The Fashion industry and the world at large is certainly ever evolving as it should be, we apply words to objects, concepts, entities and so on. We use words so that we can understand each other when we communicate. If we were to use the word "car" we know that we're talking about an automobile, we understand that two cars may look different from one another but we still know they are cars. We wouldn't and shouldn't call something that isn't a car a "car". If and when a car evolves into something beyond what our original definition stands for it should be called something else that more appropriately reflects it. If you invite me to go see a movie, I don't expect to see a play.
You get that? Good!
So, with this in mind I believe that we should re-evaluate Fashion Shows, break them down to no less than two categories and perhaps more and appropriately named them as to appropriately depict the difference between them.
Certainly we can agree that there's fashion shows that exhibit clothes that will actually be produced and sold in clothing stores and then there's fashion shows that exhibit conceptual clothing that look more like costumes in a theatrical production and that at best will only be sold in considerably modified versions of the original.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about using two Fall 2012 Collections, Thom Browne (top two) and Giorgio Armani (bottom two). Strictly concentrating on the clothing (hair and make-up aside),
it's obvious to see which designer designed for theatrical effect and which one designed with practical salability in mind. I'm not criticizing, I am making what I believe is a valid point.
These are not quirky outfits in the collections, these are very representative of what the collections are.
I get the role of both, I just don't think they should be labeled in the same manner. After all, you wouldn't want to be served meatloaf if you ordered a cheeseburger would you?