I`m thrilled about the jewellery, opulence and also appeciate the colonial looks. They work in non-colours because they are defined by their cuts. I just wonder about the political-correctness of this reference since colonialism is a rather dark chapter of history and this is collection is no critical reflection but a romanticisation of it.
I feel that the merging of cultures is reaching it`s aesthetic limits in this collection. The classical Chanel black and white hardly works without it`s minimalistic square-cut and a Sari doesn`t work without it`s bright colours and prints. A white Sari simply isn`t a Sari.
Another thing I strongly dislike is the dreadlock-reference to the 1970s hippie-interest in India. This is neither Chanel nor India. What would Coco Chanel say to a woman desecrating her hair like that!?! Dreadlocks are not only the refusal of elegance - they represent a neglection of western culture. So how can Karl put them together with colonial-style, which represents a part of western-history that hippies oppose!?!
The mixing of cultures does, of course, raise contradictions but this collection is simply not consistent in itself. By putting together the wrong facets it is as if he had 'neutralized' what was initially great about them (-> see the white Sari).
Conclusion: beautiful but does not withstand further analysis.
