I love Maya's feminist perspective on designers who are able to internalize a woman's internal dialogue. This ability, or sensitivity, is what is modern now for my clients and myself. Well said Maya!
Maya Singer, Vogue Contributor
I suppose I should admit that I had two thoughts—or questions, really—running through my head as I made the journey from New York to London, and I’ve probably been imposing them on what I’ve seen here in the past few days. One question that has been nagging at me is why I can appreciate certain collections without feeling any attraction to them—it’s like they’ve got no gravitational field to pull me in. And I don’t mean as a shopper, I mean as a person who is interested in how people dress, why they choose to wear what they do, and why one designer’s vision strikes a chord and others, perhaps equally accomplished from the perspective of craft, don’t seem to say much with their clothes. It occurred to me here in London that the distinction is psychology: There are designers who project themselves into a mind space and work out from there to create a look, and when they do that with empathy and acuity, the vision lands. What I loved about Christopher Kane’s show was how embedded it was in a woman’s internal dialogue, an exchange between domesticity and perversity; therefore, he put forward a sexiness that felt feminist, in that it emanated from female desire. When “sexy” collections rub me the wrong way, I realized, it’s because they’re uninterested in how a woman feels or what she wants. They’re just advertising availability—which is an entirely different thing.