Mima is not a moralistic and here is what I think she meant. She is tired of Anthony's collection in general. From the days he started design for his own brand he has been using extremely skinny model and putting them into short short. Kinda fresh in the beginning but the image Anthony creates is nothing new compare with what he designed before. What mima meant when she said she has nothing against exposing skin is if you look at LV's collection which both mima and susie had praised, some are basically a wide open jacket/nothing underneath with a pair of underwear. Not that LV has a plus size model or celebrate diversity, but it does give out a casual cool girl vibe(sneakers/ tshirts/jean shorts). But YSL doesn't. YSL gave out a hyper-sexualized women, the ones from the old tom ford/gucci days times ten. The extremely high heels and mini skirt is what gives these looks "prostitute" like vibe. It makes the girl looks cheap and it restrain women. Of course the clothes itself is not cheap but she question is what kind of women would wear that? I can not Imagine everyday women has to pull of any of these looks. You have to be underweight to get in the outfit. and the shoes they walk-in, phew...those poor girls looks so uncomfortable in the show. Mima said the collection is a bit "rude" and to tell people that a YSL girl has to look so underweight and dragging in high heels are definitely backward-thinking. An example, do you want your daughter to strive to look like a those YSL girls? Will it be good for her mental and physically health?Think about it.
Well, she did use the word 'slutty' during this discussion and that is moralistic. I'm quite surprised Mimma - who herself is amazing - would use that word about other women. If she meant something else, then she should have expressed herself differently.
It's pure trash. Trash trash trash. I see where he's going and it will sell like hotcakes. But that is not a healthy image of a woman at all to be pushing. I don't have an issue with the skin baring. It's the cuts and not particularly flattering portrayal of women as playtoys. This does not look like the woman is in control like something that Balmain would put out. It's for a specific shape and body and looks purely like what Lou usually says: a man designed this with the image of what he thinks women should look like. Or as Lou puts it, "it looks like he hates women."
The styling at Balenciaga is what makes it so "Vetements". Tear it down, look at pieces and not outfits and it feels more like something that would fit in the continuum that is Balenciaga. I look at pieces and think, "That's really nice!". I look at the runway outfits and think, "More Eastern European trash heap bazaar bullshit from Demna and company." I'll bet even people pulled to Balenciaga by Vetements, see the pieces free of the styling and think, "This is a wonderfully designed luxury piece I'll wear for years." Long after we look back at Deman's Margiela redux as a moment in time that we're past.
I get what Mimma is saying about Saint Laurent. I can admit I was enthralled by the collection. I mean the setting alone was so wild, the Eiffel Tower simmering in the background, the ambient music. Incredible. But the clothes are for a particular women of certain means.
Who is willing to look silly. But then I think of Comme or other things, of the kind that Bjork would wear, and it's not bad at all. I just think there aren't a lot of women not in entertainment or showing off for a living, who will buy this stuff and wear it for more than a season, if at all. It's silly clothes that waste luxury fabric. If this came off a student runway of a fashion school in Russia or even New York City, it would be looked at as a nice try but unwearable.
Is " you know" a particularly British way of talking ? I've heard many Brits talking like that - half of what David Beckham says is " you know". I'm asking because I don't know !
Honestly, I like her writing sometimes and it's great that bloggers work so hard to get where they are but.... I'm not sure if I trust her POVs. I really haven't seen one look on her that actually work. Maybe I'm just an idiot but I really think she has bad taste. I have no issue with colour but what she wears is typically very contrived. I don't believe for a second that it isn't for attention. She's got a signature, I'll give her that but... I just don't get her style. And it would be shocking if there was so much thought put into each of her outfits. That said, I guess fashion writers don't have to be stylish much like good doctors don't have to be healthy. Mimma is a walking style bomb. Always.
Oh Givenchy. Sigh. Here's hoping it doesn't sell so they can move on from... Whatever it is that was. She needs a swift talking to. I'm hoping it's more the business side that's stunting her and not the other way around.
I loved LV this season it felt so refreshing
Mima is not a moralistic and here is what I think she meant.
She is tired of Anthony's collection in general. From the days he started design for his own brand he has been using extremely skinny model and putting them into short short. Kinda fresh in the beginning but the image Anthony creates is nothing new compare with what he designed before. What mima meant when she said she has nothing against exposing skin is if you look at LV's collection which both mima and susie had praised, some are basically a wide open jacket/nothing underneath with a pair of underwear. Not that LV has a plus size model or celebrate diversity, but it does give out a casual cool girl vibe(sneakers/ tshirts/jean shorts). But YSL doesn't. YSL gave out a hyper-sexualized women, the ones from the old tom ford/gucci days times ten. The extremely high heels and mini skirt is what gives these looks "prostitute" like vibe. It makes the girl looks cheap and it restrain women. Of course the clothes itself is not cheap but she question is what kind of women would wear that? I can not Imagine everyday women has to pull of any of these looks. You have to be underweight to get in the outfit. and the shoes they walk-in, phew...those poor girls looks so uncomfortable in the show. Mima said the collection is a bit "rude" and to tell people that a YSL girl has to look so underweight and dragging in high heels are definitely backward-thinking. An example, do you want your daughter to strive to look like a those YSL girls? Will it be good for her mental and physically health?Think about it.
Well, she did use the word 'slutty' during this discussion and that is moralistic. I'm quite surprised Mimma - who herself is amazing - would use that word about other women. If she meant something else, then she should have expressed herself differently.
It's pure trash. Trash trash trash. I see where he's going and it will sell like hotcakes. But that is not a healthy image of a woman at all to be pushing. I don't have an issue with the skin baring. It's the cuts and not particularly flattering portrayal of women as playtoys. This does not look like the woman is in control like something that Balmain would put out. It's for a specific shape and body and looks purely like what Lou usually says: a man designed this with the image of what he thinks women should look like. Or as Lou puts it, "it looks like he hates women."
The styling at Balenciaga is what makes it so "Vetements". Tear it down, look at pieces and not outfits and it feels more like something that would fit in the continuum that is Balenciaga. I look at pieces and think, "That's really nice!". I look at the runway outfits and think, "More Eastern European trash heap bazaar bullshit from Demna and company." I'll bet even people pulled to Balenciaga by Vetements, see the pieces free of the styling and think, "This is a wonderfully designed luxury piece I'll wear for years." Long after we look back at Deman's Margiela redux as a moment in time that we're past.
I get what Mimma is saying about Saint Laurent. I can admit I was enthralled by the collection. I mean the setting alone was so wild, the Eiffel Tower simmering in the background, the ambient music. Incredible. But the clothes are for a particular women of certain means.
Who is willing to look silly. But then I think of Comme or other things, of the kind that Bjork would wear, and it's not bad at all. I just think there aren't a lot of women not in entertainment or showing off for a living, who will buy this stuff and wear it for more than a season, if at all. It's silly clothes that waste luxury fabric. If this came off a student runway of a fashion school in Russia or even New York City, it would be looked at as a nice try but unwearable.
Both givenchy and chloe are soooo topshop - looking
Chloe looked soooo close to Louis Vuitton
Don Vu i agarre but i'm afraid that the aesthetic is gonna work better for cloe
Is " you know" a particularly British way of talking ? I've heard many Brits talking like that - half of what David Beckham says is " you know". I'm asking because I don't know !
I found Susie really hard to listen to... just a bunch of harebrained thoughts. It just felt like she didn’t prepare for this discussion
Honestly, I like her writing sometimes and it's great that bloggers work so hard to get where they are but.... I'm not sure if I trust her POVs. I really haven't seen one look on her that actually work. Maybe I'm just an idiot but I really think she has bad taste. I have no issue with colour but what she wears is typically very contrived. I don't believe for a second that it isn't for attention. She's got a signature, I'll give her that but... I just don't get her style. And it would be shocking if there was so much thought put into each of her outfits. That said, I guess fashion writers don't have to be stylish much like good doctors don't have to be healthy. Mimma is a walking style bomb. Always.
Oh Givenchy. Sigh. Here's hoping it doesn't sell so they can move on from... Whatever it is that was. She needs a swift talking to. I'm hoping it's more the business side that's stunting her and not the other way around.
mimma, you do sound slightly moralistic, despite your claims to be otherwise... ;-)
So annoying arr arrr arrr arrr arrr_um.
So annoying arr arrr arrr arrr arrr_um.