IS VETEMENTS 'UNCOOL' NOW ?

Vetements, a French fashion house founded by brothers - Demna and Guram Gvasalia – launched its first collection a mere 24 months ago. Two years and four seasons later the label has become known worldwide as one of the most current and exciting retailers of the moment. How is it they’ve so quickly achieved global recognition, and for that matter, respect enough that gained them an invitation to show at this July’s haute couture week?

As of yesterday, Vetements is the most recent brand to have been invited by the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture to produce a collection worthy of couture week and thus the highest scrutiny. Could this be a response to the wave of bloggers that posed the bi-annual question ‘is haute couture dead?’, or perhaps an attempt to modernise and evolve the structure of today's couture? Either way, clothes as edgy and raw as the ones produced by Demna Gvasalia certainly juxtapose the usual ideals of the polished-to-perfection, Elie Saab style couture that we’re used to.

It seems possible to me that the allure of Vetements originates from the house's creative director, Demna Gvasalia - also the current creative director of Balenciaga. During an interview with The Telegraph, Gvasalia emitted an almost rockstar attitude toward the industry with a nonchalance that becomes increasingly respected in today's society, rather than what may be typically known as arrogance. When asked by interviewer, Kate Finnigan, 'what is [Gvasalia] trying to say with Vetements?', the frivolity of his reply only added to his sense of cool: '"Not really much" he shrugs' ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/demna-gvasalia-on-race-that-dhl-t-shirt-and-why-he-wouldnt-pay-f/ ). 

This carefree nonchalance so clearly seen throughout his collections may work for ready-to-wear, but will the same be said for haute couture aw16, a season reliant on precision and care? Perhaps. Since although Vetements takes pride in its imprecision, Gvasalia was able to prove his intricacy skills with his debut collection for Balenciaga last season. He evidenced that Demna Gvasalia is not only capable of oversized rockstar, but of oversized elegance too. Industry critics raved about the success of the show and in Sarah Mower's, style.com, review she implied Balenciaga would be 'every woman's new label'. 

When a fashion house is as eagerly anticipated and sought after as Vetements, there is no doubt that the public seek out opportunity to poke holes in such success. Whilst many questioned the legality of the now infamous ‘DHL’ logo t-shirt, one mistake was harder to justify: for the two years that Vetements have been producing clothes, only once in their history have they cast a model of non-white origin. The debut collection for Balenciaga may have been a hit with critics, yet it caused controversy by reenforcing stereotypes and failing to show any kind of diversity on the catwalk. When questioned about the issue during Kate Finnigan's interview, the creative director attempted to warrant his decisions with allusions to Donald Trump and his own Georgian background 'where [race] is not even an issue'. A statement that seems to have only puzzled us further. 

But legal matters and catwalk diversity are not the company's only troubles. It is often the case that when something classed 'cool', becomes popular in society it loses its respected title: resulting in the most talked about clothes of the year being labelled with the dreaded 'mainstream' tag. It's ironic that if everyone is wearing it, it's no longer considered fashionable. Similar to when you find an edgy musician with only 6000 twitter followers but before you know it they've had three number 1s and are a judge on The Voice. 

This week, Lorde decided via Twitter that 'Vetements is uncool now'. We can assume this was a response to the brand's apparent lack of diversity, however, Lorde could've have been saying what we've been thinking: that with the more people becoming aware of Vetements, the more it loses its cool and gains a whole new audience. 

- IVD

CENTRAL SAINT MARTINS: THE 800 WORDS THAT GOT ME A PLACE

With London's Central Saint Martins being the top university in the world for fashion, I was thrilled even to know I had made it through the first of three application hurdles. My personal statement had passed the CSM test and I received an email that gave me five days to produce an 800 word article; 'A modern viewpoint on today's fashion'. A few weeks later I was informed that I had made it to the third stage of application, the dreaded and infamous Saint Martins interview - renown for being particularly tough. Questions such as 'what is your preferred type of stitch?'; 'If you were a dead fashion journalist which would you be?'; and 'recite a famous quote from Diana Vreeland', caused me to lose the little hope I had of obtaining a place at the prestigious art school. However, yesterday morning, I awoke to that heart-stopping 'track@ucas.ac.uk' notification, and I am so pleased to say that I have been offered a place to study fashion journalism at Central Saint Martins. I can smugly say that I am one of 20 they chose from 400 applicants! (And apologies to Kanye West who was turned away last year). I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to study at the university that produced the likes of Alexander McQueen, Phoebe Philo, John Galliano, Riccardo Tisci and Stella McCartney. And so I have decided to share with you the 800 words that got me my interview. 

Is Fashion Insignificant?

Last November witnessed Paris suffer a destabilising horror. Still raw, the shock of the attacks spun the world into mourning. A city rich with passion and culture, run with panic and grief. An evening embedded into history; we shall never forget the blanket of fear that fell upon the world, we shall never forget those whose lives were taken from them. 

On that day, the city we know as the beating heart of high fashion reengaged us with its vulnerability. More than a skyline, we were reminded that Paris is a home, a culture, and is alive - but for a bleak moment, was silenced. 

As in many aspects of our lives, this silence is remembered on the catwalk. Haute couture speaks softly this season, yet the elephant in the room continues to grow: fashion needs indulgence. An unsteady foundation in today’s society. 

During July last year, Karl Lagerfeld introduced us to the Chanel gamblers. An elite band of Hollywood’s most treasured misfits; they came dressed in velvet and gold, poker chips to hand. Superfluous wealth was not only projected from clothing of the highest prestige, but inferred inevitably from Lagerfeld’s casino vision. Couture is not known for its subtlety, and so Chanel did not hesitate to parade a scene of lavish nonchalance. 

From one height to the other, an absence of eccentricity during couture, spring 16, pays respect to its host city. Attesting that these sufferings do not go unnoticed. Karl’s direction this season contrasted his last, opposing the affluence of gambling with nature - a theme implying realism. It is easy to conclude that fashion is a reflection of our times, the more difficult task is being conscious to when and why it is so. 

Fashion needs society to be self-indulgent because ultimately, it must be bought. Although a narrow way to view an art form, brands unfortunately would not survive without consumerism. This being said, it is many people’s opinion that couture is becoming exceedingly inappropriate. Ever worsening global crises have rendered the fashion industry insignificant when compared to our daily headlines. The distress of middle-eastern communities amongst issues such as radicalisation, climate change and refugees, leads to fashion being branded with a new perspective. Understandably, it is this that weaves the finest of embroidery with threads of guilt. 

However, the relevance of clothing surpasses the law of indecent exposure. Suggesting that apparel is required only to cover-up is a flawed statement. Fashion, necessary for more than the function of keeping warm, is needed to challenge. It has no fear, and in particular, likes to challenge ideals of beauty. The industry likes to comment on preconceptions by undermining them and gnawing at the base foundations of stereotypes. Vivienne Westwood’s fall 16 menswear collection, not only embraced bright makeup, but men in floor length gowns. Or for that matter, Yves Saint Laurent’s 1966 ‘Le Smoking’, notorious as the movement that introduced women to suits. We need fashion, because by challenging the system, it is slowly evolving society.  

We need fashion because of the light it sheds on our history, because of how it enriches and brings together cultures, and because of the confidence that accompanies a striking outfit. It is a text that goes beyond aesthetic surfaces.

We need fashion because it is an expression; a glint of who we are as individuals; and above all, art. Just as our survival is dependent on food and water, life would prove insufferable without art’s demand to exceed limitations. A life without art would be a life confined. The same is applied to fashion. Those who hold fashion dear to them feel the same intensity as other artists might. Like the industry’s children, we feel protective of this which has given us life and liberty. Lee McQueen said, ‘fashion should be a form of escapism, and not a form of imprisonment’, a quote fulfilled when a person ignores societal wishes, focusing independently on the desires of oneself. When reliant on the views of others we are only able to progress as a follower. Fashion is not following, but appreciating, whilst simultaneously being aware of your own palate. There is no higher freedom than being able to express opinion. And to me, there is no better voice than that of clothes. 

Fashion is significant now more than ever, and just like Paris, it is alive, and will continue to thrive even when threatened. We remember those lost to the attacks in the flowers that line the city; in the red, white and blue that united continents; and in the work of artists, paying their respects with what they do best. 

Image: central saint martins aw16 collection