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.
Yes, there's so much push and pull involved! There's an allure to it for me as well. I agree that there's something to the illusion Roseberry creates and how that mirrors the superficiality of our times. Cathy Horyn made similar remarks in her review this week. It's not that I think our image-conscious selves will suddenly disappear, but I feel a shift occurring where people desire something more, especially from luxury. He is brilliant at creating the things he does and I would love for him to dig deeper.
The tension is part of what makes it so compelling. Roseberry operates within this paradox, his work is both hyper-referential and completely of-the-moment, a spectacle that thrives on artifice but still tugs at something primal. I think of his latest collection like a house of mirrors: dazzling, disorienting, impossible to look away from, yet ultimately reflecting back the very surface-level culture it critiques. That’s where the contradiction gets interesting.
I wonder if the shift you’re sensing in luxury is a longing for something less performative, more intimate? There’s only so much illusion before we start craving weight, depth, something that lingers beyond the instant gratification of an image. At least that is what I crave. Maybe this explains why there’s a growing pull toward craft, tactility, even imperfection — things that resist being flattened into a fleeting digital moment. Roseberry COULD push into that space if he wanted to. But would he? Or is the illusion itself his entire point?
Indeed looking for something less performative, but also looking for more that truly lives up to the word 'luxury.' There's so little of it around despite the massive size of these brands. It's about more than just being expensive or even rare. It's about intention, comfort and craft. I agree Roseberry has the potential to do that, but considering he got most of his training at Thom Browne, a deeply performative brand that leans on spectacle to sell gray suits, I'm not sure he knows the way.
Hey, I think: yes to both points (so well made) in your final paragraph!
I’m no industry insider, just a guy who likes looking and thinking about fashion and art and creativity and the meeting point between them. And while I know some fashionistas, my view is that of the outsider. My sense is that in the past couture could form a functional wardrobe for many women, but that zeitgeist seems to have shifted.
Appreciate your perspective! I agree that couture has become more of a marketing exercise than a real way to present a wardrobe, but the latter is how clients actually buy and wear it. I just hope there's a wider recognition of that.
I always love reading the comments in your posts, Martin! This runway was GORGEOUS, the shapes, sculpted and exaggerated...but so eminently impractical. Which is kind of what we WANT to see in couture - that fantasy (I only have to stand and look pretty!) - but is also rather insulting to the women who might wear it, who are only objects to hang the clothes on. Heaven forbid they have to pee or sit! I preferred the previous seasons (gawd knows I adored that bold jewelry, going back to Elsa's days with the Surrealists), and miss the humour in this season.
The romance and fantasy are indeed enchanting! I wish that we could find a middle ground like in eras past where the fantasy didn't infringe on the wearability. I think some designers still manage that. Like you said, the idea of women as purely ornamentation is something that needs to be left behind.
I thought the same...I always enjoy the fantasy of Roseberry's work for Schiaparelli, especially the nods to surrealism (definitely a part of the house's past). That said, this show felt so rigid to me I was wondering who he had in mind when he designed it. Even for premieres or red carpet events, most of these would be impractical and uncomfortable. The 3D-printedness of some of these silhouettes outshone the easy draping and sexy movement of those that did move (that white beaded fishnet dress was pretty great), so overall it was uneven. I love him, but it was mostly a miss for me.
The exact same thought crossed my mind about premieres/events. Even if someone wore them for photos, they'd need to change immediately once they went inside. I do wish he'd loosen up a bit, then again, this is a man trained at Thom Browne, so that may not be in the cards.
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.
Yes, there's so much push and pull involved! There's an allure to it for me as well. I agree that there's something to the illusion Roseberry creates and how that mirrors the superficiality of our times. Cathy Horyn made similar remarks in her review this week. It's not that I think our image-conscious selves will suddenly disappear, but I feel a shift occurring where people desire something more, especially from luxury. He is brilliant at creating the things he does and I would love for him to dig deeper.
The tension is part of what makes it so compelling. Roseberry operates within this paradox, his work is both hyper-referential and completely of-the-moment, a spectacle that thrives on artifice but still tugs at something primal. I think of his latest collection like a house of mirrors: dazzling, disorienting, impossible to look away from, yet ultimately reflecting back the very surface-level culture it critiques. That’s where the contradiction gets interesting.
I wonder if the shift you’re sensing in luxury is a longing for something less performative, more intimate? There’s only so much illusion before we start craving weight, depth, something that lingers beyond the instant gratification of an image. At least that is what I crave. Maybe this explains why there’s a growing pull toward craft, tactility, even imperfection — things that resist being flattened into a fleeting digital moment. Roseberry COULD push into that space if he wanted to. But would he? Or is the illusion itself his entire point?
Indeed looking for something less performative, but also looking for more that truly lives up to the word 'luxury.' There's so little of it around despite the massive size of these brands. It's about more than just being expensive or even rare. It's about intention, comfort and craft. I agree Roseberry has the potential to do that, but considering he got most of his training at Thom Browne, a deeply performative brand that leans on spectacle to sell gray suits, I'm not sure he knows the way.
Hey, I think: yes to both points (so well made) in your final paragraph!
I’m no industry insider, just a guy who likes looking and thinking about fashion and art and creativity and the meeting point between them. And while I know some fashionistas, my view is that of the outsider. My sense is that in the past couture could form a functional wardrobe for many women, but that zeitgeist seems to have shifted.
Appreciate your perspective! I agree that couture has become more of a marketing exercise than a real way to present a wardrobe, but the latter is how clients actually buy and wear it. I just hope there's a wider recognition of that.
Martin how much richer we are for your sharp and probing analysis
Aww, that's very generous, thank you! Just trying to do my lil part. 🥹
Absolutely brilliant writing!🏆
So kind of you to say! Thank you!
It’s a pleasure to read a critique that comes from Honesty & Lived experience! 🙏🏾
I always love reading the comments in your posts, Martin! This runway was GORGEOUS, the shapes, sculpted and exaggerated...but so eminently impractical. Which is kind of what we WANT to see in couture - that fantasy (I only have to stand and look pretty!) - but is also rather insulting to the women who might wear it, who are only objects to hang the clothes on. Heaven forbid they have to pee or sit! I preferred the previous seasons (gawd knows I adored that bold jewelry, going back to Elsa's days with the Surrealists), and miss the humour in this season.
Thank you as always for your insightful analysis!
The romance and fantasy are indeed enchanting! I wish that we could find a middle ground like in eras past where the fantasy didn't infringe on the wearability. I think some designers still manage that. Like you said, the idea of women as purely ornamentation is something that needs to be left behind.
I thought the same...I always enjoy the fantasy of Roseberry's work for Schiaparelli, especially the nods to surrealism (definitely a part of the house's past). That said, this show felt so rigid to me I was wondering who he had in mind when he designed it. Even for premieres or red carpet events, most of these would be impractical and uncomfortable. The 3D-printedness of some of these silhouettes outshone the easy draping and sexy movement of those that did move (that white beaded fishnet dress was pretty great), so overall it was uneven. I love him, but it was mostly a miss for me.
The exact same thought crossed my mind about premieres/events. Even if someone wore them for photos, they'd need to change immediately once they went inside. I do wish he'd loosen up a bit, then again, this is a man trained at Thom Browne, so that may not be in the cards.
Respectfully disagree. I thought it was brilliant.
I agree with all the comments here!