First of all, my favorite of Milan, was Jil Sander. It is a collection that, while not perfect, has many elements that I liked and found them very beautiful and very well planned. And I can not take back that which is made by a genius.
Today the word “genius” is well-thumbed: everyone says “genius” to everyone, at least in the field of fashion. I get anxious because I want to drop left and right names of people who fall into this category but as this is not a post I have to put up propaganda.
Well, I will not endure. It gives me the creeps to be told “genius” of Alexander Wang or Hervé Léger (in the nineties) or French that horrible that directs Balmain. Genius, Dior, genius, Karly; genius, Giorgio Armani (you know I hate this man but you can not deny that he was a genius to amass the pantsuit as discursive tool of female empowerment); geniuses all of them because they came to the fame with a brilliant idea but did not stay in it and evolved to provide interesting collections in entirely different to that led to stardom. Those are geniuses.
We hear a lot of geniuses and never argues why they are. That really irritates me and to not fall into the mistake I will tell you why I think Raf Simons is a genius (and incidentally Jil Sander). I think the idea of working with minimalism without presenting boring and repetitive collections is something to cheer for both standing. As you know, how easy is usually the most complicated.
I also believe that the use of materials that an almost complete purity is very attractive. I also believe that the use of color is usually very successful and that the accessories do not neglect to give prominence to the clothes is very laudable.
But the coolest thing about this is the ability to stay Simons boringly between commercial and totally extravagant without favoring one or the other. The fact of making a controlled dose of minimalism and bursts of color eccentricity carefully planned in the most austere clothing firm saves resubmit the same thing over and over and over again.
I have no access to the pattern (ie, the “map” of the cuts and seams necessary to create a garment “) of the signing but I bet you bring at this time it is complicated. Such firms take very seriously what minimalism often hide their complicated part of people’s eyes. And hidden within the garment itself, so that guess just how valuable is the dress you see on the dresser or in magazines.
Another thing: when Raf Simons is inspired by something chewed, accompanying dressing style with Jil Sander and digested so that it becomes part of it. Check his collection last spring. Is it easy to guess that was inspired by the 20? Not at all. Review other signature collections and find something.
Raf Simons’s inspiration was a film Zabriskie Point, Michelangelo Antonioni. I have not seen but I can tell you that there is nothing to see (in theory) with Jil Sander, Spring 2010. Just look at Google the plot of the film and photos and realize I speak the truth.
But Simons gives subtle hints that the collection is inspiration. And not just in music or in fact accompany the parade with the projection of a scene from the film particularly sexual but combing, cutting some clothes, some colors and others. I annex the video because a collection is usually not so shocking if you are not the parade. In YouTube censored audio but video review information to access it. It is very interesting and goes well with the collection.
Next on the list is Prada. Yes, I know we all love to Prada and curiously no one that hates. Perhaps the most conservative, but speak out against Prada’s like saying something bad against Mother Teresa: We guarantee the hatred and contempt of a large part of the population. By the way, I’m not insinuating that Prada is the Mother Teresa of fashion because that would be very silly statement. It’s just an analogy.