Why does Sinéad O’Dwyer still seem like a specialist designer? That question has nothing to do with what she does or with her intention to draw more into the embrace of her work. It’s because of the mono-size casting—the backsliding—that we’re seeing on most of the industry’s runways now. Body positivity began to be moderately practiced and talked up a lot at some point pre-pandemic-ish. But—just as most brands seem to have forgotten that communication of their sustainability and ethics was once a thing—O’Dwyer and her sisters Ester Manas, Karoline Vitto, and Michaela Stark still stand out as exceptions in what was once hoped to be a progression toward normalizing design for all women in luxury fashion.
So the buzz and joyful sense of community around O’Dwyer remains powerfully avant-garde. She was back on the runway for fall with her cast of friends, after the season she took to explain her thinking at a talk-presentation last September. Her technical strategies—tape-lattice pieces, bodysuits, and tailoring cut to embrace breasts and curves—and her inclusive queer eye on celebrating sexuality were all recognizably present. This time, O’Dwyer said, “It was more kind of about the office person, but then thinking about what they are by night.” That translated into transgressively playful sugar pink lingerie–cum–school uniform kilt dresses, some jingling with garters finished with metal discs.
Kudos to her for persisting in developing her system of cuts and grading. She has spoken about how much this costs in terms of technical innovation—and how the industry’s narrow size ranging starts with the fact that “normal” pattern development begins from the standard design studio use of tiny size-6 mannequins. If independent women designers can devote their limited cash resources to revolutionizing this limiting practice—leave aside what must be available to giant corporations in this age of digital design aids, body scanning, and whatnot—why on earth isn’t everyone else?
