Excellent points, margielamike. When it comes to something like Celine, the most I can say is that it inspires someone to buy, to consume, to put together an outfit. It’s a very passive engagement with fashion. When it comes to Comme des Garçons, this inspires someone to think, to create, to reconsider preconceived notions, whether that be the rejection of an aesthetic proposal (it’s kind of the point of Comme des Garçons to be seen as “ugly” by many) or the reconfiguration/evolution of one’s ideas about form, beauty, the relationship of clothes to the body. I mean, that’s why we have the avant-garde in the arts in the first place? Also, the disconnect between body and clothes has always been a thesis in Comme des Garçons. Clothes can be cumbersome, imprisoning, restrictive. Uh, yes, Rei has made this point again and again? The lumps and bumps collection for example? Comme des Garçons is not about creating desirability. It has never been advocating one way to see the relationship between the body and clothes.
Just looking at Comme des Garçons collections from ten years ago, you’d always be surprised at how those ideas have found their way into mainstream fashion today. The shapes, the cuts, the techniques, the construction. Even Galliano is basically doing footnotes. Brilliant footnotes, nonetheless. The legend of McQueen owes a great deal to the Comme des Garçons of the 80s and 90s.
Personally, why not enjoy fashion in all its iterations and vocabulary? One can admire something exquisitely beautiful from Dries Van Notes in the same way that one can still embrace something from Comme des Garçons, especially now that the consumption of beauty has been flattened to fit shorter attention spans and social media-friendly bubbles. That something desires to challenge ideas these days is quite frankly necessary.