1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

MC General Chat

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by dieworkwear, Aug 4, 2012.

Tags:
  1. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    Someone suggested to me that maybe he made that patch to cater to the Japanese market, who apparently really liked the design. My guess is he's prob right. I imagine that kind of image becomes kitschy over in Japan, but explosive when it's in the context of US social politics. Loiron prob just didn't think that part through.

    I wish he just told me that straight-up, however, instead of awkwardly try to back his work into some kind of message or meaning. A story about how different designs can mean different things in different countries would have been infinitely more interesting to write than "look at this racist image and how Loiron responded to it."
     
  2. UrbanComposition

    UrbanComposition Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,251
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Location:
    San Francisco
    On a related note, I just finished watching Apocalypse Now Redux and am 99% sure Lawrence Fishburne is racist.
     
  3. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    Designer fashion receives hate for obvious reasons on this forum, but I just read a review of a set of Milan shows that was titillatingly bad.

    Quote: This is the outfit discussed. Anyone else see "an armor against the vagaries of the real world?"

    [​IMG]
     
  4. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    
    That's not necessarily the outfit discussed. A writer writes copy for his or her editors, and the newspaper sources photography from someone else. Often times, the writer has no interaction with the photographer and doesn't even know what photos will be used for his or her story. That description isn't necessarily about that outfit -- indeed, it probably isn't. It's probably about some other outfit in the show. If you find the outfit ridiculous, you should remember that things on the runway are not always about what the designer hopes to commercially sell. There are a ton of different ways a designer can do a show -- sometimes it's just for commercial reasons (here's what we're selling), sometimes it's a way to communicate a broader aesthetic, sometimes it's social commentary (the pic you used seems to be about gender bending), and sometimes it's just to generate publicity. A runway is just a runway -- there's no reason to interpret a show as being just one thing. Take what a designer did and try to figure out what they were going for. That's a lot more interesting than thinking "that looks ridiculous." Here's the show, btw http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/autumn-winter-2015/mens/versace And some looks the writer might have been referencing [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
    2 people like this.
  5. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    McQueens runway creations are probably the easiest to appreciate for CM types. The Met Museum has a good website on some of the more famous pieces. You can look up the shows on YouTube.

    http://blog.metmuseum.org/alexandermcqueen/

    Note, the things McQueen actually sold in-store was a far cry from what he showed on the runway. They were very wearable. Shows the difference between what a designer might do on the runway vs what they do for stores.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  6. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    I'd agree with you save for the line below.

    I do find fashion shows in general ridiculous. From a customer's POV, like you say, their features are unwearable. As social commentary, they also usually start from rather superficial social observations (they remind me of standup comedians in this regard). And, as close to the commercial world as it is, I just don't accept runway fashion as an art form (controversial position, no doubt, esp. given the state of contemporary art in general).

    But I brought the article up because it was also just bad interpretation -- bad on fashion's own terms. Give it a read. To assume, as the reviewer suggests at the outset, that fashion "interpret the contemporary mood" assumes that fashion can be a tool for communication, one whose meaning is widely understood roughly the same way over time (runway shows, after all, are public affairs). But there's no way in hell that Versace outfit meant to me what it apparently meant for the reviewer. He implicitly acknowledges as much, covering up what's really damning evidence against bullshit interpretation with that Lao Tzu reference.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  7. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    We had this discussion in the Random Fashion Thoughts thread on the SWD side of the board. As I said there, you can criticize anything with this view, outside of actual books. Every movie, song, painting, runway show, comedic act, sculpture, performance art, even theatrical play is "superficial" in terms of its social observation. At least if you're going to compare it to philosophers or academics. That's because artists don't have the ability to flesh out very nuanced ideas in the way that writers can.

    But if you accept that, and just take them for what they are -- ways to communicate ideas that aren't necessarily novel, but at least emotionally powerful -- then they become interesting. I don't demand from a McQueen or Rick Owens runway show what I demand from a paper published in an academic journal. Or vice versa. Each form has their own merits, so I'm not sure why people expect serious philosophy out of a fashion show (outside of aesthetic theory, which fashion can actually provide a lot of insight into). The ideas of gender bending are interesting academically, and they manifest themselves visually on the runway. You can take that runway show as a superficial idea (or presentation of "ridiculous clothes"), or you can take them as what they are -- artistic presentations that contribute to a broader discussion on some topic.

    As for the writer in the NYT, I don't know. I think he or she was just going for a line and it didn't work that well. The armor thing was obviously in reference to the more structured and layered silhouettes. It got mixed up when he or she tried to talk about the other parts of the show. That might not even be his or her fault -- editors sometimes take a lot of liberty with a piece and the writer doesn't get to see or approve it beforehand. It's a piece about a runway show in the NYT. Like with the show itself, you can either try to get what's good out of it, or you can just be cranky about how it fails in XYZ ways.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  8. Kaplan

    Kaplan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,171
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Location:
    In Hedonic Decline
    

    I've been re-visiting Twin Peaks on Netflix and had totally forgotten how great Manton was as Ben Horne.

    [​IMG]
     
    3 people like this.
  9. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    I agree with you. Notice that I didn't cite its superficial social observation as the only reason to discount the practice.

    To add another reason to my list, I also don't find male runways shows emotionally powerful, esp. in comparison to my reaction to other cultural mediums. I do find my emotions sometimes engaged when I watch female shows, though -- ok, just one emotion.

    Quote: Like with the show itself, you can either try to get what's good out of it, or you can just be cranky about how it fails in XYZ ways.

    I can't deny my taste for the critical. As I said, the review is "titillatingly bad."

    I'm a horrible person...
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  10. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    [​IMG]

    How is this and not Manton's photo the "after" picture?
     
  11. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    Really? Do you not find this stuff amazing?

    http://blog.metmuseum.org/alexandermcqueen/objects/
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  12. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    mm! I actually went to the McQueen show when it first exhibited a few years ago ('10 I think). It was great. But even in the provocatively non-runway format (as my presence alone attests) at the MET, my first and strongest reaction was commodity fetish. That was, as far as I could tell, the only reaction from a female friend who attended the exhibit with me.

    It's really unfortunate, because some of those pieces are, materially speaking, sculptures. There were a few pieces hung on wires against a dark backdrop that were particularly so. But I never forgot that it was a McQueen show.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  13. EliodA

    EliodA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,762
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    I've been following this discussion with interest (my wife is a fashion designer and is a big fan of McQueen), but I have a hard time figuring out what your point is exactly? IIRC in another thread you mentioned you're a visual art student, right? In that case I must say your lack of imagination is remarkable.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    I don't understand. You mean commodity fetish as in you wanted to buy the items for personal use, or as in the Marxist definition, meaning an object is disassociated from the humans who went into making it?

    Unless you wanted to buy those as art pieces, I don't see what you mean by "commodities." I assume you as a guy wouldn't want to wear a big feather dress.
     
  15. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    You recall correctly! Help me understand what you think I meant that lead you to say that my lack of imagination is remarkable. (I never said I was any good, by the way.)

    Edit: I think I understand. You think I have a bad imagination because "I never forgot that it was a McQueen show" – right? If that's the case, then I'd argue that it's the audience's role to be acute, sensitive and open to an exhibition, not to block out the unappreciable bits of it. So not only did I come into the affair knowing that it was a McQueen show, but I also never tried to imagine the exhibit as anything other than a McQueen show and the exhibition never made me forget it either. Unfortunately, that idea floating around in my head did not do the show any good.


    I wouldn't buy it for myself [​IMG].

    Marx's point in deploying the concept – and I hope I can say this without getting into a hermeneutic discussion about Marx – is partly (and roughly) that the value of a commodity is no longer tied to its use-value (i.e. labor) and instead becomes linked to some transcendental property of the object existing in the mind of the consumer. I use it more to represent the distinctive sensation I get sometimes, like when I was at the show or when I'm standing before a vintage Bentley. I think the stuff beautiful in a way that I certainly don't in response to other forms of art; it's appreciation laced with a sense of acquisitiveness, which my liberal education will not let me experience without some guilt. I didn't feel it there so much as I when I see a runway show, but it's still my first and strongest reaction.

    I speak for myself. As I said in a previous post, this is a "controversial position... esp. given the state of contemporary art in general."
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  16. EliodA

    EliodA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,762
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    OK:

    Quote:

    [​IMG]

    Fashion is commodity fetishism and I'm pretty sure that designers are aware of it and playing with that. The point of runway shows - as noted already - is not about the 'use-value' of the presented items. Rather the contrary, I'd say....
     
  17. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    That's not actually Marx's meaning of commodity fetishization, but that's not here nor there, I suppose.

    Anyway, I don't see why the feeling of wanting to acquire something necessarily takes away from its artistic value. There's an art market, after all.

    (Incidentally, I don't think fashion is actually the same as art. I just don't understand your position).
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  18. EliodA

    EliodA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,762
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Fair point. I think in the case of famous designers like McQueen, it's as much - if not more - about the designer/artist as the work on display. So it's probably intentional that the exhibition couldn't make you forget it's a McQueen show. But how does that diminish its worth for you? Genuine question...
     
  19. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,561
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    To relate, I still visit the Mr Sam Gallery of Snarky Masterpieces, but I'm never able to shake the feeling that Mr. Sam created them. Does that make his masterpieces not masterpieces? Should the thread be renamed? :confused:
     
  20. BD22

    BD22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Location:
    NYC
    I do think wanting to acquire something necessarily takes away from its artistic value. Perhaps aesthetic value is a better phrase to use, to make the distinction from market value clear. But we can't really argue about these normative ideas (another can to leave tightly sealed). And the association with McQueen and therewith the fashion biz is inextricable from this idea.

    By the way, I recognize that it's a hypocritical position to hold on SF. I did a whole long post about colors that's very much consumer oriented. Fetishism hasn't pushed me away from thinking about MC so why should it push me away from runway fashion? The most redeeming thing I can say, I guess, is that I'm not vain enough to see my shopping habits as a work of art.

     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by