I don’t usually read fashion reviews after shows, mostly because I think the whole idea of someone telling you whether or not you should like something sort of defeats the point of personal style. But also because I never know what the reviews actually mean. Let’s face it: fashion is its own language, and even the most well-versed person in Cathy Horyn can sometimes have trouble deciphering any sort of opinion from the overabundance of flowery, vague and often conflicting vocabulary choices.
Anyway, Fashionista did a round up of the best reviewed collections to come out of fashion week, and the entire time I was like “Ahh I don’t understand!!!” So in an attempt to wrap my head around what the most influential people in fashion have to say, I did a little deep reading and came up with the following interpretations:
Cathy Horyn, NYT, on Alexander Wang:
“The lighting was so dim that once the models left the area in front of the photographers, the details of their outfits were lost. Mr. Wang may have been trying to suggest a sense of things being covered up, judging from his hard-edge shapes. But it doesn’t matter. There are only two acceptable explanations for showing your clothes in the dark: either your generator failed or you’re out of your mind.”
My take: Details are not important because if they were we’d realize that mesh surgical masks/turtlenecks are distracting and light is obviously so spring 2011 that it’s not even relevant anymore.
Sarah Mower, Vogue, on Rodarte:
“It read as commercial riposte to anyone who’d pigeonholed the Mulleavys as too arty to address a real-world wardrobe, and their first real illustration of what Rodarte can be as a brand.”
My take: The definition I found after googling “riposte” read, “Fencing: a quick thrust given after parrying a lunge.” So real girls can wear Rodarte so long as they plan on poking each other with rapiers and foils and oh, here’s a thought! Maybe they can wear those aforementioned Alexander Wang turtlenecks for face protection?
Suzy Menkes, NYT, on Michael Kors:
“Sex in a cold climate seems an unlikely take on the autumn/winter 2012 season. But that was the Michael Kors look on Wednesday as the sun shone on the runway and in the designer’s stellar financial figures.”
My take: Have sex, get paid? No, that can’t be right. But I suppose those flannel “blanket” coats aren’t just fashionable, they’re functional too.
WWD on Thakoon:
“An undercurrent of sly irony and subversive sexuality coursed through the collection, winking at bad taste along the way.”
My take: The ideal Thakoon girl is a saucy minx with poor choice in men.
Maya Singer, Style.com, on Vivienne Westwood Red Label:
“Englishness, in its present polyglot incarnation, was the theme du jour. That isn’t a new concern of Westwood’s, but her take on it felt realistic and freshly relevant, no little thanks to the fact that menswear-inspired suiting, sculptural construction, and check are all rising trends for Fall.”
My take: Brits are real people too and they like to wear menswear and, um, sculpt things.
WWD, on Calvin Klein
“The overall effect…was indeed powerful, but the reality of the clothes had a softer side.”
My take: We’ve run out of things to say about Calvin Klein over the years so we’re going to throw together some contrasting adjectives to keep people’s brains muddled and call it a day.
Am I missing something here? Is my grasp on the English language not as strong as I thought, or do fashiony people just speak in a code that’s beyond the rest of us humans?