Gareth Pugh F/W 09.10 Paris

[C0UTUR3 4 SUR3]

I really like this collection, the presentation not so much but I give him credit for switching things up. If he has a runway show or not, it doesn't affect me since I'm just viewing it huddled around my computer monitor. The video was cool for art, but not for showing quality, detail, etc etc etc. I wonder why the collection is kinda small compared to the men's wear.

 

[Andymoon]

Rick owens much?

Do not want.

 

[BerlinRocks]

The video is great as a support idea if it come along with the proper clothes in a classic runway or displayed in static mannequins , it show the whole concept with sound & movement edited in the way he wishes to tell the story, but in a generation when everything is digitally manipulated it can easily disguise the fact that what we're seeing is real and the observation of fabric/shape/colour/cut/proportion etc.. is mostly lost in the after effects - what we see on the film are just intentions. Nothing else. People wear clothes.

Fashion and Cinema can eventually touch each other but they are very different artistic expressions.

(sorry for my messy english I'm Italian)

ouch ... isn't it a bit conservative ?!
...

i mean cinema was not a form of art until recently in the late-early-middle of 20th century ... hadn't cinema interested some artists of the avant-garde ?
and haven't we passed the autonomy of art ? aren't we in a society where disciplines meet together ? ...
I'm not really for Fashion being a form of Art, but if GP thinks so (and everything he's done recently make me believe that he is for a full potential of creativity in Fashion) what can restrain him from experimenting it ?!

And it seems he has done 'classical' presentation for his collection ?! so ...
I think his video is good and shows all the potential his clothes can have in a 'real living' situation ... which obviously they lost when simply being shot ... and Natasa really helps to show all this potential (wow she can do no wrong)

I think we should be more open-minded with the fashion experimentations ...

Regarding the collection well the video made me like it ... and I'm not sure I would like it with only the photos ...

If a designer releases a video of his collection, who is being promoted - the designer, or the director who actually made the video? The director plays an enormous part in the creation of a video, so whose work are we seeing? We're seeing other people's work.

I feel like I'm reading some texts about the 1970s-1990s debate btw artists and curators ...

I like it that this video presentation raised some thoughts about the traditional catwalk/photos presentation ...

What is fun too is that he actually used the casual presentation of Croisière/Pre-collections medium (photos) to show his work alongside the video ...



A really interesting debate imo (and no it's not a false debate .... fashion presentation is something important ... imo ... though it may not be for people who only see fashion as an economic and trends system) and some interesting thoughts ...
We should go on ....

 

[mandolux]

Rick Owens? Hmm.... I dunno. It reminds me more of 90's McQueen collections.. (1998, to be exact)

 

[jhaime]

I agree & disagree...

while I feel video installations to present a collection is a great idea, sight can be lost or manipulated by a number of people, ranging from director & cinematographer to the editors...

The only gripe i have concerning video installations till now, is that they're directed terribly in such a pathetically pretentious fashion. The problem designwrs have, is that they may choose to adopt video production as a cheaper alternative. However, to acquire a top director & spend a budget on a video or 'short film' presenting the collection, could easily cost £50,000-£1,000,0000. Am I exaggerating? absolutely not.

Top directors & their teams cost a fortune...you just have to consider the cost behind 30 second advertisements you see on television. They can cost millions; so if this avenue was to be explored correctly, it's not financially viable.

For me personally, the direction of a video installation has to have emphasis on the collection, which from this video is virtually impossible to view.

Concerning the collection; he needs to explore a wider range of softer fabrics, as the pieces that contain such a vain, are actually the stand outs for me. Otherwise, he faces a dull exit with this continual replication of over-sized coats every season (although i wouldn't mind one, spare couple grand anyone?)

 

[sqekcx]

I personally don't mind the video. I actually prefer the video over the photos.

The video is amazing, everything is so captivating. I think that shows the power of technology. Everything could happen in a video. He can add special effects to make it look whatever he wants. He could express the aesthetic behind his collection in the video so much better than in an ordinary fashion show. Although fashion is about clothes, it is also a kind of art. In this case, a video is a better media than a fashion show.
And btw, the clothes look really ugly in those wwd photos. They look kinda liveless.

 

[Navygreen]

Rick owens much?

VERY much.

 

[Master Wood]

I'm afraid I'm not at all convinced. This move is potentially disastrous for Mr Pugh, and I feel when a designer does this form of presentation it makes me realize how much I take runway shows for granted, as much as fashion is about fantasy, shows give the clothes a sole and purpose, a reality which simply cannot be achieved through video.

 

[ElectricAlyce]

What I like most about EVERY SINGLE Gareth Pugh collection is... well, this thread. Most other runwaythreads consists of "I like this" or "I don't like this" - this stimulates to discussion about some of the very foundations of fashion, the old art vs. commerce debate, all those important (and slightly pretentious) subjects.

 

[esquire]

ouch ... isn't it a bit conservative ?!
...

i mean cinema was not a form of art until recently in the late-early-middle of 20th century ... hadn't cinema interested some artists of the avant-garde ?
and haven't we passed the autonomy of art ? aren't we in a society where disciplines meet together ? ...
I'm not really for Fashion being a form of Art, but if GP thinks so (and everything he's done recently make me believe that he is for a full potential of creativity in Fashion) what can restrain him from experimenting it ?!

And it seems he has done 'classical' presentation for his collection ?! so ...
I think his video is good and shows all the potential his clothes can have in a 'real living' situation ... which obviously they lost when simply being shot ... and Natasa really helps to show all this potential (wow she can do no wrong)

I think we should be more open-minded with the fashion experimentations ...

Regarding the collection well the video made me like it ... and I'm not sure I would like it with only the photos ...

I feel like I'm reading some texts about the 1970s-1990s debate btw artists and curators ...

I like it that this video presentation raised some thoughts about the traditional catwalk/photos presentation ...

What is fun too is that he actually used the casual presentation of Croisière/Pre-collections medium (photos) to show his work alongside the video ...



A really interesting debate imo (and no it's not a false debate .... fashion presentation is something important ... imo ... though it may not be for people who only see fashion as an economic and trends system) and some interesting thoughts ...
We should go on ....

I'm not going to discuss Art with you on this thread, and no, I'm not being conservative - just not being alienated as we're discussing Paris Fashion Week not Cannes Film Festival. Also please note I have used the term "Artistic Expression" not Art. Bottom Line : Its fashion - and sadly a la Owens mode.

 

[ElectricAlyce]

esquire, why not discuss art? isn't this art? I think it's impossible to discuss Pugh without entering the art/commerce debate. You can judge the clothes on their own merit, but not the medium.

 

[esquire]

esquire, why not discuss art? isn't this art? I think it's impossible to discuss Pugh without entering the art/commerce debate. You can judge the clothes on their own merit, but not the medium.

we can discuss art of course, I'm a collector myself. But not on this thread - as it should be related to GP AW09 collection as fashion form .. otherwise what we do with Galliano, Balenciaga, Margiella, Lacroix etc..? Its all fashion ! if we take in this way , stopping to make vulgar the meaning of the word "Art" we'll for sure raise our level of discussion.

 

[ElectricAlyce]

Of course we can, and maybe that is what we should, but then we have to narrow it down to, as you say just the fashion in itself. The discussion here about art is the video-format, not just the clothes (although I personally see fashion design as more closely linked to art, but that is not a discussion we should take here). So if we can discuss the clothes on their own, then we can stop talking about art and start talking design. But the debate of the videomedium versus the traditional catwalk is an artdebate as I see it. If this should be discussed in this thread or not I'm not shure.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

I love this collection, and i love the presentation with the video.

 

[esquire]

Of course we can, and maybe that is what we should, but then we have to narrow it down to, as you say just the fashion in itself. The discussion here about art is the video-format, not just the clothes (although I personally see fashion design as more closely linked to art, but that is not a discussion we should take here). So if we can discuss the clothes on their own, then we can stop talking about art and start talking design. But the debate of the videomedium versus the traditional catwalk is an artdebate as I see it. If this should be discussed in this thread or not I'm not shure.

After seeing the pics the video has become irrelevant, I don't wear videos. It was like watching a rather exciting well edited trailer but them when you watch the proper movie (in this case seeing the static pics) its an unoriginal blah blah blah. Oh, metal spikes to say I'm a punk kid and I like to push social aggression! Oh, dark chiffon wings as a metaphor to tell you I'm dark angel !Oh, I'm the oogie boogie man... !!!

C'mon its very poor and obvious in it in references.. I would be much surprised if something like Shakespeare's "Ophelia" come on board - it is as sinister but incomparably clever - an by the way his black chiffon dress its very Cavalli - would GP be selling this style in animal prints? For sure it would be a commercial success and perhaps would help him to afford a nicer presentation for SS10.

In fact I think I lost much of my precious time already discussing something won't touch my sensibility neither my wardrobe.

 

[BerlinRocks]

we can discuss art of course, I'm a collector myself. But not on this thread - as it should be related to GP AW09 collection as fashion form .. otherwise what we do with Galliano, Balenciaga, Margiella, Lacroix etc..? Its all fashion ! if we take in this way , stopping to make vulgar the meaning of the word "Art" we'll for sure raise our level of discussion.

i think the word "Art" hasn't waited us to become vulgar ..... and I don't particulary understand why talking about art on a fashion forum (where we are supposed to share ideas ... a forum doesn't exist if there's no opinions shared ...) would make the word Art become vulgar ...
anyway ...


Clearly, GP wants the limits btw Arts and Fashion to be more flexible ... So I think it's not "off-topic" to talk about it there ...
I'm not sure that making a video of his collection can be called art (for sure) and if I remember correctly I first talked about experimentations in the fashion field with the 'show/catwalk' medium ... Then it all went bad on art ...

I don't wanna talk about cinema (a world i don't know much ... except maybe godard, tati etc.) but about the fact a 'young' designer who's making a video for his collection and not a traditional catwalk presentation ...

Even Galliano, to me, has transformed the catwalk ... like Margiela, V&R did ...

And though I don't think Fashion is art (i'm not sure i have the clue to discuss what is art and what is not but still look what is doing Hussein Chalayan transforming clothes into furniture was a statement), I think it can be a field of research and not only in the financial or trends terms ... And we can make parallels with Art, as we can make with sociologie etc.
Just read Lipovetsky (or even Barthes) and you'll understand Fashion has a potential as a subject of research ... somewhere else than in cuts and drapés ...

and see this is pretty smart imo :

while I feel video installations to present a collection is a great idea, sight can be lost or manipulated by a number of people, ranging from director & cinematographer to the editors...

The only gripe i have concerning video installations till now, is that they're directed terribly in such a pathetically pretentious fashion. The problem designwrs have, is that they may choose to adopt video production as a cheaper alternative. However, to acquire a top director & spend a budget on a video or 'short film' presenting the collection, could easily cost £50,000-£1,000,0000. Am I exaggerating? absolutely not.

Top directors & their teams cost a fortune...you just have to consider the cost behind 30 second advertisements you see on television. They can cost millions; so if this avenue was to be explored correctly, it's not financially viable.

For me personally, the direction of a video installation has to have emphasis on the collection, which from this video is virtually impossible to view.

so I think we can discuss ....
Though you're part right as I should get more interested into the outfits than the video itself ...

I'm going away from this thread ...

 

[ElectricAlyce]

After seeing the pics the video has become irrelevant, I don't wear videos. It was like watching a rather exciting well edited trailer but them when you watch the proper movie (in this case seeing the static pics) its an unoriginal blah blah blah. Oh, metal spikes to say I'm a punk kid and I like to push social aggression! Oh, dark chiffon wings as a metaphor to tell you I'm dark angel !Oh, I'm the oogie boogie man... !!!

C'mon its very poor and obvious in it in references.. I would be much surprised if something like Shakespeare's "Ophelia" come on board - it is as sinister but incomparably clever - an by the way his black chiffon dress its very Cavalli - would GP be selling this style in animal prints? For sure it would be a success and perhaps would help him to afford a nicer presentation for SS10.

In fact I think I lost much of my precious time already discussing something won't touch my sensibility neither my wardrobe.

You don't wear static pictures either, and when you wear clothes, more often than not you move. So I don't understand why you have this hostility to the format

I also have to admit you are starting to come across more and more sarcastic and holier-than-thou and ruin a good discussion because this doesn't suit your aesthetic taste (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion). And I'm not shure if I understood you correctly, but are you saying you'd prefer if he used animal print so that it makes more money? Is that what fashion is, who makes the clothes that will sell most? that's flat out a shallow way to look at it, and would make fashion no more interesting than finance.

 

[kuli_trendy]

nice video presentation but it's very YSL homme presentation

 

[esquire]

Ok EletricAlyce & BerlinRocks - hands down.. its all genius!

put your best GP leather jacket with 5 inch nails appliqué on and check in midday at the Le Meurice, the concierge for sure will gossip with the receptionist: Ohhhh he (she) is rockstar!

Sorry nothing personal, but yes I meant to be easy listening and silly.

 

[tigerrouge]

The way I view any collection from any designer, is that the design and presentation of clothes/accessories demands a skilful blend of visual fantasy and commercial appeal. It’s a blend of the designer’s own aesthetic vision with an awareness of the "business psychology" of raising desire in others for the actual items. After all, the point IS to sell some clothes, shoes and handbags to someone (Gareth has not yet got to the stage where he’s got his own aftershave range sold via image alone).

So for a designer to uncompromisingly insist on their own artistic vision - to me, that’s the designer being lazy and self-indulgent, doing half the job, ignoring the concept of 'appealing to other people', and ignoring the business side of things, which is disastrous when you’re running a business. It is difficult to find a ratio between art and commercial appeal - but that's part of the work you have to do as a designer.

I have respect for designers who have a strong grip on supporting their vision with sound business moves, I see nothing square about building an successful brand which endures over decades. Being business-savvy is an art in itself, or else we’d all be wealthy entrepreneurs.

Being a success realistically involves doing a lot of things you don’t want to do - but that’s true for everyone in every career, and fashion designers are not excused from this, just because they work with fabrics and good-looking girls.

And Gareth can’t play the ‘club kid’ card forever (and in terms of being an enfant terrible, he’s no Jean-Paul Gaultier). At some point, he’s got to grow up and look outwards, while still preserving a sense of “what he stands for”. That ‘integration’ requires thought and toil, and this is the moment he needs to do it, especially if he’s moving into jobs where there’s increased exposure, expectations and money. He’s not at art school now.

I have to say, I don’t think the collection or the video presentation is awful, my gripe is that he really needs to be impressing the world in a big way at the moment, and he hasn’t. What he’s done is OK, but it could have been a lot better. I don’t want to see him slip back, when he’s done so well over the past few years. He can get away with one collection like this, but the next work he shows… that has to be special.