Practical dressing according to a fashion critic

CEBU, Philippines - When former New York Times fashion critic Cathy Horyn says something, the world listens. And as she is now officially outside of a critic's job, it's interesting to look back on the woman who was very particular about fashion but didn't dress the part.

If Horyn didn't find high fashion relevant to her lifestyle, even from her front-row perch, why should anybody else care about dressing well?

"Although I like going to fashion shows, and appreciate the dedication of designers and seamstresses alike, I am not the right audience for most of what I see," Horyn once wrote. "But, then, how many women are? Who has the will - never mind the time and the money - to wear high fashion, at least as it has been conceived over the past decade, as something extreme, or "special," in retail jargon? By now, I suspect, most people know that the purpose of runway shows is entertainment, and to create a feeling of desire. They understand that the main interest of high-fashion companies is economic rather than aesthetic. It's to sell products and capture new markets, much as Coca-Cola and Apple do."

For those who don't worship at the altar of fashion, most have the same commentary upon watching a high-fashion show. "Who actually buys and wears that?" they ask. And it's not a question met with contempt either, because we're not always sure of the answer. But whatever luxury fashion houses are doing, it's not just keeping the business afloat, it's keeping many people living. And while runway fashion gets more innovative and out-of-this-world, we see most women dressing in the basics - whether it business causal at work or comfy while traipsing around on the weekend. Horyn, wants to call attention to what's real - what's selling.

"From my perspective, having written enthusiastically about the conceptual, art-inspired fashion of the past 20 years, I can say we've become increasingly weary of this approach," explains Horyn. "As the roles of women kept evolving during the '80s and '90s, it was easy, maybe necessary, to attach meaning to clothes. They were powerful, daring, etc. But, let's face it, much of the language around clothes today sounds forced. I was touched when, at the January men's shows in Milan, Prada talked about her rather straightforward tailoring, which included a few women's looks as well, saying, "I wanted to make it real. And I like that now." So do most women, though this wish doesn't strike them as a novelty. All the same, the desire to be comfortable is profound, shaping attitudes and markets."

The novelty element certainly strikes a chord with most people. In fact, if we could have it our way, we'd eliminate the all-too-common denim and logo T-shirt uniform all together. But if they're being realistic, they would certainly see that comfort is not losing its authority over shoppers. This is why many designer have now come to perfect the art of high fashion practicality.

"Probably no one defines the modern sense of comfort with more authority than Phoebe Philo of Céline," says Horyn. "Not long ago, she stunned loyalists with a loosey-goosey collection of long, frayed dresses, soft pajama-like pants and sandals lined with fur. Well, guess what? Other designers are still knocking off that collection. Although Philo has steered Céline somewhat away from that specific style, as you would expect of a designer eager to stay ahead of her competitors, she remains committed to its essence. For me, that collection captured something rare in today's world of anxious, self-created stars - and that is a woman of indeterminate age who knows what she likes and has shrugged off what she no longer has any use for, and maybe never did. If that sounds rather limited, that's the point. I'll stick with the same paint colors and my lovely old kilt, because, it turns out, there's a surprising amount of harmony in unremarkable choices." (FREEMAN)