despite the category's name, not all design translates as "ready-to-wear" to all people. besides the personal preferences for style, fit, color of t-shirts and jeans, there is an amazing amount of fashion out there that is literally amazing. a fan of fashion maybe has one of four responses to some of the more ... impractical or unrealistic creations presented on runways and on pages:
a) huh? i don't get it/this does not appeal to me. (fantasy)
b) wow, pretty/interesing. (fantasy)
c) if i had the money, i would buy/wear/love that. (fantastical)
d) how can i incorporate this some way into my life? (fantastical)
i put the parenthetical distinctions by each option to id how i personally apply these responses. when something is entirely see-through, too low or too high, for example, it might garner an "a" response; it's fantasy clothing, and not for my fantasy.
when a look or show seems costume-y, i might go with "b" but here there is a fine line between a "b" and "c" response, and i realize that some things that i wouldn't wear, others mights, and vice versa - one woman's fantasy is another's fantastical.
fantasy clothing does not tend to appeal to me, but the fantastical, the things that are well beyond the scope of daily wardrobe necessities, items with magic, those are precisely what keep me so in love with design.
this coat/blanket/sleeping bag from yohji yamamoto's fall 2000 collection was definitely a "c" for me. the fabric is gorgeous and the cocoon it forms at once obscures and reveals her body (in the most subtle yet sensual way, i might add). if i could have it, i definitely would wear it. fantastical.
this was in a small fashion spread in a mini-insert in the april issue of vogue nippon and by itself made the $20+ totally worth it. the whole shoot "plastic dolls," featuring these two in those fantastic wigs, is a total keeper, going to be filed under "great ideas for hair"!!! an absolute "d."
how do you differentiate between fantasy and fantastical?
or is it all too inaccessible for you?