Monday, May 04, 2009

metrowear 100, part 2

due to insistent public demand (er, two people), we thought we'd add more photos from metrowear 100. but still no names... we'll update with names once we confirm who's who...


ren manabat: cary santiago:

mich dulce:


fashion gadfly said...

Hi, Fashpack. :)

Like any girl, I’m interested in fashion. But maybe my fashion I.Q. and/or vocab is just not that fluent because I got confused with this post. I don’t think it’s your fault though—especially if these clothes were indeed paraded down the runway under these headings.

To get to my long-delayed point, can you please help out by explaining the following:

1. Why do the couture gowns and the red-carpet gowns look the same? Does that mean a red-carpet gown IS a couture gown? And if they are, why are they in different categories? And the gray off-shoulder couture dress—it’s really nice, but is it couture? Not to get all Project Runway on some designer’s ass, but if this paraded down THAT runway, will the judges even say it’s couture? (Not to say, of course, that Project Runway is the arbiter of all things fashion.) What’s the definition ba when you say couture? Shouldn’t it be conceptual?

2. Sportswear and modernism: The gray gown—What’s sportswear about it? For that manner, how “modern” is it? If we’re talking about modern, I’d pick the black and white gown over this—that has at least some geometric/edgy vibe going for it.

Again, the gray is a very lovely gown, but if it went down the runway with the FDCP and the FDAP gowns, it won’t look out of place. I just don’t get how the organizers and/or designers categorized the clothes. I feel like I’m missing something.

3. Resort wear: Again, I don’t get why the short drapey brown dress is resort wear.

Don’t get me wrong, OK? I’m not trying to diss anyone. I really want to know. I’ve actually wanted to ask these questions but just never had the time and the opportunity to do so. Anyway, I hope you can enlighten me. Or, if not you, some of your readers?

Thanks a lot and keep posting.

oj hofer said...

For Cebu Designers: Resortwear,ren manabat designed #1, cary santiago designed #3; Independent Designers: mich dulce designed #1; and FDCP: Ivarluski aseron designed #2.

In it’s purest defenition only clothes designed and created by couturiers licensed by the Chambre Syndicale can rightfully be called couture. The Chambre syndicale de la haute couture (created in 1868) is presided by Didier Grumbach. Its members are the couture houses benefiting from the “haute couture” label. This label is a legally protected appellation which can only be used by couture houses which have been granted it. Such houses are listed on a decree issued yearly by a special commission of the Ministry of Industry. Jacques Mouclier is the PrĂ©sident d'Honneur of this Chambre Syndicale.

Local connotation of couture alludes to the perfection of the craft of creating clothes, therefor one can allude couture for a simple white shift in cotton pique if it’s hand-stitched, very well made and perfectly fitted on its wearer. The most convoluted and pedestrian connotation is “outrageously fantastical”.

fashion gadfly said...

Wow, an answer to my questions by OJ Hofer no less. Thanks for the clarification on couture and haute couture. Most enlightening.

Wish some of the other designers would weigh in as well--in terms of how their designs came about. Or am I overthinking this too much? Is fashion all a matter of "if you don't get it, chances are you never will"? Hope not!

Again, thanks Mr. Hofer.

oj hofer said...

@gadfly: guess what, don't worry about overthinking fashion because if you can't relate to something it only means that it's not that important to you. I myself am baffled at some trends but ultimately, what matters is your sense of balance. Symmetry, asymmetry, the grotesque, repetition, the subtle, the loud... everything finds balance, therefor everything is beautiful :)

@ fashpack: may i please have your permission to post the pic of my outfit in my blog: ? your photo is really nice and captures the simple yet luxurious versatility that i wished to convey in my outfit :)

the fash pack said...

oj! thank you so much for taking the time out to identify some of the designers and to answer fashion gadfly's very legitimate query. and yes, oj, you may use our photo, just please credit the fash pack. we shall e-mail you the high-res version :-)

just to add to your reply to fashion gadfly: in paris, not any design can be called "haute couture." the designer or brand name has to be properly registered and accredited, and every creation has to be completely handmade out of the most exquisite fabrics—that's what makes haute couture so expensive. each piece takes ages to produce and are usually one of a kind. (and not necessarily a gown either; it can be a dress, a suit, etc.) maybe that will help explain why in this country, pag sinabing "couture," you think bongga, over-the-top, or just plain unwearable. so here, the term "couture" is used loosely.

and as mentioned in our previous post, some designers did not conform to the theme per group. or perhaps that was their interpretation of the theme? or maybe in a show with 100 designers, everyone wants to stand out and be memorable, although some not in a very positive way ;-)