Giles AW15

The Victorians hold less interest for me than what came before. Regency, or even Baroque, is much more my cup of tea. Not only did they throw a prudish spanner in the works and set gender equality back aeons but their version of lace and modesty was just too fussy, too contrived. It's all embroidered velvets in garish shades and poor proportions.

Yet reinventions of Victorian fashion, like that at Giles AW15, hold boundless appeal to me. A little bit Lestat, a little kinky and wonderfully dark. I mean, the leather frock coat? I could wear that all day, every day and never get bored or love it less. High lace collars with mini-skirts. Waists falling at more natural points. Menswear tailoring for female garments. Making being very much covered up into something overtly, palpably sexy - taking sensibilities of that period into the hands of an empowered, assured woman of ours. Theatrical explosions of ruffles and bows. Vampy black lips and little else in the way of make-up.

The success here is in the re-imagining. The heart of the garments, and even their purposeful containment of the body, remains the same but the way it is expressed and how it is interpreted is different. The woman who wears Giles is choosing to leave more to the imagination but she is a bit of a minx, she winks at us. She knows what she is doing rather than being forced to conform to standards of the time. And she has a flair for the dramatic - you won't miss her when she arrives at the party.

It's enough to make a wanna-goth swoon.

(Images via vogue.co,uk by Indigital)

P.S. It's great to see Andreja Pejic stomping the runway once more x

Liked this post? Want more?

Follow me here using google friend connect or bloglovin.

Or follow me on tumblr - twitter - facebook.

They coulda done Met-er.

I apologise for the pun. And I don't intend to insult anyone here but, as many others have noted, did anyone look up the word punk? I mean, what's the point in having a theme if no one bothers to stick to it? If people wore super-girly dresses as protest against our tired conception of punk that would be one thing. That would be a statement. But what people really did was wear whatever they'd normally wear on the red carpet. They tried to look cute or pretty or sexy. Few stepped outside their comfort zone. Two categories existed: 1. Ignoring the theme and wearing what they wanted sans the punk attitude of "screw you, the Man don't tell me what to do" and 2. The costume. 

So here are the categories and outfits (note "outfit", not necessarily "dress") that I would have chosen ahead of those which were worn at this year's Met Ball.:

1. The Punk Spirit.

Whether this is manifested in an uber punk, what-would-a-punk-Queen-Elizabeth-I-wear-?, or Rodarte modern punk spirit, there were many more options out there that were punk in spirit and at heart. Both Rodarte and Givenchy examples other than those I have chosen were worn and I commend those, esp the look Carine Roitfeld rocked, but there were many more amazing pieces on offer from the houses. And if someone doesn't get it? That means you're doing it right.

2. The "this whole collection should have been looted":

Seriously, how did this over-sight happen? Kristian Aadnevik's was the perfect collection for a punk edge.

3. The "if you're going to insist on confusing punk and goth":

Two different genres and subcultures, everyone. Sure, there's cross-fertilisation but they're not the same!

4. The "androgyny is sexy" plus "I don't have to wear a dress, it's the 21st century, fuck you" attitude:

Because conformity isn't punk and the "Oh my God, she's wearing a suit/approximation of a suit" thing may be nothing new but doing things in a less obvious way is very punk. Besides, these are hardly tuxes...

Images from vogue.co.uk

So, what do y'all think? A little uninspired this year? They could have tried a bit harder? Or am I completely wrong? x