SCHIAPARELLI OFFERS BEAUTIFUL ARTIFICE – AND NOT MUCH ELSE
Couture needs more from its creative leaders.
On Monday, Daniel Roseberry debuted Schiaparelli’s Spring 2025 Haute Couture collection in Paris to the oohing and ahhing the brand has come to expect. It’s hard not to be enchanted with Roseberry’s work for the house. There is a romance, a sense of spectacle and theater that is missing from contemporary fashion, and those same qualities have long had an especially strong association with couture. Yet, the crisp lines and exquisite materials of the presentation can’t mask that Roseberry’s vision of couture is a concept of a concept, one with nothing new to say about getting dressed or meaningful commentary about the times we live in – even if the intended clientele is the rarefied 1%.
Part of what makes the current incarnation of Schiaparelli so seductive is its clarity. This most recent runway show embodied just that with defined silhouettes, a controlled color palette, and garments practically chiseled from their beautiful fabrics. In an industry packed with clothes that are either overwrought or woefully underwhelming, a strongly edited lineup feels like a miracle. And there’s absolutely no denying the polish of that lineup is striking, from the remarkable textiles to the superb finishing and technical feats only possible in real couture. That is where the problems begin.
At its most rudimentary, couture is a set of legally binding standards put forth by the French government that dictate how and where garments and accessories bearing the official couture moniker can be made. But this refined metier is more than that. Couture is a state of mind. For most of its history, couture was led by designers who offered an aesthetic, yes, but also made propositions based on how the women they dressed lived, or even more daringly, how they felt those women could live. Chanel created a uniform with the versatility of a man’s suit and practical bags with shoulder straps so their owners could traverse the day hands-free. Balenciaga used architectural volumes to flatter clients of every size and shape while ushering in high-low hems to eliminate tripping on long skirts. Saint Laurent took the women’s tuxedos previously only seen in pre-code Hollywood films and elite lesbian circles to offer women an easy way to dress for evening. How Roseberry’s clothes look to serve Schiaparelli clients is less clear.
Speaking of other designers, Roseberry attempted to channel several greats for this show, designing looks that called on the work of Madame Grès, Charles James, Charles Frederick Worth, and Azzedine Alaïa in addition to Elsa Schiaparelli. Roseberry has a habit of riffing on the legacies of designers other than Schiaparelli in very explicit ways that have never sat right with me (I still don’t understand his Donna Karan-inspired Fall 2023 collection.). This becomes even more perplexing when the signatures he chooses to incorporate are those of designers who were contemporaries of Elsa’s, like the Madame Grès-esque pleating on one pale beige gown. What name, exactly, is he designing under? The muddied references stand in contrast to the sharp clothes, but it’s this paradox that explains why the house has no real signatures that aren’t merely tacked on, like the now discarded gold ornamentation that was once omnipresent.
Clothes of such sculptural splendor favored by Roseberry have a high price. They make for phenomenal imagery, but the results are often heavy and more importantly, they require a rigidity that doesn’t jive with life. I don’t automatically write off corsetry as a misogynist trope, but when such a large percentage of the designs require lacing up, the tedious impracticality makes me cringe. Some dresses had lacing that ran nearly the full length of the dress, making it impossible to bend or sit. An acquaintance argued that it wasn’t an issue since clients adjust everything to suit their needs. While it’s true that nearly everything that comes down a couture catwalk will be remade according to a client’s vision, if that client needs to make adjustments in order to perform the most basic human functions, it says a good deal about how much a designer considers those clients. As far as I know, even the uber-wealthy haven’t evolved past needing a toilet break.
There was a time when couture was about real clothes, not just fantasy. Those names continually raided by the likes of LVMH and Kering for profit and cited by Roseberry as inspiration became legends by making immaculate day suits, airy dresses, and innovative separates so smart the world looked at clothes anew with no need for trickery or thoughtless grandeur. If Roseberry yearns for any major takeaways from the archives he so often scours, I think that should be top of mind.
This is a sharp and well-argued critique, and I find myself nodding along while still feeling the pull of the spectacle Roseberry creates. There’s no denying his ability to craft breathtaking images — his couture is made for the screen, for the still photograph, for the oohs and ahhs. But does it live? That’s the lingering question.
I love the point about past couturiers shaping how women could live, not just how they COULD pose. There’s something thrilling about how Chanel, Balenciaga, and Saint Laurent reimagined movement, autonomy, and ease, I agree — because isn’t that the true magic of couture? Not just what it looks like but what it enables? When you mention the corseted impracticality of Roseberry’s work, I immediately think of Dior’s New Look: revolutionary in silhouette but also a regressive straitjacket for postwar women. It feels like we’re watching a similar dynamic unfold — a master of form, perhaps, but to what end?
That said, I do wonder if we’ve entered an era where couture is ONLY meant to be an idea, an abstraction rather than a functional wardrobe. If that’s the case, then Roseberry is perhaps exactly in step with our times: crafting an exquisite illusion, a couture of dreams rather than lives. Whether that’s a loss or simply a shift is something I’m still wrestling with.
Martin how much richer we are for your sharp and probing analysis