Fashion

[pet sitter 4 u]

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

[ECBG]

@gertrudecloset 

I have designed clothes in college.  I taught Interior Design for 37 years, wrote curriculum and am now a top stylist dressing ladies from 5 states.

I am Outfit Of The Day.

Thanks so much for the fun.

[on the bay]

I do like that first orange one.

The rest I think of things like 'jumping the shark" (Christian who I do admire or did) and

"The emperors new clothes."

Some of these like the shark thing, why put them on clothes that are flattering to no one or hardly anyone? Why not do a sculpture or painting?

And then some of the others, the same. I think it is a little insulting to create "art" that is supposed to be oh so innovative and creative and put it on women when it makes them look

like oh I am wearing this awful outfit!

And that's another thing-when oh when will they get rid of the scowl, I'm miserable model face? Yes I know it is so it doesn't detract from the "art" but it does detract a lot I think.

Oh jeez I wish they would do an art show instead, not burden models with actually wearing these "clothes"

parading as "art" parading as "clothes!"

Ok, I feel better😀

But thank you @gertrudecloset, for the very interesting photos!

Oh and the last one is not too shabby! Doesn't quite look like it even belongs in the show!

[alliswell]

Some of them are "artistic," in a hilarious way 

[gertrudecloset]

---

@pet sitter 4 u wrote:

No, these peices are not for mass consumers.  This is haute couture and highly editorialized for creativity not everday wear!  It should be pretty obvious by their outrageousness, esp. that lilac number where she is practically naked!  Yikes!  I am surprised the Q censors didn't pick that up!  

---

@pet sitter 4 u you "get it."

[maximillian]

"Send in the Clowns."  Don't worry, they're here!

[gertrudecloset]

If anyone wants to see the rest of the event it can be found in the New York Daily News.  There is a lot more than I could post.

I enjoy their imagination.

[gertrudecloset]

---

@on the bay wrote:

I do like that first orange one.

The rest I think of things like 'jumping the shark" (Christian who I do admire or did) and

"The emperors new clothes."

Some of these like the shark thing, why put them on clothes that are flattering to no one or hardly anyone? Why not do a sculpture or painting?

And then some of the others, the same. I think it is a little insulting to create "art" that is supposed to be oh so innovative and creative and put it on women when it makes them look

like oh I am wearing this awful outfit!

And that's another thing-when oh when will they get rid of the scowl, I'm miserable model face? Yes I know it is so it doesn't detract from the "art" but it does detract a lot I think.

Oh jeez I wish they would do an art show instead, not burden models with actually wearing these "clothes"

parading as "art" parading as "clothes!"

Ok, I feel better😀

But thank you @gertrudecloset, for the very interesting photos!

---

@on the bay is it Art imitates life or life imitates art?  This is what designers have been doing for years.  Parading around garments on wayf looking women in all manner of concotted fashion.  No harm in it.  The models are paid!!!!  It's what they do.

I certainly did not post this for the Q shoppers.  I posted

to break up the monotamy about joggers  Teeeheeeheee.

[ROMARY]

I 'kind of' like the floral bermuda set.  

[Foxxee]

I've seen quite a bit of this craziness, what I call designing gone amuck.  Fortunately, none from high-end designers I think have talent and respect, those who wouldn't humiliate themselves doing anything like this even for fun.