034. Busted!

Style.com
So, Paulo Melim Andersson's brief career as Chloé's creative director has come to an end. I don't have the full scoop but it's my assumption that he was fired, not that he actively chose to leave, unless it was mutual.

Too bad for him. Don't get me wrong, I think he did a wonderful job at Marni, and I was really cheering for him when I saw the first collection he did at Chloé. But after the initial high faded, I realized I was still mourning the loss of Phoebe Philo, as well as her predecessor Stella McCartney. I think that his most recent collection - FW08 - was getting closer to what I think of as "Chloé," so I wonder when the bigwigs made the decision to sack him; maybe he was diverging again when starting next year's spring collection, I'm really not sure. I do know that his launch collection was vastly different. One does not associate Doc Marten-esque boots with Chloé. Indeed, one can only reinvent a label so much before it retains no trace of its core identity. I don't condemn Andersson's style, I just don't think it has much relevancy to what has been titled the "Chloé woman."

Andersson will be replaced by Hannah McGibbon, who has worked for Chloé before under the direction of Phoebe Philo. Since I always had a great deal of respect for what Philo did for Chloé, I'm delighted by this change and hope that McGibbon will be successful in healing the rupture that has formed in the eminent fashion label.

Here's a recap on Andersson's Chloé collections, from first to last:

Fall/Winter 2007/8


Style.com

Spring/Summer 2008


Style.com

Fall/Winter 2008/9


Style.com

032. Falling flat.

I hate to be repetitive, but the fashion this spring has been unusually bad. There have been a few good ones: Alexander McQueen (although it rested rather heavily on outsider-designed hats), Ralph Lauren, Givenchy, Moschino. But I have to give it to Nylon for making the best of a bad situation by picking the best of the worst to showcase and doing a damn good job with photography. Other magazines (whom I shall not deign to mention) have spectacularly failed in piquing my interest this season, interspersing vile editorials with humdrum print ads. Now that the screenwriters' strike is over, have the design teams for major magazines taken their place?

But I do have to admit that no publication is to blame for the shoddy fashion jamming up the catwalks. A few interesting designs here or there, but I'm not going to defend the bullshit. Anyone who tells me "We decided to break it all down and start at the bottom so we can build ourselves up again." - yeah, great idea. You've just created the fashion equivalent of the amoeba. Why don't you take us right on back up the evolutionary chain so I can wear something pretty again.

In essence, from what I've seen, many spring collections have tried to rest on flashy colors that border on radioactive. The shape and detailing on garments is minimal. That’s okay because minimalism can be chic, but it’s annoying when you don’t have that one unusual piece that stands out from the crowd. Shoes are going to be the saving grace of fashion this spring.

Now, about them shoes. A fashionable outfit depends on contrast (currently: drab clothing vs. interesting shoes), and I’ve noticed that as heels have risen in height (I believe we will be walking on virtual stilts by 2010 if this trend continues to grow – no pun intended), they’ve also risen in creativity. A little while ago, bags were the It accessory. They were and always will be a fab brag piece to flaunt, but shoes are fast returning to their spot as the collectible item of choice. Let me see if I can rack up a few examples.


Style.com
Here is a Chloé shoe from next fall. It is certainly something to look at. Not only is it produced in a vivid aquamarine, the front is plastered with some exotic variant of a leaf. I don’t know if this is a hail to environmental campaigning (there’s been even more plant-oriented clothing around lately, and not just because it’s spring). But this is a different take on footwear. Normally you’d just see a shoe that matches or complements the more extraordinary fabric, but this is the uniting component of the outfit.


Style.com
Prada’s token spring heel is even more flamboyant. I must say this shoe is much more aesthetically appealing (to me), but it is perhaps even more extreme, with the heel radically altered to form the shape of a flower. The shoe is practically becoming the staple of the collection, whereas Prada’s shirts float on ethereally by.


Style.com
Marc Jacobs’ latest shoes are bizarre. That’s all. They’re just bizarre; and they’re a disaster waiting to happen. That isn’t to say I don’t like them. I enjoy the exotic birds of fashion. But these shoes are extreme and I have visions of tripping in these, catapulting down stairs, dancing through my head. They’re another poster child for the “Look at us. We’re subscribing to the Shoe Extremism trend. Here, let us endanger your safety to prove it” movement.

I admit I am myopic when it comes to fashion. I'm young. I am only well versed in approximately the last half decade in fashion; I don’t presume to be an expert on trends. But clothing seems to be taking a new direction. Whether this leads to good or bad things, we shall see. I have hope that Nicolas Ghesquière will carry us through.

011. Middlingly expensive knockoffs?

It no longer comes as a shock to me when designers rip each other off. After all, fashion is one of the most competitive and cannibalistic industries in existence. But there are some situations when it's undeniable that you've ripped another designer off. It's not that you've been "inspired" or that another designer's collection has furbished you with an idea for your own collection. You're unabashedly stealing to make a profit. Which is (somewhat) all right when you're a chain retailer like Forever 21, but if you try to make some serious money off it, fear my wrath!

They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I don't think that applies to all situations...

Here's one of Chloé's signature dresses from this fall:


Style.com
And here's the culprit, a dress by AKA New York ($345):


ShopBop.com
If AKA hadn't slimmed down the silhouette of the dress and made a few other tailoring alterations, this would be the Chloé. AKA New York? Ha. They should consider renaming themselves "AKA Chloé."

Is it just me or does Chloé seem to be bearing the brunt of knockoffers these days? (Case in point: the jumpsuit incident earlier this year.) It must suck being one of the most eminent design labels of the millennium. Everyone wants to be you. Mmmm...