Originally Posted by tz0d
It's a good thing
that he moves slowly and recycles. I want that. It's menswear, and I'd rather see more of the same moving slowly and deliberately than something that feels forced. Great menswear lines are known for staples and product personality. They use these as trademarks which appeal to a customer base that, when satisfied, likes to stick to what they know and like. It was already said on here before that incorporating a women's line might be a bad thing, mostly because it sacrifices timeless elegance for escapist cosplay. Menswear is completely different. More refined, elegant, genuine, honest, conservative, discerning
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Menswear is all about these little details and slight changes in proportion, but for women’s wear you have to turn up the volume. And that somehow makes it less interesting: a change of a centimeter in menswear can be very powerful; in women’s wear it’s usually meaningless.
Tarmy: So your menswear line’s aesthetic doesn’t change dramatically from season to season?
Ervell: No, there’s never a seasonal jump. Men don’t dress that way. No one actually says, “This season, India is my inspiration,” or whatever. That’s nonsense. It’s much more interesting to develop a specific language for a brand.
Tarmy: Why bother with the cost and hassle of a fashion show, then?
Ervell: I’m not sure it makes sense to have a fashion show anymore. I know that 99% of the people who see the clothes from my show aren’t seeing them in person but on a computer. So is there a more clever format to present my clothing every season?
Of course there is. But it’s tricky, because I’m part of an industry with a specific way of doing things.
The pressure to constantly reinvent yourself and be "interesting" just leads to forced work with too many bells and whistles to compensate for inspiration. I prefer refinement.
Yes, I'm well aware that Ervell is all about recycling pieces seasons after seasons, incremental and subtle changes, iconic pieces etc, that's something I very much appreciate and enjoy (well not so much these days). When I'm complaining about the recent collections I'm not so much lamenting the lack of groundbreaking outfits as the progressive dilution of what made the label "ervellian" so to speak. Ervell is not a menswear store, he's a designer with a fashion show so I expect more of his collections than a procession of wearable menswear staples. It's been argued in the past that he should just forego runway shows altogether and I'm more and more inclined to agree. It wasn't always the case, if you look at old seasons you'll find a visual coherence and consistency that is sorely lacking in the 2011/12 hodepodges. Talking about a narrative here would be presumptuous but there was definitely a "vibe" for lack of a better world, a gentle collision of amish-like minimalism with technical fabrics and ever so slightly futuristic outerwear on a 90s shoegaze soundtrack gave the whole thing a youthful somewhat etheral and atemporal presence.
It's not all about pocket sweaters and leather backpacks, it's also about air jackets and sottsass prints and transparent pvc coats and mylar jackets and reversible outerwear and parachute trench and rust shirts...
So when someone says that Ervell is about the cut and the fit and not the creativity, I say "exactly."
And please, please, stop the bullshit about timeless elegance vs. escapist cosplay, Ervell is fashion period. And as long as he puts out shows and collections he'll be held to a higher standard than Gant Rugger. After all, i'm not the one who said "I want to make something more than clothes, I want to send a bigger aesthetic message.”
So in the end I'm actually not advocating for a new Ervell but for the old one, I'm a reactionary. Who's talking about reinvention now ?