The
dress in which Emma Watson attended Sunday’s Golden Globes would not
have been up to my childhood standards. The fact that it wasn’t pale
pink was the least of its deficiencies. Designed by Dior, the
tomato-tinged creation also failed to billow dramatically, lacked
sequins, and did not arrive on the arm of a Ken doll. In place of a
train, Watson accessorized with a pair of cropped pants and a single
pearl in her left lobe. Defying my ten-year-old self’s expectations, she
did not wear a diamond choker.Still, despite these obvious
shortcomings, I couldn’t take my eyes off of it. In a sea of strapless
necklines, ballooning skirts, and miraculously creaseless silk, Watson’s
backless, ballsy choice reinvigorated the predictable pageantry of the
red carpet. Even if it didn’t quite belong there.“Oh, I loved it,” said
the friend to whom I’d voiced my gushing admiration of it. “It was so
refreshingly not a ball gown.”
Devoid
of the fussiness that once seemed a prerequisite of high-minded
fashion, the outfit appeals — at least to me — precisely for its
pared-down,Buy special Discount Special Occasion Dresses for sale for
formal or special occasions with huge selection on beautiful and
quality made dresses, perfectly articulated aesthetic. No sooner had
Watson appeared at the Beverly Hilton Hotel than I demanded to know who
designed it. Finally, I thought, a garment that could not be mistaken
for the one worn by Nancy O’Dell.and with incredible evening and party
dresses and more from Jovani White satin round neck lace beaded ball gown wedding dressesIt’s
no surprise that the majority of the red carpet is uniform in
aesthetic. While risk-taking is exulted on the runway, award-show
attendees tend to limit experimentation to the confines of their nail
beds. Perhaps the prevalence of such convention explains our almost
yearlong anticipation of the Met Gala. There, every ensemble is meant to
be as much a credit to the woman wearing it as it is to the artist
responsible for it.This week, in a candid interview with The Cut,
Barneys’ creative ambassador-at-large Simon Doonan confessed his sheer
inability to understand “how people can get it up for gowns.” With
characteristic forthrightness, he explained:See, to me, fashion is
people like Martin Margiela, Dries Van Noten, Stella — it’s creative
people — Gaultier, Comme des Gar?ons, just not gowns. To me, fashion is
not gowns. It can be gowns, I suppose, but it doesn’t begin and end with
gowns. I think it’s a bit strange that with most people, their
understanding of fashion is all celebrities and gowns.
Later,
he dismissed gowns as not truly representative of the designers who
craft them. Of the red carpet, he said, “I’m worried that people are
going to think that that’s what fashion is.”For regular visitors of
Style.com, the view Doonan pronounces is nothing new. We all grow up and
redefine the terms of our fashion fantasies in the process. Mine, for
example,We're confident that you won't find bulk Wholesale 2014 New Arrivals Dresses Online anywhere
else at any lower prices. are made of considerably less tulle than they
once were. Instead, I now find myself lusting after leather and
shearling and vertiginous heels whose acquisition all but require a down
payment. These items may remain as out of reach as the Atelier Versace
number that Penélope Cruz wore to the Academy Awards in 2007, but they
are also more technically realistic. I no longer dream about designer
dresses. Instead, I crave $22,000 backpacks.If “fashion is not gowns,”
as Doonan claims, then what defines it? Is an element of fantasy still a
condition of great fashion? Are we meant to seek the equally fabulous
and outlandish sartorial inspiration that awards season once seemed to
provide? Or should we stop expecting anything from a collection of
borrowed dresses that, as in the Cinderella myth, return to their
showrooms at the end of a long, overproduced evening?In honor of this
morning’s Oscar nominations announcement, let’s talk about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment