Sunday, 28 September 2008


What does the word "wearable" mean to you? To me, when I see it on a fashion show review or collection press release it spells out B-O-R-I-N-G. Obviously I realise this is a hugely biased opinion but I think it is justified from my position as a fashion show consumer. Since I am never actually going to buy the clothes, either on behalf of a store or for myself, wearability matters very little. If I wanted something to actually wear I would go to the high street, a charity shop or ebay.

What I do need catwalk shows for, in my fashion cycle, is inspiration, pure and simple. They remain the ideal way to consume a designer's vision for that season. This doesn't mean that I am not interested in any of the shows that has to make sacrifices to the twin gods of buy- and wearability - I think Christopher Kane, Chanel, Prada, Miu Miu, Lanvin, Balenciaga (there are OBV more...) all manage to keep producing new and exciting collections without disregarding the desires of the majority. Their ideas are not diluted by the financial demands made upon them, which I am certain will prove to be a crucial discriminator between successful and unsuccessful designers as economic disaster appears to loom.

(This post was fuelled by reading's review of the Dsquared S/S 09 show - "one of their most wearable collections in seasons". I sat for a good few minutes trying to work out whether this was a positive or a negative comment. I am still unsure...)

No comments: