I don't think I have been on my A game, for a while, and then upon hearing recent news, I think I've sort of fallen off the inspiration wagon.
My sister and I have talked a number of times about branding in fashion, most recently about the Spring 2011 McQueen collection, the first by Sarah Burton. Of course this collection was bound to be under great scrutiny. People wanted to know if Sarah Burton would be able to live up to and continue the vision, artistry, raw imagination, and workmanship of Lee Alexander McQueen. Her collection was recognized as meeting these goals, though, both my sister and myself felt it was a regurgitation of Lee's ideas, and cleverly masked the insecurity of the line's new designer in rich textiles, attention to detail and exquisite tailoring, also things we had seen before, but expect, as we should from the McQueen line. All this being said, I honestly feel that the line should have, well, been laid to rest in the wooden box alongside its visionary, creator, and proprietor. Never content with making fashion for fashion's sake, his voice has changed in his death and he is now, merely, and sadly a brand. No longer art. It will be a long time before we see that much true creativity, artistry, vision and workmanship in fashion, and ultimately, modern art.
I am currently trudging my way through Fifth Avenue, 5 A.M.: Audrey Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the Dawn of the Modern Woman by Sam Wasson. It's not that it's that bad, it's just not that good. I found it at the library a week ago in the "bestseller" area, clearly, misfiled if you ask me. The author interjects his opinions in the weirdest places, I don't think you were actually there buddy, so why tell just this one paragraph like you were, and all the others like your not. The flow is a bit catty-wham-pus for my taste, and it seems like the content could be written in such an exciting way, and it is just not. I just finished reading a section regarding the wardrobe and how Audrey, and Holly, made modern fashion accessible to all, not just the elite. But, I don't know that she made fashion accessible, I think that she made specifically style, and the essence of chic accessible. I think that true fashion, and style are different things. Style can become a brand, but art can never be. Just look at what Andy Wharhol did with brands and he is still, and will always be seen as an artist.
The article in the NYTimes that indicated that I do, in-fact, live under a rock, and enlightened me to the upcoming McQueen exhibit at The MET, shared my opinion on fashion, brands and commodity as being, not one in the same. Apparently the brand Alexander McQueen can be sustained from creating one-off pieces for ladies with high bank rolls, dresses costing upwards of $30,000 each.
I am sick of seeing the LV insignia bags. I don't want compromise in art or artistic vision for everyone to be able to buy something "authentic." I wish there were more separation between fashion (art)—so little of it that there truly is—and "style."
Appropriately featured, the Alexander McQueen exhibit will be opening May 4th and running through July 31st. Ironically, I received a promotion from Virgin America Airlines this morning, before learning of the exhibit, advertising fares through mid may from SFO to NYC for $139 (before taxes, fees, snacks and movies). So now comes the great question, do I fork over the $300, find a couch to surf on, grab the bull by its horns and fly out for one night for, perhaps, the only chance I will ever receive to see, in person, the amazing work of Alexander McQueen?
And if I do go, what do I wear?
Even though I drove 800 miles for real Alexander McQueen fabric, this, sadly, I think is outside of my budget ...
Images in this post are from Vogue, July 2010, United States: A Noble Farewell for Alexander McQueen by Annie Leibovitz
No comments:
Post a Comment