Runway shows and clothing collections are somewhat in the same category as award shows for me now as a writer – I’ll read everything on it, know everything about it, but I’ll only write about it if I get the urge. Maybe because it’s horrendous, maybe because it’s amazing, or maybe because it sparks an interesting topic of discussion. Unless I feel like I really have something to say about it though, I’ll just leave it be. I’d say this collection from Gucci probably falls into the 2 latter categories of motivations.
I first saw Gucci’s Ready-To-Wear Spring 2016 collection on the March Vogue cover (so, released at the start of February) and the blog that I saw it on remarked that it was perfect for magazines – looks great in photographs, extremely arty and striking, but overall, not very practical.
It’s definitely eye-catching – no issue with that point with that at all. I instantly loved the colours and mixes of fabrics. The finished product is beautifully modern, but also almost reminds of a princess’s dress. However I disagree from a practicality point of view, in that I think there’s no reason why it CAN’T be practical. Sure, it’s not what you’d see the average person walking around in, but it doesn’t have crazy large 3D pop outs, or way too many cutouts, or smothers you in fabric. After all, it is a part of the Ready To Wear collection, suggesting that it has a lower degree of difficultly than the more runway runway pieces. The is the kind high fashion that I think is really worth it. When you can create pieces that chain stores wouldn’t be brave enough to try because they’re not sure how well it would sell, and is exponentially more interesting than what you could buy at a shopping centre, but is still possible to actually WEAR.
The recurring design element was collars and sleeves that were given a cartoon aesthetic. Thick black outlines, popping colours and flat form texture – as in the cover above. I had come across this before on some bags at a market in Melbourne, and have been in love with the idea since then.
From January to April on the magazine calendar (read: December to March) the collection has appeared on 11 different big name covers, including Vogue twice, Marie Claire three times, Elle, Harpers Bazaar, and more. Not only did all the most well known mags pick it up, heaps of smaller ones did as well. And more often than not, it was the most cartoony of the collection’s offerings that graced pages again and again.
This was one of my personal favourites out of all the looks, and Vogue, Harpers, and all their friends definitely agreed with me. It imitates the wind ruffling through the skirt with printed pleats, and totally flat sequinned expanses appear to be a ruffled, laced and bowed upper chest and collar area. It really does explore art and drawing in fashion. The stunning turquoise colour and playful, well placed sheers are what seals the deal for me.
In what sounds the most random collection of actresses you could have selected, it’s been given to Brie Larson, Julianne Moore, and Chloe Grace Moretz. It’s great for assessing where the piece sits best though, because that’s quite an even spread of age and body type. Even though I did previously mentioned that it has princess-y overtones, I honestly feel like it does Chloe the least favours out of the 3. It takes someone a little more grown up to carry it without making it too costume-y and contrived. Also they obviously couldn’t let her wear it without something underneath (due to her age), and that black crop top completely ruins the dress’s look.
The dress in the Vogue cover earlier also appeared more than once.
And here it is in full:
It’s a shame neither cover allows you to see the bottom of it, because I really like the colour progression.
What I really wonder though – what possesses a magazine to feature the same collection on their covers more than once (triple threat from Marie Claire), or to feature a really statement piece that’s been done by someone else elsewhere? I understand that there’s planning involved, and if you’ve already shot the cover shoot for the April edition, and someone uses the same dress on their March edition, it makes things a little difficult. But surely that’s not the case with all of these examples? Shouldn’t you want to carve out your own path and not be known as the magazine who did it second? Or the magazine who is just a one track record, and keeps using the same ideas? Especially in the case of Marie Claire – WTF MATE. Not only did you feature that collection on your covers three times in 4 months, but you used the exact same dress on two very similar looking cover photos two months in a row. You can’t tell me this isn’t a logistical screw up on a MAJOR level. I get it, it’s an awesome collection, and I could have almost understood two different pieces from it, but the same one??? One after another??? QUESTION MARK????
If anything, surely this course of events will inspire a little bit of copycatting? They’ve had such success with this arty-yet-wearable release that magazines lost their minds and just went full Gucci dedication for months. I’m excited for that, cause I undeniably loved it. But I’m a little worried for the world of print. Calm yourself – this collection had 66 different looks, you don’t need to restrict yourself to just two!
Here are some of the other looks from this show that were my faves.
I think one of the big takeaways here is that Jennifer Lawrence definitely should have signed up with Gucci instead of Dior. Can you imagine her in some of this kooky shit?! Incredible.
All runway photos can be found at the Vogue website, The Hollywood Reporter cover photo can be found here at GoFugYourself.com, all other cover photos are at Fashionista.com, and the photo of the bags is mine!