the show we wish we’d seen (and an unplanned rantie)

or rather, it was the show we wish we’d been invited to. we only went to (and covered) shows to which we’d received an invite. it was really because we didn’t want to shell out $75 for a media pass, but it seemed the right way to do it regardless.

we were able to catch our must-sees (and more) save for the celebrated lucian matis, the winner of this year’s fdcc designer development fund. investment in greatness, as it should be.
from our hungry consumption of en-blog write ups by those who’d seen the show, it appears we missed quite an art form come to life. as well as being apparently one of the few (if only) shows at toronto’s lgfw that could’ve kicked it in the big-girl fashion weeks. check the collection here.
we thought we’d take this opportunity to provide our (solicited) reaction to this rather polarizing article, written in eye weekly by favored writer of ours sarah nicole prickett. though she’s known to her readers to tell it quite like it is, even our candid selves were surprised at the author’s open distaste for the subject. it was pretty mean.
(though it really actually could’ve been meaner)
but it was mean – especially for mainstream.
the most unfortunate aspect of the whole gossip girl debacle is that the article’s most salient (and important) points are somehow buried; skipped over as a result of the mean-girl shroud. even bras and ranties knows a kitty’s got to hide her claws. especially when you’ve got something so imporant to say.
snp’s point of view on the matter paralleled bras and ranties’ own outlook on fashion week as a whole. the week was good. but it wasn’t good enough. there were not nearly enough risks being taken on that runway. few examples of innovation. and all too much of the same thing. the presence of the same colors, textiles and accents show over show left us curious. to be more accurate, it left us feeling as though we were looking at today, not tomorrow. and one show actually left us mouth agape. we wrote in our notebook what did we just look at?
as toronto climbs through the weeds to play on a world stage (in whatever the genre) we need to be aware of what’s best left behind us. systems that have been architected to churn out the safe bet (or the baskin & robbins opening sequence) will simply not get us there. instead, we must be cultivating and celebrating boundary-pushing, risk-taking stimulus. we have to be front-runners. we have to be the fucking change.
and because we have our chanel business spectacles on, we will put it this way. this problem is as much top-down (from the designers) as it is bottom-up (from the supporters). the author is right to call attention to the distinct lack of a certain – ahem – authenticity within many who may frequent the tents. it’s part of what causes the non-fashion set to comdemn it so, perhaps limiting the support by the very ones who could make it so much more.
we think – however – that the answer should lie in the inclusion of an ever-increasing diversity of those involved/supporting fashion week, rather than disapproving of someone who’s already there lending her profile (for whatever it’s worth). supporters and fashion lovers should come in all shapes, sizes and furs; no one person more entitled to be there than another. by saying otherwise all we’re doing is perpetuating the problem.
let’s try a little something different this time, shall we?






4 thoughts on “the show we wish we’d seen (and an unplanned rantie)”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Really? If anything, I thought by you retweeting this article earlier this week you were supporting her meanness by broadcasting it, instead of just plain ignoring the broad.

  2. admin says:

    if we've learnt anything from this it's that we shall never again underestimate the average person's ability to completely misunderstand the point.

    the point of this post (and our tweet) was not to perpetuate the 'meanness' around the subject. nor was it to try and curb said meanness around the subject.

    instead the point was to exemplify that when you wrap an intelligent, important argument in negativity, your point can get lost on the average joe or jane.(oh who are we kidding it wasn't as mean as it could've been)

    such has been demonstrated here once again. this is not about the socialite as subject. it's not about whether she belongs there more than the next person. it's about the exclusivity wrapped in fashion week; the idea that it is – and should be – for all to enjoy, participate in and support. industry supporters should not be limited to girls with white teeth and their eyes on the prize. but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to be there too.

    get with the program. read our full posts with open eyes and wherewithall. or you'll just miss the point too.

  3. Max says:

    The article – like all of snp's writing during fashion week – felt to me like someone playing dress-up (how appropriate!) in that I think this is an author without a voice of her own, writing what she thinks a seasoned fashion autohr should write like. it didn't feel original – it was that put-on sort of bitchiness, all week long, that felt entirely forced to me. this wasn't someone with a voice – this was a little girl thinking that the best way to get noticed was to sound like someone who's earned the right to call people out like that. none of her posts worked for me.

  4. Anonymous says:

    i loved snp's article and think she could've punched harder. her assessment of canadian fashion, fashion week and the overall lame-ass conservative protectionism is bang-on.

    truly, creatively, canada's most successful 'artists' and 'designers' are some cowards who merely ape others' ideas. they are so lame and so terrified of standing on their own that their greatest creation is the myopic vacuum which allows them year over year to appear successful, by restraining even the notion of making something important.

    this girl featured in the artcle is the poster child of all that is wrong. she reminds us of how out of control something we want to be interesting and good is in this cold city.

    it's like the 'you can tell it's canadian' effect on tv and movies. someone say it – this stuff sucks! get these old lame-o's out of the way. start working harder to make shit that rocks. it all just smells really bad.

Comments are closed.