Christoper Esber Desides to Feed The Models
Australian designer, Christopher Esber, paraded models down the runway with Granny Smith’s in their mouths.
Unfortunately, the plan backfired since most of the editors in attendance spent the show ignoring the collection and placing bets on whether the models would be able to resist the urge to eat the apples, since they had already starved themselves to fit into his puzzle piece dresses.
None of the models bit down, proving once and for all that models are not really all that hungry. It also proved that most designers have no idea what they’re doing, cause this was a stupid attempt to get people talking about apples his collection. I can really go for an apple right now. I think I will stop reviewing this collection and pick some up from the market. Christopher Esber- Designer Apple Spokesperson
About the Author: Founder and main dude at Fashion Indie, Daniel Saynt began his career in fashion at the tender age of 14, when he worked in the stockroom for some unnamed fashion whorehouse. His distaste for the mainstream quickly festered until he decided enough was enough, denouncing all mainstream fashion lines (unless the stuffs on sale or just down right irresistible or free, you can't say no to free).
Sherae | May 2, 2008 | Reply
You’re better than any other blogger ever thought about being. And I pretty much love your site. =] Just letting you know.
Daniel Saynt | May 2, 2008 | Reply
thank you so mucho. That really means a whole lot to me. you are like my favorite reader right now.
Patrice | May 4, 2008 | Reply
It’s quite sad that Daniel Saynt (local idiot) has to be so negative in order to be liked. I can almost be certain that Daniel loved the range- because only a person with no sence of style can write such a thing- mwa daniel… ur hot
Stephanie | May 4, 2008 | Reply
It’s such a shame that blogs are so quick to slander new talent. For all we know this could be the next big thing.
I was at the show and thought the collection was absolutely superb. Cést tres magnifique!
xx
Daniel Saynt | May 4, 2008 | Reply
Ouchies. Local Idiot? Damn, it’s nice to see how you sweethearts really feel about me. (you can’t see it put I’m sticking up my middle finger and cursing at my computer screen right now)
I didn’t hate the collection. I just hated the whole apple thing. Sometimes designers get so caught up in causing a stir or posing questions on the runway that they try silly little things like sending model down the runway with fruit in their mouths as if they are swine being led to the slaughter. This publicity stunt worked cause now the designer is getting talked about and noticed by the press, but it doesn’t make it something worth commending.
I just stated what every other editor in the audience was thinking. Why the fuck are their apples in these girls mouths and what the hell does it have to do with the collection? Is the designer trying to be an artistic, is there a point to all this, or is he just trying to get noticed cause he realizes his clothes isn’t all that different from a hundred other designers we’ve seen coming down the runway? Hmmm. I wonder…
PS. It’s not slander. It’s just one persons opinion. If you’d like to write a full review of the collection Stephanie I would be more than happy to post it on the site.
It’s distracting and I just stated what every other
Leah | May 20, 2008 | Reply
hi Daniel,
you obviously skipped art class in high school.. otherwise u would know that the apples in Christopher Esbers collection were used as a reference to the surrealists works of Rene Magritte, particularly the piece “Son of man 1964″..which relates to the concept of the range being Adam and Eve and the figurative “apple” by which adam was tempted. Get your facts right instead of taking a stab in the dark next time buddy.. any one reviewing a fashion collection should have at least elementry knowledge of art.
http://www.imageenvision.com/posters_md/0001-0601-2818-1019.jpg
Daniel Saynt | May 20, 2008 | Reply
Dan dumb. duh.
Sorry Leah for not catching that reference Leah, I must have a case of the downs.
Actually, I do know of the piece you are referring to but I still don’t see how the reference relates. The collection is a far cry from the original piece and the “meaning” is far removed.
If the designer wanted to to properly reference the collection or meaning the temptation should have been clearer. Possibly, models in sexually explicit snake skin dresses or at least wearing bolleros. Give me a break, if this was the reference, it was a poor attempt and just makes me hold the designer in further contempt.
Thanks for the attempted explanation, buddy.
P.S. Rebecca, who has an Art History degree did catch the reference but didn’t see the relevance in this collection.
Leah | May 20, 2008 | Reply
Hi Dan dumb duh
I guess thats a valid opinion..however I would have thought the apples coupled with the surrealist shapes(silhouettes of some of the pieces), child like naivety (puzzles) and seemingly random choice of fabric/textures would have given a big enough hint about the concept and feel of the collection…without the need for a fig leaf bikini and some strategically placed snake skin.
When it came down to the last minute backstage he was like apples …yes or no …and i said why not?……its not like these models are going to eat them..
Daniel Saynt | May 20, 2008 | Reply
Damn you Leah!!! Damn you.
I knew you must have been backstage or something. Your references were so on point.
Listen, let’s call a truce.
Send more photos to our editor at rebecca@fashionindie.com.
We’ll write a full review and feature it for a day and link this article to the new review as an update on this post.
Sounds good?