McQueen's Downfall

Flickering through the net and marveling at McQueen's genius I started to wonder what his worst collections were. Like any artist's body of work, some collections are burned into our psyche forever whilst others get lost in the mix. But did he have any? And should I be using the word 'worst' in the same sentence as McQueen?

After searching the web for some reviews,they were fairly mixed. For two seasons,Men’s: Spring/Summer 2006 Killa ,Fall/Winter 2005-2006 The Man Who Knew Too Much,  it seemed that Mr. McQueen had produced collections that are manifestly commercial - again, causing insiders to complain that the British bad boy has become lazy.

"I've done Victorian, I've done romantic," he said. "I wanted to bring sexy back. It's what is missing right now. And Alaïa was sexy for me. It was classy sex." He added, "I have so much respect for him, and I don't even think he will mind." Mr. McQueen is also someone who can get below the fashion surface. Despite the rightness of the minimalist silhouette this collection was all about surface. It grasped the notion of sexiness technically but not with feeling or belief.-Cathy Horyn of the New York Times

[NYT]

Azzedine Alaia

Is this the fashion moment for warrior queens in curvy tailoring as sharp as a compass point; or for Grecian tunics cinched with leather harnesses? Alexander McQueen thinks so. He carried his show of Glamazon models by force of energy. But turn the pounding music off and what was there? An image that Azzdedine Alaïa created in the 1980s when the power woman look was a challenge to spacey flower children and a genuine reflection of burgeoning feminism.

The collection, played out in black and white with touches of silver and gold, included taut tailoring with tiny, fluting skirts, gilded chains filling in a scoop front or a goddess gown suspended from a silver harness. But at a moment when women are reasserting their right to look simply beautiful, McQueen's premise went against the movement toward fashion grace.-Suzy Menkes of the International Herald Tribune

[NYT]

Alexander McQueen has changed. The commanding impresario who once took delight in scaring and astonishing his audience with stadium-filling shows and designing at the brink of scandal has—if we're to judge by the past two seasons—joined the regular ranks of ready-to-wear designers who line up their models like soldiers and march 'em on out with the collection.For night, the part of the show McQueen said was inspired by Greek goddesses, things took a turn for the disappointing—tiny pleated silver lamé dresses, white crystal-beaded gowns and pieces made in bandage wrappings of white or gold elastic. The slot formerly occupied by his showstopping extravaganzas is now serviced by metalwork body costumes with all the finesse of something left over from an eighties sci-fi TV series. Gone, even, are the staggeringly made, couture-grade fantasy gowns that have brought so many brides banging on his door. Though some of his moves are clearly being made in an effort to sell—no criticism in itself—this show, from a designer whose capabilities have won such respect, was a letdown.-Sarah Mower of Style.com

[Style]

Versace S/S 2006

What made Neptune such an anomaly in McQueen's career was it's straight-forwardness both in the clothes and the presentation. 99% of the clothes were wearable. Like, off the runway and straight on your body wearable. No gowns and no real show-stoppers except for a white silk cape embroidered with a phoenix on the back. According to McQueen he wanted to bring sexy back. I think a lot of his 90's collections featured sex but it was raw, aggressive, in your face sexy. Neptune to me was like selling sex, like Versace and in that respect it felt hollow. I completely missed the Alaia references which I feel so stupid about now because they're so painfully obvious.

The commercialism of the collection was quite shocking too. He showed everything you would expect from a standard runway show. Day-wear, easy to wear separates, handbags, even swimwear. And no runway theatrics. No dress-painting robots, no impaled models or merry-go-rounds. I wonder what factored into this decision? Was it a financial decision? A push from Gucci Group execs to get some cash injected into the brand? I doubt it. Perhaps it was a psychological break? For many seasons people had an expectation that a McQueen show was going to be an extravaganza. And season after season he delivered. The Man Who Knew Too Much preceded Neptune and that too felt like a bit of an artistic breather. Instead of dark romanticism he opted for sexy Greek goddesses, not exactly a mind-bending subject.

Impeccable details on belts

After looking at this collection several times now I do like it. I don't love it, like his other collections but there's some beautiful pieces and it should also be noted that there's an immense amount of detail in the pieces that are really easy to miss. The beading and embroidery is flawless.

And the worst?  What appears to be a white silk crepe wrap shirt with obi-style sash was just boring. The same shirt appeared again in black but this time with silver sequined pants. The slinky-somewhat sloppy-beige wrap dress.

So while Neptune pales in comparison to McQueen's other collections I still feel that it has classic McQueen references such as harness-like details, leather, sharp tailoring and some ingenious draping.The show proved he was capable of doing wearable clothes and removing the typical McQueen runway theatrics forced people to focus only on the clothes instead of getting swept up in say, a video installation or what have you. The repercussion was that people felt ripped off. Most notably Sarah Mower who called the collection lazy. I agree with that statement to a point. I think perhaps it was mentally lazy and some of the pieces weren't structurally challenging.