我們?yōu)槭裁匆獔?bào)道高級定制時(shí)裝？

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how news, features and opinion come together at The New York Times.

“時(shí)報(bào)內(nèi)情”(Times Insider)專欄為讀者呈現(xiàn)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》新聞、專題報(bào)道以及評論的幕后故事。

When people ask me why I like covering fashion, one of my answers (and I have a couple) is always that clothes are one of the very few universal subjects: Everyone has to think about food, shelter and what they put on their bodies. Even nudists think about what they wear — they just reject the idea of wearing anything.

當(dāng)人們問我為什么喜歡報(bào)道時(shí)尚時(shí)，我的答案之一(我有好幾個(gè)答案)總會是：服裝是少數(shù)幾個(gè)普遍的主題之一：所有人都必須考慮食物、住所以及他們往自己身上穿什么。甚至裸體主義者都會考慮穿著——他們拒絕穿任何東西。

That’s why, as Harold Koda, the former curator of the Met’s Costume Institute once told me, the decibel levels are measurably higher at a fashion exhibition than at any other show the museum puts on. Everyone feels entitled to have an opinion.

正如大都會服裝研究所的前策展人哈羅德·科達(dá)(Harold Koda)曾經(jīng)告訴我的那樣，這就是為什么在時(shí)裝展上的分貝水平明顯高于博物館的其他展覽。每個(gè)人都覺得自己有權(quán)發(fā)表意見。

But there are, unquestionably, parts of the clothes conversation that are less accessible than others. Most notably, the haute couture. The what?

但是，毫無疑問，關(guān)于服裝談話的內(nèi)容比其他談話更加難以理解。尤其是高級定制時(shí)裝。什么?

Exactly.

沒錯。

Quick crib sheet: haute couture (or let’s just call it “couture” for simplicity’s sake) is a twice-yearly five-day show fiesta in Paris where a select handful of brands produce hand-made-to-order garments that cost approximately $10,000 to $100,000 a piece. Yes, you read that right.

快速提示：高級定制時(shí)裝(為了方便，我們姑且將其簡稱為“高定”)是巴黎每年舉辦兩次、每次為期五天的嘉年華，它精選少數(shù)幾個(gè)品牌生產(chǎn)的手工定制服裝，每件售價(jià)約1萬美元到10萬美元不等。是的，你沒有看錯。

To qualify as a couture house, which is an official designation like champagne, a brand must maintain an atelier of a certain number of artisans full time and produce a specific number of garments twice a year for a show. There are only a very few that can fulfill the requirements, including Chanel, Dior and Valentino. A lot have dropped out over the years (Balmain, Versace, Saint Laurent), and the governing organization that adjudicates this has relaxed some of its rules to admit younger, less resourced or guest designers, like Iris van Herpen and Guo Pei, who made Rihanna’s Met Gala sunny-side-up egg cape.

高定品牌和“香檳”一樣，是一種官方稱號，為了符合這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，品牌必須擁有一個(gè)工作室，由一定數(shù)量的全職工匠構(gòu)成，并為一個(gè)展覽每年兩次生產(chǎn)特定數(shù)量的服裝。只有極少數(shù)品牌能滿足這個(gè)要求，包括香奈兒(Chanel)、迪奧(Dior)和華倫天奴(Valentino)。多年來，很多品牌已經(jīng)退出了這個(gè)行列，包括巴爾曼((Balmain)、范思哲(Versace)和圣羅蘭(Saint Laurent)，而負(fù)責(zé)裁決的管理機(jī)構(gòu)放寬了一些規(guī)則，允許一些較為年輕、資源較少的設(shè)計(jì)師或客座設(shè)計(jì)師加入，如艾利斯·范·荷本(Iris van Herpen)和郭培，后者設(shè)計(jì)了蕾哈娜(Rihanna)在大都會藝術(shù)博物館慈善舞會(Met Gala)上穿著的單面煎蛋斗篷。

Anyway, there are only a few hundred clients in the world who regularly buy couture, including Middle Eastern royalty and American businesswomen. Guests often sit on gold ballroom chairs. At Chanel, the designer Karl Lagerfeld has a tendency to recreate gardens from around the world, from Versailles to Norway, as his sets.

無論如何，世界上只有幾百名客戶會定期購買高定，包括中東皇室和美國女企業(yè)家。賓客們往往是坐在金色的宴會椅上。在香奈兒，設(shè)計(jì)師卡爾·拉格菲爾德(Karl Lagerfeld)傾向于再現(xiàn)世界各地的花園作為布景，從凡爾賽宮到挪威。

Sounds like the ultimate let-them-eat-cake event, right? In a world struggling with income inequality, riven by tides of immigration and deep social divisions, where streetwear is on the rise, why cover it at all?

聽起來像是終極的“何不食肉糜”，對吧?這個(gè)世界充斥著收入不平等，被移民潮和深刻的社會分歧所撕裂，街頭服飾正在崛起，為什么還要報(bào)道這種事呢?

The usual answer from most fashion people, and brands, for that matter, is it’s “the dream”: the ultimate escapist fantasy. But that always struck me as weird, especially now. Don’t know about you, but it was never my dream to wear a giant ball gown and run through the Hall of Mirrors.

大多數(shù)時(shí)尚人士和品牌通常的答案是“夢想”：它是逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)的終極幻想。但這總是讓我覺得奇怪，特別是現(xiàn)在。我不知道你是怎么想的，但是穿著巨型舞會禮服穿過鏡廳，這絕不是我的夢想。

And it’s not the “Devil Wears Prada” argument, though that does hold true: In a world where everything goes into the Instagram soup and from there seeps into the cultural digestive system, what might appear on a runway in the Musée Rodin (where Dior holds its shows) in July will affect what H&M does in August.

這也不是《穿普拉達(dá)的女魔頭》(Devil Wears Prada)的觀點(diǎn)，盡管這確實(shí)是正確的：在一切都進(jìn)入Instagram大雜燴，并從那里滲透到文化消化系統(tǒng)中的世界里，羅丹博物館(Musée Rodin，迪奧就是在那里主辦它的走秀)7月的T臺上出現(xiàn)的服裝將影響H&M在8月的產(chǎn)品。

For me, it’s never been about imagining myself in the clothes, or even being able to buy the clothes, any more than watching great sports is about being able to play soccer like Lionel Messi.

至于我，我從來沒有想過自己穿著那些衣服，甚至沒想過自己去買那些衣服，就像我從沒想過看看精彩的體育比賽是為了像萊昂內(nèi)爾·梅西(Lionel Messi)那樣踢足球。

It’s about using this particular craft form as a wormhole into what’s going on in the world. The gowns themselves may not seem that relevant (especially when they reimagine a woman as, say, a lavender bush). But the issues they raise are.

這是為了將這種特殊的工藝形式用作一個(gè)蟲洞，進(jìn)入世界上正在發(fā)生的事情。禮服本身可能看起來并不重要(特別是當(dāng)它們重新把一個(gè)女人想象成，比如說，薰衣草叢)。但它們提出的問題是很重要的。

Like, for example, the fact that to a certain extent any women’s wear collection, at any level, should be a treatise on female identity at that particular moment in time. At least if it’s any good. That’s why Karl Lagerfeld made his Chanel bride wear the pants last January, not the corseted meringue; why at Dior, Maria Grazia Chiuri paid homage to Leonor Fini, an early 20th century Surrealist (I don’t think anyone would dispute the surreal nature of our current era); why at Givenchy, Clare Waight Keller protected gowns dripping in silver fringe with military greatcoats.

例如，在某種程度上，任何級別的任何女裝系列都應(yīng)該是在特定時(shí)刻的女性身份論文。至少如果它有任何用處的話。正因如此，卡爾·拉格菲爾德去年1月讓他的香奈兒新娘穿著褲子，而不是緊身胸衣長裙;正因如此，在迪奧，瑪莉亞·嘉西亞·基烏里(Maria Grazia Chiuri)向20世紀(jì)初的超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者列奧諾·菲尼(Leonor Fini)致敬(我認(rèn)為沒有人會質(zhì)疑我們當(dāng)前時(shí)代的超現(xiàn)實(shí)本質(zhì));正因如此，在紀(jì)梵希，克萊爾·懷特·凱勒(Clare Waight Keller)用軍大衣包裹點(diǎn)綴銀色流蘇的禮服。

Like the fact that the mostly French gatekeepers of couture, the most rigid of fashion sectors, have increasingly lowered barriers to entry to woo and admit designers from China, Lebanon and Russia. Fashion is acknowledging the value of porous borders, even as its Western European home grows more skittish about them.

高定時(shí)裝是時(shí)尚界最為僵化的部門之一，然而法國高定業(yè)的大多數(shù)守門人越來越降低準(zhǔn)入門檻，以拉攏和接納來自中國、黎巴嫩和俄羅斯的設(shè)計(jì)師。時(shí)尚界正在承認(rèn)邊界滲透的價(jià)值，即使它的西歐祖國更加懼怕這些東西。

Like the fact that this is as good a way as any to talk about the current tension between the handmade and human (and historical) and the technological. It’s the fashion equivalent of reading books versus watching YouTube.

事實(shí)上，這不輸任何一種談?wù)撌止?、人?及歷史)和科技之間緊張關(guān)系的方式。這對于時(shí)尚來說，相當(dāng)于閱讀書籍與觀看YouTube的關(guān)系。

After all, these are all garments created entirely by hand (except in the case of Iris van Herpen, who tends to 3D print a lot of her materials), as part of a long tradition. Last season at Valentino, the designer Pierpaolo Piccioli named every dress after the person who made it, practically fetishizing the artisan in the face of … well, Facebook.

畢竟，這些都是完全手工制作的服裝(除了艾利斯·范·荷本，她傾向于3D打印很多材料)，它們是悠久傳統(tǒng)的一部分。上個(gè)季度在華倫天奴的發(fā)布會上，設(shè)計(jì)師皮埃保羅·皮喬利(Pierpaolo Piccioli)將每一件衣服都以制作它的人命名，實(shí)際上是在面對Facebook的時(shí)候，展現(xiàn)對工匠的迷戀。

Sound familiar? Though if you’re still wondering what this has to do with you, I’ll leave you with two words: Melania Trump.

聽起來有點(diǎn)熟?不過，如果你仍然想知道這與你有什么關(guān)系，我會告訴你一個(gè)名字：梅拉尼婭·特朗普(Melania Trump)。

She wore Chanel couture to the French state dinner. And all those gilded pigeons suddenly came home to roost.

她在法國國宴穿的是香奈兒高定。所有那些金色的鴿子仿佛在突然之間回到家中棲息。