Over at The New York Times, they have a story as old as the fashion industry itself, but with a modern take. There's a pretty apparent gulf between what the runway shows during fashion week show us and the reality of the world the designs live in. Even at the shows themselves it's incredibly clear: The ornate and insane designs that roll down the runway are distinctly different from what anyone in attendance is wearing. So, for many, the question comes down to whether a runway show should display a wardrobe that's wearable on a daily basis or if should it be chalked up to art showcasing inspiration and craft.
Some designers go one way, others go another. It should be abundantly clear off rip that many shirtless looks or see-through pieces are obviously not meant as viable outfits. Humans know that society requires them to need to wear shirts. But there are still some people out there that will wear a runway look from head-to-toe, typically in an effort to draw attention to themselves and show off for the inevitable swarm of street style cameras that will surround them outside the shows. Basically, as the piece notes, if you want to just know what to buy for the coming season, the shows ironically aren't going to give you that much information.
I don't know about you, but I think this is a problem. To our heavily invested world of fashion insiders, it's fine that artistry and ingenuity is on display. We can appreciate details and themes and trends. But without catering to consumers, there's an entire segment of people who might be interested in dressing better completely left out to dry. Some brands handle it well, providing everyday looks, but the higher-end is still prone to alienating displays, much like how your average museum-goer wouldn't necessarily understand a Rothko, but might be drawn to a Rockwell.
