Sometimes for designers it's just a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Create an original collection with a unique point of view and you risk being criticized for it not being "wearable" enough. Create classic, easy-to-wear clothes and you're often faulted for not being creative enough. The Holmes & Yang Spring 2013 line seems to have landed squarely in the latter category with the critics. As Eric Wilson bluntly put it, "[I]t was all perfectly commercial, but none of it added up to a statement. That seems like a missed opportunity, given the fickleness of fashion. You don't get that many shots to make a splash at fashion week," in his review, titled "Really, We're Just Here to See Katie."
Granted, there are many designers that do manage to toe the line between creative and wearable quite well. The Proenza boys, Alexander, Altuzarra, the list is indeed quite long. And while these clothes are certainly appealing to me and tons of other fashion-forward women (and some men... ahem, BryanBoy), the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the population couldn't care less that oxblood is going to be major this season or that Asian motifs are the print-du-jour. These people have money to spend on clothing too, and at the end of the day, they usually just want something that's fashionable, flattering, and yes, easy-to-wear. (Really, don't we all?)
The main function of fashion week (or the original one, anyway) is for buyers to place their orders for the coming season. Holmes & Yang is reportedly selling very well at Barney's and various other retailers already. Why shouldn't they be able to put on an understated presentation without being scrutinized by the fashion elite for not being interesting enough?
As Katie Holmes put it on the day of the presentation, "We as women spend a lot of money on clothes... they better make us look skinny and hot." If that isn't a good foundation for a clothing line, then I'll be damned if I know what is.
image via the Cut
