Fashion is made of cycles, rhythms and patterns that keep on coming back almost on a loop and the older you get, the more you're able to spot certain ideas, inspirations and nuances. Take Loewe's A/W 22-23 menswear collection, for example.
Creative director J.W. Anderson went down the surreal and bizarre path with these new designs: taking the piss out of our collective obsession with tecnology and the metaverse, he opted for fun items such as hems of shirts and shorts waistbands that seemed detached from the models' bodies like in a distorted digital picture on which a crazy filter had been added; T-shirts with prints of bodies and faces that created optical illusions and more random mad pieces such as a coat integrating metal sink eyelets rather than more ordinary grommets.
The collection also featured bodysuits and clinging tops that incorporated fairy lights, while the sleeves and lapels of coats and trench coats blinked with tiny dots of lights.
The designer here was making a reference to the fact that, as we often stare at our mobile phones, the screens lit up our faces, so in this case the wearer is backlit. Throughout the last few years we have seen a proliferation of garments integrating wearable technologies, but the main attempt of the designer in this collection wasn't creating highly technological pieces.
The collection featured indeed quite a few Instagrammable pieces, some of them unwearable as well, but designed only for the purpose of the show. Still, the meaning attached to some of the designs, especially the luminous ones was maybe a bit superficial.
The garments integrating lights also called to mind the first LED garments designed in the '80s and in particular Cinzia Ruggeri's LED dress and her suit with luminous elements that futuristically traced a silhouette in the space surrounding the wearer (entitled: "Evolution of the silhouette rendered in terraces, to favour excursions through wintry geometries with luminous signals for UFC (Unidentifed Flying Clothes)"). Ruggeri's designs returned throughout the decades in more technological forms and interpretations.
Yet there is a key difference between Loewe's and Ruggeri's designs: Ruggeri's dress was an early experiment that was filed in the history of fashion under the "behavioural garments" category. A shy wearer or a wearer who had a speech impairment may have used to reach out and communicate, the late designer once explained. Ruggeri recounted indeed that she lent the dress to a friend for a party where also Umberto Eco had been invited. As he passed next to her, Ruggeri's friend switched on the lights via an embedded button in the belt to acknowledge the presence of the honourable guest, creating a surprising effect.
In Loewe's collection (that also includes sweaters with built-in gloves with fingers sprouting streamers View this photo, in a way vaguely reminiscent of Ruggeri's gloves sprouting grass View this photo - who knows, maybe Anderson is a fan of Ruggeri...) the conceptual message is less relevant and more passive - our lives are backlit through phones, so what? The thing is, nowadays in fashion it doesn't matter if something is not so conceptually strong, as long as it is visually striking and proves immediately Instagrammable.
Comments