Wednesday, 5 March 2008

The Mighty Suze.

Suzy Menkes of the International Herald Tribune wrote a great article that question whether the new seasons of clothes can ever be only self-referential, without harking back to retro styling; it really got me thinking about whether there can ever be fashion that isn't revivalist or doesn't references the past anymore.

She wrote:
"Is the future shackled to the past? Or can fashion move forward without any reference to previous styles or eras?
That is the fundamental question as four weeks of international collections closed with three powerful shows. Louis Vuitton sculpted a new silhouette, topped with a stylized hat, that emphasized a general smartening up - but also hinted at the bold fashion architecture of the 1980s

Clearly sixties mod styling broke away from the mould entirely, as did fashions born out of the flower-child-hippie movement, and nineties pared-down, stripped back minimalism. But what about now? Now that shoulder pads, belted, empire-waist, simplicity, futurism, short, long, in-between, ruffled, colours, lace, texture, wool, nylon, neoprene, vinyl have all been done - now what?

For me personally the styles i keep cycling back all tend to originate (or were popular) in the late sixties: shorter skirt lengths, shifts, slightly flower-child, beatnik styling and Gallic or Parisian chic. If the styles I favour don't come out that period, then they still tend to have retro references - twenties flapper styling, the pulled-together forties... the eighties never really appealed to me at all, and then nineties actually feel too recent for me to talk about using those fashions as 'references'.

Anyone have an opinion on this? I'd be quite interested to know if I'm barking completely up the wrong tree.

No comments: