Comme des Garcons S/S 2006 Paris

[faust]

It's no more or less arbitrary than making sweeping buying/styling/publishing decisions that will affect thousands of customers (and the buying habits of millions who look to style icons among those thousands for their cues on what to wear) on the basis of seeing a heaping double handful of clothes on the runway for a few brief minutes.

Actually, I think those decisions are made in the showrooms where one is allowed to browse a much bigger selection and examine the clothes closely, and where one is more concerned with the garment's look, quality, construction, details instead of what philosophical contemplations were gong through a designers head (if any), are they not?

 

[faust]

i honestly don't see how one cannot look at this be thinking she didn't intend us to see it in an analytical, metaphorical way... the staging, the 'avant-gardiness' is milking our capacity to be the over-intellectualized creatures that we are. it's like saying that you would go to see a play and take the entire thing at face value. what's the point?

Only a play will give you more direction to contemplate, understand, and therefore objectively critique, which a handful of pictures of clothes won't.

But, hey, a bad artist can always hide behind "the interpretation" since basically there is no basis for cricisim because there is lack of communication and expression.

 

[travolta]

understand your point of view, but i also think rei's strength is her ability to translate through pictures. she has a large vision, and it would be in her best interest to be as effective as possible, meaning you wouldn't NEED to be at the show to start to understand and mull over her collection. remember rei was never solely about the clothes as other designers are... her advertisements, her guerilla stores are all messages, and her clothing presentations are equally striking.

edit: to clarify, i meant rei uses pictures or visual imagery/ symbolism etc. very effectively.

 

[faust]

understand your point of view, but i also think rei's strength is her ability to translate through pictures. she has a large vision, and it would be in her best interest to be as effective as possible, meaning you wouldn't NEED to be at the show to start to understand and mull over her collection. remember rei was never solely about the clothes as other designers are... her advertisements, her guerilla stores are all messages, and her clothing presentations are equally striking.

may be. but i can't help but feel this air of superiority that smacks of the whole artist-as-a-pouser thing - even her advertisements - while i get some, like ghetto girls modeling her perfumes, but then there'll be others, especially for CDG Shirt line that look completely arbitrary and represent nothing. So the question is, is she pulling our leg, does she simply have too much money to spend on something that does not communicate at all, or what? I don't know, her collections that I like best (like of any other designer) is where the clothes take the front seat. The image is fine and dandy, only it should go behind the clothes, not in front of them...

 

[The Baron]

Actually, I think those decisions are made in the showrooms where one is allowed to browse a much bigger selection and examine the clothes closely, and where one is more concerned with the garment's look, quality, construction, details instead of what philosophical contemplations were gong through a designers head (if any), are they not?

True, but one doesn't go to every single showroom. The decisions of which collections to look at more closely are made on little more than the same limited evidence we have here.
Anyway, I was just playing devil's advocate to have a bit of fun.

I'm with travolta, though: Rei presents her work in a way that invites intellectual response. Not every collection provokes this kind of discussion, and there's a reason for that.

It's like Andy Warhol's Brillo box in a museum versus one on a shelf at the supermarket: how something is displayed can have a controlling influence on how it is received.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we don't sometimes overdo it with the intellectualizations, and mea most definitely culpa on that one.

 

[travolta]

well, i do agree that in a way she is full of bullsh*t. as much as i adore the woman. i was having a conversation just last night with a friend who is blissfully out of touch with the world of fashion, and i was telling him about comme des garcons. his reaction was: how can she be avant-garde if she is a wealthy woman desiging clothing for wealthy people? what is truely innovative about that? i think of avant-garde and i think of people at the end of their rope innovating out of necessity not out of the amusement of other people, esp. the elite.

you know what i had to agree with him. but, i still can't really knock her, because i think rei has successfully breached the system and in a way, yes, we are all her pawns, and she's reached a level of responsiblity. humor me while i delve into another over-intellectualized musing ... i think maybe she understands she is worshipped by the fashion elite and she really could throw out something completely pretentious and many would not know the better. i guess she has reached rock star status (rolling stones references anyone?) and now she's playing around with the concept of her as an icon?
anyways, i guess it's her duty now to keep her followers, and those in 'the know' on their toes, and i guess, in a way, imho, that sums up her contribution.

 

[faust]

True, but one doesn't go to every single showroom. The decisions of which collections to look at more closely are made on little more than the same limited evidence we have here.
Anyway, I was just playing devil's advocate to have a bit of fun.

I'm with travolta, though: Rei presents her work in a way that invites intellectual response. Not every collection provokes this kind of discussion, and there's a reason for that.

It's like Andy Warhol's Brillo box in a museum versus one on a shelf at the supermarket: how something is displayed can have a controlling influence on how it is received.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we don't sometimes overdo it with the intellectualizations, and mea most definitely culpa on that one.

It's no problem, it is fun in a way .

 

[travolta]

*anyways, there is something really thrilling about being an uber-nerd, haha. it's nice to know there are fellow fashion-nerds you can count on to duel with.

 

[faust]

humor me while i delve into another over-intellectualized musing ... i think maybe she understands she is worshipped by the fashion elite and she really could throw out something completely pretentious and many would not know the better. i guess she has reached rock star status (rolling stones references anyone?) and now she's playing around with the concept of her as an icon?

Actually I like that one

You see, I guess this is part of my respect for the Belgians, and especially for Ann and Dries. They just put the clothes on the runway, and that's IT. I mean, that's what they do, that's their art, that's their craft, that's what they want to excel at.

Maybe I put too much emphasis on objectivity

 

[PrinceOfCats]

"existencillism"!? Yabadabadoo! Of all your recent elaborate puns, that has to be the most, em..... elaborate

Why thank you. I'll give the trained monkeys a pay rise...

 

[The Baron]

You see, I guess this is part of my respect for the Belgians, and especially for Ann and Dries. They just put the clothes on the runway, and that's IT. I mean, that's what they do, that's their art, that's their craft, that's what they want to excel at.

Take this with a grain of salt, since it trades on cultural stereotypes, but some of this difference between the Japanese and the Belgians may be cultural.

Japanese culture has a strong emphasis on context, subtlety, and layers of meaning, whereas the Belgians (and Western Europe in general) have a more direct experience of "meaning" in which things simply are what they are. Or, as Keats put it:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

This is all admittedly a gross oversimplification on my part, but my point is: one can't blame the Japanese for being Japanese.

 

[Tinuviel]

"existencillism"!? Yabadabadoo!

ouch my brain hurts taking all that in. still.. such interesting views.

 

[peacelover142002]

the idea is cute but i don't like her shapes. way too bulky. the union jack pattern reminds me of the spice girls

 

[Johnny]

the union jack pattern reminds me of the spice girls

Yes! Now that's not a good thing is it .... Empire Schmempire...more like zig-a-zig-ah!!

 

[nr9dream]

Travolta, I agree w/ you in post #143 but not really in your other views…if I understand them correctly

Side note: I can’t wait to read your interpretations on Hussein Chalyan as he indeed is beyond post-modern & v. political in his work (and v. successfully so imo) To assume that Rei designs from this perspective is imho a mistake & clouds your vision about what the collections are truly about -> i.e., experimentation to create a new visual dialogue (of course these images will resonate deeper than just 'what you see' but that is a different thread imo…)

V. interesting none the less

 

[travolta]

thanks i very much enjoy your posts too

just curious, though, about what you mean by visual dialogue? i would think it was be necessary for her to put her work in the context of the current climate, being that she's regarded as a revolutionary or avant-garde?

just wondering...

 

[electricringo]

I don't like this collection, and that's very unusual considering I'm a huge fan of Rei...
Everyone is right about the Spice Girls ressemblance...

 

[nr9dream]

just curious, though, about what you mean by visual dialogue? i would think it was be necessary for her to put her work in the context of the current climate, being that she's regarded as a revolutionary or avant-garde?

just wondering...

I guess I mean a new visual language / or her vocabulary as a designer- meaning ->both the technique and the use of symbolic imagery (as you point out above) Here we even refer to the 'language of shape' in re. to design--but that sounds v. wrong in English somehow

Anyway, yes I v. much believe she reacts to current fashion climate in order to innovate--and that is what I meant w/ the example above about reintroducing color during deconstruction… Likewise, it’s v. interesting how in more recent collections she explores current obsessions w/ themes of fantasy & nostalgia but always showing the twisted and dark side of it...(this all has deeper cultural meaning but imo again, that’s a different discussion…)

I guess this also addresses your point above, about how she can keep integrity in design – because the motivation is not political but artistic –> in experimenting, reacting (intuitively) to current issues & proposing something different, new & visually stimulating…

 

[softgrey]

travolta...
i just take issue with the idea that one needs to be poor and struggling in order to innovate...

that is just too cynical...
and i would want people who have great ideas to be rewarded for it...
in all ways, including financial...
and does that financial reward suddenly negate the preson's achievements and/or ability to create??!?...
of course not...!!

sorry...
but that is a very 'art school' perspective...
artists do NOT have to be poor in order to be good...
don't be hating...
**money=power...
if anything you have MORE freedom to create if you don't have financial constraints...
imo...

 

[nqth]

artists do NOT have to be poor in order to be good...
don't be hating...
**money=power...
if anything you have MORE freedom to create if you don't have financial constraints...
imo...

2nd:-)
Innovation is a state of mind, not bank account:-)