I may have played with intellectual dressing at various life junctures. I was probably creatively stunted and/or over-all frustrated, and so in a last-ditch life crisis effort, I turned "the eye" on to my appearance. Conceptual dressing just doesn't really work in the real world. I love Martin Margiela, I love everything that the label stands for, but honestly, not in the (weird) runway walking-sculpture jacket way; that said, I love my minimalist-severe Margiela Replica 70s cocktail dress; I have yet to find an event worthy of its striking impact, and no, I'll never part with it, even if I never am able to wear it.
It seems that Balenciaga is having a conceptual moment, however, no matter how bizarre or art nouveau an ad campaign is, the model(s) must be compelling, and the clothes, stand-out. Ultimately, everything should be covet-worthy; you should want to wear the clothes, be that girl, live in that world. And no matter how fabulous the brand is, even for the sake of fashion, the clothes must be great; if not beautiful, then, cool; if not edgy, than interesting: We're talking about (great) advertising, after all.
Conceptual fashion has to walk the most fine of all lines; it has to be comprehensible: that can mean different things to all of us. The latest Balenciaga campaign leaves the fashion patron with "Huh?" in not a great way. The lineup is killer: Gisele, Steven Meisel, Nicholas Ghesquiere. The effect? The weird wig on Gisele, and the boxy androgynous clothes on her Victoria's Secret gym body?? Not so much.
These pieces will probably end up in a local discount retailer several seasons from now, and in that venue, they may even look irresistible; you may even "get" them in the bad lighting of the store's community dressing room. It will be there that things will come full-circle, and the design process, actualized.
