每年幾度的時裝秀到底在兜售什麼

Throughout this fashion season, I’ve been asking anyone and everyone what they think will be the future of fashion and specifically, the shows. The question was precipitated by announcements from Burberry and Tom Ford that they would be shifting their runway presentations in future to a “ready-to-buy” model whereby, rather than the normal six-month interval, items seen on the catwalk will go on sale immediately online and in store. If widely adopted, it would mark a huge shift in the industry towards a more commodity-based show schedule. It also presents many questions of what the fashion show should be — or whether we even need one.

在今年的時裝季期間，我就時尚、尤其是時裝週的未來問遍了業內各色人以及各家品牌，立馬得到了博柏利(Burberry)與湯姆•福特(Tom Ford)的反饋：它們未來將把重心從T型臺發佈會轉向“展後即賣”( “ready-to-buy”)模式，即時裝從秀場展示到銷售不再有6個月時間差，而是在T型臺展出後、直接在網店及實體門店銷售。如果這種做法廣爲推行，則標誌着時尚界的驚天鉅變——着眼於更注重產品銷售的時裝秀模式；這同樣引發諸多問題：時裝週該何去何從、抑或甚至說我們是否還需要它。

From designer to chief executive, and from buyer to publicist, the responses have been as varied as the many different business models that might allow for the new world order. Some have embraced the idea as a necessary step to keep fashion moving forward and the customer engaged. Others have been alarmed: they argue that the time it takes for stock to arrive in store is vital in building desire in the consumer, and that the new approach would crush the wholesale system — and thereby the nascent fashion labels which depend on those early orders that make production possible.

無論從設計師到創意總監、還是從買家到公關人員，他們的反饋形形色色，就如同因應時尚界全新格局而派生出的商業模式一樣五花八門。有些人贊同上述理念，認爲這是讓時尚業不斷髮展以及消費者深度參與其中的必由之路；其他人則感到恐慌：他們認爲貨源從預訂到門店銷售的時間差對於鞏固消費者的需求至關重要，並認爲新的銷售模式會摧毀整個批發體系——因而禍及那些初創品牌，而它們的生產與這些先期訂單相向而行。

Some designers can’t wait to have a more immediate dialogue with their clients. Others worry that without the final deadline of a show which everyone attends, and the introduction instead of a rolling schedule of presentations for the different buyers, journalists, magazine editors and stylists that must see the clothes, their work may never be done.

有些設計師心急火燎地想讓自己設計的時裝“直通”消費者；而其他設計師則擔心：如果沒有人人蔘與的有時間限期的時裝週和吹風會（應向不同買家、記者、時尚雜誌主編以及設計師同行一場接一場地舉行時裝發佈會），他們的設計工作永遠無法完成。

“It’s a mess,” said Karl Lagerfeld in Milan. “I need a final deadline in order to keep my creative sanity,” said Coach creative head Stuart Vevers in New York. “I need to protect my wholesale orders,” said designer Christopher Kane in London.

身在米蘭的老佛爺(Karl Lagerfeld)說：“這樣做會亂了套”。身在紐約的蔻馳(Coach)創意總監圖爾特•維佛斯(Stuart Vevers)說：“我需要時裝週的時間表以保持自己永不衰竭的創造活力。”而身在倫敦的克里斯托弗•凱恩(Christopher Kane)則說：“我得確保自己的批發訂單。”

I write this at day 25 of the season. At this point, I’ve seen around 160 shows, and about 8,000 looks. I’m not so fool as to think that everything I see will end up in a store: I’m as complicit as anyone in this industry subterfuge that pretends we’re all about to wear this stuff. But the show is about so much more than product.

今年的時裝週，我觀看了大約160場發佈會，欣賞了約8000款時裝。我還不至於如此愚鈍：自己看到的所有時裝最後都會拿到門店銷售：我與大家一樣對業界的騙人鬼話“沆瀣一氣”——謊稱自己有朝一日都會穿這些時裝。但時裝週的意義遠遠超過時裝本身。

Michael Burke, chief executive of Louis Vuitton, was emphatic on the sanctity of the show when I met with him last week. “Our model of business is already ready-to-buy in that most of our sales are in the pre-collections which go in store without a show,” he argued of the huge commercial collections never seen on a catwalk that arrive in shops in May and December and make up the vast majority of sales.

我不久前採訪路易威登CEO邁克爾•伯克(Michael Burke)時，他認爲時裝週的至高無上地位不容置疑。“我們的經營模式早已是展後即賣，原因就在於我們銷售的大多數時裝是不經過秀場展示而直接在門店銷售的季前系列。”他爲去年五月與12月大量從未在T型臺展示而直接進店銷售、佔據絕大多數銷售份額的時裝如此爭辯道。

Louis Vuitton is one of the handful of brands which presents some off-schedule pre-collections (known as “cruise”). Most other brands quietly slip their pre-collection orders in-store after negotiating independently with the buyers.

路易威登(Louis Vuitton)是推出計劃外季前系列裝（即“cruise”季）的其中一家品牌（真正餞行者屈指可數）。多數品牌與買家單獨談妥後，往往把季前裝訂單悄無聲息“塞進”門店付諸實施。

The trouble is, ready-to-buy is boring. Do you want to see a show featuring 60 black cashmere sweaters? Neither do I. As Burke explains, for Louis Vuitton, “only 5 to 10 per cent of store merchandise is presented on the runway, and our catwalk collections are by definition more fashion forward and not immediately commercial when they first appear”.

問題是：展後即賣模式容易讓人膩煩。諸位會愛看一場展示60款黑色羊絨衫的時裝發佈會嗎？我也一樣。正如伯克如此爲路易威登辯解道，“門店銷售產品只有5-10%在T型臺上展示過，而我們在T型臺上首次展出的時裝更趨前衛，並不着眼於即時銷售。”

“For us, the show is not about commercial product. It’s about being transgressive and remaining interesting. So that we have something to talk about. So that it presents a total vision that will then filter down through to the consumer through to the various dialogues that are then had — in print, within the ad campaigns and in magazines.”

“對我們來說，秀場並非注重銷售類時裝。它關乎大膽前衛的同時又讓時尚擁躉癡迷不已；其目的就是娓娓道出時尚故事，呈現時尚總體畫卷，而後潛移默化影響消費者，再借助專著、廣告造勢活動以及時尚雜誌不斷引發時尚觀點的交流互動。”

“Fashion is the most contemporary form of art,” said Carlo Capasa, president of the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana (Italy’s chamber for fashion). The show is fashion’s theatre: a 10-minute vignette of what a brand represents and where it’s going next. It’s quick, short, powerful and when done well, or especially badly, it sears an image on to your brain in a way that can’t be replicated on a screen or in a showroom.

“時尚是最新的藝術形式。”意大利時尚協會(Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana)主席卡洛斯•卡帕斯(Carlo Capasa)說。時裝週是展示時尚的舞臺：短短10分鐘就清晰展示了該品牌的時尚內涵以及其未來走向。它簡短、生動而高效；一旦策劃成功（或者說演砸了），就會讓時尚擁躉“刻骨銘心”，廣告片與樣品陳列室的效果根本無法與其相提並論。

This weekend in Paris, I saw an autobahn-set fairytale at Chalayan, an exploration of all thing “Teutonic” where models wore severed ponytails from their ear lobes, dresses embroidered with dashboard details and silks printed with old German sewing patterns; at Junya Watanabe’s “Hyper Construction”, I watched a slowly choreographed maths lesson involving geometric dresses folded in a spongy bonded polyurethane and accessorised with rubber caps and bizarrely shaped headwear.

時裝季中，我在巴黎觀看了以德國高速公路爲背景的卡拉揚(Chalayan)時裝專賣場：對各種“日耳曼”時尚風格進行了嘗試——走秀的模特戴着掛在耳垂的半截馬尾辮、穿着繡有詳盡儀表盤信息圖案的裙子以及印有昔日德國針線活圖紋的真絲裝；在渡邊淳彌(Junya Watanabe)的Hyper Construction時裝發佈會，我猶如看了一堂精心編排的數學課——用富有彈性的粘接型聚氨酯面料交疊而成的各種幾何造型時裝，再用橡膠帽以及奇形怪狀的頭飾來搭配。

At Comme des Garçons, the models wore armadillo-type layers of material body armour and panniers all covered in beautiful, antiquey brocades. The brand’s 73-year-old designer Rei Kawakubo called the collection 18th Century Punk, “because the 18th century was a period of change and revolution. This is how I imagine punks would look like if they had lived in this century”.

在Comme des Garçons發佈會上，模特身穿類似犰狳的一層層盔甲面料裝以及撐裙（外用復古風格的漂亮織錦覆蓋）。旗下73歲的設計師川久保玲(Rei Kawakubo)稱此係列爲18世紀的朋克藝術，“因爲18世紀是風起雲涌的變革年代。這就是我設想朋克生活在18世紀的模樣”。

Comme des Garçons’s annual revenues currently stand at $260m. And that’s not because the brand’s about to sell a lot of brocade cocoons or vast layered pink vinyl jackets. It sells a lot of quirky black clothes, stripy T-shirts and esoteric fragrances. Many features of this punk collection will percolate through into the commercial offering seen in store: the pink suit jacket will be stripped back; the brocades turned into blouses. But people will buy those simpler commercial pieces because they believe in the authenticity of Kawakubo’s art, and want a piece of her vision. To my mind, delivering that vision in 17 extraordinary, outlandish looks is the simplest, most effective way of doing business.

Comme des Garçons目前的年銷售額高達2.6億美元。這並非由於他們打算大量售賣織錦料“繭形服裝”(cocoon)以及乙烯基面料的粉色層狀夾克裝。相反，他們的銷售額來自於大賣風格怪異的黑色裝、條紋T恤衫以及千奇百怪的香水。這個朋克系列時裝的諸多時尚特點會潛移默化滲透至門店銷售的各款時裝中去：粉色西服外套會退場，織錦會做成短上衣。但消費者會出手購買門店銷售的那些簡約裝，原因是他們喜歡真正的川久保玲風格，希望擁有體現其其設計理念的款式。在本人看來，用17種不同尋常的另類款式展現自己的設計理念是最經濟、也是最有效的行銷模式。

Yet not all shows are so removed from their commercial outcome. At Isabel Marant, 44 early-1980s punk rockers walked out in shiny red leathers, oversized tweed coats and big cat prints; clothes and accessories that will surely be exactly the same when they arrive in store. Marant is an expert merchandiser and her clothes are designed to walk off the catwalk into the closet. Her collection was highly marketable, and a little less memorable for it.

然而，並非所有時裝秀場都如此不接實際銷售的地氣。在伊莎貝爾•瑪蘭(Isabel Marant)的發佈會上，44位朋克搖滾樂手身穿紅色閃亮皮裝、特型粗花呢大衣以及印有大貓圖案的時裝走秀；所售服裝款式與配飾都與門店完全一樣。瑪蘭是經營方面的行家裏手，她設計的服裝就是爲了讓消費者“接盤”；她設計的時裝供不應求，其紀念意義則稍遜一籌。

At Céline, however, designer Phoebe Philo has brilliantly occupied the space in which artistic and commercial currency coexist. Her show, staged between tiered neon seats at the Tennis Club de Paris, was full of editors wearing items from her SS16 collection, often the exact kind of difficult designs — bovver boots, curve-waisted coats in a mustardy tweed — that take a while to reach maturation in the consumer mind.

但在Céline的秀場，設計師菲比•菲羅(Phoebe Philo)完美地實現了藝術效果與商業效益兼得。她的時裝秀在巴黎網球俱樂部(Tennis Club de Paris)一排排熒光座椅間舉辦，各路時尚主編身穿其設計的2016年春夏季時裝濟濟一堂，她們常常身穿那些需要一定時日才能讓普通擁躉首肯的另類裝束——長至小腿的厚重靴、用深黃色粗花呢料做的弧形高腰大衣。

Ironic, perhaps, that since an in-house statement stipulating Philo will be staying at Céline for the immediate future, her AW16 show was a study in “possibilities: the possibilities inherent in the wardrobe, in the woman, and in life”. The palette was stripped right back to blacks, beiges and yellow: a canary coloured furry coat provided the only real clout of colour, while the silhouette was trapezoid, layered and liberated. Tunic dresses, sheer and oversized, were worn over wide-flared trousers and silky, 10-denier knit tops wrapped over shirts. As with Balenciaga, there were lots of trenchcoats. Many were sleeveless, and left strappy and flapping. The bags were tactile, their straps wrapped around the hand like bandages.

也許頗具諷刺意味的是：因爲Céline正式宣稱菲羅將在不久的將來繼續留任創意總監一職，而她的2016年秋冬季時裝秀則探討了“時裝、女性以及生活中與生俱有的可能性”。時裝顏色迴歸黑色、淺褐色以及黃色：淺黃色毛皮大衣成了唯一真正有影響力顏色的明證，而造型則呈現了不規則四邊形、節層狀以及無拘無束的時尚風格。輕薄的束腰特型裝搭配寬喇叭褲，而極輕薄的10D真絲針織上衣(1套在內穿襯衣上。與巴黎世家(Balenciaga)一樣，Céline推出了多款風衣，而很多是帶有飄逸帶子的無袖款風衣；推出的手袋手感好，包帶可以象繃帶一樣纏繞於手上。

“Every one of the looks was touched by hand,” said Philo, who places great emphasis on the slow build of her design process, and cares deeply about whether clothes “feel right”.

“每一款裝束手感都不錯。”菲羅說，她特別強調精打細造，特別在意時裝的“好手感”。

Feeling right, doesn’t always look quite right at first. That huge silhouette, the Big Bird robe coat, the exaggerated jagged collars, the flesh-toned polo necks — they weren’t designed to be immediately accessible. It’s transgressive, but only very gently so. And thank God for that. You’ve got six months to catch up.

手感好並不一定看着養眼。打造那些特型款式（Big Bird長袍外套、誇張的鋸齒狀衣領、以及肉色高圓領）的目的並非爲了立即被消費者接受。它們顯得前衛，但只是略微超前一些而已。謝天謝地，諸位還有6個月的時間去適應它們。