You know why? Female and male models have the same bodies so that designers can shape/distort them with their clothes? Re: YSL's new unisex collection discussed on The Cut.
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/02/ysl.html#photo=1
I heart YSL, and this is one of the many signs that times are a-changin'. Female models have the bodies of lanky 13-year-old boys, and what feminizes these designs are those waist-cinching belts. So what differentiates women and men is still that hourglass...there seems to be a problem here. It also seems like most of the clothing is slouchy, thereby allowing the body to transform the structure of the clothing to fit a male or female form.
I like the collection and the idea, forcing us to question what defines women's and men's clothing and all that jazz. Is the creation of a unisex line a regression, or progression? Is the future filled with shemales, and is this a good thing? Could we be taking this idea of equality between men and women too far? It's representative of a sort of evenness that one saw a glimmer of in the 80s with power suits, or even during many war periods when women wore more masculine clothes (see boxy shapes of the 40's). YSL certainly isn't the first house to have designed unisex clothing, but often there seems to be some kind of revolt or war these collections correlate with. So what war are we connecting this collection to? Why do we have unisex designer clothing again?
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/02/ysl.html#photo=1
I heart YSL, and this is one of the many signs that times are a-changin'. Female models have the bodies of lanky 13-year-old boys, and what feminizes these designs are those waist-cinching belts. So what differentiates women and men is still that hourglass...there seems to be a problem here. It also seems like most of the clothing is slouchy, thereby allowing the body to transform the structure of the clothing to fit a male or female form.
I like the collection and the idea, forcing us to question what defines women's and men's clothing and all that jazz. Is the creation of a unisex line a regression, or progression? Is the future filled with shemales, and is this a good thing? Could we be taking this idea of equality between men and women too far? It's representative of a sort of evenness that one saw a glimmer of in the 80s with power suits, or even during many war periods when women wore more masculine clothes (see boxy shapes of the 40's). YSL certainly isn't the first house to have designed unisex clothing, but often there seems to be some kind of revolt or war these collections correlate with. So what war are we connecting this collection to? Why do we have unisex designer clothing again?
No comments:
Post a Comment