Dior Homme F/W 07.08 Paris

[Karl.Popper]

wow, you have a lot of learning to do!!!i suggest you do some reading on "race theory" and if you are in uni,take some anthropology or sociology courses, i think you should just go to school...

I didn't want to mention this before (because it is hardly relevant), but now you're just being absurd. The only fields where silly postmodern views on race have become entrenched are precisely in anthropology and sociology, where they have become parodies of themselves. It is even more laughable that you think to lecture us on race from the vantage point of both these "disciplines".

Why the pieties in contemporary sociology and anthropology are inevitably so politically correct remain a mystery to me. We have such gems as "gender is a social construct", "race does not exist" . . . but curiously enough we're also told in pious tones by the very same people that homosexuality is genetic (not that I disagree - I just find the dissonance amusing: that homosexuality is genetic but every other human physical trait is a social construct without biological basis). Funny how the definitions always seem to fit with certain notions of what it means to be politically correct.

In fact, if you're going to claim "race does not exist", you're going to have to do better than non-credible socio-anthropological pronouncements on the issue. Tell that to the biologists in this Stanford study for instance: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm

... that found that "racial groupings matched genetic profiles".

Or tell that to African American patients and their doctors who put them on BiDil, a heart drug specifically tailored for African Americans who as a group respond less well to conventional drugs than Caucasians but respond better to BiDil.

Or tell that to the biologists in this survey...

"The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

• biologists 16%
• developmental psychologists 36%
• physical anthropologists 41%
• cultural anthropologists 53%"

(If you have access to JSTOR it's in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 231-242)

In short, for someone who makes categorical pronouncements on race, you seem to be biologically illiterate, so you're really in no position to talk down to people who quite justifiably have no interest in the marginal opinions of sociology or anthropology.

But as I said, all this is hardly relevant to the discussion. We're using race as a *proxy* for certain broad physical traits here - types of people, and you cannot deny that broadly speaking these traits exist. If you'd like us to talk in "types" and "skintones" because it offends you less, sure, but it hardly changes the substance of what is being discussed now does it?

I'm just disappointed that no matter how carefully one phrases ones position, no matter how strenuously one tries to articulate a point of view in the most neutral terms possible, it won't convince people who would rather shout "racist!" and have no genuine interest in understanding what is being said.

 

[Starling]

Intresting collection, some really nice pieces. Reminds me a bit of Ann D.
This is way better than Hedis S/S collection.

 

[Ceptuouse]

HQs



[celebcity]

 

[nikousha]

JR1
Thanks a lot.....

 

[Whimsicalist]

the race doesn't exist is lacanianism

woman do not exists.it is for woman ,said the girl..no,this is for men,saidthe boy..here we got binaire situation.
race do notexist is not thesame,because the opposite of one race is another race.


by the way race is only anthropological case..
it is not aesthetic..
i sow a very profitable talk between noemie lenoire and karl popper lagerfeld.

if we apply to fashion some race connotatons it will be arbitrary...something that is opposite to the essence ,as race is not accidental ,but essential.

can we imagine mona lisa from africa.

or sculptures of ancien elada to be black.

african made by white marble.

the whole question of race is "aufgehoben' aufhebung"
,anthropologie is aufgehoben in aesthetic...
Hegel made this very unnecessery when we talk about beauty.

he said-the most beautiful colour is those of the human's face tain.

Hegel is not saying the face of white human being.

the Burke deffinition of beautiful is made on the base of -small and white.

but ,there is reason,because white is synthetic of all colours-red-blue -green.there is no such statement that synthetical is supreme..because of mixing,assembling,adding..


If we implicate polit corect of the colours to the art,aesthetic,beautiful and sublime ,finalite,perfection we 'd make mistake.

if i am painter and i have to drown grass..it will be green

if i am expressionist,surealist i can make the grass black,white,blue...colorles,pale,heringbone..
but this will bebecause I will (beware karl p. ) be because of falsification!
it's mean..that falsification is corect!

bacause when i falsificate i am not able to falsificate on surrealistic painting to be drown green grass..

one ofthe strict signs of truth is opportunuty of falsification!

if i said that i am cezar julius,i could be so mad,to say,i am juliuscezar,who istoday mad and ipretend to be boudha.

what is falsification.

for ex.

i state that I am reincarnated leonardo da vinchi!

but we couldn't even falsificate that!

we can't make mistake..falsificte..because it will be not such big deal if we state "i am emanuel kant'



that's why hedi do not interested by this essentialismes..

he is interestedby processuses..processusess of new..of becoming!

the tradition of new.

if he took racial on stage we couldn't see theblack persone..but we will seethe whole discours of race' and cloth will representate,not presentate!

forgods sakes guys...galliano do representations..he does cyrcuss...galliano is doing commentaries with his clothes..

hedi doing time!

time(now) is not presenting!

 

[belletrist]

Is my english that bad? I'm saying that it's ridiculous to state that a black man has nothing to do on a Dior show and now I'm a racist, just because I said that I, IN A PURE AESTHETIC WAY (read Kant, and - haha - read Kandinsky if the subjet of the colors seems that important to you) prefer white skins (the same way I prefer long hair on boys, am I a short-haired guys hater?)

Concerning the fact I said there aren't black guys in Tunisia (I'm tired of those explainations but I don't want to be misunderstood someone said that the black man could be a reference to Hedi's country of origin, which would be weird as the Tunisia population is not black (am I racist?)

BTW I find a little bit funny the fact that this boy is danish

peace

 

[poetiquez]

Is my english that bad? I'm saying that it's ridiculous to state that a black man has nothing to do on a Dior show and now I'm a racist, just because I said that I, IN A PURE AESTHETIC WAY (read Kant, and - haha - read Kandinsky if the subjet of the colors seems that important to you) prefer white skins (the same way I prefer long hair on boys, am I a short-haired guys hater?)

Concerning the fact I said there aren't black guys in Tunisia (I'm tired of those explainations but I don't want to be misunderstood someone said that the black man could be a reference to Hedi's country of origin, which would be weird as the Tunisia population is not black (am I racist?)

BTW I find a little bit funny the fact that this boy is danish

peace

well luckily you are not the one casting fashion shows. you, like us, are an observer... which means that if you don't like seeing brown faces in shows then you can skip to the next image.

 

[fashionken]

well luckily you are not the one casting fashion shows. you, like us, are an observer... which means that if you don't like seeing brown faces in shows then you can skip to the next image.

Your comment is completely unnecessary. Belletrist did not state otherwise. If this sort of obvious comments is the only thing you have to contribute with, I kindly suggest you don't interfere with our discussion.

 

[fashionken]

I'm just disappointed that no matter how carefully one phrases ones position, no matter how strenuously one tries to articulate a point of view in the most neutral terms possible, it won't convince people who would rather shout "racist!" and have no genuine interest in understanding what is being said.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
In the past couple of days, I've seen some of the best spelled-out analogies, metaphors and examples on this board of what you, I and a few more people are trying to get across. We've gone from highly articulate language to the most simple, easily absorbed language to try to get these overly defensive people to understand what we're saying. Yet the only thing they can come up with is that word. If these people tried to use that word less, and tried to use it properly and with care, perhaps it would actually mean something in modern society.

 

[fashionken]

Is my english that bad? I'm saying that it's ridiculous to state that a black man has nothing to do on a Dior show and now I'm a racist, just because I said that I, IN A PURE AESTHETIC WAY (read Kant, and - haha - read Kandinsky if the subjet of the colors seems that important to you) prefer white skins (the same way I prefer long hair on boys, am I a short-haired guys hater?)

Concerning the fact I said there aren't black guys in Tunisia (I'm tired of those explainations but I don't want to be misunderstood someone said that the black man could be a reference to Hedi's country of origin, which would be weird as the Tunisia population is not black (am I racist?)

BTW I find a little bit funny the fact that this boy is danish

peace

Shock! Horror! You're a short-hair-phobe, too?! To the KKK you go.

 

[birdofparadise]

This is all actually very interesting, i'm sure there's a thread (maybe in the models forum?) already but maybe we can take it forward there so that people can feel comfortable coming here to see the show and not run into conversations that actually don't have anything to do with the designs shown. I certainly would love for it all to continue though, it's interesting to see how people connect with fashion...

 

[fashionken]

wow, you have a lot of learning to do!!!i suggest you do some reading on "race theory" and if you are in uni,take some anthropology or sociology courses, i think you should just go to school...

I suggest you take a course in proper etiquette.

 

[dizzytacks]

I didn't want to mention this before (because it is hardly relevant), but now you're just being absurd. The only fields where silly postmodern views on race have become entrenched are precisely in anthropology and sociology, where they have become parodies of themselves. It is even more laughable that you think to lecture us on race from the vantage point of both these "disciplines".

Why the pieties in contemporary sociology and anthropology are inevitably so politically correct remain a mystery to me. We have such gems as "gender is a social construct", "race does not exist" . . . but curiously enough we're also told in pious tones by the very same people that homosexuality is genetic (not that I disagree - I just find the dissonance amusing: that homosexuality is genetic but every other human physical trait is a social construct without biological basis). Funny how the definitions always seem to fit with certain notions of what it means to be politically correct.

In fact, if you're going to claim "race does not exist", you're going to have to do better than non-credible socio-anthropological pronouncements on the issue. Tell that to the biologists in this Stanford study for instance: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm

... that found that "racial groupings matched genetic profiles".

Or tell that to African American patients and their doctors who put them on BiDil, a heart drug specifically tailored for African Americans who as a group respond less well to conventional drugs than Caucasians but respond better to BiDil.

Or tell that to the biologists in this survey...

"The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

• biologists 16%
• developmental psychologists 36%
• physical anthropologists 41%
• cultural anthropologists 53%"

(If you have access to JSTOR it's in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 231-242)

In short, for someone who makes categorical pronouncements on race, you seem to be biologically illiterate, so you're really in no position to talk down to people who quite justifiably have no interest in the marginal opinions of sociology or anthropology.

But as I said, all this is hardly relevant to the discussion. We're using race as a *proxy* for certain broad physical traits here - types of people, and you cannot deny that broadly speaking these traits exist. If you'd like us to talk in "types" and "skintones" because it offends you less, sure, but it hardly changes the substance of what is being discussed now does it?

I'm just disappointed that no matter how carefully one phrases ones position, no matter how strenuously one tries to articulate a point of view in the most neutral terms possible, it won't convince people who would rather shout "racist!" and have no genuine interest in understanding what is being said.

i do appreciate your response but race is a social construct and anthropology and sociology are social sciences which make these studies the most pertinent.We have the power to define human interation and if we dont, we become compacent with the primordial concepts of modern democratic society, and i dont think a study done in 1985 has any relevance, i wasnt even born...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

We all have prefrences in our own personal taste. To deny a person your physical affection because you are not attracted to him or her is perfectly acceptable. To exclude someone from a particular wardrobe because you don't feel their race fits the look is facist, racist, and disgusting.


Everyone is misunderstanding each other. It's perhaps a good idea of we left this race debate to private messages.

 

[Miss Galliano]

ok guys let talk only about Dior Homme.Too bad we aren't at school to learn .. this is a forum ..we can't teach the whole world but life is mistery life goes always beyond and also fashion....

 

[ibimus]

Miss_Galliano, karma.
Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we? If you want to debate social/racial issues, please PM each other, so the rest of us can enjoy this brilliant collection.




JR1, the HQs are fabulous, thank you!
I'm so in love with the trench in the first picture...okay, I pretty much love the whole collection.

 

[Whimsicalist]

race is social construct and anthropology and sociology are social sciences which make these studies the most pertinent

as sociology and anthropology are too.they are construct ,too.

iIn a Solitaire collection there was a guy ..in red collectionthere was ,too.

I would propose to you such a point of view.

there isn/t afr-amer punks.
mods,heavy metals and gothics are too.

i am not sure fashion is a field where race problems might made visivle or resolved.

but fashion serves very well if we need to recognize
some essential point-the historicity ...one had always been free from historical engagement...even participated in the hegelian-dialectico-historic couple.
the races with it's own alphabeth,writings,history,fashion...art or artefacts...some can say that african tribe got art..no regarding geistgeschichte we can take this just as artefacts.

race and historicity...fashionable disguise of having historicity..

this is no verdict about superiority of race..sometimes history just show us the supportabability of some human branche..let's talk about branches...
knees...because sym,ham,yapheth are sons of Noe..noe's knees,branches.

as isaak and ismail are abrahaam's "knees" .

so regarding history they 3 got history..but not plan of historicity(the understanding of it's own historical "mission")


IF HeDI DO RAP INFLUNCING COLLECTION ,may be then

 

[arv2005]

as sociology and anthropology are too.they are construct ,too.

iIn a Solitaire collection there was a guy ..in red collectionthere was ,too.

I would propose to you such a point of view.

there isn/t afr-amer punks.
mods,heavy metals and gothics are too.

i am not sure fashion is a field where race problems might made visivle or resolved.

but fashion serves very well if we need to recognize
some essential point-the historicity ...one had always been free from historical engagement...even participated in the hegelian-dialectico-historic couple.
the races with it's own alphabeth,writings,history,fashion...art or artefacts...some can say that african tribe got art..no regarding geistgeschichte we can take this just as artefacts.

race and historicity...fashionable disguise of having historicity..

this is no verdict about superiority of race..sometimes history just show us the supportabability of some human branche..let's talk about branches...
knees...because sym,ham,yapheth are sons of Noe..noe's knees,branches.

as isaak and ismail are abrahaam's "knees" .

so regarding history they 3 got history..but not plan of historicity(the understanding of it's own historical "mission")


IF HeDI DO RAP INFLUNCING COLLECTION ,may be then

....Need to decipher this.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

...i am not sure fashion is a field where race problems might made visivle or resolved..


...IF HeDI DO RAP INFLUNCING COLLECTION ,may be then

I agree.

 

[dizzytacks]

....Need to decipher this.

agreed!