Huzzuh Prada presented something fantastic this season! (I really didn't like those sequin scales six months ago) And this time around Miuccia Prada went for extra punch and made a feminist statement. Although not really a feminist statement, and it's all a little ambigous, especially considering what she said last year, that "there is no such thing" as a feminist. Ok, so it's a statement about women, and men, and the sexist way that men "own" cars and women, but it ain't feminism.
Hmmm.
You know what? A lot of feminist academics may not be, but I'm cool with that. I didn't even pick any of that up the first time I saw the collection, I was happily oblivious to all the subtext and could focus on the clothes. And that's what makes Prada so much better than everyone else isn't it? She often has lofty ideas and meaning behind her collections, but with none of that background knowledge the clothes can always speak for themselves too. (I guess this is why critics often liken her to an artist!)
A lot of critics described the collection as "sweet" and "feminine", but I didn't get that at all. Quite the opposite in fact, for all the pleated chiffon skirts and floral appliqués, these women were hard, tougher even than an Alexander Wang girl (who is really just a socialite pretending to be tough). All the pastels did was highlight how far from sweet the women and the clothes actually were.
That combination of bathing suits and heavy, glittering jewellry worked perfectly, and the suits even managed to make the models look shapely. And while I didn't like the literal interpretation of Van Gogh at Rodarte, I liked the literal interpretation of 50s cars here.
And like Proenza Schouler, such a focus on the mid-century and kitsch! Although those shoes are a hell of a lot tackier than anything that PS did. But of course, not tacky in a bad way - and Prada's often tacky, yet never badly so.
Hmmm.
You know what? A lot of feminist academics may not be, but I'm cool with that. I didn't even pick any of that up the first time I saw the collection, I was happily oblivious to all the subtext and could focus on the clothes. And that's what makes Prada so much better than everyone else isn't it? She often has lofty ideas and meaning behind her collections, but with none of that background knowledge the clothes can always speak for themselves too. (I guess this is why critics often liken her to an artist!)
A lot of critics described the collection as "sweet" and "feminine", but I didn't get that at all. Quite the opposite in fact, for all the pleated chiffon skirts and floral appliqués, these women were hard, tougher even than an Alexander Wang girl (who is really just a socialite pretending to be tough). All the pastels did was highlight how far from sweet the women and the clothes actually were.
That combination of bathing suits and heavy, glittering jewellry worked perfectly, and the suits even managed to make the models look shapely. And while I didn't like the literal interpretation of Van Gogh at Rodarte, I liked the literal interpretation of 50s cars here.
And like Proenza Schouler, such a focus on the mid-century and kitsch! Although those shoes are a hell of a lot tackier than anything that PS did. But of course, not tacky in a bad way - and Prada's often tacky, yet never badly so.
photos from vogue.com
No comments:
Post a Comment