Thom Browne Women's s/s 2012 New York

[rebenka]

Quick first impression thoughts:
Firstly, much lol at the gaga adams mess comment.
Secondly: agreeing with copacetic, obviously it does definitely feel more like a social comment than a traditional presentation with the inclusion of the joviality of the models expressions and the general frivolity of the whole kind of hedonistic pandemonium browne has going on. Though combining what i feel was conveyed through the models as an unostentatious kind of jubilation with such over the top and seemingly indulgent airs and garments/accessories did confuse me a bit :-/
Another thing I found confusing (well, not so much confusing as perhaps a display of thematic complexity in his scope of comment that I've not the historical knowledge to identify) was the lack of specificity with regards to "nodding" to any particular 20th century era... for example, in this collection we obviously have cuts ranging from the traditional nouveau riche 1920's kind of silhouettes, 50's resort style (the model sitting in the white chair in the white dress), from Carmen Miranda hollywood glam to 80's/90's/modern power suiting. From dazzling formal to what I think is a nod to those kind of trashy 60's high school clique jackets (second last picture after Magic1's "colossal mess comment). I dont even know where to begin with the tartan and is that a schiaperelli reference with lobster sleeves or just Browne being crazy? I feel there really is just too much in this collection to try and ascertain any distinct kind of social commentary. Unless being as over the top as one possibly can be *is* the intended commentary.
I dont know. Just my first impression.

[ES3K]

It's just about the bizarre show, what will hit the stores will be highly wearable and, most likely, even classic -- with a twist though. Just check the menswear buys at Antonioli, Colette, Matches etc.

Anyway, I love this collection, especially the colors. And I agree with Heirloom, the duck necklace is brilliant!

[Servo2000]

Quick first impression thoughts:
Firstly, much lol at the gaga adams mess comment.
Secondly: agreeing with copacetic, obviously it does definitely feel more like a social comment than a traditional presentation with the inclusion of the joviality of the models expressions and the general frivolity of the whole kind of hedonistic pandemonium browne has going on. Though combining what i feel was conveyed through the models as an unostentatious kind of jubilation with such over the top and seemingly indulgent airs and garments/accessories did confuse me a bit :-/
Another thing I found confusing (well, not so much confusing as perhaps a display of thematic complexity in his scope of comment that I've not the historical knowledge to identify) was the lack of specificity with regards to "nodding" to any particular 20th century era... for example, in this collection we obviously have cuts ranging from the traditional nouveau riche 1920's kind of silhouettes, 50's resort style (the model sitting in the white chair in the white dress), from Carmen Miranda hollywood glam to 80's/90's/modern power suiting. From dazzling formal to what I think is a nod to those kind of trashy 60's high school clique jackets (second last picture after Magic1's "colossal mess comment). I dont even know where to begin with the tartan and is that a schiaperelli reference with lobster sleeves or just Browne being crazy? I feel there really is just too much in this collection to try and ascertain any distinct kind of social commentary. Unless being as over the top as one possibly can be *is* the intended commentary.
I dont know. Just my first impression.

It could be a comment about the way these aesthetics are being collapsed together in a lot of collections / wardrobes today - sometimes under the label 'prep,' etc... I know that I hear a lot of people around here saying they're doing work inspired by a particular era when ultimately it's more of a mish-mash of half-remembered vintage garments and silhouettes that could be anything from flappers to menswears-influenced wartime stuff from the 40s and yet it's always 'the 1920s' or 'the 1950s' with an accidental dash of the 1930s.

It reminds me a lot of what I've been reading recently about increased business / marketing around, say, mid-century danish modern a la mad men as a means of going back to a 'better time.' It seems people aren't exactly clear on when that better time was and so they're creating an updated version of an idealized past that doesn't seem to really pull on an actual time period - more of an idea.

[rebenka]

Now thats a logical idea.... that's one problem I have with collections or indeed any form of expression that is too generally referential towards any particular point in history; these "good old days" are as inapparently complex to us today as our own context is that the romanticism of a generalized era or movement can too easily become simply an ignorant identification of just a tiny (and often media popularized) facet of the zeitgeist of the period in question. Its like, "congratulations, you've recreated the flapper dress and with it some of the careless frivolity and increased feminist liberalism strongly associated with the 1920's (which I believe is the standard curriculum for year 8 students at Australian high schools now). In the process of this, you've also managed to ignore about 99.9% of the other immeasurably important socio-political and economic developments of the period that changed the course of history for the good and the bad." Making reference to history and different periods is important in fashion, no doubt about that. But please, don't be a fucking dilettante about something which is already way beyond overdone.

Servo - if it is this idea that Thom Browne is trying to comment on - the idea of an idealized past without any justification or specificity simply because we are under the false impression that our own context is the only one in which the vast majority of people are convinced it is falling to shit, then he should be highly commended.
Thanks for the thought!

[Faust]

But isn't referencing past in fashion is a kind of purposeful dilettantism? The ideas have to be immediately apparent on a 15 minute catwalk show. Fashion is not in the business of historical accuracy but in the business of crystallized images.

[rebenka]

That's true, if people wanted that then they could just stay at home and watch documentaries. Its not about historical accuracy though. I just think that often when designers purposefully historically reference a look they do so ostensibly to exploit a commonly recognized connotative style rather than reflecting on anything of real significance to them, and while it can look fantastic and have a wide appeal to the mainstream, if you consider fashion like art as a vehicle of contextual commentary through these crystallized images, it comes off as slightly vacuous, no?

But of course, that being said, the majority of people don't wear fashion to consciously make some kind of poignant elucidation on past or present society. And not all fashion is supposed to either. But if one specifically is, then I don't think that dilettantism should come into it.
Anyway, I've digressed completely from the subject of Browne.

[Faust]

That's true, if people wanted that then they could just stay at home and watch documentaries. Its not about historical accuracy though. I just think that often when designers purposefully historically reference a look they do so ostensibly to exploit a commonly recognized connotative style rather than reflecting on anything of real significance to them, and while it can look fantastic and have a wide appeal to the mainstream, if you consider fashion like art as a vehicle of contextual commentary through these crystallized images, it comes off as slightly vacuous, no?

But of course, that being said, the majority of people don't wear fashion to consciously make some kind of poignant elucidation on past or present society. And not all fashion is supposed to either. But if one specifically is, then I don't think that dilettantism should come into it.
Anyway, I've digressed completely from the subject of Browne.

Yes, it does, and that's why I don't put much (well, any) stock in Browne. His whole WASP fascist shtick is lame.

We welcome interesting digressions on SZ. Keep going. Like we could talk about how art should be a vehicle of contextual commentary but has lost this function once it became a speculative market.