Spring 2011 Paris: Chloé

Light and fresh, Hannah MacGibbon's Chloé collection rested the eye from the glut of 'fashion' - these were graceful, elegant, calm clothes that felt like an antidote to the disease of 'dressup' which is eating fashion away. You only need to look at Anna Dello Russo to know what I'm talking about. It's not stylish, it's quite sick actually.
Chloé's pretty plissé dresses, the crisp white dresses, the buff shades and those wonderful sandals and ballet pumps, the dignified length on the other hand (inspired by ballerinas) felt like an infusion of oxygen. They were so restrained and easy that it made some stupid reviewers question Ms MacGibbon's talent: "...But what the collection lacked was a strong sense of distinction, as well as the got-to-have-it pieces that will drive Chloé customers wild. And MacGibbon’s seeming reluctance to offer much in the way of accessories was puzzling. Most looks were shown with either a chunky gold-heeled sandal or ballet slippers—not, mind you, some take on that iconic shoe, but with slippers that could have come from Capezio."
Ermmm... Is there still such a thing as a 'got-to-have-it piece'? How oddly anachronistic does that sound? It's like a Vogue caption from 1993. I think the lack of accessories gave the collection a bouyant effect, a clean, modern feeling of not being bogged down with fashion detritus. As for the comment about the iconic shoe? I could go on for days about the misuse of the word 'iconic' in fashion journalism, so I won't start. Just what makes a shoe 'iconic'? And which shoes have been iconic over the last decade? Why do shoes have to be 'iconic'? Do people look for 'iconic' shoes when they shop?This is utter nonsense. That this review comes from Vogue.com is saddening. Anna truly is losing her grip isn't she?