Friday, January 29, 2010

PR: "It Belongs in a MUSEUM" "So do YOU!"

I've made it pretty clear I can't stand team challenges. I do, however, like museum challenges. So, I watched the first part of this show and kept it on mute during the usual teams-blowing-up-at-each-other part. Then I flicked it back on for fashion. That seemed to be a reasonable compromise. On the whole, I wasn't super impressed with this week. I saw some creative things, but not much that made me feel compelled to comment. Thus, I apologize that my input isn't as scintillating as it normally is.

Amy (high fashion): I kind of liked this garment. It wasn't my favorite, but showed Amy's customary thought for the challenge. It was at least intriguing.
Anna (high fashion): The dress was simple, but I thought it fit really well. I liked the browny-black lacy bodice and the shortness of it, even though I usually hate high-waisted garments. I'm concerned about this season seeing so much black and gray again so early, though.
Anthony (high fashion): I liked the shape of this gown. The feathers really confused me. At first I thought it was black tulle, which kind of made sense if it had been worked differently. Then I realized it was basically glued on feathers, and it lost its appeal.
Ben (everyday): Drab. The jacket in particular was unattractive, and the dress plain and slouchy. I was disappointed in this effort.
Emilio (everyday): Reasonably cute and saleable dress, but basically the same shape as his first one, with the one shoulder and flared skirt.
Janeane (high fashion?): Black black black. When I looked at the picture, I originally labeled it everyday. Oops. I suppose the folds or pleats or whatever in the jacket are nice, but this look really didn't translate as a $500 look.
Jay (everyday): The judges kind of raved about this, but I didn't think it fit very well. The top, with its weird flare around the hips, was really unflattering and looked kind of like a mistake.
Jesse (everyday): Plain and black. Again. This reminded me of a cheaper version of an Audrey Hepburn dress.
Jesus (everyday): I hate this kind of pant. Period. It's not flattering and reminds me of Hammer pants. Who wants to wear silk hammer pants? With an elastic waistband? Yuck.
Jonathan (everyday): One black feather on the boob. Really? The dress was a cute shape, but that feather was ill conceived to the nth power.
Maya (high fashion): This look was my winner of the week. I thought it was sculptural and beautiful, and also very soft. It blended its elements really successfully. On this dress, the "growth" effect was a good thing; it was well handled. I thought for sure this would win, especially since the judges liked their everyday look, too.
Mila (high fashion): This won because it was separates. Period. I was disturbed that a few looks were panned for being stuck in the past, and this is clearly a shout-out to the 80s. It is NOT modern! Someone commented on the rate the runway in this way: "It is dramatic and impeccably constructed. But it is also ulgy."
Ping (high fashion): And....done. You know those classical paintings with shepherdesses or goddesses in togas with oversweeping fabric shawls? This kind of reminded me of that for the noir lady. That being said, if you looked at the back where everything is inexplicably attached, you knew disaster was ahead for Ping.
Seth Aaron (everyday): From the front, I didn't think this dress looked bad. Then I saw the back. The shape of the top was basically a racerback. Sports bras and cocktail dresses should ne'er be mixed.


Anonymous said...

-giggle out loud- at the Ping comments. As a fan of both 18th century art and Noir, I agree completely.

I didn't understand the judges' adoration of Jay's jacket outfit, either. The jacket looked cheap and ill-fitting, like something off the clearance rack in the Juniors' department.

Jonathan's feather was indeed silly. Maybe if he'd found one thick, striking, curving plume of some sort and curved it up toward the neck, or done some good machine embroidery with a feather effect...or just abandoned the already ill-advised feather idea completely...

I have to disagree on Maya's gown. I was disconcerted by the inward flappage of the growth panels. It was like a plant that has gone phototropic toward a single window and hasn't been turned in a while. I suspect it was meant as a purposeful, gentle, organic look, and it was more attractive than an outward flappage. But I wanted to see a straight vertical, or some soft tiers falling downward around the shoulders instead.

Mila...I think she's good. But I find her disconcerting, too. I mean, IIRC, she's only six years older than me, and she's already gone severe grand dame in her own appearance and in how she designs. I've known women who'd wear her separates, and they're 45+, confident, professional, with stylish arty visions -- involved in art history, museums, photography. But the look isn't...I don't want to say "sexy" because that's cheesy...but it's not proudly feminine. I'm having trouble saying what I mean. I guess I know who her buying audience would be, but I like Stacy & Clinton's approached to 40+ women much better! Feminine fit, sensual textures and colors...


Abs said...

I like your idea of machine embroidery for the feathering; that would have been pretty, though I understand probably not in their time limits.
I hear you about Mila. She definitely has an aesthetic, and sometimes that's good to see on PR. I can't help thinking that she might be a Michael Kors pet, though, in some ways. She designs the type of stuff he would go gaga for, and I can't help thinking that might inflate her scores sometimes. Kind of an urban art aesthetic that I can't get into. Very color blocky. Your calling on photographers struck me because her designs do remind me of what an urban, strong photographer woman might wear. I like that she has a strong point of view, I just can't always get into it.