[softgrey]

i am afraid this is turning into the WEIRD AND WACKY thread....
lynn yaeger is not avant garde...
she is just WACKY...or KOOKY ...or QUIRKY...
which is totally fine and fun...and rather brave imo...

but it's not what avant garde really is or really means...

perhaps the avant garde dressers here are better equipped to define what it truly means...

because it's not just wearing weird or wacky stuff...
and i will stick with that and defy anyone who says otherwise...

it CAN be defined ...
it is NOT just whatever anyone decides it is...
it is...what it IS...
pure and simple...



ie- that guy with the moustache is RETRO if he is anything other than just wacky...
but he is definitely not avant garde...period- end of story..
and someone who wears a turban for religious reasons is also not avant anything...
so -OK it's a pink turban...
but ---hello!...'pink is the navy blue of India'...
*as quoted by MS Diana Vreeland herself!!!...
so- not so avant garde after all, is it?!?...

'nuff said...

[softgrey]

gasoline rainbow said..

Quote:

I would argue that avant garde partly has to do with seeking attention, approval, or some kind of reaction

and i would argue the opposite...
i would say that for many people with true style that is avant garde...pushing the envelope...challenging the 'rules'...exploring new territory...
this has very little or, absolutely nothing to do with anyone, except the person who is doing it...
it is not about seeking attention or approval outside of oneself...
it is done for oneself...

if anything...
very often what you might get is stares that are not necessarily approving, or even immature comments regarding your style of dress...

so, i have found that you have to be pretty brave and/or secure in yourself to go this way, regardless of what others might think or say about it...
it's all about a need for self expression and non conformity ...
and i think also to challenge oneself, to keep moving forward and to try new things...

[Petit Lucille]

i thik both of you were stating the same thing, or i got it wrong?

[fashionista-ta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by softgrey i am afraid this is turning into the WEIRD AND WACKY thread.... lynn yaeger is not avant garde... she is just WACKY...or KOOKY ...or QUIRKY... which is totally fine and fun...and rather brave imo... but it's not what avant garde really is or really means... perhaps the avant garde dressers here are better equipped to define what it truly means... because it's not just wearing weird or wacky stuff... and i will stick with that and defy anyone who says otherwise... it CAN be defined ... it is NOT just whatever anyone decides it is... it is...what it IS... pure and simple... ie- that guy with the moustache is RETRO if he is anything other than just wacky... but he is definitely not avant garde...period- end of story.. and someone who wears a turban for religious reasons is also not avant anything... so -OK it's a pink turban... but ---hello!...'pink is the navy blue of India'... *as quoted by MS Diana Vreeland herself!!!... so- not so avant garde after all, is it?!?... 'nuff said...

What this thread had turned into was an extended discussion/argument regarding what avant garde means ... where people were not contributing any examples, but getting caught up in semantics ... so I believe we had agreed awhile back that the term would be self-defining ... that we would have a wide-ranging thread that would include and welcome all things that 'push the envelope'

PS I have reworked the thread title to reflect this ... which actually I had received requests to do a couple weeks back. We could also have a thread about 'pure' avant garde style ... if anyone can tell me what that is

[GasolineRainbow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petit Lucille i thik both of you were stating the same thing, or i got it wrong?

Softgrey, the quote you isolated is misleading. I believe that if you read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that we are saying very similar things. I stand by the idea that we are social beings. Cases like J.D. Salinger, who lives as a recluse, and refuses to publish or even show much of his work to others, are rare. Self-expression and non-conformity necessitate participation in society. One's potential self-expression and non-conformity in their style does implicate other people, even when it is done primarily for oneself.

[William_St_Girl]

For me the line is so fine.... I love to be quirkey... but not wackey!

It's totally individual and a lot depends on accessories... For instance I love coloured tights... but some think that's weird...

I like people who have their own style though... ok maybe not there own completely... but those who dress to impress... whithout doing it by effort... or looking like they try to hard... but yet it looks fab.

I think people with there own style are often those with the most interesting storys and opinions to tell... as they step up to the shops... but make the look up themselves!

[Jazzeh]

to me, avant garde would be subjective. the perception of what is regarded as avant garde would differ between various groups of people, different countries, different regions etc. i would hope that those who dress 'avant garde' aren't doing it for attention, but for their own enjoyment...

[BerlinRocks]

interesting thread ...

avant-garde has been defined ages ago ... and i'm surprised noone here post any definition. though softgrey - in the middle of all subjective opinions - tried to draw lines, nobody seem listening to her ... and i'm not even sure this thread has something to do with avant-garde.

i know nothing about avant-garde in Fashion. But I know avant-garde has been defined in art ... and though we might have some theoricians around here who would like to discuss if avant-garde still does exist in art. the avant-garde belongs to a history period (modernism).
end of the story (that's the expression right ?)

i think a lot of people here misunderstood dandysm, excentrism etc. with avant-garde.
* a lot of picture here shown belong to dandy or excentric, not avant-garde *

i know it will sound weird but back in the 90s Jeremy Scott was, IMO, someone avant-garde in occidental fashion business. he totaly pushed the limits of academism !
JPG when he dressed men in skirts was avant-garde !

but what is profoundly weird in this discussion is that you consider dressers as avant-gardistes, while I do consider designers (artists) as avant-gardistes. So ... there's already a problem ... How a dresser could be considered avant-gardiste ?

Oh ... and ... Though I have nothing against SeaofShoes, I barely see what sort of avant-garde she is ... She has a great look (and a fully filled wallet, imo) but she has nothing to do with avant-gardism. IMO, she even turns the avant-garde into bourgeoisie ... Where basically all avant-garde ends !

[GasolineRainbow]

Quote:

i'm surprised noone here post any definition.

Arrogant as it is to toot my own horn, myself and others have suggested definitions of 'avant garde' on this thread, both in relation to art and fashion, and our own subjective views.

[softgrey]

yes- i don't understand why the ACTUAL DEFINITIONS are being ignored...
and why people think they can make one up?!...
talk about eccentric......



well- then we already have a thread about eccentric dressing so i guess i'll just merge the two...
since the point of this excercise was about creating an avant garde style thread...
which this isn't!

thanks to everyone for trying anyway...

[softgrey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasolineRainbow Softgrey, the quote you isolated is misleading. I believe that if you read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that we are saying very similar things. I stand by the idea that we are social beings. Cases like J.D. Salinger, who lives as a recluse, and refuses to publish or even show much of his work to others, are rare. Self-expression and non-conformity necessitate participation in society. One's potential self-expression and non-conformity in their style does implicate other people, even when it is done primarily for oneself.

fine- but i stand by the fact that nonconformist can mean many things and that someone like isabella blow would be attention seeking...

and i would say that blow is eccentric or wacky
so it's not the same...

[Crying Diamonds]

I always think avant garde is a lot more subtle than eccentricity.
I always imagine avant garde clothes as plain but cut in a very unusual way or in a sculptural manner.
The phrase 'avant garde' fits the category for noteably different, but not in a shocking sense.
Think Jil Sander F/W 09 and not Jean Charles de Castelbajac F/W 09 . . that falls into Eccentic+

[BerlinRocks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasolineRainbow Arrogant as it is to toot my own horn, myself and others have suggested definitions of 'avant garde' on this thread, both in relation to art and fashion, and our own subjective views.

I'm sorry ...
I was just saying a generic definition to work on ... It's not like avant-garde (in art, politics, music etc.) was never defined !

it can sound dumb but i've never read anything about avant-garde dresser before so i thought this thread would be very interesting reading.

but i hadn't find anything very striking among interesting posts to tell me what avant-garde dresser is ...
* not sure this would be taken the right way ... *

sometimes i just need visuals ... it's easier for me ... and i should follow different people that the examples are not for me avant-garde but something else (excentrism, dandysm, cross-dressing etc.)

for instance i was sad there were no editorials (stylists works) posted here as i think it would an interesting start to see how someone can be avant-garde with someone else creations, how you can be avant-garde with a look ...

Ray Petri for instance is someone I consider avant-garde in his work.
and his follower Olivier Rizzo, too.

[Milada]

I´m going to say no for myself. My body is more tailored for sleek and classic. I´m more identifiable by what I don´t wear than what I do. I avoid most trends because I just know what´s not for me. No one can convince me that something atrocious is cool or looks good. I never fell for Dooney & Bourke´s (when Lindsay Lohan was doing the campaign) or Louis Vuitton back in high school when everyone flaunted theirs and complimented each other on their taste. It was like a right of passage. Sick, really. Never did UGGs, even though my campus of 10´s of thousands of 18-25-year-olds might be the most concentrated collection of them in the world. I wouldn´t be caught dead in sweatpants and I rarely wear sneakers (unless they´re my chucks). Haven´t worn a headband since childhood. No Ed Hardy for me. I have rarely worn leggings and never the half-ways, especially not with a skirt. I don´t even own a pair of low-rise jeans. Man, I´m too tired to think of the good ones right now. This is starting to resemble trends I hate, with the added kick of trends that don´t suit me.