New Thom Browne!

[Jared]

Originally Posted by Leslierc

But it's like art - some things just don't appeal to everyone.
It's not like art, it is art! A lot of people on here seem so focused on style that they fail to understand that "fashion" means two very different things: "fashionable" is the slight variations that are currently in out on the street, "fashion shows" are textile art period.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by mack11211

What the still photo fails to show is that the white feathers connected both the legs and the arms on each side of the coat body, for a wing effect.

The model flapped once to demonstrate this feature.

The model flapped once?

I'm sorry, but this just sounds very undignified not to mention rather comical.

 

[King Francis]

If I lived in a grim post-apocalyptic future (with lots of explosions and partial nudity), this is how I would dress for a confrontation with the sewer-dwelling abhuman ganglord.

 

[w.mj]

I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion in this thread. I'm not terribly enamored of Thom Browne's designs, nor do I own any of his clothing, but I enjoyed the show.

Jared makes a good point in that this isn't fashion in the conventional sense. The pieces are better appreciated as art, and in that sense they succeed.

Finally, I enjoy the joke he's having at the expense of the fashion industry. A gold, ruffled shirt from Burberry is no more absurd than a feathered suit, but oddly people seem to take the one seriously and dismiss the other.

 

[King Francis]

Originally Posted by Jared

It's not like art, it is art! A lot of people on here seem so focused on style that they fail to understand that "fashion" means two very different things: "fashionable" is the slight variations that are currently in out on the street, "fashion shows" are textile art period.
I know this wasn't addressed to me but I might as well enter the fray. Personally, if I were to treat the pieces / ensembles as art rather than mere attire, my criteria would become more, not less, severe. I don't accept just any shoddy collage, paint-spattered canvas, or asinine installation as art; why should I be forced to swallow the incoherent formulations of a designer? For anyone who has a developed sense of taste, some runway fashion designs will be found wanting and others meritorious. Therefore, you can argue that the Thom Browne designs depicted are worthy and well-executed for such-and-such a reason, and I can argue that many of them seem to be the product of a fever dream in which Sinbad returned from his sojourn with the rocs in order to hang out with the degenerate leavings of a once-proud aristocracy -- but you cannot argue that they get a free pass simply because fashion = art.

 

[w.mj]

I guess I'll jump in to defend the other side. King Francis, you make a valid point in that calling it art doesn't relieve the work or the artist of inherent responsibility. However, that's not quite the claim I'm making. I find it visually stimulating, and insofar as it makes some commentary on the fashion industry, I find it mentally stimulating as well. I enjoy clothes and I think they serve a very useful purpose, but purely in utilitarian terms, surely any piece of Mr. Browne's (or any other designer, for that matter) is simply unjustifiable.

I think the point he's making is this: that while we're willing to suspend rationality while we buy too-expensive things, we cannot make the same self-deception when the action becomes more public. In short, I believe wearing a kiton k50 is just as silly as wearing a winged suit of grey feathers, but one is done and the other isn't.

Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into this and Mr. Browne is just silly. Opinions and counter-arguments are, of course, welcome.

 

[Biscione]

I'm glad that some of you are beginning to actually speak of the design value of Browne's new collection, as opposed to endlessly making unwitty jokes.

I wouldn't wear a single thing there, but I love some of the ideas anyway. Browne clearly has a strong imagination, and he's on the right track- one of the interesting qualities of fashion as a medium is that there are a huge amount of clearly set standards; a near code. Browne is either rethinking them or going completely against them, not to irritate those who go by them, but to create forward objects of design.

I don't believe Browne thinks he'll sell any of these pieces, nor do I think he'll try to (at least the more absurd pieces).

 

[Fade to Black]

this collection is effing awesome. i know what's gonna end up in stores will be a much more approachable interpretation of what was sent down the runway, but as a theatrical/art presentation i thought Thom nailed it, definitely will get lots of people talking...some of the wearable glimpses of this collection shone through, that six pocket military coat is sick and looks like one of the most versatile/wearable pieces i've ever seen from TB, it's something that wouldn't look out of place on a well styled SW&D outfit even i think. And of course Thom as always looks effortlessly cool in his own clothes.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally Posted by Jared

It's not like art, it is art! A lot of people on here seem so focused on style that they fail to understand that "fashion" means two very different things: "fashionable" is the slight variations that are currently in out on the street, "fashion shows" are textile art period.

+1

 

[SoCal2NYC]

I'll buy:

the socks

jacket/pants

something diamond

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

I'll buy:

. . .
jacket/pants

. . .

I think the pants have some kind of webbing/flap between the legs. Would you wear that?

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Didn't see that I thought it was part of a long coat. Probaly not...I'm a long strider.

 

[Fade to Black]

SoCal, no buy on the 6 pocket jacket?

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by Fade to Black

SoCal, no buy on the 6 pocket jacket?

Probably too fussy.

 

[LabelKing]

Personally, I would get that grosgrain trimmed suit.