Fashion Week

First Look: Chloe

1498344916_9246feb20c.jpg
“I can’t even remember what Chloe looked like before Phoebe Philo,” said Lauren Goldstein Crowe this afternoon, but I still envision when Stella had it, and Karl Lagerfeld, too.

Truthfully, it always had an Almost Famous vibe of rumpled, half-kicked girlhood that swished when it walked and kissed with Chapstick.

Not anymore. Paolo Melim Andersson’s third collection for the house (if we include resort) was sharply geometric and slightly see-through, with gauzy blouses covering triangle skirts, slightly shiny and printed with pink and blue shapes. Marimekko, grown up and taking architecture classes.

“Is this bad?” I wondered out loud. “Or do we just have a rigid expectation that Chloe should always be pretty?”

And do new designers have a responsibility to reference the history of their older fashion house? And would anyone pay $900 for a ripstop nylon jumper? And will anyone play anything but M.I.A. on the runway this season?

Across the row from us, Courtney Love slid down her sunglasses, which were bedazzled (yes, really), and shook her head.

I couldn’t tell if it was telepathy, or if she just had to sneeze.

1498344916_9246feb20c.jpg

1497480561_b81b815860.jpg

1497484415_7203876a84.jpg

1497489079_d650f6842c.jpg

1497491091_af32c5c352.jpg

1497492753_111a0f88ea.jpg

1497494199_55360e96a7.jpg

1497496691_48057346fe.jpg

1497499219_c66a7afffd.jpg

1498340938_03068bd4e7.jpg

1498353468_007747d555.jpg

1498356364_7f825f597f.jpg

1497500325_ba5e263f88.jpg

Comments

avatar
1

posted by the devil wears h&m

Oct 06, 2007 3:53PM

was kate in the show?

avatar
2

posted by leia

Oct 06, 2007 4:23PM

I'm not quite sure if I like what I see. I think Chloe has lost much of its wearability since the Stella/Phoebe days.
I'll always associate Chloe with the days of Stella and the "horse" collection. I suppose that's why I think Stella's spring show looks more "Chloe" than this does.
And what's up with the guy next to Courtney in a tank top on the front row? EW!
Thanks for the pics, Faran!

avatar
3

posted by Laia

Oct 06, 2007 5:34PM

I think it's about time the house gets shaken up a bit, though I still have to wait to see the pics on style.com. The "Chloe" style is so everywhere now and I can't imagine that the babydoll-young-cool-girls thing can be used forever. I mean, they had to have had that in mind when they named a boy to be the head of the brand no?

Also, Courtney's glasses are MJ.

and I too remember Chloe pre-Philo. How could anyone forget the Horse/Pineapple collection under Stella?

avatar
4

posted by fashionite

Oct 06, 2007 8:07PM

Well Paulo Andersson said from the beginning that he was planning on taking Chloe in a new direction. It's not a complete 180.

avatar
5

posted by guest

Oct 06, 2007 8:57PM

thats marc's bf next to c. love!
i like the colours. i dont like that these women have no chests to accentuate the clothes. yikes!

avatar
6

posted by leia

Oct 07, 2007 3:50AM

Oh gross, that's about right if that's Jason Preston (isn't that his name?)

avatar
7

posted by Lauren Goldstein Crowe

Oct 07, 2007 5:08AM

Darling, darling, darling! I said before Phoebe and Stella. And, even if I didn't, remember that Phoebe was a big part of the Stella era anyway. Of course I remember those pineapples. And the horses. What I meant was that I don't have any real feal for the actual origins of the brand -- I vaguely recall pictures some with lace? But that might have been the Karl era. Anyway, it is clear that this version of Chloe is very different from what it was before. Is it true to the origins of the brand? No idea. Will customers roll with it? Not so sure.

avatar
8

posted by DC Goodwill Fashionista

Oct 07, 2007 9:39AM

Those sheer pants are a little Frederick's of Hollywood, no? But I think they are actually in the spirit of the early collections (when Karl was at the helm) than the Stella/Phoebe years, so maybe it is a 180. Karl was a big fan of lace and silk in those days. But it was, after all, the 80s. Time for Chloe to move forward? And who is Chloe, anyway?

avatar
9

posted by Pink Tartan

Oct 07, 2007 5:23PM

Hmmmm...there's something missing with this collection but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. I miss Phoebe, maybe that's it. In her era, the clothes had a more cohesive, prettier feel (not that fashion always has to be pretty). There seemed to be a better match of form and aesthetic with the function of the clothes.
Does a new designer have the responsibility to reference past designers of a label? No, but they need understand that the past can influence present consumer expectations and is crucial to the success or failure of a collection.
Will Chloe's latest offering fly off the shelves? I'd be surprised.

Post Your Comment