or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random fashion thoughts - Page 6633  

post #99481 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by brad-t View Post

There's a world of difference between what Zara does and what you're describing above, and I'm sure you know that.

Sure.  But at essence, they are doing very much the same thing.  They are taking something known, and making it accessible and palatable to their audience.

post #99482 of 109053
Everything has to come from somewhere but there's a difference, in degree if not in kind, between someone taking inspiration from rider jackets/1940s haute couture/fetish stuff etc and managing to make something coherent and singular out of it all like RO and someone who decides to make asymmetrical leathers with funnel necks and extra long sleeves because it sells right now. The end result might be more or less the same but I'm perfectly fine admiring the work of the first and calling the second a hack. I know I know... Fok is talking purely about products and here I am rambling about something that's getting dangerously close to the dreaded designer's "vision" or whatever, but I think you can respect and value (the idea of) the creative process behind the work without necessarily buying into the whole authorial intent baloney.

And when I talk about creative process I'm not talking about some kind of demiurgic artisan figure or some authenticity bs. I just, you know, like to know and appreciate the fact that someone put some thought and care into how to give physical form to a a personal mixture of disparate preexisiting borrowed ideas and inspirations. It's a connection, it's immaterial, maybe it's a fantasy. In any case, it doesn't prevent me from interpreting and wearing the product in my own way when all is said and done. If you remove that immaterial part, if you strip the product from its context of creation it's just product A vs. product B and clearly some (most) people like it better that way but to me that's just fucking dreadful.

And while I understand the innovation argument to some extent, I gotta ask: what exactly is/can be/should be innovation in the sw&d/high fashion context ? More technical ? More outrageous ? More next level ? More Iris van Herpen ?





Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post


Have you seen L’amour fou? Trailer:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Was going to watch that this week. A friend reviewed it here:

http://asuitablewardrobe.blogspot.com/2014/07/rjs-alternative-style-icons-pierre-berge.html



Haven't seen it, added to the list. Thx.
Edited by sipang - 9/8/14 at 10:04pm
post #99483 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipang View Post

Everything has to come from somewhere but there's a difference, in degree if not in kind, between someone taking inspiration from rider jackets/1940s haute couture/fetish stuff etc and managing to make something coherent and singular out of it all like RO and someone who decides to make asymmetrical leathers with funnel necks and extra long sleeves because it sells right now. The end result might be more or less the same but I'm perfectly fine admiring the work of the first and calling the second a hack. I know I know... Fok is talking purely about products and here I am rambling about something that's getting dangerously close to the dreaded designer's "vision" or whatever, but I think you can respect and value (the idea of) the creative process behind the work without necessarily buying into the whole authorial intent baloney. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
And when I talk about creative process I'm not talking about some kind of demiurgic artisan figure or some authenticity bs. I just, you know, like to know and appreciate the fact that someone put some thought and care into how to give physical form to a a personal mixture of disparate preexisiting borrowed ideas and inspirations. It's a connection, it's immaterial, maybe it's a fantasy. In any case, it doesn't prevent me from interpreting and wearing the product in my own way when all is said and done. If you remove that immaterial part, if you strip the product from its context of creation it's just product A vs. product B and clearly some (most) people like it better that way but to me that's just fucking dreadful.

And while I understand the innovation argument to some extent, I gotta ask: what exactly is/can be/should be innovation in the sw&d/high fashion context ? More technical ? More outrageous ? More next level ? More Iris van Herpen ?


Prob tl;dr, but if anyone is sitting on a toilet, here's something to read while you're taking a dump.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, especially the bolded part, but it seems like we're talking about totally different things. IMO, we can think of the appreciation of clothes, as well as the making of a fashion brand, as having three dimensions:

  • Practicality: On some level, clothes are meant to be practical. Just things we wear to feel comfortable and look good (or at least look the way we want to look).
  • "Craftsmanship": An overwrought term, but basically deals with how something is constructed.
  • Conceptual design: How something contributes to the greater discussion of design.

Successful brands are always a mixture of these three things, but they'll often focus on one dimension more than the others. To give some examples:

  • Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford, etc are mostly practical designers. They're essentially making things that people want to wear to the office or whatever. Very, very practical straightforward stuff.
  • Bespoke tailors are often about craftsmanship. The point is to make something to the highest quality standard possible. Traditional methods with no compromises, even if the modern methods are "just as good."
  • Comme des Garcons is much more about conceptual design. Pieces might not be as high in quality as some of the high-end haute couture houses, but that's not really the point. The point is about making something conceptually interesting.

When it comes to appreciating fashion, or at least talking about it, it seems people on this forum often value one of those aspects over the other. And it's sort of loosely split between the two subforums.

  • Practical: Perhaps the only thing that spreads across the whole forum. Notable that even on an enthusiast forum, however, many people only care about how they can look good (or, again, look the way they wish to look).
  • "Craftsmanship": Often highly valued on the CM/ MC side of the forum. Tons of threads that are little more than how some object was made. So artisanal. Much craftsmanship. Very handwork.
  • Conceptual design: Seems like something that's valued more on the SWD side of the forum. Lots of people here ogling lookbooks, pictures of showrooms, or just the product image. So curation. Much design. Very visionary.

It often feels like when debates happen on this forum, people are taking their preferred dimension and just running with it, without recognizing that other people are talking about different things. On the CM side of the board, you often have people who value practicality and craftsmanship, and don't understand the appreciation for design on SWD (to give an example). Or someone will talk about how they just want to look good, and don't care about handwork, and are subsequently alienated by other CM-ers for being a philistine.

If we're talking about the value of copying, we're essentially talking about the practical vs. design aspects. If you value practicality above all else, then you'll think it's great that Zara is democratizing a good look. If you only cared about design, on the other hand, then yes -- Zara's designers are hacks (even though, I don't think Zara's designers are ever instructed to come up with something conceptually interesting).

Long winded way of saying many of the debates on this forum talk over each other, and miss the fact that they're taking just one aspect of fashion and running with it. There are other ways to appreciate clothes, and different purposes for brands and designers. More pointedly: Zara and Rick Owens do not exist for the same reasons, and IMO should be primarily judged by their respective rubrics.

Edited by dieworkwear - 9/9/14 at 12:03am
post #99484 of 109053
post #99485 of 109053
My only problem with the fashion industry is that there are a ton of people who can cut clothes beautifully, use their own independent creativity to make something unique, and do these things at a price that's probably more than fast fashion but probably less than "high" fashion.

It's just that these people are being swallowed up into a grind until they either make a name for themselves or settle for a 9-5 where they make compromises with a marketing team.

We seem to be in a situation where the only people who want to start a small business are those who want to make it into a big business and retire at 30. I suppose that's not just a fashion industry issue.
post #99486 of 109053
it is a bit shitty when a smaller designer is preyed upon by a massive company but at the end of the day everyone borrows or steals from one another. there also really isn't that much to be done in menswear in particular...

I don't think the vast majority of small to medium sized fashion companies really care about this kind of stuff. everyone shows very similar collections anyway.

and zara is mostly terrible because the clothes are made to disintegrate rapidly and designed to appeal to the lowest denominator of taste. that's about it.
post #99487 of 109053

I thought this Vogue article offered a good (and succinct) perspective on the difference between fast fashion copies vs high fashion "inspiration"

http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2014/07/28/olivier-rousteing-on-zara-copies-and-rihanna-the-new-naomi

post #99488 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipang View Post

Everything has to come from somewhere but there's a difference, in degree if not in kind, between someone taking inspiration from rider jackets/1940s haute couture/fetish stuff etc and managing to make something coherent and singular out of it all like RO and someone who decides to make asymmetrical leathers with funnel necks and extra long sleeves because it sells right now. The end result might be more or less the same but I'm perfectly fine admiring the work of the first and calling the second a hack. I know I know... Fok is talking purely about products and here I am rambling about something that's getting dangerously close to the dreaded designer's "vision" or whatever, but I think you can respect and value (the idea of) the creative process behind the work without necessarily buying into the whole authorial intent baloney.

And when I talk about creative process I'm not talking about some kind of demiurgic artisan figure or some authenticity bs. I just, you know, like to know and appreciate the fact that someone put some thought and care into how to give physical form to a a personal mixture of disparate preexisiting borrowed ideas and inspirations. It's a connection, it's immaterial, maybe it's a fantasy. In any case, it doesn't prevent me from interpreting and wearing the product in my own way when all is said and done. If you remove that immaterial part, if you strip the product from its context of creation it's just product A vs. product B and clearly some (most) people like it better that way but to me that's just fucking dreadful.

And while I understand the innovation argument to some extent, I gotta ask: what exactly is/can be/should be innovation in the sw&d/high fashion context ? More technical ? More outrageous ? More next level ? More Iris van Herpen ?
Haven't seen it, added to the list. Thx.

I agree with you.  I also liked @dieworkwear 's post, though I feel that "practicality" is not separate from "concept", and that "concept" is not separate from "lifestyle".  I think that all of these can be rolled up into "purpose".

 

We are talking at cross purposes here (no pun intended) because the purpose of a designer piece is very different from that of it's fast fashion counterpart.  As I stated before, I don't buy fast fashion, because I am, like you, interested in the creative process, and the intangible value that it brings to that piece.  I like my dipped my hand in indigo 1000 times sashiko jacket, and I like to add further to it by overpainting in and seeing how the paint interacts with the surface dye.  That is valuable to me.  The designer does not just offer me a product, but an attractive story.  The purpose of the garment is more than to make me look good (though I would hope that it does that as well.)  It is to convey the story of its creation, and by purchasing and wearing it, I am buying a piece of that story, as well as just the garment.  On the other hand, Zara is making a product that cashes in on a trend, to a customer who simply wants to look on trend.  To me, this is of so little value, that I would never buy it.  However, this is clearly not universally true.  

post #99489 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I agree with you.  I also liked @dieworkwear
 's post, though I feel that "practicality" is not separate from "concept", and that "concept" is not separate from "lifestyle".  I think that all of these can be rolled up into "purpose".

We are talking at cross purposes here (no pun intended) because the purpose of a designer piece is very different from that of it's fast fashion counterpart.  As I stated before, I don't buy fast fashion, because I am, like you, interested in the creative process, and the intangible value that it brings to that piece.
 I like my dipped my hand in indigo 1000 times sashiko jacket, and I like to add further to it by overpainting in and seeing how the paint interacts with the surface dye.   Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
That is valuable to me.  The designer does not just offer me a product, but an attractive story.  The purpose of the garment is more than to make me look good (though I would hope that it does that as well.)  It is to convey the story of its creation, and by purchasing and wearing it, I am buying a piece of that story, as well as just the garment.  On the other hand, Zara is making a product that cashes in on a trend, to a customer who simply wants to look on trend.  To me, this is of so little value, that I would never buy it.  However, this is clearly not universally true.  

This caused me to briefly envision you standing in front of a vat of indigo, perhaps humming softly to yourself, while dipping your hand into it over and over again.
post #99490 of 109053
I'm going to strive to wear as much linen and wool at the same time this winter.
post #99491 of 109053

Loosely fashion relevant: I'll be curious to see how many people pony up for the 18k gold Apple Watch.

 

yellow_gold_blue_hero_large.jpg

 

yellow_gold_red_hero_large.jpg 

post #99492 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by notwithit View Post

This caused me to briefly envision you standing in front of a vat of indigo, perhaps humming softly to yourself, while dipping your hand into it over and over again.

Clearly a typo, but I can't fix it, now.

post #99493 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraphicNovelty View Post

wow, such taste, very patrician

oh apologies… I must have interrupted your Maroon 5/ Katy Perry/ Fall Out Boy download.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post

This whole it's ok for them to copy because there's never been an original thought is some mindlessly regurgitated bullshit.

happy.gif Actually it's ok for them to copy because there is no IP protection (Copyright specifically) for anything relative to fashion design. Only trademark may protect logos and the like for the consumer, but as to competitors appropriating others ideas, it's basically a free-for-all.

There have been many academic papers written in Fashion/IP law as to the pros and cons of particular industries and markets that still function well in a low IP regime (cuisine and comedy being a couple others). If you're not nerdy enough to read law review articles, but are still interested in this I'd recommend The Knockoff Economy by Raustiala and Sprigman. It's very accessible and quite interesting…. although I do have problems with his argument at points.
post #99494 of 109053
@jet If you are still looking the Monocle x Porter bags are back in stock.
post #99495 of 109053
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptual 4est View Post

it's because it's the warm coca cola.  it no longer has that something more



I dislike Zizek. Dude is an idiot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts