Wednesday, September 8, 2010
For months I've been looking at this collection and I haven't come up with anything better than the jumble of associations it stirred at first sight. I thought of protect-me-from the world jackets. This can well be idiotic but I have nothing to go on with, and yet this is one of those intrusively problematic collections that demands to be interpreted. So anyway, could it be a commentary on the protective role of clothing, considering that padding is used for protection as well as figure shaping? Part of the thrill of deconstruction - a method often used in CdG collections - is making visible that which is supposed to remain invisible. The exposed seams point out the distinctions of that which is supposed to be an organic whole. Dare I assume that this collection puts into the limelight the protective function of clothing, another aspect that's supposed to be elegantly concealed by style?
Could it be that the heavily padded structured jackets are pointing at the comforting/empowering role that formal clothes bestow on the wearer? Are the convoluted strips of padding supposed to evoke large prints (perhaps rose patterns)? If yes, are they trying to say that in fashion even decoration is a shield? And the protruding padding, is it supposed to look unfinished or, to the contrary, torn, undone, and exposed? Is it, perhaps, a hint that this collection is about the various protective roles of clothing which are expected to be overshadowed by design?