Designers and Originality: Debate

[finalfashion]

Speaking of the word "original",

lately I have been pondering the slight contradiction between the word in these two senses -

a couture "original" - a one of a kind, exquisite work of art expressing an artist's creative vision

Levis 501 the "original" - a garment that is a basic essential form, a template which is modified to suit the fashion of the times, but which by itself is timeless

 

[finalfashion]

still thinking about it

postworthy

http://finalfashion.ca/?p=540

gawsh I'm such a nerd

 

[ilaughead]

^But you're a very eloquent nerd! Good article!

 

[ShesElectric]

It's been recognized that all fashions come back to life after 20 years of death. Almost everything on the runway is a recreation of something from the past. I respect a designers creative touch to what is brought back to life, however we have to also recognize that designers aren't exactly working on a blank canvas, so to speak. They are (in majority) after all, owned by conglomerates with one thing on mind - money. In order to market something sucessfully, the appeal has to be targetted to an extremely wide range of consumers and the designers of our Dior's, and Chanel's, and LV's etc have to keep this in mind.

I guess my point is that it's the little changes you make to a past look that count as there isn't much more you can do in satisfying your group and consumer.

For everything else, there's always indie.

 

[softgrey]

levis are 'the original' becuase they ARE the first company to manufacture JEANS...

the are the original jeans... because they are the FIRST jeans...
not because they are basic...
your definition is off and so, therefore, is the theory unfortunately...

original is first or unique...
and that is how it applies to fashion as it does everywhere else...

 

[finalfashion]

levis are 'the original' becuase they ARE the first company to manufacture JEANS...

Not true - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans

The earliest known pre-cursor for jeans is the Indian export of a thick cotton cloth, in the 16th century, known as dungaree. Dyed in indigo, it was sold near the Dongarii Fort near Mumbai. Sailors cut it to suit them. [1]
Jeans were first created in Genoa, Italy when the city was an independent republic and a naval power. The first were made for the Genoese Navy because it required all-purpose trousers for its sailors that could be worn wet or dry, and whose legs could easily be rolled up to wear while swabbing the deck. These jeans would be laundered by dragging them in large mesh nets behind the ship, and the sea water would bleach them white. The first denim came from Nîmes, France, hence de Nimes, the name of the fabric. The French bleu de Gênes, from the Italian blu di Genova, literally the "blue of Genoa" dye of their fabric, is the root of the names for these trousers, "jeans" and "blue jeans", today.
​

The legally original aspect of levi's jeans was the metal rivets which were patented. That and the idea to use the cachet of originality as a marketing story which cemented his name as the originator today.


so...

the are the original jeans... because they are the FIRST jeans...
not because they are basic...
your definition is off and so, therefore, is the theory unfortunately...

unfortunately? I'm not trying to refute that Levis are original, but using them as an example of how the word is used.

original is first or unique...
and that is how it applies to fashion as it does everywhere else...

If it was that simple there'd be no point to this whole thread.

 

[finalfashion]

Thought about it some more -

the distinction I'm attempting to make is the difference between the dictionary definition of "original" (which is exactly as softgrey put it) and how the term "original" is used in fashion as a marketing term to apply to concepts which aren't technically "first" or "novel".

 

[softgrey]

yes apologies the first RIVETED JEANS...
i left that out...but everything else i posted is correct...and it does say the original riveted jeans on the levis label actually...so i didn't think i needed to mention it...sorry...but there it is...


i believe what you are talking about is bull sh*t...
..
the bullsh*t created by marketing dept and public relations firms to convince the world that their product is somehow better that all the rest out there...
there is certainly a lot of this out there and it is important to understand the language of PR ...once you do, you eventually become immune to it and can then see through all the hype and all the BS and determine quite easily for yourself the true value of the product...

i do think that the younger generations are easier targets for this sort of marketing because they are not yet savvy enough to cut through the crap and they don't yet have enough experience to know the truth from the BS...

it's harder to fool a forty year old...
they've been around the block and back again several times...


but no one is ever completely immune to a good marketing campaign...
...

 

[SomethingElse]

Tag lines and marketing hyperbole do nothing for me. Original to marketeers is nothing more than a catchword, and rarely truthful.

Either the work is 'original', or it isn't.

The butterflies in my stomach when I see something truly 'original' and my hair standing on end when I see 'good art' are my benchmarks. It's personal, visceral and entirely subjective.