Givenchy Article in June Bazaar

fuzzylizzie

fuzzylizzie

Alumni
There is a really interesting article based on an interview with Hubert de Givenchy in the latest Bazaar. He not only talked about the past, but also the present state of fashion. (It isn't flattering.) He also comments on the changes at the House of Givenchy.

And the pictures of Audrey and Bettina are wonderful!

Lizzie
 
A few highlights:

On fashion today: "We made dresses that women could wear. Today we make dresses to sell handbags, shoes, accessories. When you go down the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore', you see only store windows filled with sacks and shoes. What does that mean? I'll tell you what it means: There is no fashion."

On Audrey Hepburn: "She knew how to walk. She knew what she wanted. She knew the faults in her face; she knew herself perfectly. She was true, honest."

On his replacements at Givenchy: "He [Julien Macdonald, in a letter to Givenchy] wrote very kind things, and I found him to be a very gracious young man - better than Mr. McQueen, who immediately started to say mean things about me when I had never said or done anything against him..."

McQueen's response: "It was never a personal attack on either Hubert or Audrey. They had a relationship, and it worked for them during that period. But a house needs to constantly renew itself and appeal to the world today..."
 
That is very true. There are a lot of outfits and dresses these days where the big selling point is "its so versatile...you can dress it up or dress it down." and "wardrobe stretchers".. I am all for mixing and matching and buying things to work with a certain color palatte, but as a result there tend to be many basic dresses out there that just can't stand on their own without layering and accessorizing. I have seen black dresses in particular that are touted that way...the cuts are ok, but not outrageously flattering and certainly are missing something if not completely accessorized. And a gal doesn't walk around constantly with the handbag, the wrap, and all the other things. she might put those down at some point :)

When i was a 9 to 5 career gal I couldn't tell you how many dresses and other things my coworkers bought "to wear under something" versus buying the dress for its own stand alone merit.

I am not being a decade snob and saying it is only my 50s dresses that i can put on with the most simple and basic of accessories..simple shoes...an understated belt - if that- and that's all, and not look like I am "missing something". There are some 70s dresses too like that. One would never dream of one of those goddess style dresses being weighed down with umpteen hats, bags, belts, and baubles. Occassionally a spectacular necklace, but that would be absolutely the extent.

I guess my opinion is accessories should enhance a look, and not be the only thing creating the look. )or are just plain functional)

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top