What are the limits to just how far fashion shows will go to showcase creative expression? And why are they doing it in this particular way of valuing the shock factor from audiences over the skill set of the designers?
Nobody is actually wearing, or buying, reversed dresses from Viktor and Rolf. Nor do they want a spray-on or ill-fitting dress. This begs the question; why create a design like this? Although it is highly entertaining to witness, the highly impractical and unwearable designs make for a confusing approach.
And why are they doing it in this particular way of valuing the shock factor from audiences over the skill set of the designers?
Is the intention to redefine, or reinvent fashion? Is this what the future of mainstream fashion is going to look like? Should we be investing in more one-of-a-kind pieces, and what does that tell us about fast fashion and the economy?
As much as I found Bella Hadid’s spray-on dress to be a gorgeous performance, I wouldn’t really use it as a groundbreaking moment for fashion - more for her career. The industry is focusing in on individuals and what they can offer, rather than what the company is producing.
Take Kylie Jenner as an example. At the Schiaparelli show, Jenner’s promotion of taxidermy by wearing a lion’s head attached to her gown is a new level of disturbing. While hand-crafted with talent, supposedly to communicate a deeper message, there is only one thing on the public’s mind.
There is nothing fashionable about dead animals. Whether it is hand-crafted felt materials or a real animal head, the message is still lost in translation by the sheer disturbance behind the choice and the audacity to label it as ‘fashion’.
However, that doesn’t mean to say all abstract fashion is disturbing. On the other end of the scale, acts like Bella Hadid’s spray-on dress for Coperni and Viktor and Rolf’s topsy-turvy ensemble seem to have no clear message behind the designs, but with that they avoid political controversy. Both are random acts of expression, creativity, and absurdity that cause no harm.
What are the limits to just how far fashion shows will go to showcase creative expression?
I don’t hate it, though. Something about art existing as art is almost refreshing to see in such a competitive industry. Is the overall suggestion making a statement of fashion being art? Or is it simply to exist as it is, without question?