Chloe S/S '08 R-T-W Show
- Thread starter chloehandbags
- Start date
Not sure about the bags either, but agree with you, love that purple! Well, according to the SA at boutique, that's the purple for the new Bay and Paddy, for spring. Let's wait and see.
i've heard there is going to be alot of purple and a seafoam color. also there will be a clear plexi paddy.
There's a video and a blurb about the show on chloe.com:
OK, I didn't want to say what I thought, to start with, as I didn't want to run the risk of, possibly, influencing the whole tone of the thread; because I wanted to hear people's honest opinions.
But, once again, I don't like this much.
Maybe if this was 1997 I wouldn't mind - but not now.
For me, this collection looks like IKEA for Chloe and as IKEA were telling the British public to 'Chuck Out Your Chintz' back in 1997 and modernism and minimalism has been knocking around for at least the last 10 years (not just in fashion, but also in art, architecture and interiors), frankly, I'm sick of it.
Geometry is fine (I'm a fan), but this kind of minimalist take on it looks very passé to me.
Also, I find this collection strangely cutesy. Cutesy's better than ugly (as A/W '07 was), but it's just not what I'm looking for.
Cutesy IKEA for Chloe, by way of Marni.
Not to mention the hideous, used-condom trousers, that appeared all over the S/S '08 runways (not just at Chloe).
The thing is, Chloe has always been a soft, feminine house and although all its previous designers have put their stamp on it, none of them have forgotten that.
It seems to me that the one thing that can't gel with soft and feminine is hard and masculine; which is PMA's aesthetic in a nutshell.
Thinking one can soften hard, minimal, lines and motifs with a bit of frou, unconvincing surface detail and pretty colours just seems totally ridiculous, to me; like dressing a bricklayer in a tutu.
Not to mention that it ends up looking like a dog's dinner.
I don't always agree with her, but I think Cathy Horyns (writing for the NY Times) summed it up perfectly:
'But could Mr. Andersson have starved his hungry audience more? The shapes in the collection were so undefined, so indistinct that you had the feeling the same dress was going by again and again. He seems to want to fit his abstract style to Chloé, but after two seasons, it’s starting to feel like a square peg.'
At the end of the day, I don't blame Paulo, I blame his boss, Ralph Toledano.
As he said himself, in 2002, at Chloe's 50th birthday celebrations:
'If the house has survived for 50 years, it's also because Gaby Aghion left behind a true creative spirit which the designers have emulated.'
That spirit was of soft femininity.
So what on earth was he thinking?
But, once again, I don't like this much.
Maybe if this was 1997 I wouldn't mind - but not now.
For me, this collection looks like IKEA for Chloe and as IKEA were telling the British public to 'Chuck Out Your Chintz' back in 1997 and modernism and minimalism has been knocking around for at least the last 10 years (not just in fashion, but also in art, architecture and interiors), frankly, I'm sick of it.
Geometry is fine (I'm a fan), but this kind of minimalist take on it looks very passé to me.
Also, I find this collection strangely cutesy. Cutesy's better than ugly (as A/W '07 was), but it's just not what I'm looking for.
Cutesy IKEA for Chloe, by way of Marni.
Not to mention the hideous, used-condom trousers, that appeared all over the S/S '08 runways (not just at Chloe).
The thing is, Chloe has always been a soft, feminine house and although all its previous designers have put their stamp on it, none of them have forgotten that.
It seems to me that the one thing that can't gel with soft and feminine is hard and masculine; which is PMA's aesthetic in a nutshell.
Thinking one can soften hard, minimal, lines and motifs with a bit of frou, unconvincing surface detail and pretty colours just seems totally ridiculous, to me; like dressing a bricklayer in a tutu.
Not to mention that it ends up looking like a dog's dinner.
I don't always agree with her, but I think Cathy Horyns (writing for the NY Times) summed it up perfectly:
'But could Mr. Andersson have starved his hungry audience more? The shapes in the collection were so undefined, so indistinct that you had the feeling the same dress was going by again and again. He seems to want to fit his abstract style to Chloé, but after two seasons, it’s starting to feel like a square peg.'
At the end of the day, I don't blame Paulo, I blame his boss, Ralph Toledano.
As he said himself, in 2002, at Chloe's 50th birthday celebrations:
'If the house has survived for 50 years, it's also because Gaby Aghion left behind a true creative spirit which the designers have emulated.'
That spirit was of soft femininity.
So what on earth was he thinking?
^ Oh, I'm sorry, ruby! 
I didn't mean to upset anybody!
I know what you mean, though, it is a little depressing, isn't it?
I didn't mean to upset anybody!
I know what you mean, though, it is a little depressing, isn't it?
oh riiight! i thought you meant the whole bag would be clear plastic, like those bags you put your swimmers in after you've been to the pool!
CHB, some interesting thoughts... I quite like the collection, especially the chiffon, but you've swayed me on some pieces.
...at the end of the day, I just can't get over this - it's such a shock after scrolling through all those pictures!
(but please don't worry- you didn't upset me. What you wrote was very interesting- a look at the bigger chloe picture, not just an aesthetic reaction to these designs)
oh riiight! i thought you meant the whole bag would be clear plastic, like those bags you put your swimmers in after you've been to the pool!
CHB, some interesting thoughts... I quite like the collection, especially the chiffon, but you've swayed me on some pieces.
...at the end of the day, I just can't get over this - it's such a shock after scrolling through all those pictures!
she's scary.
As I look at the photos of what Chloe has come to be
it is truly upsetting. Im extremely disappointed that the house selected this particular designer to follow Phoebe. I agree with CHB about the choice being as far off as seemingly possible considering the houses softer past. It screams wrong to me, as well as hideous in parts, and Im the biggest Chloe fan I know. The face of that model really illustrates the collections harsh sharpness, and the new reality of what Chloe has morphed into. Even if this is softer than the Fall collection, I too cannot believe Ralph Toledano has hired Andersson to give this house such a depressed angry look. I pray he doesnt last, because if I see anymore modern neon colors in his next collection, I think I might go blind!
I await Ms. Philos encouraged return to the industry to start a new chapter which fills our longing for the chic and sexy, retro-elegant Chloe of the past.
I await Ms. Philos encouraged return to the industry to start a new chapter which fills our longing for the chic and sexy, retro-elegant Chloe of the past.
(but please don't worry- you didn't upset me. What you wrote was very interesting- a look at the bigger chloe picture, not just an aesthetic reaction to these designs)
Oh, thanks, ruby. :shame:
Very nice of you to say!