Can Luxe keep being produced in a safe, non-offensive space?

[audace]

As I sat there, wondering... With the SATC intro done, the question in title.

What do you believe?

Here goes nothing, my personal view: no, it cannot. The primary element of nostalgia is discussion, the primary element of discussion is memorability and distinction, and the primary element of memorability and distinction is being risqué. This is not a challenge to the reality and other views, simply what I thought of the cause, the consequence and the relationship to what we have today.

The majority here in Random Fashion Moments post Karl, Margiela, Anna, Yves, Coco, Hedi, and others, who are known mainly for being a controversy and a personality. Very little people would say Frida or Maier were a good memory. And I am talking about the higher top-to-middle fashion iceberg. I do not mean people like myself and some other members here, who have spent the majority of their lives working for the industry or simply spending all their free time on studying it.

The moments that stick to the mind are Testino's sweaty men or Steven Klein shooting Kate dressed as a possessed nun for W, not Kim K by Carlijn Jacobs (I say this as someone who believes Carlijn is the best new photographer of today). The industry caused a brief controversy before by plus-size inclusion, but as the tight standards for models (mannequins) that we had for centuries got lowered, so did the outcome. Fashion and Luxury Fashion are different beasts, hence the title. Luxury Fashion was a narrative totally inaccessible yet desired by the majority, because Gisele was too sporty for an average human or Snejana Onopka was too skinny with their faces being too perfect. A symbol for striving and trying to achieve something that many may not, because they were born with less height, less money, worse metabolism and etc.

A lot of people back then if were not offended by this, they either did not care or looked at it as truly the model - an aspiration to achieve and something to put yourself into. I also wanted to be Daria Werbowy from Vogue Italia, despite back then being a 14 year old boy. I could not, but I wanted to: with the attitude, the allure and the dreamy mystery.

As the space became diluted by more brands, constantly changing designers, models, ideas, and more inclusivity, I believe that the extremely tight and heavy metal gates inside the world of exclusivity and "I want to be like them too" became rotating glass doors that are easy to see-through and are just as easy for any person to wander into. As much as we all, especially brands above all, want to please everyone, luxury fashion and appeal to the masses is the immovable object meeting unstoppable force: neutering each other and nobody wins in the end.

A separate question, but it does stem form the main one: what keeps you in fashion? Are you in fashion at all?

Personally, I am not except reading very select threads here or looking at 3-4 brands that I enjoy. I do not look at magazines anymore: less pop ones as 032c became too niche, featuring a rotation of random people I cannot care about as the rotate too often and I have no memory or idea of who they are... And big titles are extremely sad. I recently picked up Vogue US of this September as I went to the spa and it was the first time I spent an hour on a magazine. Later on I wished that I had not and Vogue remained in my nostalgia. The pages overrun by low-tier or mid-tier brands. The biggest amount of ad pages were by... H&M! 8!

The article on a home-kit for gut testing being the longest writing piece... When we a decade ago the least important pieces were about the best caviar or a view into the home of Lynn Wyatt. I feel sorry for everyone reading Vogue these days, because I feel just as much how your nostalgia and longing for the ultimate quality of the past has shattered.

Should the old guard exist? Should we accept that the time has passed and luxury became a victim of commodification and mass culture? If it is a niche now, where does it reside? I seemingly cannot find it. The old luxury has died, and the new luxury never arrived.

 

[Phuel]

In short, no LOL

The concept of the ultimate, luxurious, and exclusive, ideal imagery, conjured by the most creative of talents, and for an audience/consumer/demographic that yearns to be challenged, inspired, provoked and most importantly, educated, is a thing of the past. And sadly, these once-great creatives' time has passed as well. The new generation of creatives are no longer leaders, just meek followers. Worse, they no longer want to make the most effort for anything, anymore. Better talents like Carlijn Jacobs and Annemarieke van Drimmelen don’t have the pull and demand that lessers like Rafael Pavarotti and Tyler Mitchell have, so their level of excellence aren’t given he exposure to influence people’s standards. And worse than this era being one of mediocrity., it’s the greediest fashion era yet. …Just let it pass, as all fashions do. Something new— and superior in the tradition and standard of the old guard, will come along.

Those of us privileged to have experienced that glorious high fashion golden age of the 90s-2000s need to let go and accept that the past will never return. This current fashion era is what turned me off my former addiction to high fashion. I will always be interested in high fashion. But I’ve also learned that I don’t need it. And that’s very liberating.

 

[blueorchid]

Of course it can. I mean... how did luxe exist before the "liberation" of the mid-1960s. If you look at Vogue or Bazaar during those times, it was quite conservative by today's standards and about 100X more creative.

 

[NYLA22]

In terms of fashion magazines and fashion journalism in general, there is nothing left, in my opinion. The height for me was early 2000s W and Vogue and 90s-era (Liz Tilberis) Harper's Bazaar. There is none of that left, and even if a tiny bit of fashion criticism still exists (via Cathy Horyn, Vanessa Friedman, Tim Blanks) not enough people care about them anymore. I don't work in fashion, but I did work in publishing, and from my perspective, everything has degraded thanks to greed, as @Phuel explained. Our society in general (not just fashion) has devolved and degraded so much because of money and endless greed. Look at the state of publishing: it has become a wasteland due to chasing clicks, which means that everything feels the same, neutered, and watered down (like a few years ago when every single magazine website covered every move of the Kardashians, for example, whether it was Vogue or Architectural Digest lol) to the point where you could have A.I. generate the story and slap a clickable headline with the sole purpose of squeezing more advertising pennies out of advertisers, which base their spending on page views. It's all insane and depressing.

This is random, but I also remember being obsessed with those TV shows like House of Style, Fashion File, Video Fashion Weekly when I was a kid in the 90s. I don't know if anything like that exists now, but (this may sound silly) Vogue and those shows were instrumental in my ability to dream of a life outside of my suburban upbringing and to understand what kind of career I wanted. They are probably the reason I moved to NYC. I don't know if kids today have those same aspirational influences, and I'd be curious to know what inspires young people now, who might be interested in this world.

 

[Nimsay]

No. Quite simply the pendulum has gone the other direction.

What you're complaining about is quite simply the result of the democratization of fashion. Including the previously not included ruined fashion.

It should be noted that anyone who mentioned this was attacked back when this was first occurring and pointed out that including undesirables would ruin fashion. They were attacked, Karl pointed this out and nothing media spent time trying to trash him for it. Thats why the media is irrelevant in 2024, stuff like that. People remember Karl being attacked by that BBC reporter over something everyone agrees with. People didn't like a seeing a living legend being bullied by a literal nobody.

Everyone agrees fashion should be beautiful and aspirational.

Anna Wintour appears to be leading the pack. Dior and now Chanel (possibly) eschewing her suggestions for CD will surely cause isolationism at Vogue. If anything Anna needs to start cultivating OTB and Capri and make sure to send customers to LVMHs competitors ...

 

[Phuel]

This is random, but I also remember being obsessed with those TV shows like House of Style, Fashion File, Video Fashion Weekly when I was a kid in the 90s. I don't know if anything like that exists now, but (this may sound silly) Vogue and those shows were instrumental in my ability to dream of a life outside of my suburban upbringing and to understand what kind of career I wanted. They are probably the reason I moved to NYC. I don't know if kids today have those same aspirational influences, and I'd be curious to know what inspires young people now, who might be interested in this world.

:sigh:Fashion File:sigh: Tim’s uncensored and thoughtful opinions of fashion, and the no-nonsense doc-style presentation was my first education of the industry. Contrast that to the FT fluff-piece of Jeanne Baker’s nose so far up everyone’s a55 that offered and provided not a whiff of opinion and insight. Tim was my first fashion hero. Models would light up when I show them the brand of rich worldbuilding imagery that we grew up on in abundance in the 90s-2000s. Whether they will be profoundly effected by it the way that I was by Liz/Fabien/Franca/Bruce is unsure— but likely not since they're young and the majority won't be in the industry in 3years: After our brief meeting, they’ll likely just go back to TikTok and it's flexing cloutchasing influencers.

Even so-called insider publications like Purple, Self-Service and Another are nothing close to what they once were.

 

[NYLA22]

Tim’s uncensored and thoughtful opinions of fashion, and the no-nonsense doc-style presentation was my first education of the industry.

Absolutely. FF/Tim legitimized fashion for me as something that could be taken seriously, that it was a merging of art and commerce. I wish there was an archive of full episodes available online. (I don't think there are even many clips on YouTube).

 

[blueorchid]

So, are we talking about the entirety of fashion... or just 1990 to 2010 that people feel nostalgic for? That's a really tiny window.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ It’s not nostalgia. The creative and intellectual progression of fashion presentation hit its zenith during those decades— taking its inspiration and influences from the 1950s and 1960s. And doing so without copying those decades wholesale. Meisel may be accused of plundering Avedon/Penn/Bailey, but at his best tributes, he made it all his own. That era of fashion balanced daring creative expression, technical and production innovation with a great understanding of accessibility like no other fashion era. Looking back at those magazines, I can still learn about lighting, composition, casting, storytelling and still covet the fashions that’s being sold: It progressed teh art of fashion narrative and storytelling of the past fashion eras with teh relevance of the times. That’s entirely reliant on hard-earned skills and experience alongside creative talent. The 1950s and 1960s had many freedoms— and that would include freedom from business obligations that the 1990s and 2000s were not privileged to have had. And nowadays, even less (…the Korean publications thrive because they are nearly all advertorials and brand ambassadors that make up the content. While a more artsy, and at times amateur publication like Vogue Adria— which seems to reference the 1960s and 1990s rather blatantly and affectionately, likely still has an uncertain future). After the 2000s, any signs of creative and intellectual progression halted to a dead standstill; with identity-politics representation taking its place. Nevermind exclusivity and individuality of creative expression, but even technical high standards became a dirty word and a canceled concept.

 

[alwaysademo]

I don't think it's that existential. Believe it or not, there's a substantial minority out there who shares your exact sentiment. I think it's a matter of searching for the pin as opposed to searching for the pulse. Every era offers something of depth on its own because it cannot help itself. It's definitely not on the pages of Vogue though.

 

[Drusilla_]

^honestly I can see what @Phuel is saying, I'd argue it's even reflected in the differences between the content of 00s fashion blogs vs fashion influencers and fashion substack/tiktok now - the earlier wave of blogs might have been long-term unsustainable on a time/financial basis but amateurs genuinely had a range of perspectives and genuine points of view in how they engaged with fashion. Now the choices are between flat-out consumerist 'buy this from affiliate link' influencers who've been wholesale bought and paid for and would never dare to utter a negative word for fear of alienating the almighty brand deal (basically taking the place of magazines), and Tiktok 'YASS QUEEN' or tiktok/substack 'like fashion? here's why it's immoral and please punish yourself for it by declaring public abstention and educating us all on how it's every '-ist' and '-ism' in the spectrum of sins'. Some of that difference is commercialisation, but not all of it.

 

[Drusilla_]

I don't think it's that existential. Believe it or not, there's a substantial minority out there who shares your exact sentiment. I think it's a matter of searching for the pin as opposed to searching for the pulse. Every era offers something of depth on its own because it cannot help itself. It's definitely not on the pages of Vogue though.

yeah we're in the era where it's harder and harder to have print editions, and imho fashion editorial images just do not have the same impact when they're 'for digital'
but I will say this.... Vogue's smaller-circulation Asian editions (Taiwan, HK, Philippines) are delivering - on a consistent basis - far better fashion imagery than the ridiculousness at the big western editions.

 

[alwaysademo]

Better talents like Carlijn Jacobs and Annemarieke van Drimmelen don’t have the pull and demand that lessers like Rafael Pavarotti and Tyler Mitchell have, so their level of excellence aren’t given he exposure to influence people’s standards. And worse than this era being one of mediocrity., it’s the greediest fashion era yet. …Just let it pass, as all fashions do. Something new— and superior in the tradition and standard of the old guard, will come along.

Purely out of genuine curiosity, can you elaborate? I'm only asking because what I'm seeing is on the other side of the spectrum: Rafael P's shine has long come off, he is getting advertising works from H&M and less prestigious publications (Perfect Mag par exemple) whereas Carlijn J has consolidated her status and is attracting a much more bluechip roster of clients, both in advertising and print. AvD's career is too regionally specific for her to broaden her audience, so in no way an equivalent to CJ. CJ is a top-tier newcomer as far as I'm concerned and will no doubt go further in her hf career. My problem with her is that while being very impressive at first glance, her work is not as creative as people make it out to be, it's like many we've seen in the past 20 years: a well-sung cleverly twitched cover of another artist' work. A curator/re-photographer. She's another DJ and doesn't say something of substance on her own... yet. But it has educational value and looks very very polished. That alone is a feat.

yeah we're in the era where it's harder and harder to have print editions, and imho fashion editorial images just do not have the same impact when they're 'for digital'
but I will say this.... Vogue's smaller-circulation Asian editions (Taiwan, HK, Philippines) are delivering - on a consistent basis - far better fashion imagery than the ridiculousness at the big western editions.

I agree with you to a degree and notice this very real enthusiasm in Asia toward their local fashion publications, maybe it hits a nerve because it's a truly new phenomenon (people never consumed luxury the same way there) and thus the budding talents are 'platformed' in a meaningful way that sort of echoes how Vogue used to be for people living through the 60s-00s. But if we're to do a closer analysis, the calibre of their fashion imagery benefitted enormously from the vast archives of the likes of Vogue. I always notice how Chinese photographers in particular are masters of the technical aspect of photography (lighting, grading etc.), but none has yet created something truly visually striking in the same way that say, Vogue Paris has, something that has cultural impact. Maybe it's way too soon for me to come to a conclusion though. I notice you mentioned smaller-circulation ones and I too did find Chiang Ming-Shih compelling around 2022 (hope it's the right spelling), but she doesn't work much...

 

[Drusilla_]

^I honestly think some of that lack of broader cultural impact by Asian photographers has to do with the lack of platforming in the other direction e.g. Vogue China will hire western photographers, but you'll rarely find Vogue US hiring a Chinese or Korean one. Also I think western magazines over the last decade haven't been giving those kind of chances to newer Asian (as in, based in Asia) photographers, not the way i-D or Jalouse used to do for Nobuyoshi Araki, or they water down their work when they do hire someone (e.g. Hong Jang-hyun for Vogue Italia). But in general, if you pick up say, Elle Korea or Vogue Taiwan or even a local publication like So-En, even with Korean publications growing dependent on kpop idols the photographs are generally of a higher calibre than the average editorial or cover on Vogue UK/US/France/Italy.

 

[alwaysademo]

^I have a personal take on this, don't know if it necessarily resonates to anyone, but when I look at Asian fashion creatives not through a continental collective lens but as each region on its individual basis, Japan remains the model with a stellar track record. Some of it I accredit to their deep commitment to experimentalism within the arts which has allowed very early on for extreme forms of expressions, thus an ancient temple can coexist in complete harmony with say, the Harajuku branch of the culture on the same street corner. Same as in film/music/architecture/furniture/on and on. They were the first of all regions to have something outrageous and non-conforming in their national portfolio to present to the world. Rei and Yohji in the 80's exemplified this, they were welcomed with open arms in Paris in practically 20 seconds of their arrivals, and then Kenzo and Issey too. I remember Karl touched on them a bit where he said "the best of Japan belongs to Paris and not Japan" sth along the line. Araki is a homegrown talent known internationally just for his domestic work, and Hiro worked for the longest time as just a top-tier international photographer and never a Japanese photographer (his work is not representative in anyway of Japan). All major photographers have flirted with Japanese culture one way or another, Japonisme is an actual thing in French culture. I'm ranting here for no reason but my point is Japan had mysteriously cracked the code very early on into western fashion, has been actively embraced by/ in turn influenced fashion... just by being authentically themselves.

I see that Koreans are on their way to do the same and the Taiwanese as well but Chinese creatives on the other hand, I have a feeling it's a bit forced, like they're entering HF through commercial demand, which is a valid form of entry too, but it's not the same as moving people with their creative excellence or sheer presence. I'm keeping an eye on Liu Song though, his work seems more modern than some others.

It's not a fair comparison at the end of the day to put a Korean mag next to a Italian mag. They're at different points in their fashion development. I'm sure the freedom Asian creatives are having is extreme and something their European/US peers can only dream of now.

 

[Drusilla_]

^I think you have a point there re: Japan being more developed in terms of the aesthetic industries/collective taste, I also think that for the other big East Asian economies (China and Korea) this lag could be seen in a political context - Cultural Revolution, censorship and opening up only 30-odd years ago, then Korea being under a military dictatorship until the late 80s. But yes, the more interesting work I mentioned did come out of smaller-circulation editions. Also, Asian magazines - thanks to their countries' demographic composition - aren't really fettered to DEI-ing their talent the same way that seems to be happening in western editions of the same magazine, even with the consolidation at Conde it's clear there's still some kind of bar to be met in terms of quality.

 

[alwaysademo]

^It's the most terrible thing that ever happened to fashion. I think we're beginning to see the true consequence of wh*ring fashion out to Hollywood, we're never going to be on the same footing anyway. Like the idea of a Vogue Europe is as ludicrous as the idea of a Vogue Asia, the idea that physical proximity somehow equals likeness of substance... this line of thinking is so against the nature of fashion itself. We used to celebrate things for their singularity. In better times and for some of us, fashion is a means to escape reality but now it seems to be the glaring reflection of that mediocrity.

I don't know if you know this already @Drusilla_ but in Annie Vitz book she mentioned how she formed her photographic eye by being on the move a lot and always looking through car windows and seeing thousands of frames per day. If you really squint through the body of her work, her specialty is the horizontal composition. She leaves her best ideas for the double page. I've checked and there many occasions where she initiated a key advertising picture (e.g. the Coppolas for LV) as a horizontal, then had to do a bunch of ps to compress it for print purposes into a vertical. I think it's funny that someone like her who was perhaps the most culturally relevant in the US just a decade ago with that way of seeing (which is natural to the human eye) is actually making less sense now for the mass who are consuming all visual data vertically on a daily basis. Like, just the device we're using affects our way of seeing enormously and therefore the creative process. But I digress.

What's a smaller publication/photographer in Asia would you recommend?

 

[Drusilla_]

oh yeah good point about the fact of vertical/square (for instagram) being now basically the only shape of images we see.

re: magazines, I won't pretend East/southeast Asian ones are free from the celebrity domination either - kpop idols and Chinese/Korean actors endorse every luxury brand and are on every cover, and like their Hollywood counterparts, some of them suit fashion and some don't. But it's still worth checking out, especially the homegrown titles - Japan has the most and they've been around longer but of all the magazines I personally own issues for, I like So-En, Zipper (discontinued publication some years ago and now they're back), Vivi and Spur. In Korea their local editions of Elle and Cosmopolitan have really strong photography but back in the day the Japanese and Korean editions of ElleGirl were also really creative and original. They also have High Cut, but it's a celebrity vehicle really. I can't read Mandarin but Vogue Taiwan has had some incredible covers and editorials this past year, I'm still not over the oil slick mermaid one.

 

[NYLA22]

^I think you have a point there re: Japan being more developed in terms of the aesthetic industries/collective taste, I also think that for the other big East Asian economies (China and Korea) this lag could be seen in a political context - Cultural Revolution, censorship and opening up only 30-odd years ago, then Korea being under a military dictatorship until the late 80s. But yes, the more interesting work I mentioned did come out of smaller-circulation editions. Also, Asian magazines - thanks to their countries' demographic composition - aren't really fettered to DEI-ing their talent the same way that seems to be happening in western editions of the same magazine, even with the consolidation at Conde it's clear there's still some kind of bar to be met in terms of quality.

I've always been curious how much freedom the international Vogues have if they are licensed (versus owned by Condé Nast). I believe most of the Asian editions are licensed, which I assume gives them much more freedom, as their top editors don't have to report into Anna W (I assume). Still, even if they are, I wonder what kind of creative restrictions (if any) they have regarding their license agreements. That alone makes them more interesting to me.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Not privy to the contractual obligations of these Asian Vogue to Conde Nast. From content observation from inception to itheir current state, it does seem that Anna and CN seems to reign in some level of content-control with China and Japan, as there have been a noticeable inclusion of shared content/reprints of Western Vogues from these publications. Japan seems the worst inflicted with Western shared consent as all the main fashions stories are reprints, with the sole coverstory that’s original. Hong Kong, Taiwan and Philippines are the only ones thus far that offer all original content. (…But Philippines only had the inaugural issue being the strongest, while every issue afterwards just seem like MEGA Magazine with a faux-humanitarian sheen with the Vogue masthead slapped on it. Hong Kong, like Philippines, blew its load on their inaugural issue. And why does it even exist when it’s clearly, cautiously, and carefully watched by China. The current imprisonment of its Democracy Movement leaders just sours any sort of voice, POV this Vogue may have had. But let’s just stan for models and gush for cool fashions while the country loses all its democracy to CCP LOL Taiwan is the only Asian Vogue left with and capable of creative expression, still untouched by Anna/Conde Nast/CCP.