[Marc10]

During this Couture week, something other than the beautiful garments caught my attention in the discussions over the collection threads: it seems like a lot of members have a lot of different definitions for Haute Couture. Mr. Wikipedia says that Haute Couture is "the creation of exclusive custom-fitted clothing", "it is usually made from high-quality, expensive fabric and sewn with extreme attention to detail and finished by the most experienced and capable seamstresses, often using time-consuming, hand-executed techniques."

But is there something more than that? What truly makes a collection "Couture" and "Not Couture"? Is it the craftsmanship on the garments, the exclusivity of the pieces, details and construction? Is it an embellished gown, a perfectly tailored suit or a avant-garde piece? Is it something we can say through picture or we have to see up close? Is it open for more than one concept and definition?

For me, Haute Couture relies in three words: creativity, precision and sophistication.

But I ask the TFS members: What does Haute Couture really means to you?

[Excentrique]

Great thread! maybe sounds a little stupid, but, for me Haute Couture it´s a dream, it´s Art, i´m a fashion designer, and i see Haute Couture like that, maybe this thread its because the Raf Simmons´s new collection at Dior, and too many members saying "that´s not couture" well mmm for me that´s Couture, but i think they prefer Galliano´s work (me included) but like i said in Dior´s thread, this is a new era, you can like it or not.

[GIVENCHYlover]

For me Haute Couture = details, sophistication, hard work and expensive.

This is Haute Couture (Givenchy by Riccardo Tisci).






f***yeahriccardotisci.tumblr


And yes, this is not HC, are just some ugly dresses (Dior by Raf Simons).


Vogue.co.uk

[KissMiss]

There is a great article about this in Hunger magazine.... Including opinions from different famous designers....

[Psylocke]

^Sounds interesting. Can you post it?


I don't question whether a collection is Haute Couture when looking at it. If it's shown as a HC collection during Paris Haute Couture week then I'll go ahead and assume that it meets all the requirements for Haute Couture. As it says on modeaparis.com

Quote:

> The Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture Didier Grumbach is head of this association whose members include only those companies designated as Haute Couture houses. Haute Couture is a legally protected and controlled label that can only be used by those fashion houses, which have been granted the designation by the French Ministry of Industry. The group of companies that enjoy the Haute Couture label is reviewed annually.

But that does not mean that I don't have expectations of what I want Couture collections to look like. I definitely expect more drama, more extravagance, more refined details, etc. than in Prêt-à-Porter shows. I think the name already says it all, whereas RTW is meant to be worn by 'normal' people, HC is aimed at the elite, royalty and celebrities, therefore I do expect the collections to be a little over the top although I can enjoy a more minimal collection like Raf Simon's first collection for Dior, too.
I think especially with fashion houses that show both HC and RTW you also want the HC collections to look different from the other collections so the expectations are even higher. Dior has done just that for a very long time so I can see why people were a bit perplexed by the understated Couture show by Simons.
So to me HC is both, the craftsmanship but to some extent also a certain aesthetic I associate with it. But obviously the first point can't be argued, if something is Couture it just is, whether you can tell at first glance or not.

[sore]

haute couture emerged in the late nineteenth century in paris, at a time where for the first time in history fashion was a system in its own right. how people dressed had always been related to their social standing in the centuries before, and it still was at the end of the nineteenth century. however, by the end of the nineteenth century bourgeoise woman had inherited the aristocratic right, or, from a feminist point of view, perhaps the burden, to dress up - while most men, enlighted as they were, refused to dress up in what has been called the 'great male renunciation', the role of the woman became associated with the then powerless aristocracy, an intermingling as intricate as irrational.

fashion therefore was closely linked to aristocracy, and it didn't help that fashion ('la mode' in french, female word also in italian, spanish and german) acted like an empress herself, as german philosopher walter benjamin noted. fashion changed, and so did anybody else to be 'up to date'. fashion was the always new, yet always the same old, a 'tiger's leap into the past' (benjamin). fashion changed, but didn't it change just for the change's sake? fashion had become an independent system. as normal as this seems today as shocking was it at first.

this is exactly the time when couture was born, and it is perhaps not accidentally also the time when the 'l'art pour l'art' movement emerged. the first couturier was charles frederick worth, and not only did he produce crafty, glittery dresses, he changed the process of production itself. rich and noble ladies had always had their own dressmakers, and when they wanted something new, they simply described what they wished for. worth, however, was a dressmaker without comissioner, he produced dresses and the ladies chose their favorites afterwards - the dressmaker as an artist was born.

couture was the first insitutional embodiment of the fleeting and volatile power that is fashion. the chambre syndicale was founded at the end of the nineteenth century and remained a powerful authority until today. the chambre decides who can rightfully be called a couturier, and there are several conditions to be fulfilled, for example an atelier with a specific amount of craftsmen, traditionally a maison de couture has an atelier flou for the draped pieces and an atelier tailleur for the tailored pieces and so on.

until around the 1960s fashion was a power from above. couture has always been fashion for the rich, and traditionally the poor imitate the rich in what is called the 'trickle down effect' by sociologists. after world war II, however, things began to change: it wasn't only trickle down anymore, but also trickle up or trickle across. fashion started to come from the streets and soon the first prêt-à-porter collections were shown, relatively affordable collections which are, the name says it all, ready to wear. couture lost its tastemaking monopoly.

i don't know if this little overview helps you, i know it wasn't exactly what you wanted to know, but i think it is important to know where couture comes from when talking about something being 'not couture enough'.

[Zazie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KissMiss There is a great article about this in Hunger magazine.... Including opinions from different famous designers....

Good suggestion, here are links to the definition of "haute couture" according to some designers:

http://www.hungertv.com/fashion/feat...ve-paul-smith/


http://www.hungertv.com/fashion/feat...roland-mouret/

http://www.hungertv.com/fashion/feat...above-thakoon/

Many do not realize that fashion is a regulated business in some ways, eg. the meaning of haute couture or RTW are strictly defined, and not subjective terms up to the individual to decide.

[TianSoFine]

I think a lot of people on tFS are too uptight about enforcing the dictionary definition of couture. Just because a person says, "Couture shouldn't be like this," does not mean that we can just jump to the conclusion that they think couture is all about theatrics. Some people like seeing a bit of detail, something that from the outside looks different from ready-to-wear. Different people appreciate different things.

If someone says, "Fashion design shouldn't be like this," it doesn't mean that they're saying it's not actually fashion design. Comments on couture work the same way. I think people are aware that dressmakers, tailors, etc. worked hard on the Dior collection in a studio and it's couture by definition. That doesn't mean they can't want something more from couture.

[Zazie]

I don't think this has anything to do with a strict meaning as defined by a dictionary - haute couture fashion is governed by rules that are set by the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture which reserves the right to take actions against those who make claims about their clothes being "haute couture" or declare someone's "haute couture" is not "haute couture". From their website :

"Haute Couture is a legally protected and controlled label that can only be used by those fashion houses, which have been granted the designation by the French Ministry of Industry."

It is not right to allege that a designer's collection is "not haute couture" simply because one differs in taste, to use the "haute couture" label in vain is a serious offense. Those who make the accusation better back it up with the evidence that support this serious charge.

Frank views can be exchanged, but to throw out charges like that without making an effort to understand what "haute couture" truly means would undermine the fashion discourse here. Obviously, under the rules of the Chambre, these haute couture collections are by legal definition not "RTW".

To many of us, the difference is visible, and many posters have shared their understanding of these differences, and this great thread is meant to illuminate on furthering this understanding, if not from members here, at least from REAL fashion designers, Mouret, Smith, Thakoon, etc., but it seems fallen on deaf ears.

Makes one wonders then.

Taste, preferences, wants, likes, dislikes, etc. is another matter. Anyone is free to say "I prefer the type of haute couture that looks like *this*, not like *that*, etc.", "This is frumpy, not trendy, etc." or how much they love or hate a collection. Though I do wonder why the hate for so-called "unassuming", "boring", "discreet", Dior haute couture has been taken to such extreme, to the nadir where glowing, unanimously positive reviews that detailed their up-close experiences of the pieces from reputed fashion journalists are dismissed as "bought", when there are much worse specimens out there.

[TianSoFine]

^I don't think you understood my post at all. For example, Chanel is also a legally protected and controlled label, right? A dress might come from Chanel and was made by Chanel and is Chanel by every existing definition, but I can still say something like, "This dress isn't very Chanel."

You say that the argument of good quality has fallen on deaf ears. I think the "we're not blind, we can see the collection too" argument has also fallen on deaf ears. The quality of some dresses are great, but the quality of a lot of ready-to-wear dresses are also great. Believe it or not, ready-to-wear can be of pretty amazing quality when you're paying $5k. I agree that some of the Dior couture ones are superior to high quality ready-to-wear, but I definitely wouldn't say every piece in that collection. Also, there's more to a dress than quality. To make a dress of high quality, even a plain dress with a nice silhouette can be difficult to make, but does it take the same hundreds of hours as something with more complicated embroidery and structure?

[Zazie]

^No, it isn't the same as it's not only superior qualities that make it "haute couture", it is the whole process involved in the creation to the delivery to the clients by an accredited atelier. When you say "This isn't very Chanel", you're referring to how it looks. Haute couture isn't about the final "look", it's the whole process from the designer's head to the delivery of the finished garments which qualifies or disqualifies as "haute couture", not how the collection looks.

High quality RTW isn't "haute couture" either, it is way, way short...some pieces that are particularly precisely constructed or tailored might be described as "having couture qualities"...but that's about it.

Considering that couture gowns can cost up to 1 million, which supports a whole industry, the difference in the quality and intensity of labour can be imagined. It is worth understanding how couture pieces are designed and made, constructed or tailored at the atelier de taileur, draped by the atelier de flou, legions of specialists in embroideries, in buttons, beads, etc., custom-fitted by the construction of a toile, how they must be fitted many times, supported by invisible structures made of pieces of stiffened muslin, all hand-sewn and molded to perfection by fitting experts, etc. This process happens even with a simple jacket. Actually, the simpler the jacket, such as these very fitted modern Bar jackets, the more challenging it is to construct the toile for differently shaped and sized clients, with varying waist-hip proportions. It isn't only obvious work such as embroidery that is skill and labour-intensive. The perfect silhouette is a feat. Only an atelier driven to the precipice of "haute" could deliver, so Raf Simons is really doing something for the rehabilitation of the Dior atelier here, which moves me deeply.

This is why since I have known Raf Simons' ethics, work attitude, I know he didn't choose this direction for the simple reason of rehashing the archives. He is bringing the vision further, to modernity, in abstracting the silhouette and leavening the original heavy construction, at the same time, he is deferring deeply to the revered atelier, which was in moral disarray after the tempestuous Galliano departure and the hugely panned collections by Gaytten. This collection is an applause for exquisite atelier work, a bow to the very old and established House, while the designer's own avant-garde and experimental sensibility is visible but takes a back seat.

Finally, RTW is cut from patterns and then sewn, even if it is by very good seamstresses, it is nowhere at the level of "haute couture". Like Thakoon said, with the highly constructed haute couture, the entire garment supports itself, as if it has its own life. Look at RS's Dior jackets - it will stand on its own even without a wearer.

[Selfportraitgrl]

I may be on an island here, but I don't make a habit of making up definitions for words. A word either is something or isn't, I don't twist the definition to meet my expectations.

With that being said, if I saw a haute couture collection I didn't like (and I certainly have), my first thought would be, "Oh, I don't like this at all," not "This isn't haute couture!" If you like haute couture that is heavy in detail and made of dreams, that's just fine, but that doesn't mean that's exclusively what haute couture is--it just means that's the kind of haute couture you like.

All this nonsense about "this isn't haute couture!" and "that isn't haute couture!" is really rather nauseating to me. Please just say you don't like it, because it seems to me that that's what you really mean to say.

[TianSoFine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zazie ^No, it isn't the same as it's not only superior qualities that make it "haute couture", it is the whole process involved in the creation to the delivery to the clients by an accredited atelier. When you say "This isn't very Chanel", you're referring to how it looks. Haute couture isn't about the final "look", it's the whole process from the designer's head to the delivery of the finished garments which qualifies or disqualifies as "haute couture", not how the collection looks. High quality RTW isn't "haute couture" either, it is way, way short...some pieces that are particularly precisely constructed or tailored might be described as "having couture qualities"...but that's about it. Considering that couture gowns can cost up to 1 million, which supports a whole industry, the difference in the quality and intensity of labour can be imagined. It is worth understanding how couture pieces are designed and made, constructed or tailored at the atelier de taileur, draped by the atelier de flou, legions of specialists in embroideries, in buttons, beads, etc., custom-fitted by the construction of a toile, how they must be fitted many times, supported by invisible structures made of pieces of stiffened muslin, all hand-sewn and molded to perfection by fitting experts, etc. This process happens even with a simple jacket. Actually, the simpler the jacket, such as these very fitted modern Bar jackets, the more challenging it is to construct the toile for differently shaped and sized clients, with varying waist-hip proportions. It isn't only obvious work such as embroidery that is skill and labour-intensive. The perfect silhouette is a feat. Only an atelier driven to the precipice of "haute" could deliver, so Raf Simons is really doing something for the rehabilitation of the Dior atelier here, which moves me deeply. This is why since I have known Raf Simons' ethics, work attitude, I know he didn't choose this direction for the simple reason of rehashing the archives. He is bringing the vision further, to modernity, in abstracting the silhouette and leavening the original heavy construction, at the same time, he is deferring deeply to the revered atelier, which was in moral disarray after the tempestuous Galliano departure and the hugely panned collections by Gaytten. This collection is an applause for exquisite atelier work, a bow to the very old and established House, while the designer's own avant-garde and experimental sensibility is visible but takes a back seat. Finally, RTW is cut from patterns and then sewn, even if it is by very good seamstresses, it is nowhere at the level of "haute couture". Like Thakoon said, with the highly constructed haute couture, the entire garment supports itself, as if it has its own life. Look at RS's Dior jackets - it will stand on its own even without a wearer.

Once again, I'm not trying to belittle the work of the atelier, I know the different between couture and ready-to-wear and I don't need you to tell me that. I'm pretty sure other members of this forum know that too. So if people are talking about how something looks when they say, "This isn't very Chanel", why are you assuming that they also be talking about how it looks when they talk about couture? That's the point of my analogy. I don't think you give other members enough credit if you think they actually mean that they don't think the atelier put a lot of work into it or that the level of craftsmanship isn't high enough.

[Zazie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TianSoFine Once again, I'm not trying to belittle the work of the atelier, I know the different between couture and ready-to-wear and I don't need you to tell me that. I'm pretty sure other members of this forum know that too. So if people are talking about how something looks when they say, "This isn't very Chanel", why are you assuming that they also be talking about how it looks when they talk about couture? That's the point of my analogy. I don't think you give other members enough credit if you think they actually mean that they don't think the atelier put a lot of work into it or that the level of craftsmanship isn't high enough.

I am confused here, so if they are saying "This is not very Chanel." they are referring to how it looks, but when they say "This is not very haute couture." they are *not* referring to how it looks? Can you be specific, as the comments are based on LOOKING at the collection aren't they?

I don't think those who said Dior couture is "not haute couture, this is RTW" based their comments on close examination of the Dior atelier work backstage. They based their statement on how Dior couture looks, which is the point we're debating here, it's not "looks" that determine if a collection merits the label "haute couture".

[TianSoFine]

^I'm saying that the comments are about the look. I thought you said the opposite, I may have misunderstood your post. My point is that I'm sure members wouldn't think that the atelier doesn't put in an effort or doesn't have a high level of craftsmanship. Therefore, the subject of discussion is the look, and not the behind-the-scenes work which you were referring to. So I'm see everyone realizes that it is a couture collections, but people can say it's very RTW the same way people can say a Chanel dress is "not Chanel".