How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Front Row / Fashion... In Depth
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
08-04-2007
  226
V.I.P.
 
Pastry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Gender: homme
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by stilettogirl84
I'm not suggesting that abercrombie is good-

I'm just saying that many times we become so immersed in fashion that we become blinded and we cease to have perspective. We may loose sight of what really looks good or bad because we a re so caught up in what's of the moment or cool
But perhaps your view of loose-fitting, "potato-sack clothes" as being of-the-moment gives away something about the way you think of fashion. Loose clothes are a very specific trend, it's really a very "in-a-nutshell" description of the current state of fashion.

I'm trying to get at a very elusive idea here, but I think this happens to be a good example of how a potentially incredible trend starts, then it's made into a mockery, mass-appeal follows, and now a term called "volume" is carelessly applied to anything and everything loose. In other words, something that starts as an avant-garde movement can so easily be popularized. It's a shame when a vast majority proclaims to love something that can only truly be understood by a vast minority.

To look at this in the context of history is to note that mass media makes it impossible to keep anything exclusive, and arguably, that is the "problem" with fashion today-total lack of exclusivity. Every average Joe Blow updates his style daily.

To look into this issue deeper, is to note that lack of personality is the root of this problem. So many articles now, praise "that old-world notion of personal style" But I think that there is a tribe of designers who can take this generic look and totally subvert it into something intensely personal. raf Simons comes to mind, for example. As one of the active participants on cathy Horyn's blog noted, every theme has been done, what's new is a closely personal vision. And that's why the designers who really shape the forefront of fashion today are those, who just go with the flow. They think something is great, and they put it out. And it also happens to paint a picture of a uniqe and stylish person.


Last edited by Pastry; 08-04-2007 at 07:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
 
08-04-2007
  227
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,848
ilaughead, yes, I think that's true - it was a quick tribute to the previous century and perhaps we will soon be off on a more recognizable tangent than the current one.

gius, I'm trying to examine what someone might mean when they say "Fashion A is bad because it has been done before"? It is because they can identify the inspiration for fashion A and they deem it inappropriate, untimely, unoriginal or simply unattractive.

What are the reasons someone would not be able to identify an item as non-novel?

1) It's a novel design.

2) It's a rehash of a design that is rather nondescript, ie no strong patterns or daring cuts.

3) It uses a unusual references.

4) It combines known designs/styles in a surprising manner.

5) It is a rehash of a design that appeals greatly to the person viewing it. The use of a known design as an inspiration is embraced to the extent that they don't see it, or they see it and ignore it because it's their favourite type of design.

6) The person viewing it is simply unfamiliar with the references (just like I think you were just referring to).

  Reply With Quote
08-04-2007
  228
V.I.P.
 
gius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Gender: homme
Posts: 10,162
^Yes, those are good points
I wonder, for people who say fashion is not moving forward, I wonder if they would agree with you. Then maybe we could pick a fashion design and ask them how it's not new :p It would be an interesting game, don't you think?

I like what Pastry says there... though it's definitely important for a designer to have time to grow 'internally.' It's like what I was saying before about people who 're-invent' themselves each season--it's like they don't know themselves at all. But anyway, even if a designer had the time to nurture his/her talent, will the designs turn out something different? Because some people love designs that are quite traditional--it is just something part of their own style/personality. I have often seen people like this... people who are quite old already and know themselves very well.

  Reply With Quote
09-04-2007
  229
fashion insider
 
misssakura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland/Berkshire
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,381
I'm tired of people being dressed like scruffy hobos and calling it 'fashion' (not that I dislike more disjointed looks but just being unkempt is not in itself an indication of innovation) so I completely applaud the latest trend to copy vintage styles. But I must admit sometimes I find myself wondering "isn't it sad that we have to look to the past instead of finding our own niche?"


Last edited by misssakura; 09-04-2007 at 01:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
09-04-2007
  230
Nyx
front row
 
Nyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Helsinki
Gender: femme
Posts: 238


Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteLinen
I think you are right. But still... for example, the miniskirt did not exist until the 60's, did it? There might have been miniskirts as undergarments, but they weren't used as actual skirts until 60's and Mary Quant? I am not sure if that's right, but I have always thought so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteLinen

Gius, you have a lot of insight on this subject, and you have gotten me to think differently about this subject Maybe I just need a different approach on looking at fashion... because nothing is completely new.


WhiteLinen and Gius, I've enjoyed your conversation so much. I’d like to put in some thoughts your discussion has given me.

WhiteLinen, I understand what you mean by looking for something genuinely new. However, it seems to me that you are losing sight on one important aspect of aesthetical evolution, namely that it doesn't happen in a cultural vacuum.

The fashion revolutions you have alluded to, Dior, Balenciaga, Mary Quant, all happened in a certain point in time. On the background there were political, cultural, demographical, economical factors that all contributed to the trends. All these things are different in the present situation, but they still influence fashion as much as they once did. I’m going to talk about two aspects of these background influences in particular: cultural aspects and the aspects of technology and modes of production.

A new fashion phenomenon is not just a question of materials, silhouette, aesthetics etc. You can produce a really unique garment, but if no one "gets" it, it's 'newness' remains meaningless. By this I don't mean that design shouldn't be "too outlandish" or anything like that, but that it has to be outlandish in a certain way that speaks to people in that moment of time and place. And the time and place, the material circumstances, are also important. For example, the minidress wouldn't have become a phenomenon, had it not emerged on the backdrop of the rising youth culture of the big post-war baby-boom generations and a long period of economical growth. The design was new, but masses embraced them quickly and they sold insane amounts.

So the newness of design, the real originality and never-seen-beforeness that you want, essentially needs to be in sync with what is original and never-seen-before in the society, the culture, the world of meanings that exists in peoples' heads, the conceptual structures through which they see and make sense of the world. Otherwise, it is just not recognised as being new in a meaningful way.

By culture I don't only mean something like "films or pop music influence designers", whatever, blah blah, but economics, technology, globalization of markets, modes of production, world politics, ideologies, hard, boring stuff like that. They all have their impact on how people live, how they want to live, what they expect of their future, who they love, who they hate, what they fear, what they want. They effect the ways clothes can be produced, how they can be distributed, who can afford them, who is going to buy them, what effects their production has for the environment...

You also need to keep in mind that the production of clothes in the era of Dior, Balenciaga and even Quant was very different from what it is now. In the mid-1900s the volume of industrial production was very different from what it is today. Mass production and -consumption were just beginning. Simply put, it was easier to have new ideas when the whole mass consumption culture was still in its infancy. Before that, newness of design wasn't yet the defining factor in how clothes were judged: rather, it was the quality of the craftsmanship and the materials. The constant search for something mindblowingly new is thus not as quintessential a feature in fashion as we often think. It is in fact only a couple of decades old, and only made possible by the technologies that enable very quick production processes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that mid-1900s, clothing was also dictated by a set of quite conservative rules of aesthetics and customs: there were etiquette rules for every possible situation and status position. Breaking them was new: today, there just aren't really such rules to break so ‘newness’ can’t be created that way.

The culture of mass consumption and production has another kind of effect on the possibility of real originality. Think about the way of a piece of clothing from the designer to the factories, and from the factories to the stores. In the mid-1900s this process took ages, without the internet, computers, fast and cheap logistics and free international trade. Today, a piece of clothing can at best take only two weeks from the sketch board to the store racks. The flow of fashion is more liquid, and thus individual designs suffer an inflation. The effect on mass production is that it is not easy to stand out in a situation where there just is so much different stuff in the market.

I know I'm really not answering anything here. I just kind of wanted to make you lift your perspectives from cuts and materials to the broader context in which fashion revolutions happen. Being aware of those in the past is important in that it helps us perceive opportunities for such revolutions in our own time as well.

  Reply With Quote
09-04-2007
  231
front row
 
5AvenueMarceau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 394
This is a fantastic thread and thoughts I've had for a while now have been vocalised, particularly by WhiteLinen, so I shan't repeat what anyone else has said (hopefully! I havent read the first few pages, I apologise if I do repeat something).

I think yes fashion has in the past been very innovative. There are easy examples to pick out, and Le Smoking is a very interesting one.
Everyone knows the stories of women being sent away from restaurants for wearing the suit, but did you know that there was an incident that was almost exactly the same that happened around 1900 (not sure of the date)?
The rise of the bicycle presented a new way in which the long skirts of the time were highly impractical, and the odd few adopted trousers, or bloomers, and sometimes half-skirts on top, and named themselves something like the Rationals. The leader of these women, whose name I can't remember, was middle-aged, rich and respectable, and, like many of the other women, was not a feminist, she wore the bloomers out of practicality. Once on a bike ride, she became thristy and stopped off at a hotel for a drink, the staff turned her away from the ladies tea-room as she was wearing the bloomers, and when she protested, joked that the gentleman's parlor would suit her better.

This story might seem like an argument against fashion as innovative, but actually it proves a hugely different point. Two very similar garments, two very similar reactions, two very different times, but Le Smoking and the cycling bloomers solved two very different problems and thus were each innovative in their own way. This leads me on to your post, Nyx.

I agree with a lot that you say, in fact it is possible to use this story to prove the point you made that the mass-market/the public needs to adopt an innovation to make it meaningful. When you say:
Quote:
that it has to be outlandish in a certain way that speaks to people in that moment of time and place
,
this is true and reflected again in the story. Although most women didn't follow the women who wore trousers, they did adopt it in some small way, and the skirt suit was invented, still with the long skirt but with the fitted jacket the women had worn with their bloomers.

I also agree that
Quote:
it was easier to have new ideas when the whole mass consumption culture was still in its infancy
.
To me though, I think it is more to do with something you touched upon, fashion as a reaction to social/political problems, especially that of the emancipation of women, seeing as women, still to this day, are who fashion (as aesthetically focused garments) is mainly aimed at. I also agree with what you say about the rules and conventions of the past, the boundaries of shock have been pushed so far it is hard to fit in the small space outside of them.
I think that the social issues of today have changed so much, that fashion will take time to adjust. Although there is still a fight for female equality in some arenas, the problem is not big enough to creative a big enough appeal for fashion as the solution.

I sincerely hope that the pure aesthetic side of fashion still has room for innovation, but I think it will take a long time if ever for it to realise where they can go. It's as if the last two centuries or so were a huge pie, and each time an innovation has happened, there is less and less pie left and now we are left with none. I think we'll have to wait for an entirely new pie, which will come in the form of reaction to the social issues of world poverty and the environment, which is hard to translate into aesthetic, and the production process, technical aspects and fabrics will be looked at more closely in terms of what innovation can be found, than silloheute, cut and construction.
Fabric seems the most exciting for us aesthetic junkies, smart-technological fabrics offer more possibilities than ever before. I can already feel it starting, and think that the invention of Lycra in the early 60s (I think it was?) and fashion's embrace of it in the 80s, is the best and first example I can think of. Production processes too though, I suppose, with Issey Miyake's a-poc.

  Reply With Quote
13-04-2007
  232
front row
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 200
Umm I wouldn't call it boring but after seeing fall collections of my favorite designers I feel dissapointed in a way.I guess fall clothes are supposed to give you a depressing mood but they should still be fashionable.I'm really sad the S/S 07 is going to end soon cos I think the best clothes of all time were made in that season

  Reply With Quote
13-04-2007
  233
illustrator
 
HiHeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,057
i'm at a loss. i don't know if it's boredom, but i'm pretty sure i've got better items in my closet than i will find in most stores (in my price range). so i'm certainly not particularly stimulated.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
13-04-2007
  234
V.I.P.
 
stilettogirl84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Middle America
Gender: femme
Posts: 4,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx
The fashion revolutions you have alluded to, Dior, Balenciaga, Mary Quant, all happened in a certain point in time. On the background there were political, cultural, demographical, economical factors that all contributed to the trends.

A new fashion phenomenon is not just a question of materials, silhouette, aesthetics etc.[A new design] has to be outlandish in a certain way that speaks to people in that moment of time and place. And the time and place, the material circumstances, are also important. For example, the minidress wouldn't have become a phenomenon, had it not emerged on the backdrop of the rising youth culture of the big post-war baby-boom generations and a long period of economical growth. The design was new, but masses embraced them quickly and they sold insane amounts.

So the newness of design, the real originality and never-seen-beforeness that you want, essentially needs to be in sync with what is original and never-seen-before in the society, the culture, the world of meanings that exists in peoples' heads, the conceptual structures through which they see and make sense of the world. Otherwise, it is just not recognised as being new in a meaningful way.

By culture I don't only mean something like "films or pop music influence designers", whatever, blah blah, but economics, technology, globalization of markets, modes of production, world politics, ideologies, hard, boring stuff like that. They all have their impact on how people live, how they want to live, what they expect of their future, who they love, who they hate, what they fear, what they want. They effect the ways clothes can be produced, how they can be distributed, who can afford them, who is going to buy them, what effects their production has for the environment...


You also need to keep in mind that the production of clothes in the era of Dior, Balenciaga and even Quant was very different from what it is now. In the mid-1900s the volume of industrial production was very different from what it is today. Mass production and -consumption were just beginning. Simply put, it was easier to have new ideas when the whole mass consumption culture was still in its infancy. Before that, newness of design wasn't yet the defining factor in how clothes were judged: rather, it was the quality of the craftsmanship and the materials. The constant search for something mindblowingly new is thus not as quintessential a feature in fashion as we often think. It is in fact only a couple of decades old, and only made possible by the technologies that enable very quick production processes.
Wonderfully said- Karma for you!

I was trying to think of a way to say this, but could not express it so well as NYx did. That a change in fashion- a real, drastic change that filters down from the runways to the real world always has a basis in a societical change of some kind

__________________
Yes I know I've misspelled everything... ask me if I care
  Reply With Quote
14-04-2007
  235
Nyx
front row
 
Nyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Helsinki
Gender: femme
Posts: 238
Thanks, Stilettogirl84!

  Reply With Quote
17-04-2007
  236
trendsetter
 
Bidwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: France
Gender: homme
Posts: 1,323
Nyx, you made a fantastic argument. We are probably in a period leading up to a revolutionary approach. Periods of disent, dissapointment and distrust often breed such innovations. Punk, hippies, crusties or any number of sub-cultures act as a response to social disorder. The japanese designers in the 80's producing high concept fashion was a good example of innovation that still permeates our aesthetics to this day.
That doesn't occur every 6 months, simple as that. Any new development must have a context for it to be suitably correct otherwise it is simply an experiment and NOT a solution.

__________________
The wisest men follow their own direction.... Euripides
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2007
  237
kus
front row
 
kus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: antwerp
Gender: homme
Posts: 485
also
why the "boredom" dislike.

boredom can be sexy like unchilled wine during heatwave.
white, i mean.

  Reply With Quote
18-04-2007
  238
Of a bastard line.
 
Multitudes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London(& Copenhagen)
Gender: homme
Posts: 9,329
^Yes ... those long hot summerdays slowly sipping the warm Champs Gains 2004, you opened yesterday, but forgot to finish before you collapsed on your bed ... still in the same clothes as last night, sitting falling into boredom with a cigarette in one hand and the bottle in the other, looking out of the open window at the stream of people passing by ... très sexy, très amoureux ...

__________________
We say too much in front of paintings ...
www.becomingmads.com

Last edited by Multitudes; 18-04-2007 at 08:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
28-06-2012
  239
V.I.P.
 
alonsoJonathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Houston
Gender: homme
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamb View Post
"FASHION WILL GO OUT OF FASHION"- Rudi Gernreich
i totally feel this. i mean am i the only one who is tired of this awful mens collections. i mean it really is diff. i havent seen a collection that i would said i like. SMH"

every collection seem to be in a competition on who get the most crazy/extravagant outfit,the shoes are horrible n weird looking,the accesories . it just too much! i want simple stuff,nothing to crazy.

__________________
Anja Rubik,Isabeli Fontana,Natasha Poly
  Reply With Quote
28-06-2012
  240
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 24,751
What's funny, Alonso, is that if you look at the first page of this thread, from almost 10 years ago, you'll see that when things start to get bold or just a decade starts to take shape, or just a season in the midst of a major trend happens, there's always the complaint of fashion being at its most insipid point. There seems to be a fine line between repetitiveness and innovation, and even though they're opposite poles they're almost hard to tell apart from a present standpoint, it's hard to know who's really innovating and who's only recycling ideas (or both) but I think that what's great about fashion is that it is never in absolute stillness. I just looked at the Paris menswear shows for instance and it doesn't look extravagant or repetitive to me.. weird yes, but maybe it's more rawness than weirdness, cause they're still ideas that have not been commercialised but are getting explored by a lot of designers (high-waisted boxy trousers for instance, short sleeves that are big enough to reach the elbow, photography patterns, etc). It may not look genuine because it seems straight out of a trend-forecasting report and obviously has not been combined with more 'assimilated'/simpler items but I think creativity is still existent and 'blooming' in phases like this.

I actually kind of love it when ideas are just being thrown out on to the catwalk without being established because not only you see a more experimental side of the designer but get to explore these silhouettes on your own too and make something out of them before they get entangled with all those rules of "getting it wrong" or "getting it right".

Finally, fashion does go out of fashion very easily, which is why it's healthier (?) to pursue style.. you appreciate more, feel less offended I think (I still take offense in stuff like Blumarine anyway, but I still think that's a style more than just fashion ).

Thanks for reviving this thread, by the way, it's such a great read!

__________________
Metal teeth of carousels.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
boring, fashion, ideas, run
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2014 All rights reserved.