In the spirit of evenhandedness, I'm afraid that I disagree with the bolded part as well. There is clearly an intended emotional response, and I'm willing to bet decent money that revulsion was not it. I've heard a lot of designers say this in response to criticism of their work which does not invite a real discussion, and I sympathize with the compulsion to try to make lemonade out of lemons. I just don't think that the response is on the mark.
I'm not a designer, but in my creative work, there are times when I'm more interested in seeing how people react to something than I am in evoking a specific response.
I don't see that as limiting dialogue, but it does mean that the dialogue won't involve me trying to convince somebody to have "the right" reaction to it, and it will probably be more of "why do you feel that way about it?", which can be a lot more productive for me as an artist.
Now, while I support that paradigm for art, I'm not convinced it applies to clothes for real life, but if my understanding of Pitti is correct, it's not "real life." It's not quite the fantasy world of a runway show, but the stands are supposed to be about pushing the brand as far as it will go, right? So it's valid to do something that's a bit OTT, and designed to get a reaction other than "I'll buy that."