 |
Still, I don't get why Sarah Mower and Nicole Phelps got so many negative opinons about MMM's recent women collections. Mostly due to the so-called absence of Margiela in the house. Well, what else beside that? From an amateur's point of view, I can't really tell those differences and the lack of this and that. Indeed I should spend more time on "studying" collections and make some more efforts on "codes reading" but to be honestly, seldom was I into Margiela's show pieces, and I still don't now. From this angle, it's still pretty much coherent, those collections, at least to me.
Of course some of them are better than the others, but that isn't what those critics and journalists are talking about; all they point to is the absence of the person. And that comes along with fashionistas and who-knows-what-wannabes' original opinions/criticisms. Fairly bugging.
 |
Wouldn't it be so simple that it's how they want you to see and to think in a certain way?
By they I mean MMM or the person behind or the person behind the person behind.
Ain't that funny. Drop an ink into a glass of water and see how it becomes. Somehow it coincides with the idea in Le Placard I watched earlier this evening. A hilarious story by the way.
So, the whereabouts of Margiela. It reminds me of collections he made while he's in Hermès when I see Céline's collections lately, especially when it comes to those leather-made garments. Who's doing what? Who's where?
Phoebe is adorable, so is her style.
By the way, MMM's last collection 2010aw isn't that good; I don't have the faintest idea what Sarah were praising about and what Nicole are bitching about the latest one comparing to which.
I might be the dumbest one that care about them after all.
What about Martin Margiela again?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire