"Intellectual fashion"

RaisinBoy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
1,934
Hi there everyone

I was just browsing Facebook and my friend shared quite an interesting column titled "The Rise of Intellectual Fashion". You can read it here. I think it sums up quite nicely what we've seen recently on the runway with the brands like Vetements, Jacquemus etc.

What are your thoughts on this topic?
 
Vetements, Jacquemus, (HBA, J.W. Anderson)… are the rise of intellectual fashion???? We are in dire dire dire times then since all are lessers blatantly copying greater designers before them. All unbearably hyped, pretentious and ultimately short on talent but very clever in understanding marketing. If that’s what passes as “intellectual”, I’d happily be dumb and passe in liking what I like.

Intellectual fashion is such a cringe-inducing term to me— and likely the type of segregation first-year fashion students take seriously without knowing how foolish they are for taking it seriously. But that’s a part of being a student— you make a fool of yourself all the while learning: As if a certain style of design is somehow much more “intelligent” and “thoughtful” just because someone dubs it “intellectual”. Fashion— whether high fashion, haute couture, artisanal, DIY, street and even fast, exists alongside one another and is as valid as the other. I may prefer one over the other, but they’re as much a part of the fashionscape, and as much a part of the fashion vocabulary as the next. I may not like Versace or Jeremy’s Scott’s Moschino— or even the aforementioned designers that started my post, but I think they’re as much a part of fashion/ high fashion as designers I may be attracted to. But it’s all just fashion. The more variety, the merrier. And it’s not like most will last in the long run anyway, right-- Jacquemus…?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking at the column, I think maybe 'pseudo-intellectual' is what's meant here ... it was a bit hard to believe some of the inspirations cited were for real. I mean, that's really what inspired you to put kangaroo fur in shoes, or are you just making this sh!t up???
 
This article sums up perfectly what fashion has been in the past few years! People nowadays are too focused on the interpretation rather than the aesthetic of the clothes! As what Andre Leon Talley said,"It's a famine of beauty!!", and this time it's not the models anymore (although that industry also needs more beautification as well!). I may not like what Jeremy Scott has been doing in Moschino, but at least his message is spectacularly clear and does not require an essay to push people into deciphering what he really means!
 
When something is truly intellectual there is no need to express that.
Pretentious sounds more appropriate.

well said, truly 'intellectual' designers don't need to say 'hey this is intellectual fashion'. It either is or it isn't, even then it is subjective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This article sums up perfectly what fashion has been in the past few years! People nowadays are too focused on the interpretation rather than the aesthetic of the clothes! As what Andre Leon Talley said,"It's a famine of beauty!!", and this time it's not the models anymore (although that industry also needs more beautification as well!). I may not like what Jeremy Scott has been doing in Moschino, but at least his message is spectacularly clear and does not require an essay to push people into deciphering what he really means!

This exactly. fashion should focus on aesthetic as opposed to being suggestive of something else. Sorely lacking is the creative ideas that make people take note of the fashion world; unfortunately people focus on the completely wrong things.
 
I remember a contestant on project runway giving a lengthy inspiration for a simple dress, and the judge saying "the words don't match the dress". That's how I feel about intellectual fashion, there's too much thought going into something simple and the result is very lackluster. The clothes should speak for themselves, you shouldn't have to explain everything.
Intellectual fashion is just really pretentious fashion
 
I think my definition of "intellectual fashion" is seeing something that makes me want to know more about the principles and philosophy that went into the creation of the garments, or the staging of the show. It's about awakening curiosity and further consideration, and making the effort to find out more. It's certainly not a process that starts with someone telling me what I should be thinking.
 
^^^ Yes-- in the ideal fashiondom, people would individuals and make up their own minds.

But the fashion industry is just like any other industry that brands and labels rely heavily on marketing to sway the masses towards their product. A lot of people need to be told how to dress and what’s the right dress— even as far as how to live and how to behave. So telling them what is the “intelligent” dress is just a part of reality. (And creates jobs for many LOL I remember one of the most humbling things Armani said was that because he thinks 90% of women don’t have any style is the reason he has a job.)

Is someone pointing out what fashion is “intellectual” any different than pointing out what bag and shoe is the “it” one?
 
For me intellectual fashion simply means that there is a thought process behind a creation- ANY thought process apart from 'let's copy this and change the collar/length/colour' Any relevant fashion is intellectual, because without there being any original thought or idea there is just a vacuum. Saint Laurent and Chanel were both intellectual designers, in that they were asking themselves questions. Intellectual is not necessarily difficult or weird ( weird for the sake of it is just as irrelevant as blatant copies), it means that something has meaning and is somehow culturally relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^
great post~!

intellectual comes from the word intellect...
you are using your brain...thinking...that's the point...

i think that word gets a bad rap...
thinking should not be considered a bad thing!...imho...
i wish more people would do it...

:lol:...

not sure which designers i would call intellectual...
vivienne westwood and katherine hamnett come rushing to mind...
chalayan, rei + the cdg universe, yohji, issey + his universe, suzuki takayuki, eileen fisher, alber elbaz...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
disclaimer---
i couldn't read the entire article because i found it to be cringeworthy and badly written...
he complains when designers explain their inspirations but EVERYone asks every designer what their inspiration is...
so don't complain when you don't understand the answer...
just because you don't see the connection, doesn't mean that it's not real for the designer...
they may take just the tiniest sliver of inspiration from something and then weave it into some other things until the original becomes unrecognizable...
that is the nature of design...
if you could see it quite literally, then it would just be regurgitation...

people are so stupid sometimes...
:rolleyes:


but- in general...
i support intellectual endeavors of all kinds...
^_^...:mowhawk:...:smartass:...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ I don’t know about ol’ Viv and Hamnett…

Viv has a tendency to ramble on and on about creating a saloon where scholars can meet and have discussions— someone should clue her in that’s what universities are for… Ultimately, her designs are rather more fetishists and coquettish than anything “intellectual”. I think she was profound during the SEX days with Malcolm and she’ll always be the godmother of punk to me, but even Malcolm lovingly confessed she was sort of a ditz who just took herself a tad too seriously.

And as for Hamnett, just because you can put it on a tee, doesn’t make your designs intelligent.

Hussein is no doubt an observant and intelligent talent back in the day. But even then, I got tired quite quickly when he would drone on and on about his designs’ concepts and purposes. I mean, the designs were beautiful, but he should take a note from Rei, Yohji, Helmut, Ann and even Miuccia who just let their designs do the talking and only spoke vaguely when pressed on about their concepts for a collection. I don’t need a thesis, Hussein.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
when we are doing something operating our hands, we are thinking. designing is fundamentally an intellectual act. furthermore, design, from designare, is de-sign. a magic and a trick to make something distinct or make it concealed. either way there has to be that something which the signified naturally comes with. and there style is part of content / content is part of style.
"intellectual fashion" implies how much of design in fashion could have degenerated into fake and hollow only for stimulating consumers' desire.

so, instead of the word intellectual, I'd say metaphysical fashion (as in 'metaphysical poetry').
a designer whose approach is against 'emotional loquacity' would be a metaphysical designer.
it's rei kawakubo that tries to overcome anger by means of intellect. there is carol christian poell who aims at intellect's control of despair. don't get them wrong. those designers are as eager. just that their passion is of dry ice quality. and of course they are not just intellectual but over-intellectual, therefore risky. on the other hand we also know for a fact that they have been intensely loved by the profession.
 
I really don't get why people say that Vetements is supposed to be "intellectual fashion"... because Demna himself has said countless times that the point of the brand is the exact opposite of that. It's, quite literally, clothes. Simple, urban clothes they think their clients wanna wear. It's hoodies, jackets, coats, jeans, t-sh*ts. There's nothing intellectual about it.

It's really the fashion media's fault for trying to over-contextualize, over-philosophize and give bigger-than-life meaning to things that really don't have it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything has meaning, though. And all art, once released into the world, is open for interpretation.


IMO, Alber Elbaz is not so much an intellectual designer as someone who designs with emotion. There are of course ideas behind his work--for example, recently he told a story about a discussion with his therapist that resulted in the inspiration of combining the roles of plastic surgeon and designer--but he thinks about how the clothes he makes will make the women who wear them feel, and he creates clothes with positive intentions and feelings about those customers. (Or did, and will again ...) I'm not sure what a good term for that would be, but to me 'intellectual' doesn't describe it well.
 
when we are doing something operating our hands, we are thinking. designing is fundamentally an intellectual act. furthermore, design, from designare, is de-sign. a magic and a trick to make something distinct or make it concealed. either way there has to be that something which the signified naturally comes with. and there style is part of content / content is part of style.
"intellectual fashion" implies how much of design in fashion could have degenerated into fake and hollow only for stimulating consumers' desire.

so, instead of the word intellectual, I'd say metaphysical fashion (as in 'metaphysical poetry').
a designer whose approach is against 'emotional loquacity' would be a metaphysical designer.
it's rei kawakubo that tries to overcome anger by means of intellect. there is carol christian poell who aims at intellect's control of despair. don't get them wrong. those designers are as eager. just that their passion is of dry ice quality. and of course they are not just intellectual but over-intellectual, therefore risky. on the other hand we also know for a fact that they have been intensely loved by the profession.


you might have to sell all the clothes with a dictionary...
or at least a 'cheat sheet' with some explanation...
:ninja:

i doubt most millennials even truly know what the word 'intellectual' means...
much less, 'metaphysical' and 'loquacity'...
i think i would even have to look them up to be sure...

and since most people will be too lazy to do so...

let's clarify...
METAPHYSICS...
Metaphysics:
is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:

Ultimately, what is there?
What is it like?
asking what is beyond the physical world we see...i guess...
and from what i read about metaphysical poets, they were quite learned and they endeavored in their work to show this off...or to prove it...
i found this particularly enlightening...
Metaphysical conceit[edit]

In English literature the term is generally associated with the 17th century metaphysical poets, an extension of contemporary usage. The metaphysical conceit differs from an extended analogy in the sense that it does not have a clear-cut relationship between the things being compared.[1] Helen Gardner[2] observed that "a conceit is a comparison whose ingenuity is more striking than its justness" and that "a comparison becomes a conceit when we are made to concede likeness while being strongly conscious of unlikeness." An example of the latter occurs in John Donne's "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning", in which a couple faced with absence from each other is likened to a compass.

Dull sublunary lovers' love
(Whose soul is sense) cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
Those things which elemented it.

But we by a love so much refined,
That our selves know not what it is,
Inter-assured of the mind,
Care less, eyes, lips, and hands to miss.

Our two souls therefore, which are one,
Though I must go, endure not yet
A breach, but an expansion,
Like gold to airy thinness beat.

If they be two, they are two so
As stiff twin compasses are two;
Thy soul, the fixed foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if the other do.

And though it in the center sit,
Yet when the other far doth roam,
It leans and hearkens after it,
And grows erect, as that comes home.

Such wilt thou be to me, who must,
Like th' other foot, obliquely run;
Thy firmness makes my circle just,
And makes me end where I begun.

The metaphysical conceit is often imaginative, exploring specific parts of an experience

i understand clearly how this applies to the work of Rei Kawakubo and CCP...

:woot:

credit: wikipedia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
when LUC were presenting that morse collection, the staff ended up not even hiding the "cheat sheets". so they might not have been cheat sheets any more though. there were lots of them scattered here and there after all.

I didn't know the word metaphysical is being such a lonely word over there. I thought it is just general, while metaphysical poetry could be regarded as technical term, hence brackets put around it in the above post.
anyway, it is not as foreign as what the explanation sounds like. for example, if you remove metaphysical elements from the japanese anime, it would feel as if it leaves something to be desired. or if someone adult still has their beloved doll from childhood, there might be some sort of metaphysical tendency at work there.
and baudelaire:

" The overriding desire of most children is to get at and see the soul of their toys, some at the end of a certain period of use, others straightaway. It is on the more or less swift invasion of this desire that depends the length of life of a toy. I do not find it in me to blame this infantile mania; it is a first metaphysical tendency. When this desire has implanted itself in the child's cerebral marrow, it fills his fingers and nails with an extraordinary agility and strength. The child twists and turns his toy, scratches it, shakes it, bumps it against the walls, throws it on the ground. From time to time he makes it re-start its mechanical motions, sometimes in the opposite direction. Its marvellous life comes to a stop. The child, like the people besieging the Tuileries, makes a supreme effort; at last he opens it up, he is the stronger. But where is the soul? This is the beginning of melancholy and gloom. "

some would have asserted it was at the throat, others would have thought it was at the eyes. later they said it was at the heart and relatively recently many guess it is at the brains. my fave is michel serres's take. he says the soul lies where the skin folds, touches on itself, like lip against lip, eyelids closed, etc. tattoo is a map of the soul. sex is about the soul.

"now determine where the soul is, by putting your elbows on your knees, by placing one part of your body on another. there is no end to it, the only limit is your own suppleness. metaphysics begins with, and conditioned by, gymnastics."


* back to the term "metaphysical poets"
they are reversible like ccp and cdg. serious/funny.
(or, rather than reversible, they might have been trying to connect things that are far apart, in the middle of the universe whose frame seemed like out of joint)

extract from wikipedia
a witticism of John Dryden, who said of John Donne:
He affects the metaphysics, not only in his satires, but in his amorous verses, where nature only should reign; and perplexes the minds of the fair sex with nice speculations of philosophy, when he should engage their hearts, and entertain them with the softnesses of love. In this . . . Mr. Cowley has copied him to a fault.


on a bit different note, personally I like the girl who tends to be swooned not by any stereotypical heroes but by such character as mr. spock.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
213,826
Messages
15,239,407
Members
87,747
Latest member
Mutchi Sigas
Back
Top