GOLD SEQUINS. BLACK LEATHER.: Haute Couture is typically not spelled across one’s ass...

Haute Couture is not juicy and is typically not spelled across one’s ass, (However, that is not a rule-per se): What the hell is “Haute Couture” really?

Thanks, gabrielleteare.com

If I were to be completely honest with you, I would tell you that I have had my share of semi-boushie conversations where I preached the word of haute couture. And really, at the time, I thought I knew the truth, I was telling others what I was told. However, the problem lays within the fact that for some, haute couture has become something of a myth. Like, unicorns. I mean we know what it is supposed to look like, but what is it really? I thought I would share some of my sourced information, because the history is just as exciting as we want it to be, and contemporary couture is pushing buttons and critiquing are preconceived expectations.

Apparently the term was originally referred to a, Charles Frederick Worth’s work. House. OF. Worth. (Um, YES!) Which was produced in Paris in the mid 1800’s. Pictures? You ask. Your welcome. These images were sourced from The Metropolitan Museum of Arts's website.

Now, as in today, the term “Haute Couture” is actually protected by law and is defined by Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris, which is obviously in Paris, France. (All of this is confirmed via Wikipedia-Don't come for me.) It defines “Haute Couture” or a proper couture house as such:

• Design made-to-order for private clients, with one or more fittings.

• Have a workshop (atelier) in Paris that employs at least fifteen people full-time.

• Must have twenty full-time technical people in at least one atelier (workshop).

Each season (i.e., twice a year), present a collection to the Paris press, comprising at least thirty-five runs/exits with outfits for both daytime wear and evening-wear.

Givenchy Fall 2011 Couture. I. Die. The Fashion Spot

So all that being said, I have to confess, the Fall 2013 presentations were not what I was expecting. Those that know me, know I would rather be able to recreate the ending of Gone With the Wind, in full costume, that get married most days. However, the Schiaparelli Fall Couture collection left me feeling cold, confused, and a little used. I couldn't tell if I loved it, or totally and completely hated it with ever cell in my being. I understand it's personal taste, but that work looked like a bad fashion school freak out. Genius or Adderall induced anxiety attack? What the hell happened? And I am more than annoyed, that Tim Banks just wrote about the historic weight of having Christian Lacroix honor this woman. Seriously? Please address this SITUATION. Yes this is true, but that fact that you didn’t rave about the designs, but rather explained that her work is known for her craziness is undeniable proof you gaged on a spoon.

I am afraid to speak freely about this look. It kinda looks, shall we say, infectious?

What the hell?

SO....We're not going to talk about that tape on the floor?

Killing me with this showroom.

I also felt like the Masion Martin Margiela was like being told Santa didn’t exist in preschool. IN some ways I feel liberated from the tierney of some stranger's rules, in another way, that means I probably wont be getting that barbie sports car. Jeans? Why? Thankfully though, those mavericks didn’t end there, as the show progressed, we got what we were searching hopelessly for. I just wish Mr. Banks could maybe expand on the trends in couture. Are we in some sort of post-modernist, post-glam-house moment in fashion? What does this all mean? Is it permanent. Just talk about it!, I'm listening!

Enjoy the looks, drop a line. BTW all fashion show images are sources from Style.com