Thom Browne on Men's Wear - Interview

[OttoSkadelig]

Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot

^ Might as well, although OttoSkadelig seems to think I'm much cleverer than I really am.

i summon you remotely, and you appear on command!

verily, i am in possession of remarkable powers. maybe _i_ am much cleverer than i really think i am.

 

[Gus]

That could be. Being more influenced by Wall Street as a public company, demands "no free lunch". The book was written in 2002.

Yet, I can't imagine that The Mansion pays it's overhead in sales although it is the ultimate Polo brand showcase and was a brilliant move by RL.

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

My understanding is that in recent years they've changed that and now they're increasing profits from the Polo stores as well.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Originally Posted by pocketsquareguy

That could be. Being more influenced by Wall Street as a public company, demands "no free lunch". The book was written in 2002.

Yet, I can't imagine that The Mansion pays it's overhead in sales although it is the ultimate Polo brand showcase and was a brilliant move by RL.

I agree, its extremely important for the brand to have these offerings. Brands that dont have top tier merchandise loose their luxury status quickly.

 

[bearsfan172]

Originally Posted by OttoSkadelig

this is the essence of it. thom browne suits are not designed to be evaluated according to classic SF rules, which is what people are trying to do. it is a concept designed to push the boundaries of the acceptable.

i would no more try to evaluate TB via the usual SF filters than i would try to evaluate a jeffrey koons installation using the same yardstick as i'd use for a rembrandt. and before you pounce all over me -- yes, i know the analogy is not perfect - find me one that is.

we need such provocateurs every now and then, even if their creations are unusable on their own, because otherwise we'd all be stuck in an infinite stagnant loop.

+1. This is exactly it. Whether or not you like Thom Browne's suits or other clothing, I think everyone should appreciate him for what he does. He is pushing envelopes in clothing in entirely new ways. And we need that. Only through initially radical change can anything new get accomplished. By pushing these boundries, Mr. Browne is able to create new things. And anything new in fashion, whether SF approved or not, should be seen as a good thing. We can't live forever with the same rotations of clothing over and over again. Certainly the classics are great, but there still has to be refreshing and new.

I do enjoy the comments on RL is a company. I love the company, and think they do a wonderful job from the bottom up. They are likely the only company that I would buy a $20 shirt and a $400 shirt from on the same day. Everything they do is wonderful, and they have done a great job of creating so many different markets for themselves, without diffusing their original values. Yes, obviously Lauren by Ralph Lauren isn't anything near Purple Label, but they are mostly based on the same concepts and I think thats neat. The other brand that comes to mind like that is Tiffany's. They are able to sell $100 jewelry and $400,000 jewelry in the same store. I think that is extremely impressive

 

[amplifiedheat]

Originally Posted by bearsfan172

And anything new in fashion, whether SF approved or not, should be seen as a good thing.

Originally Posted by bearsfan172

We can't live forever with the same rotations of clothing over and over again. Certainly the classics are great, but there still has to be refreshing and new.
Meh. The volume of classics is so large that, combined with seasonality, there's more than one man can do with one lifetime and limited money. The first fall day that I wear tweed, or the first spring day that I wear seersucker? Those are refreshing and new. When my hair turns grey, and my color options change? That will be refreshing and new. The number of different permutations of socks alone boggles the mind. Narrow lapels and high button stance? Not refreshing, not new.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

Meh. The volume of classics is so large that, combined with seasonality, there's more than one man can do with one lifetime and limited money. The first fall day that I wear tweed, or the first spring day that I wear seersucker? Those are refreshing and new. When my hair turns grey, and my color options change? That will be refreshing and new. The number of different permutations of socks alone boggles the mind.

Narrow lapels and high button stance? Not refreshing, not new.

This is why dressing in "streetwear" mode takes a lot more flair and knowledge. What you call choice is uber-restricted (and not that interesting from a more conceptual standpoint).

 

[amplifiedheat]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

This is why dressing in "streetwear" mode takes a lot more flair and knowledge. What you call choice is uber-restricted (and not that interesting from a more conceptual standpoint).

We've been over this. Clothing is not conceptual art. You can be a little postmodernist twit if you want.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

I think the bottom line is that for the most part tailored clothing needs to be something you can wear to an event or to work without ridicule.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

I don't want my bed or house or car to be made by "designers" who "play with the rules." I want them to be comfortable, reliably, and attractive in the long term. Conceptual art may work as art, but the same ethic doesn't apply to functional items. Clothing is functional--the essential question of clothing is "Does it look and feel good?"

You can approach a suit purely as art if you want, but if so, I'd hang it on the wall, not wear it.



We can debate taste all day. I'll say this--while conventional taste is indeed nothing to be impressed by, liking unconventional things for the sake of novelty is dumb. Subjective as taste is, there are common assumptions from man to man and culture to culture. Find me a culture that believes that clothing should fit so that it can barely be buttoned, and we'll talk.

You tell us that the "process is irrelevant" to you (as only the end result counts in clothing) while simultaneously criticizing TB because you don't like the way he participates in the process of designing a collection. Which one is it?

I don't consider design to be art, I was merely discussing a discipline that influences and is influenced by design. I must say I like when designers play with the codes and concepts of modern art, which TB does; he removes or minimizes certain elements (say pants legs) to bring attention to how they normally look (i.e. artists removing perspective). You may think the essential question of clothing is « does it look and feel good » but aesthetics provide a variety of answers to what « beauty » means and even challenges the idea that the aesthetic feeling must be linked to beauty to be relevant. It should also be pretty obvious to you that what is beautiful may not be the same for you and I, since you espouse petit-bourgeois good taste and I go for fashion victimhood. Of course while you may think you dress the way you dress because of a search for beauty you also do it because of your milieu, its norms and maybe even to follow fully enunciated rules (i.e. business formal or casual).

As to what other cultures do well some have very elaborate penis holders so you're entering a wild territory here. Note that it does not matter as having the creative process and the commentary surrounding it be a preeminent part of the way we experience art, literature or design is exactly what OUR culture is all about, you could even say that, in the end, it is its most important characteristic.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

We've been over this. Clothing is not conceptual art. You can be a little postmodernist twit if you want.

Why are you so angry?

On another note classical suiting (like the one you like) often has to do with emphasizing male body parts thought to represent virility (according to western coda), like say the chest and shoulders, thin waist, illusion of height, etc. Idea come from the golden ratio and other very classical/academic conceptions. Isn't it enriching the dialogue that some would go against these established conceptions, you certainly don't have to wear their stuff so why the hate?

 

[Makeshift_Robot]

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

Clothing is not conceptual art.

Except that it is. You yourself are dressing to convey a concept: in your case, a well-worn concept that conveys tradition, wealth, education, status, and masculinity. People consume on a conceptual level; even what you think of as the marks of quality will vary wildly by consumer. Your average 16-year-old can't tell what separates their prom rental from your Poole tuxedo, and you (probably) would have trouble telling me why I should buy Dior raw denim instead of APC raw denim.

The makers of the clothes you buy design their stuff based on this concept, hewing to ideals of moneyed Americana (Brooks Brothers), eccentric English tailoring (Paul Smith main line), or Continental flair (Armani). Other, more radical designers will choose different concepts to convey. But they aren't just making good clothes to hide your nakedness with.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

I think the bottom line is that for the most part tailored clothing needs to be something you can wear to an event or to work without ridicule.

Wearing a classic suit to some workplaces or events will definitely invite ridicule. You do know "suits" are commonly reviled? There isn't a one size fits all lifestyle and outfit.

 

[LabelKing]

I don't like conservative tailored clothing.

I like clothing that is theoretically conservative such as this nonsense:

 

[zeroconspiracy]

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

We've been over this. Clothing is not conceptual art. You can be a little postmodernist twit if you want.

If that's how you feel i recommend never traveling to Japan.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Wearing a classic suit to some workplaces or events will definitely invite ridicule. You do know "suits" are commonly reviled? There isn't a one size fits all lifestyle and outfit.

I wouldn't build a business model around a group of people who want to wear a suit ironically and expect it to be sustainable.