Jump to comment form
October 12, 2006 at 7:16 pm
This is more my style than the Paris Vogue girls.
It also shows that there is no longer a must-have skirt length to be stylish- we can wear whatever or what suits.
October 12, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Honestly, I think these gams look so much more chic (if not as “of the moment”) than the wispy Vogue girls and their ’80s-redux uniforms. I love the gold shoes!
October 12, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I remember interviewing for a design position at Calvin Klein, Donna Karan and Ralph Lauren over the years. At each place, the assistants looked like walking ads of the company they worked at.It almost didn’t matter what your book looked like..if you looked the part, you had a much better chance of getting on the design team than someone who’s book was fab but whose genetics and personal carraige walking in the door maybe didn’t.Lots of aristocrats over at Ralph, and remember Carolyne Bessette (sp?), the wife of the late JFK Jr.? She was in pr at Calvin. That’s the look I am talking about.At Donna they were like Donna and definitely very New Yorkish.
October 12, 2006 at 9:05 pm
It’s disappointing to hear that each shop breeds a single look. And while I agree with Sart, you can certainly live within a certain aesthetic and still express your own self, I have a sneaking suspicion that the “walking ads” anonymous talks about aren’t doing that…
October 12, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Unlike the most of the Vogue girls, these Dries girls actually have calves. I like.
October 13, 2006 at 4:28 am
I dunno…I much prefer the look of the Paris Vogue girls. These look a little mumsy to me. Meanwhile, across the pond, has anyone else seen Anna Wintour’s new blond do?
October 13, 2006 at 4:31 am
I think the reason why your site is so popular is because you shoot real people of great style. Not blind fashion followers, but those who interpret the lastest fashion with a personal twist. Thank you, Sart!
October 13, 2006 at 4:40 am
This is a sort of imposed “exercice de style”. Same skirts, same pumps but different ways to put it together. Probably the best thing to make the difference beetween simple immitation and real sense of style and creation.
October 13, 2006 at 4:52 am
having done time at a few NYC showrooms and prior to that, design teams – I concur with anonymous’s view. The cultish atmosphere w/ the big labels can be very code-like from hair, nails, accessories down to the appropriate type of picture frame one might select for their desk. I once received admonishment for wearing what my director swore looked like “sale shoes” from BG’s – they were – I was 24 and poor at the time – they were still Louboutins…
Coco Brandolini seems to float through and still persist in her own style – I’d love to see her on sart. She has been at ODLR – truly inspiring.
October 13, 2006 at 6:49 am
I’m agreement with the general tone here that the Dries ladies are pulling it off better…I still can’t quite stomach a miniskirt with nylons or tights that are anything less than 100 percent opaque…who said it’s best to show shape *or* skin, but not both?
October 13, 2006 at 6:59 am
the french Vogue girl team struck me as saying, “Don’t even try.” the look was distinctive because it created a distance between you & them (or at least me and them); how could anyone achieve that particular of-the-moment look without being entirely devoted to being of-the-moment. on the other hand, this photography of the dries van noten team is so much more evocative; it seems to create a connection between the viewer & the scene. also between the viewer & a sense of history and a larger sense of beauty. so I liked this better, in short!-thank you for the lovely work.
October 13, 2006 at 9:12 am
I’m not crazy about the flesh showing here…shortens the leg and makes it appear chunky. What a difference between this and the refinement of the Parisiannes with their elegantly stocking-ed legs! I find the gold shoes over-the-top and jarring against the stark black. Where are the Dries-style tapestries? This looks like a gaggle of English schoolgirls waiting for the bus.
October 13, 2006 at 9:25 am
Talking about genetics. The shoe wearers’ legs look much nicer in the DVN shot. The Paris girls are so skimpy their legs come out as an animals’ rather than a young womans.
October 13, 2006 at 9:39 am
Gold shoes are eternal as far as I’m concerned. They provide that immediate oomph to any outfit. I think it’s great that these girls have different style gold shoes. They look like they belong to some twisted sorority of style vixens. Great shot Scott.
October 13, 2006 at 9:48 am
I like this just as much as the Paris Vogue girls. The sun on bare legs and gold shoes looks inviting.
October 13, 2006 at 10:59 am
Beautiful gold-shoe gang. And I too much prefer it to the black-tights, black-shoe gang.
October 13, 2006 at 12:37 pm
LOVE the gold booties on the right.
October 13, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I liked Chanel girls more, but you’re right.. they do have style tribes.
This photo looks like it was taken in 1946.
October 13, 2006 at 10:01 pm
These shoes and hem shots are really cool. You should make a small book of all “knee & down” shots, Especially the womens’;Kind of reminds me of being kid, and being in high school walking up to the “in” girls.
October 14, 2006 at 11:56 am
I don’t usually like gold and silver shoes but after looking in Louis’s here in Boston. I wouldn’t mind owning Dries!
October 14, 2006 at 11:57 am
October 15, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Ooooh – must get gold shoes! Never thought I would consider gold shoes as a wardrobe staple but they really do make a plain black skirt so fresh and interesting!
your photos are inspiring – haven’t been this excited about fashion in a long time…
October 17, 2006 at 1:04 am
Maybe it´s a tendence here in Brazil too. I took these pictures with my cell phone at two fashion events in São Paulo.