Menkes on Minimalism
From the New York Times Style section, Suzy Menkes says:
For the new season, fashion is calling for a total remodel, one that requires an architect rather than a decorator. Sleek severity rules the closet with the only sartorial challenge being how to turn this streamlined look into chic serenity.
…
Will you still wear it next year? After gorging on the one-season wonders of fast fashion, the mood is switching back to looks that last. A good coat requires an investment, but repays its owner with versatility and longevity.
…
In a way, these classy clothes throw down the gauntlet (or, rather, a plain toffee-colored leather glove) to the virtual world. Viewed online or on YouTube, the subtlety of detail is lost, compared with the brash, girly clothes shown off as instant purchases on those so-called “haul videos.”
Instead, there is an intimacy in the touch of fine fabric and a private pleasure in the barely visible decoration of Céline’s tie-pin brooch at the neck
Words like “graphic” and “linear” define this new look, meaning that there is a clear, clean cut. But not just one single shape. There are diverse silhouettes that require decisive judgments about what relates to body type and personal preference.
…
As further proof that this autumn has brought sense and sensibility back to the female wardrobe, two staple attractions, bags and shoes, have downsized. In tune with the sleeker look, bags have reduced their body weight and gone from sack to simple zipper-topped purse or envelope-shaped clutch.
The footwear that for the last few seasons has challenged the “it” bag as the must-have accessory, has also been given a reality check. There are still plenty of killer heels and club-sandwich platform soles, but the newer look is the once-elusive medium height on a court shoe or kitten-heel pump.
It all adds up to a shift in style that offers subtlety as a new emblem for women who want to look adult, not girly, and to take fashion seriously, but not solemnly.
(emphases mine)
Glad to know that The Suzy and I are on the same page. 😉
I found interesting her observation that the details of these clothes are more difficult to show especially online; the details don’t jump off the page as they do with more embellished garments. One wonders how well these simpler pieces will sell online, as it’s tough to judge the quality of materials and construction and with this pared down look, quality will be a dealbreaker; puckered seams or fabric that pills easily won’t cut it.
Oh, and “club-sandwich platform soles?” Brilliant!!
Top photo: Chloé Fall 2010 RTW from Style.com.
~
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.
Stay in touch
Sign up to be notified of new posts and updates from une femme d’un certain âge.
Really interesting point about this look perhaps requiring more hands-on shopping. I wonder, overall, how well it will catch on with the broader public, how much re-training of the eye would need to be done. Not to mention a greater attention to textile quality than generations raised with few sewing skills and ample access to inexpensive garments possess. And much as clever blogging fashionistas are able to pick out pieces with a minimalist look at lower price points, I think it’s a tough look to replicate convincingly at Old Navy prices — it’s a look that is built on quality from the inside out. I also think that truly credible minimalist style is not just this year’s wardrobe replacement or add-on but rather should be an extension of a minimalist lifestyle. Luxe simplicity would mark other elements of its wearer’s daily life, instead of being signalled by a new MaxMara camel coat (or its much less expensive BR cousin).
And bravo! you had got to the minimalist bags days before Ms. Menkes!
Suzy’s such a marvelous writer and observer. While young women look charming in rafts of rose-print or tartan minis or little dresses over jeans, I find minimalist (and its most austere cousin, strict) the best approach for me, a woman (well) past 50.
Love Suzy Menkes – and the plain toffee-coloured leather glove comment is fab!
These looks are just a breath of fresh air. As far as selling online I don’t think that the true high end designers need to be concerned about that. Celine, Chloe, Stella McCartney are either sold at high-end website like Net-A-Porter, Brown’s, etc. where the shoppers know the merchandise or they are in boutiques. Items from these designers will sell just fine anywhere I believe.
As for other designers I sure wish the US. had several branches of Uniqlo for their Jill Sander line and COS for their mid-quality basics.
Very good – minimalism doesn’t translate well to to photography but boy does it knock the socks off in real life. Suzy as perceptive as ever.
It’s true what she says about these things not always looking so good online. I’m a lifelong minimalist; and I’ve noticed that whenever I’ve tried to post pictures on my blog of fashion looks that appeal to me personally, they look boring on the screen.
I think you’ve done an excellent job of showing us lots of beautiful minimalist fashions without boring us!
OK, it’s been a long day and I’m more than punchy, but has anyone else noticed that the model’s head is much too big for her body?
That said, I do love the turn toward minimalism.
I read this article the other day, and loved it. Suzy Menkes really speaks to women of a certain age, I think. Another quote I loved was “the tendance is downward” — longer hems, lower heels, smaller bags — it solidified the concept for me.
And what materfamilias said — to do minimalist right, it has to be high-quality, and if you’re not rich, that translates to fewer pieces of clothing. But I’m inspired by it, totally.
Of course, the key word is always “selling.”
Whatever they’re selling this year, it’s always pretty much the opposite of what they were selling last year: they aim for whatever they think we don’t own, so that we’ll “need” to buy it.
These fashion turnabouts can feel dirty when one realizes that they are pure manipulation, couched in terms of artistic necessity that muffle their true commercial intentions.
That said, I do prefer minimalism to overembellishment. 🙂
I buy all my things for long-term wear. I don’t care if they’re embellished or basic. I don’t change because someone else tells me to.
Well,well. I do believe` Someone ´tied it all up nicely. We are living in a modern world, where money rules. I only read your pick-ups Deja, and felt really good about minimalism- done in an elegant way. It is true, that bags have ruled quite a long time now, also shoes. I have myself noticed during the past year or two, that I am not so in love with my bags as before, heck I even traded two of them to something else. Earlier, I always checked the Bagsnobs, but then I suddenly lost my interest totally. The bags reviewed are odd. If the bags will turn out clutch sized, it will not be sensible. A bag should be functionally in proportion to your age and size and needs.
I just take it for granted that, here on Une Femme, we are in fact those very femmes of a certain age, and of a certain sensibility, who are wa-a-a-y past worrying about external dictates and are just answering to our own internal sense of rightness. That said, for me, as someone in her fifties with less than a completely architecturally defined body, it’s appealing to me to play with the idea of letting my clothes provide the architecture. But I’m a big “plus-strict” fan from way back — i just hope I gain the discipline to pull it off. But each to his own, of course!
All – thanks for your thoughtful comments. For me, isn’t so much about wearing these looks because they’re “in,” rather it’s about being excited that because they’re “in,” the choices will be more abundant at all price points. For a long time no one seemed to be making clothing for women who were into more simple and subtle styles. (See my early rant, “Too Old for Babydoll, Too Young to Die.”)
What I find both fascinating and a bit alarming about minimalism is the way it seems to either take the emphasis OFF the wearer’s body/face or put it all ON the wearer’s body/face.
Having past 40, I think it’s why I bounce between streamlined neutrals and not-so-streamlined color. Somedays I want to ensure a little (or a lot!) of distraction….
Likewise, I’m split on what Phoebe Philo of Celine says in a somewhat-related S Menkes article [“Savoring Victory With Personal Style”]:
> “In a perfect world, it would not matter what we wore and women would feel equal and good in their own skins. But we don’t live in that world and what I try to offer are clothes that don’t sexualize or
impose themselves.
> For me, having an anonymity in what I wear, with the quiet knowledge that the fabrics are the best in the world and the
cut and make is excellent, gives me an inner confidence and empowerment, which I imagine is just the same for anyone, men or women.”
** Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/Menkes-Philo **
Sometimes I like clothes that impose themselves, sometimes I like a quieter piece that has a beautiful cut and drape!
Okay – the rise on the pants that model is wearing is waaaaay too long and they look like crap even though she is working it hard on the runway. Minimalism is all about fit and proportion, which is as unique as each of us. And this I think the the basic challenge of minimalist fashion – it needs to be superbly fitted, and mass market RTW is so NOT about fit. Minimalism looks good only on runway models that represent .000005% of the female population. Most of us can’t wear minimalism because it doesn’t fit. Just sayin’
Coudremode – did you see my post about Easy Minimalism? I think there’s a version of this look (softer, more draped) that will work for most of us. I’m defining minimalism more broadly than the architectural runway looks, though.