Matthew Williamson for H&M

Matthew Williamson's capsule collection for H&M is launching in two phases. The first phase, made just for women, debuted this week. More items, including a men's line, will show up in May. Given his palette, it's hard to imagine Matthew Williamson designing for any season other than Spring/Summer, so at least that part of the collaboration seems to make sense. You can check out the collection here.

If you've never visited the H&M website, you should check it out. It's incredibly user friendly, is fun to navigate, and you can even create a virtual you to try on clothes in their dressing room.

My only real familiarity with Matthew Williamson comes from his stint as designer at Emilio Pucci for the past three years (a relationship that came to an end last year). He has a reputation for dressing British party girls. Nothing challenging, just fun clothes for the really rich and tan and skinny. One look at the H&M stuff confirms that his aesthetic is all over the collection. Many of the items are done in silk, which helps explain the high price tags (at least by H&M standards). The gray washed silk jumpsuit is fetching, but would you drop $250 on a jumpsuit from H&M, regardless of its design provenance?

The Last Emperor


Went to see Valentino: The Last Emperor over the weekend. My ability to enjoy a documentary on a fashion designer is probably higher than most, but I would offer that it was actually a good film in its own right. My expectations were incredibly low going into it, given how horrible Lagerfeld Confidential was. But along with the glamorous air kisses and sycophants were more interesting stories. Foremost is the partnership of Valentino and Giancarlo Giammetti. Business and romantic partners for decades, much of the movie is devoted to the way in which their collaboration catapulted Valentino's name into the stratosphere, thereby enabling the purchases of houses in Rome, Paris, Gstaad, etc. Although their relationship is never overtly affectionate on camera, their interaction is touching, and hints at the deep bond between them.

You also get a window into the evolution of the economics of fashion. There is particular focus on the conflict between the large moneyed conglomerates that have invested in fashion houses over the last decade, and the methods and idiosyncrasies of an established fashion house like Valentino's. The businessmen want items that will sell. Can't Valentino make more iconic accessories to sell alongside his unaffordable couture dresses? On the one hand, you have a designer who's creative whimsy has created the very foundation of the valuable brand. On the other hand, a profit-driven investor doesn't want to indulge random thoughts and associations - that investor wants proven results.

As Valentino is one of the last houses that continues to do haute couture, you also get a glimpse into his atelier, where amazing hand-craft and talent pour into the construction of wearable art. Unfortunately, it also highlights the reality that this industry really can't survive for much longer. With only a handful of customers around the globe, and an even smaller number of people trained in the practice, it seems destined to follow the path of remote inuit dialects and free drinks on airlines.

Internet and Fashion

Like they have on most things, the interwebs have had a marked impact on fashion. While the fashion show had already evolved from its more humble beginnings before the information super-highway came along, the access to these shows provided by sites like style.com has added legions of spectators, followers, and armchair critics such as myself. Project Runway has further fueled this trend, bringing fashion argot into the regular discourse of anyone with a DVR. I now regularly hear the most unexpected people say things like "ruching" or "That outfit was just a little too costume-y". It is no surprise, then, that enrollment at fashion schools is up, or if you want to go super-meta, that you can even get your fashion design degree online.

This level of access is a mixed bag for some designers. While the exposure certainly helps move some more bags, the inability to control who gets to see what means that knock-offs can be produced and on racks at the same time as the source collection, at much cheaper prices. It has also diminished the impact of banning a journalist from one's show.

But can the computer monitor replace seeing the clothes in person? Not having been to any big fashion shows, I can't say for sure. But with such a tactile product, it's easy to argue that something might be lost. Point in case: last week, at my own urging, I went to Target to check out what remained of the McQueen capsule collection. While I did come dangerously close to buying a pair of pink and black leggings for myself (don't judge!), my main impression of the collection was a bunch of cheap cotton. As commenter Connie points out, the appeal of Alexander McQueen's clothes is in the tailoring, and in the fabric. That the Target collection is based on his more affordable diffusion line, McQ, seems to have removed the collection one step too far from its designer's origins.

On the flip side, some designers, fashion insiders, and fashion portals are using media to create innovative ways to attract customers and to attract page views. For the Fall 2009 collections, Style.com unveiled a new format for its runway photos, not only offering them in a larger format, but giving the user a Flickr-like navigation tool that allows for easier, quicker access to the slides. In addition, they've added a ton of runway videos to their site, which help to highlight the movement of the clothes that is missing from the static photos.

Nick Knight and his colleagues have been putting the content together on his site, SHOWstudio, since 2000. The videos range from conceptual art pieces to documentaries, often bringing interesting people together like in this collaboration between Hussein Chalayan and Antony Hegarty. It is an easy place to lose an hour or four.

With the production costs of runway shows reaching into the millions, it is no surprise that some designers are beginning to turn to video to show off their collections. Gareth Pugh is a newer designer, originally out of London but now showing in Paris. His collections are typically dark and angular, often described as "dominatrix meets the alien from Predator". In the recent Fall 2009 RTW season, he worked with one of SHOWstudio's filmmakers, Ruth Hogben, to create a video of his collection. Opting out of a typical runway format, he showed the video instead.


Gareth Pugh, A/W 2009, courtesy of style.com

For their Spring 2009 collection, Dutch design duo Viktor & Rolf created a clever video starring a bazillion beautiful Shalom Harlows. (At this rate, I'm going to have to rename this website "mcqueenshalomfanboixoxo.com". My apologies. Next post shall have nothing to do with either of them, no matter how hard it might be for me!) It's a gimmick, but it appears to have worked, given that I've watched the thing like five or six times now. I go back and forth on Viktor & Rolf, but I love this collection. I love the subversion of coating black paint over embroidered crystals. I love the Tron light cycle prints on the leggings. And I love the wine-colored shorts they send out about three-quarters of the way through the show -- the best pair of women's shorts I've seen since they came back into fashion three years ago. And importantly, the video allows for a closer look at the construction of the garments, their movement, and their fit. (Access the video by clicking here, then pointing towards the room at the top of the staircase of a runway.)


The shorts
Viktor and Rolk, S/S 2009 courtesy of style.com

Given the uncertainty in the economy, and the need it is creating for designers to find new, cheaper ways to market their visions, I think we'll see more of these types of videos in seasons to come. And until I start getting asked to sit ringside at the live shows, I'm not complaining in the slightest.

Cintra Wilson

Once upon a time, I eagerly looked forward to Thursday mornings, as it meant the publication of a new Thursday Styles section in the New York Times. Far superior to the Sunday Styles segment (which regularly greenlights publication of drivel like this), Thursday focuses more on fashion, recently-opened bars and eateries, and other things that would generally make me envious of New York City living.

Unfortunately, I feel as though the section has deteriorated as of late. There are still some fashion articles, but they seem less numerous than before. Cathy Horyn, whose every article I've probably read for the past five years, publishes more frequently to her "On the Runway" blog, but at the expense of fewer articles. Worse, I feel an increasing "Sunday Styles" influence, primarily via the trendspotting articles. I firmly believe that the genesis of these articles can be traced to a dare . As in, "I just DARE you to write an article saying that male nannies are the new hot thing!" If successful, the article might actually launch the trend, or at least get into the head of a publisher willing to put a book out on the subject. Finally, the trend comes full circle with yet another Sunday Styles piece, this time about the video about the book about the original article about the non-existent trend.

To its credit, Thursday styles has, at the same time, made some noteworthy additions to its format. The aforementioned blog allows for more spontaneous, and more frequent, postings than the normal Times publication schedule allows. Audio slide shows and video postings, narrated by Bill Cunningham, Cathy Horyn and Eric Wilson, help to tie the words of the authors to the images they describe. But first and foremost among these improvements, and one of the main things that keeps me reading, are the "Critical Shopper" columns written by Cintra Wilson.

These columns are the fashion equivalent of investigative reporting, with a nice populist bent. Sure you've seen those heels on a model, but what is it REALLY like to shop at Christian Louboutin?

I first came across Cintra Wilson by accident, when I was looking for a book to read and I came across one with a picture of a blow-up doll on the cover. SOLD!! A Massive Swelling was a snarky examination of our culture's worship of celebrity. I'm bad at remembering any sorts of details about books, and this one is no different, but I remember laughing, and I remembered her name. So when she showed up on the style pages, I was immediately hooked.

Ms. Wilson's articles are light-hearted, and often totally hilarious. You get the impression that she enjoys fashion, but she's too smart to take it too seriously. She enjoys poking fun at the clothes, and occasionally at the sales staff, but she is equally engaging when describing the perfection of an Alexander McQueen dress.

If you want more than just the stories linked above, this will take you to an archive of her reviews.

McQueen, Part 1


photo courtesy of style.com

Alexander McQueen has been on my mind a lot lately. He sent out a much talked about collection this past March in Paris. And right before that, on March 1, his capsule collection for Target launched. His men's collection, which showed back in January, was surprisingly subdued, with a Sam the Butcher meets Robert Pattinson vibe to it. I'm hoping to get a chance to talk about all of these things, but today I wanna talk about Target.

Target has a history of mostly successful collaborations with buzzy designers. Like H&M, they've looked to increase their caché by aligning with these designers. In turn, the designers benefit from the publicity, increasing their name recognition beyond the borders of Bryant Park and the handful of obsessives like me that have nothing better to do than flip through slides on style.com.

In the past, a designer's collaboration with a mainstream manufacturer was more likely to have sounded a death knell on their career than to have done them any favors. The licensing deals struck by Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci and others in the 1980s all took a toll on the labels. It was only by ending those licensing relationships, thereby taking back control of the design and the supply of the brand, that those labels were able to prosper again.

The key to the new relationships between fashion labels and high street stores is supply. Licensing deals in the 1980s failed because the labels had little control over what was produced. The licensee, unhindered by the expense of a couture design team, and with no allegiance to a particular brand, is eager to extract as much profit as possible out of the relationship. This means churning out as many green and red Gucci keychains as possible. But eventually, if you can buy into Gucci for a dollar at a swap meet, there's no point in spending hundreds of dollars for horsebit loafers or a logo bag. The short-term payoff from licensing fees ultimately results in a long-term loss of revenue and brand equity.

The current "mass-tige" collections appear to have learned from past mistakes. An aura of exclusivity is maintained by severely curtailing the number of pieces produced. In many cases, like the collections done for H&M by Karl Lagerfeld and Stella McCartney, the clothes were all sold within the first couple of days. Neither collaboration appears to have done damage to the brands of these two designers. And Target has, at times, gone even further to ensure that these clothes do not lose their magical designer powers. For its collaboration with Proenza Schouler, they created a Target "outpost" at hipster emporium Opening Ceremony.

All of this brings to me my point. Yes, it takes me awhile to get to the point. You should be happy it only took six paragraphs, and that I remained remarkably on topic! McQueen's Target collection is still for sale, ONE MONTH after it launched. Worst of all, IT'S ON CLEARANCE! So what gives?

Flipping through the images, I'm not struck by it being particularly bad. A little boring at times maybe, but not bad. Looking at the styled photos of the clothes here, I'm definitely underwhelmed by the presentation on Target's website. And to be fair, it appears that some of the more stand-out items are no longer available. But still...


photo courtesy of Target
Battlestar Gallactica may be over, but you'll always have this T!


photo courtesy of Target
There was an awesome shift dress with this same print, but it's out of stock. This tee is available in a medium, and it's only $14!


photo courtesy of Target
Hot shorts! 21 bucks!!

Reading reviews, it sounds like there are fit issues with some of the items. That's when it's nice to be someone like Rei Kawakubo -- you can just say that the squished boob is an intentional element in the deconstruction of the bathing suit. But most of the reviews are pretty positive (and generally indicate that the clothes are cuter in person, so check them out for yourself).

There is no question that the collection must have suffered from the current economic climate. As in "Here I am at Target, I don't know how long I'll have a job, and I can either buy toilet paper or this McQueen jumpsuit." But still, many of these items are still available in all sizes, which leads me to believe that Target overproduced. Perhaps the lessons of those 80s licenses have not been fully learned.

Oddly enough, my favorite runway show of all time, one of the few that comes to mind year after year, was Alexander McQueen's Spring/Summer 1999 show. At the end of the show (the point at which a bride would traditionally have her exit in an haute couture collection), Shalom Harlow stands on a revolving platform surrounded by two robotic arms like those you would see in an automotive assembly plant. She is dewy and nervous, as if she has been running from these robots and they finally have her trapped. Her dress is relatively simple -- puffy and white, cinched above her breasts by a tan leather belt. Suddenly, one of the arms lunges toward her and sprays her with paint. Then the other one sprays her. As she continues to turn around, helplessly menaced by the robots, her white dress is soiled by the paint. Did McQueen have a rape fantasy that needed to be worked out? Or was he expressing a view on the destruction of fashion via mass production and machine? If the latter is the case, I wonder if he's thought about it as he's reflected on his relationship with Target. Has the collaboration actually enhanced his career, or is it just a mess of bad graffiti on the otherwise pristine walls surrounding his brand?

Watch the video of that moment here (skip ahead to 0:37).