u/Responsible-Tarts

I’ve been looking through old photos of Princess Diana and her style was just so good. She could do casual and sporty looks so effortlessly, but also knew how to make a more polished outfit feel timeless.

And obviously the little black dress deserves its own mention. That look was so bold for the time and still feels incredibly chic today

Céline Dion just kicked off her Paris residency on September 12th, her first live performance in six years following her stiff person syndrome diagnosis, and the fashion side of the comeback deserves its own conversation separate from the emotional weight of the night itself.

She opened in a custom black Dior gown by Jonathan Anderson, strapless with dramatic sculptural pleating, inspired by an original Christian Dior silhouette from the brand's 1950 haute couture collection. Paired with a Boucheron "The Address" necklace, set with a 10+ carat emerald-cut diamond, that reportedly took over 1,100 hours to make.

For the Titanic performance specifically, she wore a total Schiaparelli look, a jacket referencing a 1937 Elsa Schiaparelli design, which feels like a deliberate choice for that particular song, tying vintage couture history to her own history with the moment.

Then a Givenchy look by Sarah Burton (former Alexander McQueen creative director), a pink faux-feather jacket sweeping the stage floor over a sparkling silver fitted dress, draped like a cape. And the finale was a custom Alaïa ensemble, a black moulded leather bustier against a velvet mermaid skirt.

What gets me is the sequencing feels intentional, five different couture houses, each one seemingly matched to the emotional register of that part of the show rather than just rotating outfits for spectacle. Her longtime stylist Annie Horth clearly built this as a full arc, not just a variety of "big moments."

Given everything she's been through publicly, the fact that the fashion is getting this much genuine craftsmanship and care feels like part of the larger statement of the night, this isn't a scaled-back comeback, it's a full couture-level production.

Anyone catch the show or watching clips?

Every other actress got a sheer gown or a bold color at the Emmys, Chase Infiniti showed up in something actually so different. I'm genuinely obsessed, she looked so gorgeous and interesting at the same time.

So it's a custom Louis Vuitton gown by Nicolas Ghesquière, strapless with a sweetheart neckline, in a deep burgundy-bronze color, and the entire surface is covered in dense copper gemstone embroidery layered over black organza, made up of what looks like hundreds of tiny beaded spheres rather than flat sequins or crystals. It's fitted through the bodice and hips, then flares out into a dramatic mermaid hem, and the texture makes the whole thing look almost liquid or metallic under the red carpet lights depending on the angle.

She kept everything else minimal, stacked rings, thin bracelets, hair down in loose waves, warm natural makeup, letting the texture of the dress carry the whole look instead of competing with accessories.

What's interesting is this is part of an ongoing thing for her, Louis Vuitton has become her go-to house for basically every major award show this year, Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and now Emmys, and Ghesquière keeps giving her a completely different silhouette each time instead of repeating a formula. This one might be the most textural and tactile of the bunch, multiple people online have specifically commented on wanting to touch it just from photos.

Feels like one of the more genuinely unique fabric/construction choices from the whole night compared to the usual sheer-and-crystal formula everyone else went with.

Between the hair and the dress, this felt like one of her most talked-about red carpet moments in a while, so wanted to break down the full look.

Starting with the hair, she showed up in a short, textured pixie crop, a real departure from the long hair she's typically styled in for award shows. It gave the whole look a sharper, more editorial energy right off the bat, before you even get to the dress.

The dress itself was custom Prada, a nearly invisible beige mesh base completely covered in crystals, sequins, and beading in this dense sparkling pattern. Deep plunging V-neckline lined in soft blush tulle, fitted waist, then a column skirt sweeping into a train. The back mirrored the front with another low V and jewel-covered straps. She rounded it out with Casadei pumps dyed to match, a Rolex, and Mikimoto pearl and diamond earrings.

What made the whole thing work together is that the pixie cut basically forced the dress to read differently than it would have with her usual long hair. With long hair this probably lands as "another great Zendaya gown." With the short hair, the whole silhouette feels more architectural and intentional, like the haircut and the dress were considered as one complete look instead of two separate style decisions.

It also lines up with the kind of year she's had, Euphoria wrapping, The Drama, The Odyssey, Spider-Man, with Dune: Part Three still coming. Feels like a look built for a moment where she's genuinely everywhere right now, not just another red carpet appearance.

Been trying to pin down what makes his style stand out and it's tricky because he doesn't seem to sit in one lane.

He's Christian Yu, the Korean-Australian artist behind DPR (Dream Perfect Regime), and his visual identity has always been tied closely to the alter-ego lore he builds into his music, Mito, Mr. Insanity, whichever era he's in dictates the aesthetic almost like a costume change rather than a personal style evolution. His recent comeback with "THE SHOW" leaned hard into bold red hair, sharp suits, and an early-2000s emo/punk-rock throwback vibe, while still keeping his usual cinematic, theatrical presentation.

He's also been showing up at Milan Fashion Week, which is a little different from the usual K-pop idol brand-ambassador pipeline, less about being the face of one house and more about existing in that space as himself.

Honestly this is one where I don't have a ton of hard details on specific brand deals or a clearly defined "signature style" the way some idols have, his thing seems to be more about shapeshifting per era/character than sticking to one aesthetic.

She's been wearing babydoll dresses on repeat this year, and it's turned into a whole conversation, not just a style choice.

The name itself traces back to a 1956 film, where the lead character wore a nightgown in this shape, and it later got reinvented as an actual dress by Balenciaga in the '50s before becoming one of the defining silhouettes of the '60s mod movement. It's had a whole second life too, in the '90s it became the go-to grunge-girl uniform, worn by Courtney Love, Kat Bjelland, and Kim Gordon, thigh-grazing, empire-waisted, often paired with combat boots.

Rodrigo's been leaning hard into that grunge lineage specifically, often pairing hers with Dr. Martens for contrast. It got some backlash after her "Drop Dead" music video, where she wore one with visible lace boyshorts underneath, some people online accused her of sexualizing herself, others pushed back saying the reference was clearly intentional and ironic rather than provocative for its own sake. Rodrigo herself has said she's just making a style reference and that people reading deeper into it are being "weird."

What's interesting is the runway side backs her up. Miu Miu, Ann Demeulemeester, and Chloé all put out babydoll interpretations for Spring 2026, and several other pop stars (Sabrina Carpenter, Addison Rae, Kacey Musgraves, Halsey) have followed with their own versions since. So this isn't really a Rodrigo-specific controversy, it's a full high-fashion trend cycle she happens to be one of the most visible faces of right now.

Feels like a good example of how a silhouette with real feminist and subcultural history (grunge women reclaiming a very literally-named "babydoll" shape) keeps getting relitigated every time it resurfaces, like the discourse resets each generation instead of carrying the context forward.

Where do you land, is the "just a reference" explanation enough, or does a silhouette like this always inherently invite the sexualization debate no matter who's wearing it or why?

I've seen a lot of conversation around white socks with black shoes and honestly I don't see the problem. Thoughts?

This one's fresh, wanted to share since it hasn't gotten much fashion-side discussion yet.

Wooyoung of ATEEZ has been named the first global ambassador of Studio Tomboy, the fashion brand operated by Shinsegae Tomboy Co. What's notable is this wasn't just a cold sign-on, the partnership follows a campaign the brand ran with him over the summer, where the products he was featured in sold out shortly after release. His everyday off-duty styling, spotted through airport looks and his own social media, reportedly also drew a lot of attention on its own.

The brand framed it as his personal style naturally aligning with Studio Tomboy's identity, and his ambassador activities kick off with the brand's 2026 Fall/Winter campaign, with content rolling out from August 31st.

What stands out to me is the sequencing, sold-out capsule first, ambassador title second, rather than the usual order of announcing a big-name ambassador and hoping it drives sales. Feels like a more evidence-based approach to picking a face for the brand.

Studio Tomboy also framed this as part of a bigger push, tying it to global interest in K-fashion and expanding their menswear line internationally.

Curious if people think idol-led capsule collections performing well is becoming a more reliable ambassador strategy for fashion brands generally, test the collab first, then formalize the title, versus the traditional "sign a big name and build hype from scratch" approach.

Been thinking about this a lot and I'll just say it directly: I don't think fashion alone is enough to claim an alternative identity.

Every major alt subculture that actually built the aesthetics we borrow from today was rooted in real political resistance. Punk wasn't just leather jackets and safety pins, it was explicitly anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, often anarchist. Goth carried a genuine critique of mainstream social norms. Hippie culture came directly out of anti-war organizing. The clothes were never the point, they were a visible signal of belonging to people who actually believed something and lived it.

When you strip the politics out and keep only the look, you're not preserving the subculture, you're hollowing it out. It becomes a costume instead of an identity. And honestly, a lot of the people who originally built these scenes were marginalized groups pushing back against real systems, poverty, war, discrimination, so treating the aesthetic as separable from that history kind of erases the labor and risk that went into creating it in the first place.

I get why people push back on this take. Gatekeeping identity behind an ideology test can feel exclusionary, and nobody wants to hand out a political purity checklist before someone's allowed to dress a certain way. Subcultures do evolve, and plenty of people find real community through the aesthetic side even if they've never thought hard about the politics behind it.

But I still think there's a meaningful difference between wearing the look and actually being part of what the look was created to represent. If the politics get lost entirely, you're left with a costume that used to mean something.

Curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, where you'd draw the line instead.

Tyla has officially joined Kate Spade as their new global brand ambassador, and I actually think it feels like a very natural collaboration.

She has such a fun, youthful, and fashion-forward image, while Kate Spade has always had that playful, feminine, and colorful identity. The two brands feel like they share a similar energy, and this partnership seems like a way for Kate Spade to connect more with a younger audience while staying true to its personality.

What do you guys think of this collaboration? Do you think Tyla fits the Kate Spade image, or would you have preferred a different direction for the brand?