PR: Ripping the Collections: Amy - Part 1

Clown fish pants, ahoy!

We really needed to talk this one out for a while before attempting a writeup. Why? Because we think Amy has a thoughtful, intellectual approach to design and because of that she takes risks. That's an admirable quality in a designer. The problem is, we pretty much hated her collection. We WANTED to love it, and we spent way more time than is healthy trying to find ways to love it, but in the end, the love just wasn't there. However, in its place was respect, because as we said, she's a thoughtful designer who takes risks and even if she doesn't make things to our particular tastes, that doesn't mean she did something wrong.

Let's start the show.





Oh wait. She DID do something wrong.

Here's how she explained this dress over on Entertainment Weekly's site:

"That one was about adjusting a silhouette. If you take the height up and move it out, then you lose the shoulder line, and there was something that interested me in being able to make a garment look like a dress, while drastically affecting [the model's] shape. The movement of that garment was achieved because of the height of the neck. Is it the most wearable thing? No, it’s definitely not the most wearable thing. You wouldn’t be able to eat in that. [Laughs] I’m not comparing myself to Gaultier or anyone like that, but when I look at work like that and I look at mine, I just think, God, I could still be so much more creative. "

See what we mean? How can you criticize someone who thinks like that? We'll give it a shot.

We totally get the whole thing about playing with people's expectations of what a silhouette should be, but she had ten looks total to show to the world. This really wasn't the time to be putting out such head-scratching work. In addition, if you DO want to put out avant garde stuff like this, then commit to it. There was no other look in this collection that attempted what this look did, which makes it seem terribly incongruous.

We'll give her credit for one thing: It was definitely an attention-getting first look to come out on the runway. You could feel the crowd going, "Oh."



She did some interesting things with digital printing on fabrics, some of which was not to our taste. This one we liked. Quite a bit, actually. It almost looks like the fabric is see-through but it's not. On the other hand, this look is all about the fabric. It's dramatic, but from a formal perspective, there's not a lot here to get excited about, especially because it followed such a form-shattering look.



Again, you've got ten chances to impress the fashion press. Why on earth would you choose to send something this plain down the runway? Oh sure, from the back she looks like a winged insect (which isn't a compliment), but there is literally nothing at all going on with the front.

And okay, we get the whole thing with the white bucks, but did every single look need them? The shoes are not helping here.


Tom had an almost violently negative reaction. "GOD, no! That is FUGLY!" Lorenzo wasn't quite so vocal but he agreed that this was not a good look. We've gone on record about our dislike of handkerchief hems, but doing it on a tutu is an especially unattractive look. And then pairing it with that big, misshapen sweater? It's like she was trying to come up with a textbook definition of "unflattering." We approve of the introduction of color, but we just can't get behind that sweater, which looks like she put it on straight from one of the bins at Goodwill.


That print on the top is too busy for our tastes, but the excessive pleating and bunching made it even worse. We literally can't tell what's going on there. There's so much visual information that it just reads as a big complicated mess. We still like the pattern on the leggings, though.

[Photos: firstVIEW.com]


Post a Comment

Labels: , , ,