Ok, I know, the name of collection by itself is very controversial not to mentioning the artistic concept of it. At the time, and that was in 2000 the fashion media who has usually seen all and really the impact of it to react as a scandalicious has to be really huge was struck by it as well as the fashion world was shocked and well, the reaction wasn´t so great.
The inspiration for it were, as the John Galliano said at the time, Parisian homeless people. And he felt really offended when fashion industry didn´t get his concept of it saying that he never wanted to "make a spectacle of misery". So I think his vision maybe wasn´t presented very luckily. Because that oxymoron term "homeless couture" really pokes you in the eyes, I mean it in the syntagmatic sense. But for example, when social subcultures have that kind of not so glamorous vibe, no one gets offended. The perfect example for that was the grunge which flirted even with heroin consumerism celebrating that famous "heroin-chic".
But if the name of collection was choosen more impropiatelly, I think that today, sixteen years later, we would be talking about really great collection. Because if you look at it closely, the deconstructed pieces of couture, exposed to the bare, non-glamorous features, really offers a very original point of view and realization in haute couture sense.
So, what do you think about this collection? Was it too much scandalous and offended to you, or do you think that freedom of artistic expression has no limits what so ever?
Thank you for attention!
P.S. Talking about "enfante terrible" personas in fashion, I´ve made a hommage editorial dedicated to savage fashion pioneer, Alexander Mcqueen. You can see it by downloading the revuu.it app! It´s for free! Thank you!