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?

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..

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.

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

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