In reply to st. valentine:
speaking of fashion, how was the architecture? Your thoughts?
Hi, has anyone had a chance to see the Westwood show at the de Young, in San Francisco? I went yesterday. Let's talk about it!
Started by st. valentine, 23:39 Sun 27 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 173 posts
speaking of fashion, how was the architecture? Your thoughts?
From Saint Sèvres, 13:25 Wed 30 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 11 posts
I still haven't had a chance to see the show, but what did you think of it?
From KaWai, 16:22 Mon 28 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 908 posts
I liked the rusted look, I went there when it first opened. I like how in time it would get more rusty and the texture it would add to the whole. The fload was smooth when you walk from one room to another. The setting is beautiful the fact that it's in Golden Gate Park.
From KaWai, 18:34 Wed 30 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 908 posts
I don't understand what u meant about the walking . . do u mean flow? Why was it smooth?
From Saint Sèvres, 00:42 Thu 31 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 11 posts
Sorry, I meant flow, the transition from one room to another. It was comfortable not confusing and can see glimpses of the park from inside the museum which was really nice.
From KaWai, 01:55 Thu 31 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 908 posts
I'm not sure how I feel about it (the building). for anyone who hasn't been or looked at pictures, it's a twisting vertical box next to a very plain box on the ground, both covered in rusty-looking grating. i suppose it's alright.
but i tend to accept buildings rather than judge them- i simply take them for granted.
i get excited about buildings much less frequently than i do about clothes.
as to the westwood show. there were a few pieces i really enjoyed, but on the whole- although i could see how it would've been revolutionary decades ago- i didn't think it was particularly amazing. this is the nature of revolution, of course: it's groundbreaking when it happens, and a few years later it's passe. but i don't think westwood has that lasting quality.
From st. valentine, 04:56 Thu 31 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 173 posts
I disagree. One can't simply judge something based on when it was created. Besides, there are many great paintings, songs, pieces of furniture, books, buildings, photographs . . (the list goes on) that were made so long ago and still resonate very strongly with people today. Fashion is particulary interesitng because of the media that accompanies it . . so it's not always "just" about the creation itself.
From Saint Sèvres, 08:39 Thu 31 May 2007 | Profile +++++ | 11 posts
.....We could safely say that she has been one of the most inspiring Fashion Genius of her time and beyond....she literally shredded and torn fashion into pieces...to be put back again changing the aesthetics for ever....giving it a new approach.....a real good twist to the tale......and then the rest of the crowd followed...giving fashion a totally new dimension...
Her wittiness gave fashion new life and more than plenty to talk about....and her influence goes all the way up to....guess ?...Haute Couture !!..
She managed to give an inject new life to Haute Couture when Couture was living on a ' life support machine' and almost dead !...and last but not least her mark is still been seeing on the catwalks of Paris today .
Who can claim to have had such a role in fashion....since Dior shocked the world with his audacity ?
Who cannot remember Westwood's fantastic fantasy with her Mrs, Havisham's dress ?...
A David among the Goliath of Fashion who deserves more credit that she actually gets !!!
From Galileo's Universe, 08:56 Sat 02 Jun 2007 | Profile +++++ | 1149 posts
Saint Sévres- I think it is important to keep historical context in mind. Quite a lot of fashion doesn't last, and one mark of a really inspirational designer is the characteristic of remaining 'classic' decades after the fact. I think this is the case with, for example, Dior and Chanel- some of their clothes could be worn today, despite the fact they were created more than half a century ago, and aside from wear and tear on the materials they would still look right-on. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion of Westwood, but quite a lot of her work, from the late 70s and early 60s, simply looked dated to me, shocking at the time but presently passé.
Galileo's universe, I will never cease to be amazed by your penchant for misty-eyed generalities & blandness punctuated with '...' But contrary to your assertion that she doesn't get the recognition she deserves, I think she has been very well recognized, and well lauded. She's quite establishment by now.
From st. valentine, 04:52 Sun 03 Jun 2007 | Profile +++++ | 173 posts