Washington, D.C. is cursed with one of the worst, most inarticulate, least insightful fashion writers ever -- the excerable Robin Givhan. She can take something as magnificent as the exhibition "Poiret: King of Fashion," which opened Wednesday at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute and write such tortured prose as: There were no prom dresses, glued-on sequins, or cocktail attire posing as black tie. That's right. There "were no . . . cocktail attire." Sweet Kali on a crepe. (Apparently, the WaPo no longer employs those quaint persons known as editors.)
Poiret, as Givhan vaguely mentions, complete revolutionized the way that women not only dressed, but moved, freeing them from whalebone corsets and stays. We're talking about the man who introduced the modern bra and stockings colored to look like flesh.
Givhan sees fit to use her column inches to describe the food and booze at the opening dinner (Thanks, Robin, we get it. You were invited. Isn't that special?) rather than to describe any of the outfits or to discuss Poiret's role in women's liberation.
What a disgrace.
And while I'm bitching, WTF is wrong with the Costume Institute. King of Fashion? That's the best you could do???
2 comments:
Paul Poiret has been overshadowed in popular memory by Coco Chanel, just a few years younger than he. At least in the US; I don't know about France or Italy.
From what I've read about Chanel, she understood the importance of publicity and didn't mind bulldozing the competition with her PR savvy.
So she gets most of the credit for the comfortable, practical designs still essential to women's fashion. When pressed, Chanel would acknowledge her debt to peers like Poiret, but she wasn't likely to mention them on her own
--Space
Space,
That's an excellent point. Yet another good reason for this exhibit. Poiret's stuff STILL looks modern. Chanel's suits now look a bit dated, esp. w/ all the jewelry.
Post a Comment