[zamb]

i have been thinking about something lateley.........
As more and more designers are doing collections for mass market retailers, and this seems to be the norm nowadays........
what do we think will be possible long term consequences of this trend. with respect to high fashion. (prices, quality, salability, excusivity etc.)
feel free to post negatives and positives

[belletrist]

Quality = good fabrics + workmanship = money
Democratic design = mass market = Helmut Lang and Jil Sander drama (and more designer to retire soon )
you CAN'T make something democratic that would still have a sense, that's impossible
Tarkovski once said "if classical music could be understood by anyone that doesn't belong to an elite, then it wouldn't have any quality or interest"
Remeber also what Marcel Proust answered to someone rude who asked him how to get invited to the marvellous parties to the Duchesse de ...: "Well... in fact these parties are fabulous precisely because you aren't invited"

+ the "second" line thing is blah. We have never seen a good second line, good design + good quality. D&G, See by Chloe, blah blah blah. And it destroyed the image of the brand. Burberry Prorsum will never be fully respected as long as everyone will be wearing those Burberry London scarves/etc

[Scott]

well,I think designers have been playing the masses for a long time anyway. i mean,look at the impact of Prada and Dior and the like. And celebrity. It's really been going on long before these endeavours so I don't believe doing something for some kind of retailer will make much difference on higher-fashion.

[Karl.Popper]

Did Tarkovski really say that? He must be an idiot then.

What is it to "understand" classical music? To be moved by it? In that case many do. Even the lowliest peasant could appreciate the majesty of a divine mass and be moved by it. Is he then part of the "elite"? Sheesh!

It's like saying "if Jane Eyre could be understood by anyone that doesn't belong to an elite, then it wouldn't have any quality or interest." Really? How about Dumas then. His serialised novels have zero literary quality by this measure - since they were clearly meant for a popular audience. Is this what Tarkovski wants us to believe? Utterly perplexing.

The greater affront lies in his assertion that a work would be devoid of quality or interest if more people understood it - lol! What kind of drivelous nonsense is that?? Surely a work of art, or music, or literature or whatever is what it is by virtue of its own merits. Not because it is generally incomprehensible. This silly conceit is rendered in such breath-taking arrogance by Tarkovski it would be laughable were it not responsible for so much obscurantism in the arts today ("the less understood, the better it must be"). Self-serving nonsense.

[fashionista-ta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl.Popper Did Tarkovski really say that? He must be an idiot then. What is it to "understand" classical music? To be moved by it? In that case many do. Even the lowliest peasant could appreciate the majesty of a divine mass and be moved by it. Is he then part of the "elite"? Sheesh! It's like saying "if Jane Eyre could be understood by anyone that doesn't belong to an elite, then it wouldn't have any quality or interest." Really? How about Dumas then. His serialised novels have zero literary quality by this measure - since they were clearly meant for a popular audience. Is this what Tarkovski wants us to believe? Utterly perplexing. The greater affront lies in his assertion that a work would be devoid of quality or interest if more people understood it - lol! What kind of drivelous nonsense is that?? Surely a work of art, or music, or literature or whatever is what it is by virtue of its own merits. Not because it is generally incomprehensible. This silly conceit is rendered in such breath-taking arrogance by Tarkovski it would be laughable were it not responsible for so much obscurantism in the arts today ("the less understood, the better it must be"). Self-serving nonsense.

Well, perhaps an idiot/snob

Btw, don't believe drivelous is in the dictionary, but it should be ... what a delicious word

What the original remark seems to overlook is that unfortunately, anyone who exhibits any understanding of/appreciation for anything is automatically elite I don't know if that's just human nature, or the depths to which we have fallen (I rather suspect the latter), but it's certainly the place where we find ourselves ...

But I agree with you ... I continue to believe that anyone who's a fan of exclusivity for its own sake, or who believes it's a measure of anything, is really just an insecure snob with something to prove

[softgrey]

i must not be part of the elite cause i have no idea who Tarkovski is...
...

Quote:

Remeber also what Marcel Proust answered to someone rude who asked him how to get invited to the marvellous parties to the Duchesse de ...: "Well... in fact these parties are fabulous precisely because you aren't invited"

and this kind of crap is exactly why i often turn down invites and prefer to stay home...
if these are the kind of jerks who ARE invited to these parties...
who would WANT to go...??!......

since when is being a rude jackass synonymous with having good taste???

****balderdash!!!

but i digress...
honestly...
i find most of the cheap stuff to be just that...
cheap...and not really very satisfying when it comes to scratching my itch for fashion...
sure- it tickles my fancy for a moment...
but it doesn't provide any sort of lasting satisfaction...
not the way the 'good stuff' does...

gimme the good stuff...!!...

[fashionista-ta]

PS I find that "democratic" fashion tends to be targeted to the very young ... so if you don't want a mini-skirt or something that looks like it should be accessorized with a lollipop you're kinda forced to go for the "good stuff" ...

[softgrey]

...
true---they know the grown ups have deeper pockets and they are still digging into ours...

[zamb]

well, ive never been a part of the elite , dont care for the elite

[Scott]

I dunno about your last comment,fashionista-ta. In this sea of mass market and sameness,what's wrong with something exclusive? There's a huge difference between making something exclusive and being an elitist. Let's get that straight. Because,by creating something one-of-a-kind and rare,one doesn't actually disallow anybody not to enjoy it.

[fashionista-ta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott I dunno about your last comment,fashionista-ta. In this sea of mass market and sameness,what's wrong with something exclusive? There's a huge difference between making something exclusive and being an elitist. Let's get that straight. Because,by creating something one-of-a-kind and rare,one doesn't actually disallow anybody not to enjoy it.

Well, I'm not at all sure that you have to escape the mass market to escape sameness ... my whole life I've shopped the relative mainstream and never, not once, have I seen anyone wearing anything I have that I can recall. So I think personal style/taste is the route to uniqueness rather than exclusivity.

Not saying there's anything wrong with exclusivity ... but that in my mind anyway, an object has the same intrinsic value whether there's one or 10,000 of them. Yes, rarity has its appeal (and monetary value), but if you take away the rarity and nothing's left, the object was intrinsically worthless to start with.

I remember my aunt once discarded a blouse because she saw someone of another race wearing it ... I thought that was the action of a weak and narrow mind.

[elschic111]

i definitely think the rise of demi-couture could be related to the increase in democratized design we've seen in recent years...

[lucy92]

i think everyone can apreciate something that's designed well. i think informed consumers are starting to want items designed by real people instead of just a faceless brand.

i think some people would argue here that some folks are just buying into a cult of personality thinking that their lagerfeld for H&M item is on par with lagerfeld's designs for chanel, which i would disagree with.

i also think designers are looking towards designing for function as well. target is selling a camera case designed by alice temperley this week. i'm sure that middle aged men that buy the camera + case goes with arent purchasing the item based on the design merits of the case.

i hope that companies like limited brands and the gap continue to sign up with designers. their survival might depend on it.

[ultramarine]

the consequences of democratic design?

"X designer" for Target ... Ralph Lauren being able to buy Club Monaco ... and P&G buying french labels just to make $$$ for perfume ...

In a nutshell... all the stuff that ruins fashion for me.

[zamb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultramarine the consequences of democratic design? "X designer" for Target ... Ralph Lauren being able to buy Club Monaco ... and P&G buying french labels just to make $$$ for perfume ... In a nutshell... all the stuff that ruins fashion for me.

well i would love for us to look at the future consequences, as i know this kind of thing ( high fashion designers designing for the mass market) has been around for a while, but it has never been as popular as it is now. i think it may create new challenges for us designers in the future, i am also predicting that it will create some unforeseeable (forgive me, i dont know if that is a word, as i am not among the literary elite ) negative consequence,
such as: ruining the image and prestige of brands, also possible closure of higher end collections with such designers going solely mass market.
feel free to examine the possible outcomes/ scenarios and post your comments..................