Is this considered "Chanel"?
One may think Karl Lagerfeld has lost any sort of remote inspiration when viewing his latest couture collection for the legendary house of Chanel. With ridiculous takes on classic tweed pieces horribly disfigured with ghastly metallic detailing, and even what appeared to be shower-curtain inspired dresses, the collection begs the question: can one genuinely blame any naysayers? Employing tired and boring models under a soundtrack of rather uninspiring proportions, Monsieur Lagerfeld has presented an utter disappointment and disaster in the name of couture and of Chanel.
I have to disagree here. Some of the embroidery techniques were described as having the looks of "dew on spider webs". The craftsmanship is undeniable and you forgot to include the fur-trimmed dress. It was simple yet gorgeous. Couture is not always about big huge tulle-tangled pices, but simple elegance as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree about haute couture not always being extravagant, but Lagerfeld hasn't delivered a collection based on practicality for which Chanel was known (She once said: "One cannot be forever innovating; I want to create classics"). I can't see anyone wearing much of these designs nor do I see any of them becoming classics either.
ReplyDeleteI'll say that I found about three to four looks which I enjoyed, but I was dissatisfied with the executed outcome overall. His pre-fall Byzantine collection was far more inspiring to me.