning the trade purely through personal experience. But most students who lack the impetus to do their own research and spend the hours breaking the rules to hone their craft make the decision to go through more formal education to fill in knowledge gaps as they get a proverbial foot into the door.

You can teach technique but you can’t necessarily teach taste or talent as much as give it a better platform for expression. Many of those who graduate will have a bumpier road ahead figuring out the fine line between art and garishness, while a few will shine, even if their ideas aren’t perfectly executed for their ideas are gold. A point to consider is that new talent is anything but passed over, especially by an industry driven by the mandate to be consistently fresh and creative within finite time constraints. This can exhaust even the most fantastic of designers. For example, the SS2010 collection by McQueen (a brilliant talent sorely missed), while fascinating in concept and execution, wasn’t entirely immune from criticism as the show, for all its workmanship and genius, was commented on by Style.com as a bit limiting in variety. We know he was a genius with a well of ideas, but even the best of us can go through a dry spell of sorts.

It happens with the finest of talent that there needs to be a shift, a new direction, renewed inspiration. The strongest houses know to let go of the reigns and let someone else have the spotlight until the freshness comes back into its own, as every major player and every admired designer has had its strong influential moments as well as its weak spots. The best painters, the finest musicians, the greatest artists of every medium are neither a machine nor a circus animal that can perform on command. The best and the brightest need to feed their soul and sometimes that means giving up the crown for a moment while looking from elsewhere to bring that spark within.

So the designer and the team who supports the house are perpetually hyperaware for inspiration. Sometimes it’s seeing clothes worn a new way on the street, sometimes it’s from a celebrity breaking the mold, and sometimes it’s from new talent looking for recognition and established houses looking for ideas. The rawness and energy that a new talent has within fuels the imagination and students with this fire can give a good window to trends that do come out eventually in more established collections. 

One only has to look at the show put out by Central St. Marten’s. The school has consistently offered a roster of prime talent such as Katherine Hamnett, Paul Smith, Hussein Chalayan, Sarah Burton, John Galliano (character implosions aside, could you not appreciate the talent of his cumulative work?), Matthew Williamson, Riccardo Tisci, Gareth Pugh, Zac Posen, Phoebe Philo, Stella McCartney, Christopher Kane and of course Alexander McQueen. That is quite an influential list.

And look at the current show presented to the media. If you dissect it, it picked up on a lot of trend indicators such as the jumble of geometrics in tribal arrangement by Jenny Postle, loose minimalism of William Hendry and Regina Pyo, modern cut of Peter Wu, brilliant shredding of fabric on large landscapes of denim by Marta Marques & Paulo Almeida, the trim detail of Jamie Cockerill, and the excellent execution of texture in shaggy layers of Charlotte Smith and Phoebe English to name a few. The only other collections in harmony are the other style indicators with the money behind it: couture.

If Condé Nast, powerhouse of magazine publishing for the fashion world, is willing to include this show amongst the roster of more established talent on Style.com, it says something about relevance. And like everything that is offered, we just have to sift through the noise for where the compass needle is pointing the same way that design talent does.

Go Back

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