H&M is trying it haute with Comme des Garcons

We have seen the advertisements everywhere, and since yesterday the Comme des Garcons collection is finally in store. The high street is trying for haute, starting with H&M, and failing.

I am not trying to suggest that the Japanese label is doing a mediocre job at trying to radicalise the lower high-street. Rei Kawakubo could not be dull if her life depended on it.

But it is simple maths: you cannot go fashion forward and anarchic if the available funds for an outfit that originally costs £500 are divided by 10.

Anyways, the truth is we don't usually go to Oxford street to buy clothes which are experimental, chaotic and downright futuristic.

Much less to H&M where a dumbed down pret-a-porter piece, costing under a tenner, is usually expected.

I am not denying there is a craze for high-end-fashion imitation, at affordable prices (the most expensive Comme des Garcons for H&M, is a £199 dress - not bad for a designer that is far from, even occasionally, affordable).

But doesn't all of this kill the whole dynamics of the fashion business? Not to talk about the aesthetics of a middle-of-the-street design.

Comme des Garcons is a revolutionary label that exaggerates shape, cut and colour to style new silhouettes.

Kawakubo's collections are undoubtedly attention-grabbing, but it is a tough job to fish out wearable pieces from her shows.

Unless you are into cobalt blue ruffled bloomers, asymmetrically layered trench-coats in clashing motifs or dresses with origami cut-out legs, as an everyday style.

That is the main difference between high and haute: wearability. (And costs of production.)

The problem with designer mass production, is that with price restrictions, original collections suffer.

What's the use of owning a Comme des Garcons piece, if it doesn't look anything like the brand signature style, the material is poor and the cut only half as good as a Top Shop piece?

Of course, if I had three wishes I would use one of them to make high fashion available to my scorched bank account. A girl can always dream!

But the dismal fashion reality is that experimentation needs money - the kind of money, we poor folks that dress in H&M don't have.

But that is not a reason to feed us mediocre, supposed high-end couture.

A cheap find can look just as stylish (and in this case much more distinguished) as a designer dumbed-down polka shorts and low-crotch trousers (by the way, I do not recommend those to anyone).

Kate Moss designer

"If you can't look like a supermodel you can at least dress like one" is the moto behind Top Shop's collaboration with Kate Moss.

Her designs are worn by everyone and everywhere now. Her new Autumn/Winter collection is already causing a stir in the model-obsessed girl ranks!

It's true that the Kate Moss clothes can be worn as well on a night out as just to hang out and have a coffee. But one think still leaves me sceptical: supermodels don't dress themselves, they just represent designers!

So how is a woman, who has been dressed all her life by others is supposed to give us all a lesson in style?

It's business: her clothes sell because she is the name of the brand.

It's all about the British culture of style.

Kate Moss isn't the first supermodel to cater for the high street. Twiggy has done it before in the 1960s: she launched her own collection that lasted three years.

The only thing is that, yes, these women have been in the fashion industry for years, they obviously something about putting clothes together to create a look. But it's a little bit too much about the culture of the name to me.

It's all very nice to be able to wear a (cheaper!) replica of what Kate Moss has in her wardrobe, but at the end of the day it isn't her who creates the designs. She only decides if she likes it or not!

Anyone sees a hint of ego and marketing in all that?