"...we'd be saying it was major..."

I honestly haven't stopped thinking about Saint Laurent, as being openly critical of a person's creative output gives me anxiety. I've watched the reviews roll in to see how critics I respect have responded. This probably has something to do with validation, unfortunately, but I suppose that isn't so terrible.

SHOWstudio has been hosting lengthy panel discussion about collections that I just became aware of. When the Saint Laurent discussion video became available post live-stream, I watched as Lou Stoppard, Camilla Morton, Kay Montano, Mimma Viglezio and Harriet Walker discussed. I am less than familiar with these women, but have always been impressed with what the site does. Despite my unfamiliarity with the panelists, the discussion was thought-provoking and even a bit educational.

As far as the name change, the women provide sound argument for the name change around the 9 or 10 minute mark. Mimma Viglezio wisely argues that the French have always called the house Saint Laurent, as opposed to YSL. Camilla Morton additionally offers that Slimane most likely dropped the Yves as a sign of respect to his mentor "want[ing] to keep Yves as the man and Saint Laurent as the brand."

Not unlike myself, the women seemed rather disappointed. Viglezio complained about the styling, offering up that it might just be that aspect that caused the runway show to misstep. Kay Montano was not so forgiving, noting an issue I feel fashion-interested people (myself included) suffer from all the time (around 74:30). "I can't help but think if it was really major, we'd be saying it was major... but I'm just wondering if we're making excuses for him." Viewing digitally was also discussed and the argument was made that while appreciation is that much harder from a computer, you do not have the distraction of music and atmosphere to seduce you into loving the clothes. It's an issue I consider almost constantly during show season because I only have so much access.

It's certainly a lengthy discussion, but it's worth the watch if you're even vaguely interested in Saint Laurent, Hedi Slimane, or the politics of change in the fashion industry.

An Immediate and Potentially Reckless Reaction to "Saint Laurent"

The lovely Julia Nobis opening Saint Laurent (photo via style.com)

I've been awaiting Hedi's Slimane debut womenswear collection at the house formerly known as Yves Saint Laurent. Let's avoid a long, superfluous conversation about the name change. I don't like it. My knowledge of Slimane's contributions to the menswear at YSL and Dior is rather limited (just as my knowledge of menswear is), though I know he is revered for a minimalist and sort-of rock and roll aesthetic—the latter characteristic being more so where my interest in this collection resides.

I returned home from class just an hour or so ago, turned on my computer, and saw that Garance Doré had put up some images from the show in a post entitled "The New Saint Laurent Woman." Ever a fan of reinvention, I flipped through earnestly. The three photos were nice, but only showcased models from the waist up (or less), so I turned to style.com for the full story. As I looked at the images, I felt rather underwhelmed. Slimane's obvious 60's/70's I'm-a-rockstar-girlfriend inspiration should have excited me, as well as the masculine-feminine dichotomy that has always been present at Yves Saint Laurent (I am a fan of both), so why didn't it? The wide-brimmed hats, overworn by music-festival goers seemed so outdated, so tired. The voluminous bows on a majority of the looks were playful and dare-I-say classic YSL, but were not cause for recovery. The saloon vibes fell flat.

While I may sound aggressively critical—something I have openly tried to avoid here—I will say nothing was terribly hideous and I vocalized approval a couple times, but nothing felt groundbreaking. Hedi was installed at the house to breathe new life into it, though I find it necessary to say I don't believe Stefano Pilati failed the house. Instead, Slimane has given us a caricature of the young hip girl. I see past seasons of Balmain and Isabel Marant, in the heavy leather skirts and tight cropped pants, respectively, and I wonder: Where is the Hedi Slimane that "fashion people"/my tumblr peers so laud?

Sure, the reinvention of the wheel is a lot to ask, but that's what fashion is. Constant, back-breaking, brain-melting, eye-exhausting recycling and reworking in the effort to "create" something "new." One sometimes wonders if it's possible. Perhaps it's too much to ask. That said, I've been genuinely excited by some of the offerings certain designers (Haider Ackermann's move towards print, the Mulleavy sisters at Rodarte's reinstatement of the woman warrior)  have provided us this month, though none of them have been so built up by their absence. It may all come down this expectation, to a lack of time to process, and I may be eating my words later, but for the moment I'm disappointed.

Gaga on Criticism, Ms. Horyn

GAGA MEMORANDUM NO. 3

In her latest column for V magazine, Lady Gaga investigates critical culture, directing much attention to the esteemed (and notoriously harsh) Cathy Horyn. Gaga questions the necessity of being highly critical to the point that said criticism is negative to the point it becomes predictable. She herself has stated that critics are bullies, which one cannot easily disagree with. Certainly being a critic requires expertise and (hopefully) disgression, but often critical writing reads as if the writer is reveling in being mean spirited. I myself have weighed the value of being critical, struggling with saying something that could be potentially divisive. That is, if any of the creators I write about actually read my blog—they don't...yet. Every time I have this conversation, of sorts, Horyn comes up, perhaps because she is the most vocally critical fashion journalist alive today. Without a doubt, I feel that honest criticism is necessary to keep artists thinking forward and such shoes are difficult to fill. For that, I applaud Ms. Horyn's bravery, as I could not be so objective that I eliminate the possibility of befriending—or at least having the respect of—the world's most important designers (perhaps journalism isn't really for me...?).

Gaga asks, "Is it not even more critical for fashion and art critics to be profusely informed not only in art history but in the subliminal? The public operates with the assumption that critics are experts in their respective fields. But are they? Does every critic have the soul to really receive a work in the transcendental sense? The out-of-body experience of art?" Too often those who experience art only think of it in terms of good and bad. What I believe Gaga asks for in this column is a journalistic consciousness that looks deeper, that experiences the work. I sometimes wonder if I have the "soul" for it and cringe at the thought that I may not. Then again, I wonder that about a lot of things. Perhaps that's telling...or not at all.

I found the piece to be probing and important, even in it's a bit of an assault on Horyn. I still believe Horyn has a valuable place in the fashion community. This kind of discourse often has me searching within myself for a guide, if you will. I just hope Glitter Way presents itself to me in time.