Who is cathy horyn

Yeah, completely. Do you find yourself guilty of becoming distracted by all that? So you consider all the branding fanfare as a negative distraction?

I remember Suzy Menkes writing about this in the [ International ] Herald Tribune about five years ago. She was going on about branding this and branding that; of course, she was absolutely right, that did happen, and the importance of branding has become key. But then it started becoming a part of her writing, there was just too much of an embrace of that language and the methodology that those companies were using.

People have been totally bowled over and influenced by it. That leads to an entire generation thinking it has to go with what the brand says, with its indoctrination. Is this something you take into consideration when reviewing a big brand designer as opposed to a designer that has none of that branding support? It depends.

Do brands ever ask you to consult? When I was at the Times , you had to be very careful. How do you distinguish between a good collection and an exceptional one? Secondly, can it hit a mental button?

Like John Galliano did a great collection for Galliano, which was one of my favourite shows that he did, with the twins, the tall people and the fat people; it was brilliant and he came out with the marionette on a puppet, and I just thought that was fun and gutsy. Are you kidding me? That was one of the all time great shows. Lee [McQueen] used to get very upset if people said that to him.

What was so upsetting about that? That show was around and I think he hated people saying in that they loved that show.

Anyway, to go back to your question, great shows need that emotional or intellectual button. You still see exceptional Rei Kawakubo shows, and then she can really hit it out of the park. But, you know, she has duds too. As a fashion critic, how important is it to experience a show first hand in order to write about it? Well, I wrote this piece for T magazine last summer without going to the shows. So they gave me that assignment at the beginning of June and I had three weeks to work on it, which gave me the time to really think about it, and to think about Hedi.

Why him in particular? But that gave me the impetus to think about what Hedi was doing and to have some fun with writing about it. So the time available to you influenced what you wrote. I never had that time to think when I was on the paper. Does the squeeze of the deadline lead you to write things you later regret or that were off the mark? What did you say in the first piece that you later revised?

I came back and said it was actually interesting. But then I got it and wrote about it. I kind of liked him at YSL and I liked some of his ideas but I just sensed that he was a bit all over the place. Have you found yourself reappraising a collection by experiencing it in different contexts, like seeing it shot in editorials or worn on the street?

Not on the street or in editorials, but in the showrooms. The interaction between yourself and the online community that formed around the blog was quite unique at the time. Was that the goal you set out to achieve? It was totally organic. I just want to see what comes from it. Did you immediately feel a sense of freedom, a looser format? In the early years, the Times allowed me to post onto the blog directly, because there was no one in the New York office when I was writing from Europe.

Can you imagine? Then somebody found out and it all changed, and we then had our super SWAT team and all that. I always thought the paper should have the final word. The dialogue between you and the readers took on this whole new world. The first five years were great because we had the same people who would come on to the blog and make comments.

I could go from collection to collection and they always had a great opinion, and some great arguments developed.

You developed quite a rapport with some of those anonymous people posting. Well there was Marko. He was very reactionary and funny and knowledgeable about clothes; turns out he lives somewhere in former Yugoslavia and has an Art History PhD.

I met him in Paris actually, he is a really nice guy but very intense. He was so multilingual that he could just break things down in almost any language, and in slang. It was about that very curvaceous, zaftig-looking Prada show, maybe five years ago; Lara Stone and Doutzen [Kroes] were in it. Yeah, sometimes Marc would weigh in, usually because he was annoyed….

How did you know it was actually him? We had to get it confirmed. Me or somebody else. How did you feel about all these anonymous but sometimes really informed and knowledgeable people challenging you? Some of it was really intimidating! Did you find yourself getting swayed by their opinions? Later on, I would get into the habit of coming back from something like a Jil Sander show, and quickly writing something on the blog — only four sentences — just to give them the platform so they could start writing.

They needed that launching pad. On that subject, do you find yourself swayed by the opinions of other critics? No, I usually read them afterwards.

I used to read Suzy because the Herald Trib came to my room in the morning and I could read it at breakfast. Did you ever have problems coming to terms with all the access that so many new people were now getting? But I loved the fact we had a community on the blog, and I loved being the forum master. I guess it underlined the pecking order.

How has writing on a blog affected the way you review the shows? Generally speaking, descriptions of clothes now seem redundant, whereas analysis has become more important than ever before. Well, slide shows have made people very lazy. They kind of do the work for you. In a way, even though I just said there are all these smart people out there, I think that fashion criticism in the last couple of years has become a harder road. So here you are, the fashion critic writing your piece about the guys and the girls who are really good at fashion — the actual designers themselves — and yet the audience has turned its attention elsewhere.

What are your thoughts on the ubiquitous image-led blogs and the extra-ordinary rise of Instagram? What purpose has that served to you? None to me, but it certainly helps the designers. In massaging their egos? No, in moving their products. Who could have imagined that someone sharing a picture of themselves in an outfit would be enough?

Does that fascinate you? But just to see some girl with her 20, likes? Does it make the role of the critic more challenging? Some of them are quite good and many of them have been able to survive through creating businesses on the internet. Just as soon as you grasp it, it changes again. As a journalist you have to focus on the things you believe in. Before we started the interview, you mentioned you were currently writing a history of fashion coverage at the New York Times , starting back in the 19th century.

Have you found that critics were more or less opinionated in the past? How much of her archive have you been through? Did you relate to her in any way? What have you read in the past 12 months that you think stands out as a great piece of quality fashion criticism? How telling is that in the history of fashion criticism?

I would just say that Tim has a long history of working in many kinds of formats, some of which have more elbow room than others. Part Three Hypersensitivity in a Bitchy World.

Who are you writing for? The designers themselves? Bored housewives in the Midwest? Fashion students online? Bernard Arnault? But I hardly ever think about the fashion world, even though I know they are reading because I see them on Twitter and on blogs.

Do you care if your interpretation of a show or collection is faithful to what the designer had in mind? I think the designers tend to like it too if you bring something totally different — McQueen used to love that. Yeah, sometimes they do. You know, there was a guy at the Times called Mike Berger who died in the late s. He could write words in about 40 minutes. Was it good? God yeah, he won the Pulitzer Prize for a word piece he wrote about a war veteran who in went on a shooting spree in his neighbourhood.

Mike Berger went over there and interviewed 50 people in the neighbourhood — the parents, everybody. Then he went straight back to the office and in three hours wrote words and won the Pulitzer Prize. Doing that in the past was easier, because it was fun; there was a kind of breathlessness about it, a kind of daring.

Contentiousness is a wonderful quality, but just being snarky — bitchy — is not the same thing. People generally remember a tart or snarky line, but for me as a journalist I would rather write about something more thoughtful.

Do critics hold being banned from shows as a badge of honour? I think they used to. I never thought it was a badge of honour, and I was glad that the Times always stood up for me. Even though I would hear later on — sometimes months later — that Art Sulzberger, the publisher or Jill Abramson, the executive editor, had been contacted.

So you never got your wrist slapped by the powers that be at the Times? Never in 16 years. Can you just cool it now. Your experience is singularly unique, I believe.

You must be aware of that. How does that make you feel about the broader fashion media landscape? But it obviously happens. Almost everywhere. And I think that is when you have to at least consider the amount of effort and time that goes into creating something. Can you genuinely be friends with a designer who is going to be the subject of your reviews? I think you can hang out and have an affinity for certain designers, but I think that if you believe you are truly friends then you are in for trouble.

And not hide behind words? What have you learned most from the designers with whom you are close? People were really kind to me when I left the Times and my boyfriend died; there was a huge outpouring of people calling, writing, emailing, it was fantastic.

Do you find yourself drawing a line between industry friends and your personal friends? Is there such a line?

Kind of, more or less. I can still walk into their studio, even though they yelled at me five years ago, I mean really yelled. Do you think that the paradox of your job is that you deal with issues of hypersensitivity within a world that is notoriously bitchy? Sometimes, yes. I come at it from a news side; I grew up surrounded by White House reporters, sports reporters and all that, so I think that everyone should just be cool and objective. But then you find out that in fashion there are people who are far more sensitive.

I understand that creative people are going to be like that, but then across the board in fashion there are lots of sensitive people, and I think it almost becomes an excuse. I sometimes have a much better rapport with them. I like Tom, but I loved talking to Domenico, and if I wanted to know something about the company I would get it from him. Why do you think that is? Because we were rational, calm people, with the same sensitivities. Tom would often do a dance with me. Kind of. Does that upset you?

When I googled your name this morning, the first thing that comes up is the spat you had with Hedi Slimane. We actually are good. Why would this be a novelty? It is not unusual. Do you consider the New York Times to be the best newspaper in the world? Bar none. And absolutely the best website in the world, too.

I never felt that way, strangely. I always felt that what we were doing was important, that in its own space and context it was ultimately going to become social history. The reality is that I know the Times is the paper of influence because of so much of its content, and fashion will not be in the Top Ten.

It will be in the Top Ten for generating revenue, for sure… probably Number One. So does that fast-track its importance? To be perfectly blunt, the reason fashion is important at the Times is because of the writers who made it important.

It is just as simple as that. I think that Amy had a big influence on bringing respect to fashion at the Times. There are others too: Charlotte Curtis and her amazing society coverage in the 60s, Carrie Donovan, too.

In the last 20 years nobody would dispute that fashion has a very key place at the Times. But then I think we have a culture surrounding us that is interested in it. Can you explain that a bit more? I basically said: learn how to report. Learn to speak French fluently. Go to France. I think it would be amazing and everybody would read it. Do you really see someone doing that though?

I would love to know about the times when Bernard Arnault wants to absolutely spank Anna Wintour. But you could run a good anonymous blog, and do what Nikki Finke did when she was running Dateline Hollywood and she had everybody scared. Can you answer your own question? The romance and seduction of fashion. I mean, these companies now pay for them to go to all these shows. Or the Margiela?

Or the Helmut Lang? Where are those people who can really make a statement about their times? But that begs the question, how can one be a fashion critic in a context that depends economically on the very thing you are supposed to critique? Fashion companies start behaving like governments. Part Four Luxury Quantity. Perhaps the most significant change is that designers no longer have the time to create as slowly as they used to. These days, the designers have to be more things to more people; it goes way beyond that traditional role of attending trunk shows, dinners and lunches — just getting to know the clients.

They were kind of the lionesses of the scene. Well, they are under so much pressure, so they have assistants and machines getting the stuff out. It has good benefits but it becomes a business more than anything else. To what extent are certain designers now fetishised by the fashion media? Not necessarily. And the media adjusts accordingly: all those smaller magazines and websites and blogs that have come out are creating endlessly multiplying microcosms.

Kind of mass-niche. Mass-niche, yeah. Would you agree that the most significant aspect of fashion right now is how immeasurably bigger it is, compared to 20 years ago? More brands, more CEOs, more media coverage, more product, more consumers, more everything. Is that a good or a bad thing? Or do you feel indifferent to it? I just tend not to look at it. Momentum is created by these niches but it seems strange to have all these brands yet with very little innovation going on. Is this era defined by a sense of quantity over quality?

Where is the Kawakubo of today? Or the Martin Margiela or the Helmut Lang; those people who really made a statement about their times? Is that an irreversible shift? Is it likely to come back? What else would the fashion historian deduce about this era? Probably the fact that the reader of fashion is more involved than ever before, thanks to social media.

Is creativity notable by its absence? Karl does his best to adapt. I think he does an amazing job, especially when you consider how tough Chanel must be to adapt to change. It still means something, just on a huge scale. I remember being in the gym at the Ritz one day — I used to sneak in there to use the exercise bikes —and Maureen Chiquet, the CEO of Chanel, was on the bike next to me. The fashion business just evolves into something else.

These days, are the best designers those who manage to cope with the workflow? From what I can sense, not very many of them do cope with it; well, they cope, but it does get to them. I think it got to Nicolas at some point, I think it definitely got to Marc. Galliano said in his court appearance that it got to him. You have to look at the individual circumstances, because there are also character issues.

But when wildly creative individuals — McQueen being the obvious example — wake up one day and realise that a global company is dependent on their every move, then that must get to them. I think McQueen was smart enough and shrewd enough to know there was the other side of the business that just demands a good handbag. Yet he probably thought as close to the way an artist thinks as anyone could in this business. Lee basically wanted to pursue things that he found stimulating and innovative; his last few collections were all about that, especially the Atlantis one.

Were you shocked when you heard the news about his passing away, or did you sense it was inevitable? It really shocked me. I loved talking to McQueen: I loved his thought process and the way he was able to execute ideas — from when he was working on a shoestring right up to when he had substantial resources around him.

I remember being in the studio with him right before that Atlantis show, he was talking about finding a way to take hard shapes into soft shapes, you know, not just sewing them on, but to do it all in one piece of fabric or one form.

Do you think the relentless rhythm and the lifestyle make it difficult for designers to take a step back? Not always. Do you think this sense of acceleration within the industry, and the workflow required to sustain it, will continue? I think more designers will probably come into it. But the thing is that the big brands just dominate so much.

Perhaps someone from China will come up with something conceptually really fresh. Yeah, I know. You know, he had just won the LVMH prize, which is very establishment in a way, and then he goes off and does this bonkers collection, but I kind of liked it.

How easy is it today to break with the status quo? I think that over time as a critic you get worn down, so as a creator you definitely get worn down. Everyone is talking about that. Do you think that the culture of luxury groups is here to stay? The latest in a string of "designers fighting back" memos has emerged. This time around, Jean Paul Gaultier has shamed Style.

Over the past year, designers have steadily criticized their critics. The open letter is back. Didn't you kinda miss it? While you were out boozing and barbecuing and taking in the fireworks on July 4th, Jean Paul Gaultier was busy typing out an open letter to Style.

Yes, she reported on the collections. And industry personalities. No more hand-holding: Cathy Horyn thinks John Galliano needs to earn his second chance in the fashion world all by himself.

And if it's any bit as hilarious as he has been on Twitter, this book is not going to disappoint. Last night, following the senior's fashion show in the afternoon, Parsons hosted a benefit dinner at Pier That's a lot to pack into one evening--and it was a long one! Read on. NYC Job Listings. LA Job Listings. Fashion Week. Editors' Picks. Cathy Horyn. By Alyssa Vingan Klein. By Danielle Odiamar. By Gemma Kim. By Fashionista. By Lauren Indvik. Subscribe to our newsletter. By Fawnia Soo Hoo.