Does fashion always have to be style over function?

Fashion is, in some sense, like Marmite, you either love it or hate it. Although I‘m staunchly pro-fashion (especially anything gold/metallic – I really am a magpie), I do see the merit in both sides of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ argument.

Team anti-fashion speak of fashion being a fickle pursuit with shallow and soulless traits, whereas team pro-fashion speak about apparel as a lifestyle, an artful outlet for expression and personality. I pretty much sit there somewhere in the middle, with the 1000’s of gushing fashion blogs leaving a bit of a bad taste in my mouth of late.

One argument Team-Anti always manage to throw me off-guard with is the question  of functionality. Of course, that £20k Chanel couture gown I purchased is going to yield me a high cost-per-wear and definitely has so much day-to-night potential. Or not. I get it – even the most ‘subdued’ of fashion garments really speak about class, wealth and (lack-of) function – with many more ‘normal’ pieces being incredibly formal for regular Joe’s like you and me (see Bottega Veneta  SS12 (left) & Prada SS12 (right)  examples above. Images courtesy of Style.com).

So, with all these reports of a potential double-dip recession, maybe designers recently got together to agree on a way that fashion can be functional, and carry mass-appeal. Well, that’s my theory anyway.

New York Fashion Week SS12 was awash with sporty-themed collections, with even queen of over-dressing Victoria Beckham getting in on the game.

Although the majority of these clothes/accessories are still ultra-formal it is definitely a step further towards a more wearable era in fashion – even if it is only for this season.