I've commented on Caroline's posing in a few of my recent posts, but where this connection is growing ever stronger before my waking eyes (I use that 'waking' quite seriously; no rest here, even for the weary), I think it's past time I comment on the clothes, or shall we say fashion, she is presenting.
I've been scanning through various blogs, forums, etc. and have picked up on a general feeling people seem to have regarding Valentino's recent collections, and I regret that it is not overly positive. The public seems to have decided that Valentino has sold out under Piccioli and Chiuri. The partnering with The Gap did little to instill confidence in what is apparently an historically fundamental fashion house rapidly falling into disfavour, despite extremely successful previous and current collaborations between other major fashion houses and "fast fashion" labels like H&M and Target.
I am not overly sure how to comment on this. To be sure, it is incredibly hard to imagine anyone ever being able to match the talents and appeal of a couturier in his/her own house. With the death of Alexander McQueen almost a year ago, I was one of tens of hundreds of thousands of fans and appreciators mourning the lost of one of the greatest designers in recent memory. The question of what might have become of his avant garde house had he remained with us was one that everyone of this mind contemplated, and then the new, perhaps more terrifying inquiry arose: Who will take his place?
When Sarah Burton took the reigns, many wondered if she would truly be up to the task. As it turned out, she was more than prepared to continue the McQueen legacy, and turned out a beautiful collection the past fall that sent critics raving and everyone else sighing with relief. Perhaps we should never have been so worried in the first place, Burton was McQueen's right hand girl for 14 years, and she was already the head of design in the label's womenswear division anyway. It should have been no great surprise at all that she was completely brilliant.
In the case of the Valentino brand, we have a different situation. After the perceived disaster that we - the overriding pinnacle of fashion intellectuals, that is - also call Alessandra Facchinetti, the house was taken over by its two head accessory designers. (I think it is also important to note that Mr Valentino, though retired, is still very much alive.) Piccioli and Chiuri have taken all of the elements of the original Valentino collections and reimagined them in such a way that they can be marketed to a new, younger generation than was previously done. We still have the ruffles (some think a bit too much of those frilly things), the roses, and on the rare occasion, hints of that signature Valentino red, but people are not quite enamoured with the younger direction of the house.
Karl Lagerfeld was certainly successful in achieving this feat at Chanel, but when the coming of said Messiah was nigh on 10 years after the death of Chanel herself. As a result, the original designer whom everyone knew and loved so well was not present to offer her opinions on his interpretations of the house, nor was she still a physical being around which ardent supporters could rally under the pretense of protecting a legacy. Chanel was gone, and someone had to continue making the clothes. Why should it not have been Karl Lagerfeld?
At Valentino therefore, I see it as an issue that the man himself is still very much in the public eye. So long as this is true, people are not only given hope that he might return, but they are witness to his opinions (whether spoken, emoted, or conspiratorially implied by consumers), and thus are unwilling to place any bets on the hats that have been thrown in the ring, metaphorically speaking. Setting aside the issue of making stunning and elegant clothing, the house of Valentino needs to be allowed to move on into the new generation. It's father need not be dead and gone, but he must at least be gone before the world can accept new leadership at such a prestigious label.
So my word to all the criticisms laid on Piccioli and Chiuri: give the kids a chance! That which they have undertaken is no small responsibility, and in order for them to grow as designers, and for the label to complete a transition both regrettable and exciting at once (for this is how I would describe such a replacement of the old with the new), there must be support, or at least constructive criticism leveled at them. No more of these slights aimed at collaborations and changes that by their very design are of evolutionary significance. Be happy that Valentino's legacy continues to live on, if changed.
Photos courtesy of style.com
I know what you mean, but I think people are hating the clothes because they are just terrible designs, not because they want Valentino to come back.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with you and wish people would stop ragging on Chiuri and Piccioli whenever they can. I've never been attracted to the romantic image they've tried to attach to Valentino all throughout their work (but I still prefer what they do at the helm of the brand than what Valentino himself did) and the latter sometimes leans towards the cornier side, but their designs are far away from being terrible imo - or at least efforts of craftmanship are to be taken notice of within these ones. Unlike Decarnin e.g (omg I've said it) who often seems to cobble his collections together industrially - therefore without any craftwork.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore people may not bash on Maria Grazia Chiuri and Pier Paolo Piccioli because they want Valentino back but on the other hand I think they can't value the collections they've put out for what they're truly worth because they can't help getting Valentino by Valentino out of their head and they consequently look at Chiuri and Piccioli's designs partially, comparing them to those of Valentino. It's just a humanly reaction... In the same way I *suppose* (feel free to argue) that people wouldn't be so critical of what Tonchi has come out with since he took over at W if it had been published in a completely new magazine and not in W. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend him against general consensus because I, too, couldn't care less for the formula he's opted for - and yet I feel like people wouldn't be as prejudiced against it if the magazine wasn't called W, which, in us fashion-lovers' mind, is associated with Daria by Sorrenti ; Lara, Kate, Daria on the same cover ; Snejana and Freja by Roversi etc... and definitely not with some bland blond actress holding some baby in her arms.
Lastly, the shift of aesthetics from Valentino before and after Chiuri and Piccioli may have been too drastically hasty. The first collection the duet designed felt like Valentino had actually ghost-guided it, and then bam! the season later they suddenly decide on buying into muted colors, lace and girly cuts. I daresay people only need time to get used to the new Valentino and eventually start gauging its new approach for what it materially is.
Anyway.. sorry for the lengthy comment and thank you for the nice words you posted in response to an earlier comment of mine. :)
Ahhhhh you brought up Decarnin! I thought to myself after finishing this post that I should have mentioned how completely he has transformed Balmain during his tenure... I find it very interesting though that Balmain has experienced enormous success in recent years under Decarnin, despite the criticisms that can be made of his collections (i.e., that they are basically all the same). But it's a formula that works, I suppose, especially with the backing the label has had from Vogue Paris (something I don't see changing at all under Emmanuelle Alt's direction). I must say though, I quite enjoyed the whole "baroque 'n roll" collection for Fall 2010.
ReplyDeleteInteresting words on Tonchi at W as well. I would hazard to say that it is similar to Anna Wintour's takeover at Vogue US, and her seemingly unwaivering insistence of using celebrities on the cover. I can't say it's a bad idea from a business perspective, because there's no doubt a magazine will sell more copies if a familiar face is on the front, but I've always felt it degrades some of the nostalgia that the fashion world is known for. The reason why people strive to be part of the fashion world is because of the fact it is exclusive and therefore mysterious. If you pick up a fashion magazine that has Kate Hudson on the front, it makes the secret world seem more accessible to you than if it were some model you've never heard of from some country that ends in "-stan". I regret Wintour's decision to commercialize Vogue to such a degree, because I feel that the publication has suffered artistically. I'm not saying I'm an aesthetic genius in any way (as we might attest from my liking for Balmain's extravagance), but I rarely ever buy Vogue US anymore, preferring to stick with its more imaginative European counterparts. As for W... When I found out about the Kim Kardashian issue, I resolved to completely wash my hands of it.