Established Designers That You Just Don't "get"?

[Sir Pink]

^^^

Definitely in agree-age.

 

[*Addict_to_Fashion*]

Dsquared & Galliano

 

[Bell]

Originally posted by maskedmannequin@Nov 14 2004, 11:23 AM
"Martin Margiela, Rei Kawakubo, Yohi Yamamoto, Jurgi Persoons and Bernhard Wilhelm are perfectly capable of creating good fashion however they seem to spend most of their life churning out avant-garde dross that is more pretentious than Emin and the Chapman brothers put together. "
With reference to the above comment. If there was no "avante garde dross" then we would be wearing EXACTLY the same style as they were hundreds of years ago, because without avante garde ideas, then nothing would advance.
Have you heard of Amelia Bloomer (if you're interested in fashion design, then I'd be amazed if you haven't). She pioneered trousers for women.
At the time, she was laughed at and ridiculed because her bloomers (early versions of trousers) were deemed ridiculous and "unwearable" by the masses, yet....nowadays there's not way women could do the wide variety of jobs they do without trousers...

Also, to those who have said that John Galliano's work is merely to get critics eyes...
Look at his new collection. You might deem it "unwearable" and "art" rather than fashion. But even to all of you who think that fashion should not be art, there are SO many wearable pieces involved, but the catwalk itself IS art, because that's what high fashion/avante garde fashion to me should be.
Wearable and everyday is manufactured and mass-produced at high street level, and I see high fashion as an outlet for design and creativity to be displayed.
Also...without the avante garde fashions, there would be no "trickle down" or diffusion to the high street, what you see on the catwalks would be as simple (thought probably of a much higher quality fabric and cut) as high street clothing.
That to me is pointless and boring...!

There is no designer that i "don't get" as each person has there own indivdual style, and therefor they will all be different.
There are some that I don't like, but none that I don't "get"

[snapback]431063[/snapback]​

I totally agree with u .

For someone said that fashion is not art ,I bet u never read anything about fashion beside from magazine.
and definitely u hav not studied about fashion design.

 

[Galliano guy]

Hi um i'm new
i'd just like to say i love DSQUARED2 i like the way they take inspireation from real life and create clothes that are completely wearable and on occasion they can be quite humourous and GALLIANO is just pure magic! i like the A/W mens collection, its something new in fashion (menswear anyway) but i do think his newer collections are going downhill especially Dior Pret a porter
I dont really get Martin marigiela or Rei kawakubo

and thatk you for not putting Vivienne westwood up there

 

[Petit Lucille]

My vote goes to Dsquared. I get some of their stuff but, what is it with the oversized parkas???

I understand Hussein Chalayan, but you can't always get what he means from the clothes. It would be interesting to express an idea with the clothes, not with the show structure. plus, he is very arrogant.

Most of the times, Cavalli's models looks horribly tramp-like, but every once and again I find something interesting-not perfectly, I would do it with another fabric, colours, another figure.. etc.

 

[cranmel]

I voted Donatella but that is because it looks good on the runways but the fabric looks awful in reality.

However, I do understand the appeal of most of these designers. I would only buy 5% of their stuff. I just bought a Marc Jacobs jacket (basic denim because I don't like to look thrifty) and there are some interesting pieces by Dsquared although I would never bother for that price.

Cavalli is garish IMO but it does work for some of my friends. On me it looks terrible and cheap. I have seen the occasional stunning Galliano designs once in a rare while and it is true that he hasn't really been coming up with much stunning stuff in recent times.

I think it is all up to ppl and whatever looks good on them and I think all the designers contribute something once in a while, albeit some at lesser frequency than others.

 

[Petit Lucille]

I know it's too late now, but whatthe- does IMO means??

 

[softgrey]

IMO...in my opinion...
IMHO...in my humble opinion

what's with the mad face?!?!...

 

[michii102]

everyone hates d squared

i love these shorts on yfke... i just wonder how much they cost

 

[Missoni~Heiress]

I HATE PRADA... OLD GRANNY CLOTHES AND COLOURS....

I HAVE ESCADA BECAUSE THE SALES PPL ARENT NICE

I HATE LOUIS VUITTON CAZ EVERYONE HAS THE FAKES

I HATE DORKY OR WEIRD CLOTHES

 

[Hanne]

Originally posted by softgrey@Dec 5 2004, 10:41 AM
IMO...in my opinion...
IMHO...in my humble opinion

what's with the mad face?!?!...

[snapback]451641[/snapback]​

LOL I allways thought IMHO meant .. in my honest opinion ..but I guess it would be MHO then the "in" sounds wrong

 

[metal-on-metal]

I would have voted for DSquared. Except, it's not so much that I don't 'get' them. I mean, what is there to get? Two flaming queen twins from Canada who produce misogynistic (for women) and homoerotic (for men) overpriced clothing.

It's more like I despise them and think they and their clothes are absolutely vile. They are just so stupid and so trashy. It's just the continued objectifying of women as sluts and whores, but without even a degree of the finesse that Versace or Cavalli has. It's just sick and disgusting.

 

[metal-on-metal]

Originally posted by Hanne@Dec 8 2004, 10:40 AM
LOL I allways thought IMHO meant .. in my honest opinion ..but I guess it would be MHO then the "in" sounds wrong

[snapback]456196[/snapback]​

I think it can mean both honest and humble, depending on the context. I've seen it used to mean both things.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by metal-on-metal@Dec 8 2004, 01:44 PM
I would have voted for DSquared. Except, it's not so much that I don't 'get' them. I mean, what is there to get? Two flaming queen twins from Canada who produce misogynistic (for women) and homoerotic (for men) overpriced clothing.

It's more like I despise them and think they and their clothes are absolutely vile. They are just so stupid and so trashy. It's just the continued objectifying of women as sluts and whores, but without even a degree of the finesse that Versace or Cavalli has. It's just sick and disgusting.

[snapback]456468[/snapback]​

my sentiments exactly.

 

[AlexN]

Originally posted by metal-on-metal@Dec 8 2004, 01:46 PM
I think it can mean both honest and humble, depending on the context. I've seen it used to mean both things.

[snapback]456470[/snapback]​

This is true.

 

[Sugo]

Originally posted by versace_goddess@Dec 7 2004, 04:34 PM

I HATE DORKY OR WEIRD CLOTHES

[snapback]455227[/snapback]​

that's deep

 

[faust]

Originally posted by Sugo@Dec 8 2004, 02:46 PM
that's deep

[snapback]456558[/snapback]​

lmao

 

[metal-on-metal]

Originally posted by Sugo@Dec 8 2004, 03:46 PM
that's deep

[snapback]456558[/snapback]​

I think "dorky or weird" means anything that isn't pink, sparkly, or Versace.

 

[Missoni~Heiress]

Originally posted by metal-on-metal@Dec 9 2004, 06:05 AM
I think "dorky or weird" means anything that isn't pink, sparkly, or Versace.

[snapback]456590[/snapback]​

no no no barbie says no hahaha i ment like the opposite to what barbie would wear hehe

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by versace_goddess@Dec 7 2004, 10:34 PM
I HATE PRADA... OLD GRANNY CLOTHES AND COLOURS....

I HAVE ESCADA BECAUSE THE SALES PPL ARENT NICE

I HATE LOUIS VUITTON CAZ EVERYONE HAS THE FAKES

I HATE DORKY OR WEIRD CLOTHES

[snapback]455227[/snapback]​

i will agree on LV bags versace, as for the rest.. just dont lose your temper over the rag trade ..not worth it honey, just wear whatever turns you on, not get too upset with design labels

btw, a late welcome to tFS for you miss versace