Critics had plenty to say about designer Frida Giannini's spring 2009 Gucci collection. But most of it wasn't exactly favorable. They say her work looks like something on the racks of Zara and isn't trend-setting, and her runway show is just designed to sell, sell, sell. The Wall Street Journal notes that while designers like Balenciaga's Nicolas Ghesquière send models down the runway accessory-less in order to draw focus to the clothes, Frida didn't hesitate to throw a bag, necklace, and fedora on one girl alone. Also:Many of the suits in the show — skinny pants cropped above the ankle with well-tailored jackets in vibrant greens and blues — could easily hit the shelves of Zara and H&M months before they get to Gucci’s boutiques. At first glance, there was nothing much about either the fabrics or silhouettes of the clothes that would make them stand out from fast-fashion imitators.
Cathy Horyn of the New York Times felt similarly:
Giannini has become an expert not so much in expressing an idea as packaging it … But where was the element of surprise? And apart from the updated Jackie bags and chunky stone bracelets, how luxurious was it? The olive and khaki safari dresses, with zips and drawstrings, were cute and well-executed. But are they a look you expect from Gucci, or Liz Claiborne? Are they even a Look?
And WWD put it this way:
Gucci looks are all over Zara. The argument that they seem more appropriate to such a venue than to the upper echelons of luxury fashion hasn’t put a damper on sales of the real thing … [T]hese clothes bore all the exotica of a piñata party in Portsmouth. That, however, might be their genius. Ample anecdotal evidence suggests that most people aren’t interested in stylistic risk-taking, while many fall into the antisobriety camp.
Interesting. We thought buyers were looking for extra-special clothes that are worth spending on in this economy. But maybe not?
