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

[Missoni~Heiress]

prada

 

[liberty33r1b]

yes, but just sometimes....

i think you sometimes have to look at the pieces individually, not just the whole outfit to "get" it

 

[shopsmuch]

My problem with DSquared2 is that it looks cheap and trashy (in my opinion), yet they charge a fortune for it. You can get the same look at Abercrombie.

In agreement!! I just don't get Dsquared2, I don't think the clothes are at ALL innovative, and they DO look trashy and cheap to me. It just doesn't even look like they're trying to make nice clothes, I don't know.

As for the other designers that have been bashed frequently in this thread, such as John Galliano and Roberto Cavalli, they are definitely not my style, but I have to give them credit due to their originality and vision and attention to detail. It's kind of like looking at a crazy painting, it took a lot of skill and even genius and can appreciate it, but that doesn't mean I want it hanging in my living room. As for everyone who's said Cavalli just pushes sex appeal too much, I can hardly believe that before the whole "let's cover up and be ladylike" thing hit big with the introduction of F/W '04 collections you had a problem with sexual clothes so much. Everyone thought clothes cut down to her and slit up to there were the greatest things ever for the past few years, no matter what designer made them. Tom Ford even put penis pendant necklaces on the runway a few years ago and exposed more breasts than a Playboy magazine, yet I don't see anyone (but maybe I missed someone, if there was anyone at all) knocking him. Roberto Cavalli is still sticking to his roots, and if his roots are ultra-sexy clothing, then so be it.

I don't really think I can say bad things about any designer's creations if they truly had originality and they came up with an idea all their own. It's almost like discrediting them as an entire person, because it's a creation of their mind. (I hope that made sense).

As for Marc Jacobs, while I may not be crazy about some of his designs (don't get me started on Marc by Marc Jacobs S/S '05...), on a whole, I love the man and his work for both LV and his own line. While he may not be the MOST inventive designer in the world, he makes feminine classics and basics with a bit of an updated appeal with quality and detailing that you won't be able to match in most any thrift shop (unless it carries vintage designer pieces).

Also, while Alexander McQueen often isn't much my style either, I like many pieces form the S/S '05 collection as well as every other collection I've seen and respect him as much as any other high-end designer. I don't even understand what there is NOT to see in him, quite frankly. I think he's very talented and very unique and the clothes have lots of variety from before, every season.

Versace, I think is great, a bit of it sometimes seems overly glam and provocative for the sake of being so (as opposed to Cavalli, because I think his clothes are more artful), I still respect Donatella as a designer. I think she did a great job for Spring this year too, it seemed somewhat less sexually agressive and the clothes were attractive and more wearable but still were sexy pieces.

I don't see how you cannot appreciate Prada (okay, well, I hate her for Spring/Summer this year but that's a big exception). I just can't even go there. So I won't.

I have to say that I'm not too crazy about Donna Karan, her stuff usually seems a bit bland to me (like a bad combination of, "I tried to be sexy, but I just ended up looking safe and a bit off), but whatever.

 

[MulletProof]

hmm, having read the entire thread..I think everything's been said already, I pretty much agree with metal-on-metal, I think throwing Dsquared is a bit pointless cause the stupidity in the designs is quite obvious and same for Cavalli, I may be blind or just boring but I dont find anything pretty in his collections, it's just a mess and a failed attempt of wildness and sexuality.

so..for me:
Narciso Rodriguez (just bland)
Diane Von Furstenberg (it looks cheap to me, I dont care who invented the wrap-dress or whatever the name is).
Armani.

 

[Spike413]

hmm, having read the entire thread..I think everything's been said already, I pretty much agree with metal-on-metal, I think throwing Dsquared is a bit pointless cause the stupidity in the designs is quite obvious and same for Cavalli, I may be blind or just boring but I dont find anything pretty in his collections, it's just a mess and a failed attempt of wildness and sexuality.

so..for me:
Narciso Rodriguez (just bland)
Diane Von Furstenberg (it looks cheap to me, I dont care who invented the wrap-dress or whatever the name is).
Armani.

I agree with Cavalli....but the sad thing for me is that he does have talent, it's just severly misused.

 

[n8-]

I'm gonna agree with metal-on-metal also, and someone else i dont get is Alexander McQueen.

 

[AlexN]

Actually, now that I'm really thinking about it, I don't really "get" McQueen, either. I find his work interesting and beautiful, and I think he has a LOT of talent and creativity. But his work doesn't speak to me and actually "say anthing" in particular, like the work of most others do. It's just kinda...out there. I guess I'm saying that I don't always get the point.

 

[VICTIM]

Maybe its just difficult for you americans to understand british designers

i have notice you havnt been slagging of tom ford (an american) who's designs are similar in the way that they are all about sex to cavalli and (not so much but still) DSQUARED2

you must understand that most fashion is about sex, why do we buy fashionable clothes? to look good, why do we want to look good? so we can get some sex!

 

[faust]

In agreement!! I just don't get Dsquared2, I don't think the clothes are at ALL innovative, and they DO look trashy and cheap to me. It just doesn't even look like they're trying to make nice clothes, I don't know.

As for the other designers that have been bashed frequently in this thread, such as John Galliano and Roberto Cavalli, they are definitely not my style, but I have to give them credit due to their originality and vision and attention to detail. It's kind of like looking at a crazy painting, it took a lot of skill and even genius and can appreciate it, but that doesn't mean I want it hanging in my living room. As for everyone who's said Cavalli just pushes sex appeal too much, I can hardly believe that before the whole "let's cover up and be ladylike" thing hit big with the introduction of F/W '04 collections you had a problem with sexual clothes so much. Everyone thought clothes cut down to her and slit up to there were the greatest things ever for the past few years, no matter what designer made them. Tom Ford even put penis pendant necklaces on the runway a few years ago and exposed more breasts than a Playboy magazine, yet I don't see anyone (but maybe I missed someone, if there was anyone at all) knocking him. Roberto Cavalli is still sticking to his roots, and if his roots are ultra-sexy clothing, then so be it.

I don't really think I can say bad things about any designer's creations if they truly had originality and they came up with an idea all their own. It's almost like discrediting them as an entire person, because it's a creation of their mind. (I hope that made sense).

As for Marc Jacobs, while I may not be crazy about some of his designs (don't get me started on Marc by Marc Jacobs S/S '05...), on a whole, I love the man and his work for both LV and his own line. While he may not be the MOST inventive designer in the world, he makes feminine classics and basics with a bit of an updated appeal with quality and detailing that you won't be able to match in most any thrift shop (unless it carries vintage designer pieces).

Also, while Alexander McQueen often isn't much my style either, I like many pieces form the S/S '05 collection as well as every other collection I've seen and respect him as much as any other high-end designer. I don't even understand what there is NOT to see in him, quite frankly. I think he's very talented and very unique and the clothes have lots of variety from before, every season.

Versace, I think is great, a bit of it sometimes seems overly glam and provocative for the sake of being so (as opposed to Cavalli, because I think his clothes are more artful), I still respect Donatella as a designer. I think she did a great job for Spring this year too, it seemed somewhat less sexually agressive and the clothes were attractive and more wearable but still were sexy pieces.

I don't see how you cannot appreciate Prada (okay, well, I hate her for Spring/Summer this year but that's a big exception). I just can't even go there. So I won't.

I have to say that I'm not too crazy about Donna Karan, her stuff usually seems a bit bland to me (like a bad combination of, "I tried to be sexy, but I just ended up looking safe and a bit off), but whatever.

Define sexual? Because if looking like a cheap sl*t is sexual, yes you are right.

 

[faust]

Maybe its just difficult for you americans to understand british designers

i have notice you havnt been slagging of tom ford (an american) who's designs are similar in the way that they are all about sex to cavalli and (not so much but still) DSQUARED2

you must understand that most fashion is about sex, why do we buy fashionable clothes? to look good, why do we want to look good? so we can get some sex!

Maybe it's difficult not to generalize and not to be so foolish with your first post?

 

[raijin]

I think he meant to be funny, but that is certainly not why most of us here on tfs are interested in fashion.

 

[AlexN]

Maybe it's difficult not to generalize and not to be so foolish with your first post?

I agree. That doesn't even deserve a proper response.

 

[marnilover]

I agree with you on Roberto Cavali. First off, he never thinks outside of the box. Its always the same ugly prints in a wannabe Versace way. Plus, I dont think his designs are very unique. They look like Missoni prints.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I realized I am not a fan or Martin Margiela. I tried on his clothes and looked at some women's stuff and it was nice but not good...not for the prices.

 

[Hye Park Lover]

Completely do not understand Dolce & Gabanna and Michael Kors and I'm going to have so many people hating my for saying this, but I don't find Nicolas Ghesquiere and Dries Van Noten as incredible as the hype that surrounds them.

 

[castorpollux]

Ralph Lauren is the most established "designer" in the fashion industry w/ a net worth of over $1 billion (and a huge empire to go along w/ it), yet he merits very little respect.
He's nothing more than a strong proponent and purveyor of the "east coast/old world preppie" look and lifestyle, which he didn't even invent. An excellent businessman and promoter, he's unimaginative and derivative as a designer.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I don´t get the following:

Luella Bartley (which niche does she fill, alongside Chloé or Stella McCartney?)

Matthew Williamson

Marni (the colour combos, styling and printworks always seem too retro in my eye, I think Dries Van Noten seems much more contemporary and modern, while keeping up the Bohemia vibe... Also, I don´t feel that the intentionally-loose cut drapes that naturally... it seems quite stiff to me... and I always hate the shoes at Marni!!!)

Prada (Just like Marni, it often goes too literally retro, I also don´t get what´s so avantgarde about it, apart from the ocassionally thrown-in shoe and accessory-abominations - I am pointing on those bamboo heeled sandals and patent leather booties from S/S 2006... I think it´s solely the styling and hair/make-up that makes it look edgy)

 

[finalfashion]

I Don't Get:

Marc Jacobs Love his shoes... but the clothes are derivative and unflattering. His stuff for Louis Vuitton looks like he second-rate ideas. The only show Jacobs consistently shines in is his Marc by Marc Jacobs... he almost always gets it right.

Donatella Versace But I know she has been struggling for a few seasons and seems to be getting back in the game. The connection to her own look and personality is so strong its hard for me to get past it.

Comme Des Garcons More and more so. I thought I got the distressed sweaters and black baggy stuff she showed in the eighties, but she's lost me with the Rolling Stones motifs this season. And when she talks - !? She shares a category with Vivienne Westwood here I'm afraid... the Used To Be Way Cooler/Should Not Be Interviewed. I do admire Rei Kawukubo's business innovations, though.

Michael Kors Is it just me or does he send out the same collection every season? If he uses a camo print it's a comment on war? Give me a break.

John Galliano I literally love him and hate him in the same breath. At least he gets me confused in an excited way.

Karl Lagerfield Here is a case of where I think he's often (not as often as they say) Clever but if he keeps popping up like a greasy wack-a-mole I am going to hurl. Overexposed and not as great as I hear he is. He is clever though. I'll give him that.

Muicca Prada Another Clever individual who is not quite as All That as her reputation would have us think she is. She does have an astute eye but I get bored with her shows. I don't know why. Watching a Prada show usually makes me want to wear something completely opposite. It's a mystery. I know that the shoes are ugly and the bags are ugly and somehow That's The Point but I Don't Get It!

I think I've covered a bit of everything here, bring it on, People!

ps. Margiala for Diesel!?? Is there a thread for that somewhere, Faust? Sounds interesting to me.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

Michale Kors- I am pretty new to the fashion industry [at least, compared to alot of other people here], but it seems like he has been doing the same high fashion version of Escada/St. John stuff, just more expensive, for the last twenty five years.

Marni- We already have this, don't we? I believe we call it MiuMiu.

Tara @ Immitation of Christ- Anything she can do... Guess? can do better.

John Galliano- I 'get' it, sort of, but his shows are just becoming pomp and circumstance. I'm sorry, but the last Dior show was too much, and the last Galliano show was a circus.

 

[Karl.Popper]

rofl. "Fashion is not art"? You kid, surely. Since when was functionality and art mutually exclusive. A greek vase is not art on account of its functionality qua vase then? Don't be absurd.

Fashion is art. The standard it cleaves to is an aesthetic one. Probably the only art form that expresses (as well as elicits) sexual tension in such an immediate way (p*rn*gr*phy may be excluded) in the language and metaphors encompassed by cut, fabric, and design, frame, skin, hair. I react the same way to powerful collections or a beautiful piece of clothing as I do to the emotional core of music, or literature, sculpture, a painting. They are all moving in a way that is due solely to the aesthetics of the piece.

We talk about the 'musicality' of painting, the 'architecture' of a piano piece, a 'colourful' scherzo. Metaphors that just as well might apply to fashion. Off the top of my head I would say 'sfumato' in painting has the same aesthetic effect it has on me as fold, drapery and shadow does on a Yohji Yamamoto dress. Indeed, that is what sfumato is meant to replicate. That they are thus interchangeable at least suggests some kind of family resemblance amongst these fields of human cultural endeavour.

(Generally they are subsumed under the category 'the arts'.)

So Dsquared is ugly as. So is Roberto Cavalli. And I agree that the utter pointlessness of some Margiela pieces makes me laugh (that is not to say I think he is out and out rubbish - there are many genuinely nice redeeming pieces in Margiela). But back to Dsquared.

Ugly. Why? Because it's brainlessly sexual, overtly crass. In other words, tasteless. Fashion is about sex - its very essence is sex. But it is also about tasteful sex, about the person underneath, about attracting a sexual opposite (or non-opposite, as the case may be for some). It is a reflection of the kind of person you are, and what you want to project to the world. And it is ugly because it gives vent to pure unbridled sexuality - that's the message it projects. It tells me that you are reduced to a sexual creature, that you have no sense of control over your primal urges, that intellect is hardly involved, and that your taste, like your person, has no subtlety to it. In short are reduced to appealing to the lowest common denominator (brazen sexuality). It is animalistic.

That is why it is ugly. Crudity often is.