REVIEW: FALL 2024 HAUTE COUTURE
Armani remains a force while most houses enter a phase of transition.
Armani won couture week. Barreling toward 90 years of age, the Italian master has gone from strength to strength over the past couple of years, this most recent show being a highlight. In a season that felt hazy with transitions and faulty attempts, Armani’s resolute clarity cut through the noise.
If he were a younger man and not in charge of an empire under his own banner, one couldn’t be blamed for thinking this collection read like an audition to take the top job at Chanel. Armani created some stellar tailoring in an elongated version of his signature silhouette (he’s mercifully moved away from the daringly high-cut armholes and pinched fit he stuck with for over a decade) that stood up beautifully to a string of draw-dropping eveningwear. The largely black palette sprinkled with twinkling embroidery in silver and off-white could have easily been adorned with an interlocking ‘CC’ or two.
In something of a paradox with that last statement, what truly made the show a standout was witnessing a designer of tremendous power curate a vision that felt so deeply his own, the Chanel echoes aside. Armani’s taste – minimalist tendencies, ‘40s inflections and all – made most other shows appear nascent compared to his fully wrought aesthetic vision. Despite a handful of less forgiving flourishes that strode down the runway, like the occasional sheer top or dress, it was a deeply wearable collection one can easily imagine Mr. Armani’s clients commissioning in droves for glamorous work events, galas and society functions.
Speaking of Chanel, the new collection was a marked improvement from several recent outings by Virginie Viard for the French brand. (I was not a fan of Viard’s work though I remain steadfast in my belief that the way she was excoriated by the press and public is unacceptable given her nearly four decades of service to the house.) Viard’s departure was abrupt and we’ll likely never know just how much of this show was completed under her direction – the company denies she was involved at all, dubiously implying that the studio team created it in a mere three weeks following her departure – yet it somehow felt truer to the Chanel spirit than what we’ve seen for some time. Were there looks that fell under the ‘dowdy’ category? Unquestionably. But more than not, the runway was a beautiful display of craft deftly employed to make clothes ideal for the loyal Chanel couture client.
There’s something at odds with Daniel Roseberry’s Schiaparelli. There’s no denying how visually striking his collections, particularly for haute couture, tend to be, but they always come across as *an* idea of couture rather than *his* idea of couture. Listening to enough interviews with Roseberry only serves to cement the point. More than once, I’ve heard him recall instructing his atelier to make a dress in line with what they imagine a quintessential couture dress from the 1950s to be and other similar directives. His work is the manifestation of an abstract ideal.
The techniques, fabrics and colors were beautiful. And while there were still fragments of the hammered gold Roseberry has made a touchstone for the brand, this show was an evolution away from many of the elements that had begun to feel stale. All the same, I can’t shake the feeling that Roseberry is cosplaying being a couturier instead of embodying the role. The clothes feel designed to make incredible images but have no real connection to a customer. I’m not opposed to theatrics, I’m just more curious about what’s left when you strip them away. It’s also worth noting that for both his ready-to-wear and couture, Roseberry seems to rely heavily on references to designers other than Schiaparelli, like his Donna Karan-esque Fall 2023 collection. I recognize and fully appreciate that Roseberry works at a house with someone else’s name on the door, but I wonder if his sense of remove is holding him back.
Here’s the thing: I love consistency and developing a design vocabulary that slowly evolves over time is a tragically undervalued proposition in today’s landscape. That being said, Thom Browne’s version is pretty ludicrous. But I get it. He needs to make bold statements to sell more gray suits and white Oxford shirts. I just don’t think his current strategy is necessary to do so. The craft is impressive, but the overall impression has become banal. At the very least, he finally ceased sending hulking, Comme des Garçons-lite clothing sculptures down the catwalk this season.
Nicolas Di Felice has quickly proven himself a force. His work at Courrèges has brilliantly excavated what made the house so dynamic in its heyday without feeling like a parade of vintage. Di Felice specializes in an erotic minimalism that makes any wearer cut a sharp profile. For his turn helming Jean Paul Gaultier, Di Felice went back to the vintage undergarments that inspired so much of Gaultier’s work. The results were just as clean as what he produces for Courrèges while still being distinctly grounded in Gaultier's oeuvre. No easy feat.
How does one solve a problem like Maria Grazia Chiuri? She’s made serious money for Dior all while causing controversy from the start. Some remain disappointed that she does not conjure the fantasy of Galliano or the architectural splendor of Ferré. I don’t think either of those things is necessary to create a great collection; hers just never seem to fly as high as her purported inspirations. Aside from a few standouts in draped panne velvet or lamé, this one was rife with poorly fitting, unflattering and difficult-to-wear pieces that prove just because a designer is a woman does not mean she’s necessarily designing with the best interests of women in mind.