Death of the Fashion Visionary?

[Paula Mattoso]

Play the game and be a contributor to blind consumism or have integrity to express your design ideas to the visionary, ecletic public. (my point of view as a designer) Wearing or desinging an outfit its a matter of expression more then walking in circle around famous brands/conglomerates that are killing fashion as an artistic expression. They have nothing original to show off but as marketing and fame pay the rules ppl seem so hypnotised by the glamour envolved instead of the creation itself. So at the end fashion designers are becoming stylists and originality is not important anymore. An outfit shouldnt be arranged to be wearable... its sad to hear that.

 

[Bidwell]

There is no social revolution to propel people to wear something radical.
All the six sleeved coats in the world will not change the way people dress if they don't want or have a reason to dress that way.
How many of us actually adorn ourselves with the most creatively wonderful clothes anyway? Not many I expect. The people that wear (and can afford) the most cutting edge of design is already a tiny niche. I have often found the most innovative people NEVER wear designer clothing but have done it themselves as pure expression.
You can't design for these creatives so you are left with the larger, more stagnant status searching market.
It's not just about the art.

 

[Paula Mattoso]

Oh yes it certanly a tiny niche...i know. The mass already has shown what they like

I have clients around the world that pay 3 times more to have something designed for their visionary point of view of Fashion. You are correct, its not only about the art as long as u sell ur products.

 

[fourboltmain]

There is no social revolution to propel people to wear something radical.

I feel music is a huge part of this. Look at style as an era, 50's, 60's, 70's; all of it conjures images of music and what people were listening to then. The last music revolution was spearheaded by Nirvana, and nobody has changed music like them since. They dragged us out of the 80's, and thank God it happened, but that was 17 years ago when Nevermind was released.

 

[baguette]

Designers need to pay their rent.
So they surrender.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I like the fact that there are people like scott being actively part of a solution, or at least an alternative way to look at fashion.

That's the problem with this topic, there isn't a proper definition for a visionary.

And personally, if there is a problem with new visionaries, I don't think there's room for them, because in the last couple of years everything has been focussed on indivuality and democracy in fashion.

Again, take a look at all the blogs, all comments etc. EVERYTHING seems to be related to our private life. If it doesn't fit this way of thinking it's not good enough. (Maybe it's an American way of thinking, not sure)

Yesterday I had to read someone's comment who was talking about unwearibility of Marc Jacobs (!!!!!!!). And I just have to accept it, because everything nowadays is personal and individual and blah blah. AND everyone nowadays has to form an opinion...

This society is all about consumption, consumption, consumption. There is no time anymore to get bedazzled by something we experience, if we don't get it served to fit our lifes....

BAH! Maybe I'm rambling now... sorry

By the way, the definition for visionary has changed throughout time, I guess. Society has changed... So has the definition...

Yes, it's is great that we have creative consumers out there who spend the time to find lovely pieces and put it together in a novel way. It's always been an essential way of being a fashion consumer, though.

This is quite interesting. How does individuality and democracy go together? I would argue, perhaps elitistically, that a lot of people just don't know what they like at all, that their reasons for liking something is other people's assessments. Therefore, asking them what they like, like in market investigations, will only lead to watered down predictions/ideas/wishes. It is much more interesting to find people who can, in their individual way, channel the mood of the times and ride the wave - that way market needs will be both satisfied and perhaps also surpassed (ie ppl will be convinced to like and buy things they never thought they would).

IMO, it's pretty obvious that the decline in all popcultural things is due to the mistaken belief that "democracy" and market investigations will lead to greater profits. It might in the short run....but in the long run the cheapening of the business will lead to the loss of interest - that the medium in question is surpassed by others (fashion magazines by bloggers for example).

Democracy is obviously very important in politics. However, with business interests which are basically escapist - aiming to serve flights of fancy for the public - it is a really unfortunate idea to involve the general public, the hard-working salt of the earth - in the creative process.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I feel music is a huge part of this. Look at style as an era, 50's, 60's, 70's; all of it conjures images of music and what people were listening to then. The last music revolution was spearheaded by Nirvana, and nobody has changed music like them since. They dragged us out of the 80's, and thank God it happened, but that was 17 years ago when Nevermind was released.

Well, there seems to be virtually no great rock music that has become mainstream since Nirvana. So the question is; Do we not have new great stuff because all the old rock gods were so goddamn special, because there is nothing new that is good - or is it because superstars don't make business sense unless they are either:

1) Easily managed. Painfully boring/predictable artists that wouldn't dream of suddenly overmedicating, ending it all, splitting up in the midst of their success or jeopardizing business deals for the hell of it.

2) Easily replaced. Young wild artists of mediocre quality that can get the attention of the young audience, but would never have the entire audience in a trance, representing the mood of the moment, irreplaceable, ever more demanding....

This can be applied to essentially any popular culture business.

 

[palais_de_tokyo]

Young wild artists of mediocre quality that can get the attention of the young audience, but would never have the entire audience in a trance, representing the mood of the moment, irreplaceable, ever more demanding....

i disagree. nirvana did not reach "the entire audience". they would not have the kid's parents dance to their music. neither did the smiths, the cure, bowie, patti smith, iggy, not even the stones and beatles at the time... not even elvis.

i think it's a common mistake to think that young artists have to be widely accepted at the beginning to be 'important'. classic example would of course be the velvet underground...

on the contrary... i think any pop-cultural phenomenon lives in the idea of repelling a lot of people (at least wanting to... and absolutely seeking that effect)
i think it has a lot to do with coming of age and teenage angst... feeling insecure and therefore grouping with other people who might experience the same and in the same time repelling the others (esp. elders...)

anyhow... of course that just my personal belief... but i don't think nirvana was the last shaking in pop music... not at all... what about electronics, that electro-rock thing around the likes of fischerspooner etc., the garage revival of the early 00's, the whole london scene (which you may dislike... but yet it was a change... not new but a change...)

i think that's a bit snobist...

 

[palais_de_tokyo]

and hell i forgot... what about radiohead and björk....

ayayay

 

[iluvjeisa]

i disagree. nirvana did not reach "the entire audience". they would not have the kid's parents dance to their music. neither did the smiths, the cure, bowie, patti smith, iggy, not even the stones and beatles at the time... not even elvis.

i think it's a common mistake to think that young artists have to be widely accepted at the beginning to be 'important'. classic example would of course be the velvet underground...

on the contrary... i think any pop-cultural phenomenon lives in the idea of repelling a lot of people (at least wanting to... and absolutely seeking that effect)
i think it has a lot to do with coming of age and teenage angst... feeling insecure and therefore grouping with other people who might experience the same and in the same time repelling the others (esp. elders...)

You've misunderstood what I said. Evidently, I was not sufficiently clear.

Bowie, Nirvana, the cure et al certainly represented the mood of the moment, certainly had their entire audience spellbound (as much as anyone can).

According to my hypothesis, as stated above, the aforementioned bands/artists wouldn't make it today because they are simply too compelling - too difficult and irreplaceable. It just doesn't make business sense to promote people like that when you can have replaceable and predictable artists instead.

 

[Bidwell]

Music is the result not the catalyst.
Rock would not have been born without the sheer disillusionment of a large young generation of children from the second world war.
The same goes for the wretched youth of Britain's Punk years or the existentialist gen-xer's of grunge.
The world has given us a barrage of information, technology and crippling wars and unsolvable conflicts that will not go away soon.

We are in a REFLECTIVE MOOD at the moment. New Folk music permeates all the most cutting edge music . We live through the rose tinted glasses of RETRO. Life is brutal enough, it's hardly a time for a revolution....just yet.

A collective belief needs to grow out of the general dissatisfaction though. Like the "isms" of the past, the japanese designers in the 80's, whatever, IT WILL NOT BE LEFT TO ONE INDIVIDUAL.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Are you guys talking about the clothes or the runway show? Designers can do all types of tricks on the runway but at the end of the day people need to be able to wear the clothes in their everyday life. I'm less concerned about what takes place in a 20 minute show attended by a select few than what is actually available for my closet.

Well, to me, that's the reason why we're in such a rut right now...because people seem to be more concerned with what they can wear straight from the runway than what can make them dream, inspire them, amaze them, etc. Of course, that's not to say that wearability is something to frown upon...in fact, some of my most favorite shows are pretty wearable....Balenciaga FW 06, McQueen FW 05, YSL FW 05-SS 07, Nina Ricci FW 07...you catch my drift....but the one thing that differentiates these shows from, say, BCGC or Philip Lim or Akris is that they are all SHOWS...feats of imagination, not simple, unispired, average runway presentations.

To me, the fashion visionary is the designer who inspires me. And they usually inspire me with the runway show. I feel like so many designers underestimate the power of the runway show. There are so few that understand the impact that a show can have on the audience (not just the people at the show, but those of us who see the pictures and watch the video). The combination of music, lighting, set, hair and make up, model casting and of course, most importantly, the clothes can be just as powerful, moving, hilarious, exciting, beautiful, inspiring, fun and enjoyable as any film. There are so many designers today that are so boring because the shows they put on are entirely forgettable, no matter how well designed the collection may be.

That's why I'm so enamored by designers like Galliano, Tom Ford, McQueen, Viktor & Rolf, Gaultier and Lacroix...because their shows are so emotion filled. I mean, most of Galliano's collections are, for me, just as powerful the 100th time as it was the first. Who knows how many times I've watched Dior Haute Couture SS 04, I still watch it at least once a week, and I still get shivers. The clothes, the set, the lighting, the music, the hair and make up...everything...it's just so powerful and so inspiring. You can't say that about very many shows today.

 

[giapops]

I definitely agree.
Nothing is really changing, just being tweaked.
Where is FRESH?

 

[paganharlot]

I think the internet has had the main influence on why there is no perceived 'revolution' anymore. Now that we have constant immediate access to everything, any 'new' idea has its reference or inspiration dragged up instantly. We are simply more aware that there is no new. There never really was, but because it seemed introduced in isolation, it appeared to be an amazing original idea. This is in music and fashion. We know that Gareth Pugh comes from Mcqueen who came from Westwood... just like we know that Nirvana came from Pixies who came from... you could even say Johnny Cash originally. It's all Rock 'n Roll, and it's all Fashion. Find your own inspiration!

 

[melt977]

I agree with almost everything you all said about the music and its two way influence, of and by society and fashion...

Here's my two cents on this...

I agree with paganharlot and I, too, believe that we have to keep in mind the difference technology has made in all of the above...

Until the mid 90's, in order for an ideology, a movement or a band to have a general infuence on music and consequently on fashion, it had to be something that would be massively accepted.

People before the 90's used to save money to buy music... hence, they had to be selective and hear one LP or CD over and over again for months... allowing them the time to digest it, appreciate it and be influenced by it...

In our days everything is fast, can be downloaded and comes in big quantities. The interent has opened the market to everything and for everybody who has an internet connection at home...

Bands can make their music at home and become easily famous and as easily disappear. This is because they just need one good song (which could just be a mediocre catchy tune). They are not expected to be able to have continuation... which demands a thourough knowledge and love of your subject...

The industry can easily source bands, exploit them and discard them in a second, because there is another one waiting around the corner, with another good tune...

everybody has access to everything.... anyone who can add two notes together can sing them to the world whi is ready to wath and listen...

If we also take into consideration that all this quantity can by default satisfy even the most niche of audiences, it is extremely difficult for a "wave" to prevail...

In our days, the only thing, imho, that seems to be able to unite the people of different ages, sex and races into a mass, seems to be the environmental concerns...

everything else is just personal and individualistic, hence can never influence en masse

 

[melt977]

I think the internet has had the main influence on why there is no perceived 'revolution' anymore.

I think that in a few years time, we will be able to trully realise that the internet IS the revolution of our times... this is what we are experiencing now en masse... the age of the internet and everything that this brings along...

 

[iluvjeisa]

I definitely agree.
Nothing is really changing, just being tweaked.
Where is FRESH?

Rotting in an 80s coffin

 

[iluvjeisa]

I think that in a few years time, we will be able to trully realise that the internet IS the revolution of our times... this is what we are experiencing now en masse... the age of the internet and everything that this brings along...

The revolution that makes it seem like there are no revolutions.

You both make great points. I think, to add to paganharlot's comment, that the internet also allows us to see so easily and clearly where references are coming from. Something that previously may have looked novel to most of us can now be identified as inspired by something relatively obscure from decades ago through a couple of keystrokes.

 

[OlgaH]

I think we should really start to consider that the real reason why the brands dont produce spectacular gowns, is because the 21st century woman jsut doesnt want to wear them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't agree more.. especially when I see the growing trend of people going out in public in pj bottoms.

just awful

Olga

 

[Plisskin]

It's nothing that's different, in that sense, between fashion, music or movies...they all suffer from the same thing; Business has taken over to such an extent that artistic credibility no longer matters, there is no crucial mass of individuals at the top of these businesses with an inner core of personal taste.

I feel this as well.

If there is truly anything visionary out there, LET IT STAY A SECRET. The world and the internet don't need to know about it unless you want it to be chewed up and spit out faster than it can take for your first delivery.
As Tom Ford has mentioned, exclusivity is key. This is the next phase IMO. The way fashion used to be- for the few not the H&M masses.
While this quick cheap fix fashion has brought accessible design to the public, it has also eroded the allure of fashion itself. Much like music sharing and pirating, fashion is not the only industry to suffer from democratic mass-tige.

I disagree with this entirely. If a fashion visionary is exclusive then what is the point in it's existence? What is the point other than it creating separation? I can't stand exclusiveness. I think the problem with mass-market ala stores like H&M or Forever 21 is the quality of the clothing is cheap, uninspiring and an overall wasteland. In other words it's boring as hell. Nowadays mass-market means cheap and safe. People are afraid to give the every day customer a worthwhile cashmere shirt or futuristic leather jacket because it all goes back to money and sales. No one is trying to truly evolve fashion because fashion is still in a little box and forever watered down into boring dresses and pants.
I'm pretty sure everyone would like our entire society to dress up like a Science-Fiction movie, but the way things are going thats not gonna happen. I see a lot of fear in the fashion community. Fear of not getting enough money and fear of not being accepted. And what's laughable about it all is that it's not just the fashion community. It's everything right now; Movies, Literature, Art, Music. I feel like I'm in a dead period; a period where money comes first then artistic direction.

I think we should really start to consider that the real reason why the brands dont produce spectacular gowns, is because the 21st century woman just doesnt want to wear them.

Every woman I've come across would love to wear something ethereal. But let's be honest the every day person can't afford it. People want it they just don't have the money, especially with the inflation in prices these days. More than likely people are choosing their houses, cars, and food over a luxurious Versace gown.