Do certain designer names influence your opinions?

[tott]

^

Of course it could be that you just don't get it... But fashion and art is very subjective, sometimes you're in tune and sometimes not.

Some people idolise Rei, some people Hedi or some other designer... It gets a bit creepy and "teenage fan"-style sometimes when the admiration is too uncritical.

I also believe in searching high and low, far and wide... There is great stuff just waiting to be found around the corner from Montenapoleone...

That being said, I tend to look for certain designers because I know they usually make stuff I like.

 

[Johnny]

I liked your answer fashionista-ta.

The point I was getting at is that I think it's a mistake to say that she is psuedo-intellectual herself, since I think she is absolutely committed to the thinking behind what she produces. I agree however that there can be an air of intellectual snobbery around certain designers and it tends to be those whose clothes are less obviously appealling on a broad basis. But everyone, to some extent, likes to be in a "club" when it comes to fashion since one of its roles must be to define you at least a bit, since it creates the first impression. I don't really mind that - it's a natural human weakness.

And I don't think it's that you don't get it, I think it's that you don't like it. When it comes to clothes, I think that's all you can say really - there's no point going around feeling like you look like an idiot but believing that you understand the concept. Now that IS psuedo!

I don't understand a lot of modern art either, but apparently, not understanding it is good, since there is nothing worse than to be understood, apparently.

 

[Pastry]

^..yeah....i find that a lot of "arty" individuals have adopted this as their favourite thing to say: my favourite type of art (fashion, film, etc..) is the kind i don't understand....

pffft, give me a break..while some say that from the bottom of their hearts, i have a feeling when marc jacobs says it (and he did) it's not so sencere. i know i like things i can relate to..

 

[fashionista-ta]

I liked your answer fashionista-ta.

The point I was getting at is that I think it's a mistake to say that she is psuedo-intellectual herself, since I think she is absolutely committed to the thinking behind what she produces. I agree however that there can be an air of intellectual snobbery around certain designers and it tends to be those whose clothes are less obviously appealling on a broad basis. But everyone, to some extent, likes to be in a "club" when it comes to fashion since one of its roles must be to define you at least a bit, since it creates the first impression. I don't really mind that - it's a natural human weakness.

And I don't think it's that you don't get it, I think it's that you don't like it. When it comes to clothes, I think that's all you can say really - there's no point going around feeling like you look like an idiot but believing that you understand the concept. Now that IS psuedo!

I don't understand a lot of modern art either, but apparently, not understanding it is good, since there is nothing worse than to be understood, apparently.

Very funny I actually like to be understood, as long as it's by someone I like ... I guess that's what makes me not a modern artist

Well, I do like some of Rei's work. But I do question that she is head and shoulders above every other designer of the 20th century.

I do feel a bit befuddled by some of her shows. For example, the one with the bunches of tartan and the crowns. Even her husband frankly admitted that he had no idea how they were going to produce one iota of it for public consumption since it was 100% draped on the models (little if any stitching). So this to me is an art show rather than a fashion show.

And then the discussion of it went kinda like this as I recall: "Ah, crowns!!! ... Ah, tartan!!!"

When I wanted to discuss Margiela's "Caution! Wet!" show as art, because goodness knows you couldn't discuss it as fashion, no one really seemed to want to talk about what it meant.

So perhaps there is a huge appeal to things that we either cannot understand, or have great difficulty understanding. Personally, I think that Margiela's numbered lines (0, 4, whatever), vaunted as "conceptual," are simply opaque. You could assign numbers to lines in a way that makes sense, but as far as I can tell (and again, I always allow for the possibility I don't get it), that hasn't been done. Perhaps it's just a secret code to allow those in the know to feel smart ...

I don't need to feel smart, though, I need something to wear. (And, at this moment, the dental floss that has disappeared from my purse.) Something different, and yet the same. That remains the perpetual problem.

 

[jssy4eva]

thanks for all the input guys...everyone has fantastic points so far