Friday, February 27, 2009
Is London Where It's At?
I didn't post anything about New York Fashion Week this year because, frankly, it didn't prove very exciting. The most exciting part, in fact, was meeting my favorite personal style blogger, Susie Bubble. She was just as sweet and cool in person as she is on her wicked blog. Anyways, it's not that I didn't enjoy the shows. I thought that most were lovely. I'd wear lots from Narciso, Jeremy Laing, heck, even Michael Kors, but other than a choice few--Marc Jacobs, Sophie Theallet come to mind--there was nothing new, different or exciting about what I saw. I think a lot of it has to do with the recession: I'd say it's worse in New York than any other fashion capital, and designers are feeling the pressure.
What did look great, however, were the clothes at London's itsy bitsy, four-day fashion week. I adored Henry Holland's Pantone-inspired suits and Giles Deacon's insane yet ladylike take on dresses. But Christopher Kane was the true star. In the past, Kane's collections have been excellent--we must thank him for the reviving Herve Leger-like bandage dresses back in 2006--but not my style. That surely wasn't the case this time around. He mixed sheer organza with lots of grey and black plaid, playing on the importance of masculinity in women's clothing right now without forgetting that we want: to channel 1980s style without looking like Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally. (Okay, I kind of want to look like her, but I feel as though most girls don't. They want to look a bit more modern.) Anyways, here in New York, we like to think Alexander Wang has a hold on the cool, downtown girl's wardrobe. But Wang's looks are too literal in my opinion, especially as of late. Give me the quirky, off-trend style of London instead.