Maybe I’ve been around style for too long now, or maybe I’ve just gotten fancy in my old age, but I find it takes a lot these days to make me rub my eyes in wonder and amazement. While many things strike me as ugly, few things manage to blow my mind in that regard or confuse my internal style barometer.
The recent offerings from New York’s fashion week have been, on the whole, quite appealing. Take Patrick Ervell for example – I usually find several of his looks a little too much, but this collection is a start to finish win for me (except everything needs to be 90% cheaper.)
And then there were the dresses.
I can accept that they might have been offered as a visual amuse bouche, a kind of “doing it because I can” statement by the designer. But then the obvious question is, why bother? What is the point of dressing a man up in a bedsheet, John Bartlett? Or in a sheer…squid tube, Yamamoto? According to the ever reliable Tim Blanks, "it served its purpose in that it compelled you to step back and reexamine what had come before. " Since I wasn’t there I have no idea if this was true, but it seems to me that a sign reading “Remember What Came Before” would have sufficed. If you’re going to dress up a man in a…well, dress, you should go all the way. I hate the break it to the two designers, but men have worn dresses before. No, really. And looked much better doing it.
I realize that Trovata didn’t feature any dresses, but in that faltering label’s case dresses might have been an improvement. My blazer from its Spring 2006 line is still one of my favourite pieces. Watching it become basically less relevant than the Gap has been painful. Shipley…Halmos…won’t you kiss and make up?
—
TheSundayBest.org
men wear those dresses all the time in egypt... the man dress in your picture is pretty much identical to what they wear there...