Random fashion thoughts

It does make some valid points beyond that. Basically she argues that designers are now bought and sold like commodities by giant fashion houses that are no longer interested in clothes so much as profits. Of course fashion houses were always interested in profits, but now you get people running the show who have no background whatsoever in fashion. "There is a reason that long-serving fashion executives have been replaced in recent years by chief executive officers whose history is in ice cream, yogurt or other marketable products. With a global society hungry for luxury, distribution and supply chains are now as important for executives as a hands-on feel for products." The designers, meanwhile, become superstars, entirely cut off from reality (Galliano), and they participate in making themselves commodities with their legal battles for bigger, better contracts. And then you have the Internet's global hype machine demanding more, more all the time. "The natural end of an era, as designers whose houses bear their names grow old and pass away, combined with the arrival of digital cameras and Internet exposure, has created a perfect storm. Fledgling designers need investment — but how much easier it is to put them in a dead man or woman’s shoes, perhaps also backing the new designer’s namesake line, but only as what the French call a “danseuse,” a plaything."

All labor is a commodity.

It's patronizing in tone, if only because she barely acknowledges that designers, as actual human beings, are capable of making human decisions. She only hints at this when saying how Marc Jacobs supposedly asked for too much from Dior, but she just dismissed this because it counters this designer as a completely clueless commodity argument she seems to be trying to build

Most of the points PPPP quoted are totally reasonable though; we ARE in a weird position of eponymous designers dying off with this dramatically increasing global demand for designer goods, and unparalleled discussion/sharing/consuming of fashion in all of its forms.

honestly, it seems like an article where the only thought given into writing it was how to best drive traffic (and possibly incite discussion)

^I think she does acknowledge the designers' responsibility in all this. For instance:
"Designers, too, are not blameless victims of the new deal. They have also become commoditized, picking the right lawyer to fight for sky-high salaries and sweet treatment as if they were Hollywood stars.

Cut off from reality, as Mr. Galliano was and many others still are, in the world of first-class travel and the chauffeur at the door, they find themselves enmeshed in a web of their own making.

They are too used to a lifestyle that has brought them fabulous apartments filled with contemporary art and photography to break out of this lush gilded cage..."

But to your second point, that it seems designed to drive traffic, that's probably true to some degree. Editors love when writers do this sort of thing because it does get people to click. But I do think the writer, Suzy Menkes, really believes what she wrote. I doubt her intent was to get people to click but to draw attention to a disease in the system, as she saw it. So win/win for editor and writer.

there are some people i am surprised whom are attending the SF SF gathering.

I live 45mins away hmm...

yeah when writing my response I forgot about that line where she says they aren't blameless victims. but then she goes on to seemingly absolve them of any accountability, which is just very frustrating to me.

The Pilati interview with Vice touches on the same subject, a somewhat interesting read.



tween_spirit said:

yeah when writing my response I forgot about that line where she says they aren't blameless victims. but then she goes on to seemingly absolve them of any accountability, which is just very frustrating to me.

Click to expand...

You do have a point. It's kinda subtle the way she does it. She calls them out, then uses diction to take away some of their responsibility. They don't make themselves commodities, they "become commoditized," suggesting they're passive in the process. They don't enmesh themselves in a web of their own making, they "find themselves enmeshed," emphasizing that it's not deliberate. But anyway...
/exegesis



sipang said:

The Pilati interview with Vice touches on the same subject, a somewhat interesting read.

Click to expand...

Hey this is awesome, thanks for this. I enjoyed it.

good language break down. Kenneth Burke would not find himself displeased

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...&viewitem=&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_558wt_1396

deal of a lifetime

How can someone say they feel ripped off when they knew nothing about a service and merely pulled a price out of their ass? smh

can someone that reads Japanese translate something for me? chrome is doing such a crap job right now. pm me please



gettoasty said:

there are some people i am surprised whom are attending the SF SF gathering.
I live 45mins away hmm...

Click to expand...

I am too fat to go

Anyone want to buy a Mercedes Benz?