[Poshytuffy]

Well, technically is not anything new per-se, but is definitely a fresher take on the current trends, yes, we are back to basics, Tommy @ Jak&Jil call this trend, 'The Philophiles', thanks to the talented Phoebe Philo, what do you guys think of this new take of minimalistic?

I am definitely lovin' it~
(please, no more ridiculous 80's trends, they are starting to scare me)

p.s: Oh and I'm new here, haha, so HELLO everyone!

[LolaSvelt]

I think the 80s trend is horrible, too. Especially when you go to Topshop. I'd rather go for the minimalist look like you said. So much better.

[Poshytuffy]

Hello
Yah, at least the pieces are much more wearable and versatile, not to mention, you won't have to worry about wearing one to two seasons and is game over, time to buy new pieces.

Menswear is also heading towards the same directly, except with a bit more Mad Men influence.

[fritze]

I'm extremely tired of people trying really hard to look "trashy" and "rocknroll". I love what you call " a new take on minimalistic" especially because it usually means looking sharper and more cleaned up. It's like a breath of fresh air.

[gius]

Any examples? I wonder how different it is to before

[Fewormany]

These are some pictures from the blog the topicstarter mentioned. I leave it to you to decide if it's done different then before, I don't know enough about fashion to judge that. I do know I like for fresh and clean it looks.












All pictures from jakandjil.com

[fritze]

to me personally I don't really see a difference. but what I like is the exposure this look gets. I like seeing people in clean cut clothes instead of ripped denim shorts and bedazzled shoulder padded t shirts or whatever.

[Lapin de Lune]

I welcome it with open arms!
I am actually excitied by it, and the prospect of future shopping trips. Not an 80's fan myself, either. I sometimes wonder why it has lasted so long.
Perhaps because the 70/60's have been rehashed so many times already......

Veering ever so slightly off topic: I am not a fashion student and am still feeling my way through fashion history, so the whole revisited trends thing really intrigues/confuses me. Why are earlier trends so rarely revisited, like the 40's, 50's, etc? There are elements popping up, but never anything substantial or so stylistically overt (reaching the streets), like the 80's trend.

Does fashion ever look beyond the 60's? I am sure it does, but in terms of an actual 'revival', oh how I would love one!

[YoninahAliza]

I relish the chance to wear such clothes that Philo is creating, its such a breath of fresh air compared to other recent trends (like bringing back the 80's..yuck!). I don't think that their is anything completely 'new' about these clothes but I do like how Philo is presenting them. Its all been done before but I am glad that this is one trend which is making a comeback.

[tuetre]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapin de Lune I welcome it with open arms! I am actually excitied by it, and the prospect of future shopping trips. Not an 80's fan myself, either. I sometimes wonder why it has lasted so long. Perhaps because the 70/60's have been rehashed so many times already...... Veering ever so slightly off topic: I am not a fashion student and am still feeling my way through fashion history, so the whole revisited trends thing really intrigues/confuses me. Why are earlier trends so rarely revisited, like the 40's, 50's, etc? There are elements popping up, but never anything substantial or so stylistically overt (reaching the streets), like the 80's trend. Does fashion ever look beyond the 60's? I am sure it does, but in terms of an actual 'revival', oh how I would love one!

^ here's to going off topic : I think fashion does get influenced by fashions from before the 60s - cinched waists and small shoulders, flapper dresses, closed necks, lots of feminine detailing, trench coats, lace-up boots, pointed toes - that's all from before the 60s! However, I think major fashion revival of decades (anything stylistically overt or substantial, like you said) before the 60s is less likely to happen because it's very remote in relation to the fashion we have today (long dresses for weekday wear, structured lingerie that lends a different feel to the clothing - look at Mad Men). It would be much harder to get people on the streets to dress that way because it wold require much more of a drastic change than say, adding a few fluorescent items of clothing to your closet, or wearing big glasses. So some of pre-60s influence does trickle down to fashion on the streets, but it's very watered down, and we often don't even realize it originates in fashion from so far back - I mean, when lace-up boots are the trend, no one says "oh, look, revival of 1910." Because the lace-up boots idea has been reused often enough since, that 1910 isn't the most recent source of the style. That's my theory anyway, does it make any sense?

[Poshytuffy]

Thanks girls for the thoughts, and I agree, fashions is really all about recycling with minor tweaking here and there e.g. materials, darts manipulation, fits and accessories, but overall, is still pretty much same idea.
I think few people really do try to push the envelope in terms of designs, e.g. Hussein Chalayan & Yohji Yamamoto but in reality, is either not budget friendly enough or practical enough for the majorities....shame actually.
But I think Stella McCartney did a fantastic job at creating wearable pieces that doesn't scream too loud on 'recycling' trends, of course, there is Phoebe too.

I do still see people stuck in the 80s time warp on the street from time to time, ahhhh~

[Lapin de Lune]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuetre ^ here's to going off topic : I think fashion does get influenced by fashions from before the 60s - cinched waists and small shoulders, flapper dresses, closed necks, lots of feminine detailing, trench coats, lace-up boots, pointed toes - that's all from before the 60s! However, I think major fashion revival of decades (anything stylistically overt or substantial, like you said) before the 60s is less likely to happen because it's very remote in relation to the fashion we have today (long dresses for weekday wear, structured lingerie that lends a different feel to the clothing - look at Mad Men). It would be much harder to get people on the streets to dress that way because it wold require much more of a drastic change than say, adding a few fluorescent items of clothing to your closet, or wearing big glasses. So some of pre-60s influence does trickle down to fashion on the streets, but it's very watered down, and we often don't even realize it originates in fashion from so far back - I mean, when lace-up boots are the trend, no one says "oh, look, revival of 1910." Because the lace-up boots idea has been reused often enough since, that 1910 isn't the most recent source of the style. That's my theory anyway, does it make any sense?

Thankyou for sharing your thoughts on that subject, you make perfect sense!

[Desi]

I just took it as the masses (i.e. me) trying to imitate the wealthy. wardrobe trickling down from the billionaires, to the millionaires, to the hundred thousands, and the tens of thousands. Since the truly wealthy have little interest in flaunting around gaudy pieces as they did in the 1800's it just seems right. Last week I remember gagging because the LV editorial in 10Men was gorgeous and simple compared to something on the opposite end like 80's Versace.

[newprincesita]

I am craving for simpler, more raw and decent clothes. I woudn´t call this minimalistic and I don´t dare to call myself a Philophile (¿?¿). But I crave simple, plain, well cut, adult clothing. I am an adult, I´m so fed up with fads and revivals.

as an avid Mad Men fan I often surprise myself thinking: This is so flattering...why don´t we use this anymore? The tailoring, the details, the clothes you wore for long time...

[adorefaith]

I agree with Yonina..not sure that there's anything 'new' about this, but then again i don't know that anything ever is. and i am not clear about how exactly minimalism is defined either because people throw that word around whenever something is clean, 'pure' and without fuss.. but i do love this careful, refined sense of dress and am more drawn to it than ever.

The last picture in post 6 says it all for me..
http://jakandjil.com/blog/wp-content...hilophile7.jpg

i think Phoebe Philo is doing a particularly good job of this right now. even when she was at Chloé, though she was going in a different direction to the one she is going in now, she seemed to display a really keen sense of focus and i think that is what we're noticing. she seems to have a really discerning eye that edits out every last thing that is in any way unnecessary, without meaning etc.. and so you are left with this combination of shapes, lines and fabrics that seem so complete, like someone stopped right before the line of excess. maybe that's restraint, i don't know. a clear vision, definitely. and that is what this style is about too, for me.. having a really clear, defined image in mind. someone mentioned this being some sort of imitation of the style of the wealthy and elite... but i think what's wonderful about it is that you can find a great pair of affordable fitted black pants and a grey cotton sweater from h&m, for example, and piece them together with a few carefully chosen accessories and the vision is the same.

Tilda Swinton's wardrobe in I am Love (although expensive, i admit, and purposely so) fits very much within this aesthetic as well.