Since Simons debuted his Fall 2012 couture collection for Dior sometime ago, I've been trying to decide if I actually like the set, or whether I was sorely missing the cuckoo, over-the-top brilliance of John Galliano.
Because, isn't that exactly what we've come to expect from couture in general, and from Dior in particular - a spectacle of froth and fashion made solely for the uber elite?
I loved most, if not all of Galiano's collections for Dior, and like many others, I bemoaned the day when he was unceremoniously ousted from his perch. But I have to admit that for each lovely collection he sent down the runway, I couldn't help but think, "who really wears these 'unwearable' garments?"
Getting back to Raf Simons' recent interpretation of the Dior aesthetic through his midcentury lens, one can say the exact opposite thing - it's all so wearable. Maybe even too wearable and not precious enough to be considered couture?
Which, after a week or so of deliberation, I've finally decided this isn't a bad thing at all. Why shouldn't couture be comprised of wearable, albeit finely constructed garments done in the made-to-measure mold?
I want to believe this was the original intent of the early couture designers, and that Simons has found a way to retain that essence without bastardizing the craft through unnecessary frills; see his black-and-iris floral applique ballgown for a lesson in reserved adornment.
He's found a deceptively simply route to making couture desirable in the real sense, and not just in terms of an editorial spread.
And I quite like it...
NB Images courtesy Style.com