Is Fashion Less Interesting?

Is fashion less interesting?


  • Total voters
    100
Fashion relies upon culture for new ideas and converts it into something appealing to the mainstream.

subcultures: punk, hippies, goth, ...
art: Warhol, Dali, ...
film: Kubrick, Hitchcock, Godard, Tarkovsky, ...

We live in the decade of recycling! Just look at recent subcultures like hipsters & emo or the superhero movie business model.
Nowadays the main fear of our youth is to "have less" than the generation before, limited drive to change something fundamentally. The issues of equality and environment are around for some time.

Generation "like" deserves fast fashion. However, this will sooner or later damage high fashion, as it has been pointed out already...
But we can definitely compensate for that by using an instagram-like-algorithm that converts the depicted items into a new collection, lets say 8 collections per year? 16?
 
Off topic, but isn't the CFDA pushing to have the Fashion schedules changed, so that designers can release new collections within days of a show. I remember reading an article where Tom Ford stressed this as a way to get ahead of the hoard of "fast fashion" manufacturers and actually get his garments into boutiques before all the rip-off brands do. If they manage to do this what can we expect the quality and supply of their garments to be?

I believe there was also a mention of a two collection a year model being pitched, with Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter being inclusive of any Pre- and Resort collections.
 
i thought about tom ford, actually...

the thing with TFord is related-
but he was as much part of the problem as a victim of it...
he was very involved in creating the gucci group that eventually turned around and bit him in the a**...
he just never thought it could happen to him cause he thought that he was one of the corporate guys himself...
he was playing both sides of the fence for awhile there...
until they kicked him out...

it seems like tom ford's ousting was similar to carine roitfeld's ousting in some ways...
no? the folly of assuming you are untouchable...
not surprising though, considering their long affiliation...
one must assume they think alike...
*galliano must fall into this category as well...

in any case...
ford was hardly the sensitive artist who was bullied and destroyed by the money guys...
his greed and his ego got in his own way eventually...
his case was/is separate and unique...imo
ps-i think tom has the personality of an actor more than an artist...

i definitely think tom was part of the problem before he became a victim of it...
sorry spike!
:ninja:...

My impression of Tom playing both sides of the fence was that I think he did try to merge the commercial with the artistry. His personality is that of someone who perfectly suits a corporate atmosphere, while still happily playing in the darker side of town— you know, the ladykiller executive who wears a leather jockstrap and harness under his Saville Row three-piece? I’ve always been attracted to that duality of character in designers, in fashion— in people in general.

I remember my grade 10 art teacher was this beautiful women in her 50s with the poshest accent. She was very hippie-ish, and was a model in the 60s and appeared in Vogue, and she was a true inspiration to me once we became friends. And since then, I’ve tried not discriminate because of age or appearance; like, if someone was very preppie-looking than he can’t possibly be deep in vogue, right….???? Or if someone is much older, than she must be close-minded and have nothing interesting to contribute, right….??? That’s why Tom comes across so much more frank, even genuine to me, with a clear sense of self-awareness than many obviously fashion-y, peacock types— and despite his actor’s persona, which I totally get, softgrey: He’s very actor-y when he speaks, isn’t he?

ErnstLudwig: As the decades progress, there will undeniably be more and more to recycle, and it’ll be harder and harder to not be tempted to just copying something from the past rather than strike out for a new vision— that’s just the nature of time’s impact on high fashiondom. There may come a decade when we’ll look back on 2016, and just realize maybe high fashion was really interesting after all LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fashion relies upon culture for new ideas and converts it into something appealing to the mainstream.

subcultures: punk, hippies, goth, ...
art: Warhol, Dali, ...
film: Kubrick, Hitchcock, Godard, Tarkovsky, ...

We live in the decade of recycling! Just look at recent subcultures like hipsters & emo or the superhero movie business model.
Nowadays the main fear of our youth is to "have less" than the generation before, limited drive to change something fundamentally. The issues of equality and environment are around for some time.

Generation "like" deserves fast fashion. However, this will sooner or later damage high fashion, as it has been pointed out already...
But we can definitely compensate for that by using an instagram-like-algorithm that converts the depicted items into a new collection, lets say 8 collections per year? 16?

Nah, the decade of recycling, but why? I think because our culture, the competitve driven, capitalist, faster, hotter, cheaper, newer newer newer tendencies are stealing our dignity. Life is contained in sound bites and instagram frames and empty facebook posts. There are new dynamics cropping up, like Everlane or the rise of Etsy (where too, some people are churning out the same **** as the rest of the system, but not all).

A lot of people are realizing the rat race is not real and they are setting themselves free. But visually the old system is racing on and on and on. With time though, more people will put down their bags on the side of the road because life is thieved from them, we can only stand that for so long.

We are in the process of making new meanings, new worlds. The old ways seem harsh and unforgiving, but that is only because they were trusted and fed without questioning. Constructing new truths is very very difficult and often mistaken for naitivity.

I just hope I will be around to see it :smile:
 
i thought about tom ford, actually...

the thing with TFord is related-
but he was as much part of the problem as a victim of it...
he was very involved in creating the gucci group that eventually turned around and bit him in the a**...
he just never thought it could happen to him cause he thought that he was one of the corporate guys himself...
he was playing both sides of the fence for awhile there...
until they kicked him out...

it seems like tom ford's ousting was similar to carine roitfeld's ousting in some ways...
no? the folly of assuming you are untouchable...
not surprising though, considering their long affiliation...
one must assume they think alike...
*galliano must fall into this category as well...

in any case...
ford was hardly the sensitive artist who was bullied and destroyed by the money guys...
his greed and his ego got in his own way eventually...
his case was/is separate and unique...imo
ps-i think tom has the personality of an actor more than an artist...

i definitely think tom was part of the problem before he became a victim of it...
sorry spike!
:ninja:...

I somehow agree about TF. He is the problem who became the victim.
He (with Karl) started that whole madness of fashion/business/art. His success at Gucci (with Karl at Chanel before) started that trend of creative directors.
The difference was that Tom did created something different. The Gucci Group in 2002 was very different from now. Ghesquiere, McQueen, McCartney choose him because he wanted to protect their integrity.
When Tom left, some things changed and it was a big concern. Gucci became more commercial, Nicolas's position wasn't secure. He had to do those very very commercial collections for spring and summer 2005. The same for McQueen. I remember how mixed were the reactions after his spring 2006 collection..etc.

The funny thing is that at the time, the executives believed that the brand was bigger than the designer. Tom left but they carried the image of Gucci by Tom for 10 years and now, they are making their designer somehow bigger than the brand.


I really agree with all about fashion being too much obsessed about youth. 10 years ago, youth was "25 years old".
It was a different kind of youth because at 25, maybe you know more about your personal style and you're willing to take risks.
10 years ago, young models weren't suppose to look childish but to look mature enough.

The other day, i went to Prada to buy a new version of the wingtip brogues and soon after i went to Saint Laurent to see some stuff there. I'm in my mid 30's and i was a bit shocked to see that beyond all the beautiful dresses, young girls were interested in biker leather jackets and jeans. It's always sad to see that only the brand counts....Young people are not interested in fashion. They are interested in the prestige of it.
In the reality shows, people are name dropping designers names but they are wearing basic clothes because they didn't have a fashion education.
When you have a real fashion education, you're a better consumer and you make the right choices. If Kim Kardashian and The Blonde Salad are your fashion education, you can handle the decline of fashion.
 
^^^ I don’t think it’s just the kids that are only interested in brands, Lola. And with kids, I can forgive them easily for wearing logos logos logos since they're young and it's understandable that the logos are a "gateway" to true design. I had a friend who was one of those that had to carry a women’s bag and it wasn’t enough to just own a Birkin, he had to have a new Birkin every year. These are adults that have the attitude that “style’ is all about status pieces: The types that demand only recognizable signature status pieces, whether it’s a bag, a shoe of the season, or a signature jacket from a coveted label, it’s all about owning that “it” piece that they can peacock around in to secure their fashion relevance.

SM-culture, fast fashion has undoubtedly spawned this disposable attitude towards high fashion. I always feel that “It’s so Zara” and “It’s nothing groundbreaking” are the dismissive attitudes that are the results of being raised on InstaSociety. Artisans, designers are not given the time and breath to nourish and develop at a humanly pace. Why would anyone really bother to take the time, the monetary investment, the labor into developing new technology, new ideas when Zara is going to have their versions out and at the fraction of the price? I can understand when designers then just give up and slap their logo, their monogram all over a basic piece since at least, they know it’ll sell to those that need to advertise they’re wearing something expensive.

High fashion’s prestige is reaching so many people these days, people that, even ten years ago, wouldn’t care, or know to namedrop high fashion labels, are aware of these designers and want a piece of that prestige. And for many, the most basic pieces are the ones that make the most sense within the context of their lives. Even ten years ago, designer kicks, tees and sweats were huge with certain segment of 18-yo guys. $1000 Givenchy and Lanvin sneakers worn with that $500 graphic tee and Chrome Hearts accessories makes so much more sense for their lifestyles.

I don’t care for Instaculture nor status pieces. And I’m glad that we can have this conversation on this forum rather than add another “It’s so Zara” and “It’s nothing groundbreaking” LOL
 
Somehow I feel as if some designers are playing with us consumers right now, and are intentionally releasing blasé collections just to see how much the "in crowd" will buy into it. They're just producing new versions of previous work or downright ugly collections just because they know that if it has the brand name on it people will buy it, Instagram it and keep touting it as the coolest brand in the world.

I get this feeling particularly with Balmain, Vêtements, LV and Dior, places where brand development and aesthetic have gone to the trash. Places where longtime consumers are suddenly feeling their style preferences alienated and neglected in favour of what's hot now.
 
I also feel there is HUGE lack of good journalism, don't you think? Some years ago we had these important editors who did long, exhaustive articles about the industry, about designers... about everything.

But now it's like there is no one writing. No one cares. No one analyzes.
 
Maybe because very few people take the time to actually read ... more than 140 characters at a time? (Other than the select members who like this particular FID forum.)
 
We live in the decade of recycling! Just look at recent subcultures like hipsters & emo or the superhero movie business model.
Nowadays the main fear of our youth is to "have less" than the generation before, limited drive to change something fundamentally. The issues of equality and environment are around for some time.

Also this is a generation mainly focusing on communication, finding new ways to express themselves takes such a major part of their thinking path. Art form therefor relies more toward this. There has been such a blooming of new art related to social network past few years. Fashion is just not a better platform for it. Lesser the material/story you can dig, lesser the outcome it would show.
 
Big data (information) and communication are the dominant forces in every field right now.
However, besides the fact that information is as easily accessible as never before (wikipedia / google), we have no indication that society gets more intelligent. In fact, all across the world we observe an increase of simplistic/unidirectional/selective/irrational solutions (see e.g. politics & conspiracy theories). Interesting, but nonetheless scary. Maybe "complicated" doesn't work that well for Homo sapiens when it comes to Weltbild.

But back to topic, I'm just missing spikes of clear, big, and bold visions from individuals in the industry. No doubt, there will be a higher chance of failure / non-acceptance, but still better than to only follow "trends". In some kind of way you can see it that the impulses/ideas are already crowd sourced, which makes it inherently more difficult to break away from the norm.
 
I also feel there is HUGE lack of good journalism, don't you think? Some years ago we had these important editors who did long, exhaustive articles about the industry, about designers... about everything.

But now it's like there is no one writing. No one cares. No one analyzes.

So true, but then again, how many young people read nowadays? I'm always baffled at the amount of people who say that they hate to read when I ask them if they know any interesting books.

I get the feelings that so many fashion writers these days don't actually understand whats going on with designers and collections. I've read so many reviews where the author cites the inspiration behind collections and them go on to explain them in the most superficial of ways, they miss the point of whats actually going on and disregard key clues and imagery that link the garments to the theme. Things that appear when you look at the pieces in detail. Maybe they just don't care anymore, they have no passion.
 
i thought about tom ford, actually...

the thing with TFord is related-
but he was as much part of the problem as a victim of it...
he was very involved in creating the gucci group that eventually turned around and bit him in the a**...
he just never thought it could happen to him cause he thought that he was one of the corporate guys himself...
he was playing both sides of the fence for awhile there...
until they kicked him out...

it seems like tom ford's ousting was similar to carine roitfeld's ousting in some ways...
no? the folly of assuming you are untouchable...
not surprising though, considering their long affiliation...
one must assume they think alike...
*galliano must fall into this category as well...

in any case...
ford was hardly the sensitive artist who was bullied and destroyed by the money guys...
his greed and his ego got in his own way eventually...
his case was/is separate and unique...imo
ps-i think tom has the personality of an actor more than an artist...

i definitely think tom was part of the problem before he became a victim of it...
sorry spike!
:ninja:...
I definitely wouldn't say that he was someone who was taken advantage of and sucked dry -- after all, it was totally his decision to walk out the door. As it was Helmut's. As it was Jil's. Different types of people, perhaps, but each of them really did have a knack for imbuing very wearable, relatable and desirable products with that X factor which is in a way high fashion's greatest asset.

Mostly why I brought up Tom though was because until PPR came into play, he was essentially the final word in what he and his team put onto a runway, into an advertisement, a lookbook, a catalogue and a store. The same could really be said of most designers and creative directors at the time. And suddenly, when his contract came up for re-negotiation and PPR got arrogant (and frankly, pretty effing foolish) about how much control Tom should have over the Gucci and YSL brands, the creative director was no longer seen as the final word in creative matters. In essence, a creative director or designer's judgement was called into question, which really wasn't the case. The designers who were once entrusted to create thereafter became children that needed to be micromanaged by people who, at the end of the day, have no knowledge of design.

I think you could pretty immediately see a change across the board after he and Gucci parted ways. Helmut then left. Jil Left. McQueen and Galliano dove head first into exceedingly (by their standards) commercial, non-threatening collections. Gucci became a glorified high-street label. Galliano had what was by most standards a full-on breakdown. McQueen killed himself. Christophe Decarnin had a breakdown. And now, a little over a decade after Gucci Group sent the message that the person who is basically charged with grafting a piece of their identity onto a brand in the interest of bettering its image while making it profitable is ultimately irrelevant, you have some of the world's most influential designers either leaving or being fired left and right because their judgement and ideas are no longer considered valuable.
 
Designers are selling the shows and forgetting the clothes, customers are buying the clothes and forgetting the shows. Some people will buy anything with a designer tag and some positive buzz around it, if the cash is flowing and the critics are perpetually silenced why even try anymore? Besides, there's no indication to the designer that the clothes are bad if they're selling and no top critic is saying something bad.
 
Nah, the decade of recycling, but why? I think because our culture, the competitve driven, capitalist, faster, hotter, cheaper, newer newer newer tendencies are stealing our dignity. Life is contained in sound bites and instagram frames and empty facebook posts. There are new dynamics cropping up, like Everlane or the rise of Etsy (where too, some people are churning out the same **** as the rest of the system, but not all).

A lot of people are realizing the rat race is not real and they are setting themselves free. But visually the old system is racing on and on and on. With time though, more people will put down their bags on the side of the road because life is thieved from them, we can only stand that for so long.

We are in the process of making new meanings, new worlds. The old ways seem harsh and unforgiving, but that is only because they were trusted and fed without questioning. Constructing new truths is very very difficult and often mistaken for naitivity.

I just hope I will be around to see it :smile:

This must be main reason.

Collaborative economy - disruption - Uberization - Online marketplace - Google car - hyperloop - 3D printing - artificial intelligence [...] I think you have all heard these terms at least once.

The reality of the fact is that the 2008 crisis passed by and transformed almost everything. People do not consume the same way as they used to 20 years go.

Let us take the millennials as commonly called.

A great majority are not interested in buying cars something which is a shocker from 50 years ago, they are not interested in television hence the disarray of cable TV in the US for example, they hate advertisements as seen with the increase of Adblock, they are not interested in working in a big enterprises like in the past but see their future in startups or as autoentrepreneurs [...]

It continues. They do not want to wait as seen with the great success of Snapchat which promotes the instantaneous, they are not interested in possessing unlimited quantities of products when they could just rent and return without having to accumulate excess [...] this, by the way also works with very expensive items.

And, last but not least, they prefer marketplaces like Amazon where they can find anything and everything, without having to move, as seen with many studies around the internet. So, what is left for fashion, as Amazon itself is looking to enter the industry?

It has simply just become a victim from all these choices but also a victim of some of the stereotypes that it decided to ride on for years.

Fashion modeling has been the first to benefit from all these transformations especially with the emergence of social media. It is true that, models are not just models anymore (e.g. girls who just walk the runaway anonymously). They are required to be social media entertainers, marketers and if possible, something more than just walking a runway.

Karlie Kloss is probably the main illustration of what I would call the modern model, she is a social media genius, a businesswoman and/or startup builder, a student, a programmer/coder [...] she is a lot of things but just a simple model.

That alone, is what society has become and will be keep becoming.

In fact, more than that, there are people who win more than $5 000 a month by just renting their house with Airbnb, by actively doing car-sharing or by waiting in queues for other people [...]

Well, can this be overlooked? I do not really think so, especially for those who think that fashion is the reflection of society. Analyzing these macroeconomic changes can help shed some light on what is the fashion for tomorrow.

I am less certain that brands like Chanel or Lanvin can keep riding this ultra-exclusivity wave with the upcoming generation, who seem to show even less interest, without getting somehow disturbed more and more by the power of applications.

Coding is easy, does not require a master's degree in mechanics and anybody can just build what would probably be the next fashion Snapchat that would make Vogue antiquated. There is this sense of self-empowerment that can be really disturbing for those of the old economy.

The world we live in right now is so disruptive that nobody is really safe. The fashion brands know that, hoping that the next Uber does not occur in their industry. They are trying to be innovative but it is really really complicated with all those traditions.

The main difficulty relies in the fact of finding the correct strategy to adapt these traditions to the modern world. It is a very hard fought battle but certain brands will have to bend and make themselves boring.

I'm not really sure that people are interested anymore in the stereotypes that have been constructed and entertained in magazines for example since the 60's. Why would they, when on Instagram, Periscope or Snapchat, you get a very large panel of cultures and population while on the other hand, these papers are stuck in a never ending segregation.

But I do not think the fashion world needs to worry because it is not alone. Taxis, hoteliers, lawyers, doctors, banks... are all brought to completely rethink their business model in order to fight against crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, open source, online marketplace [...] AND robots, at the cost of probably making some of these industries who rely on creativity, boring.
 
i really think they should introduce the ethnic beauty back into fashion. like pick out ethnic girls who are really pretty and stand out and make them fashion icons. now just black white etc but more specific like ethiopian, chinese, hong kong, even go by native heritage. it will make them a lot of money
 
Not sure if that would help make "fashion" (the collections and what we wear) more interesting but it would certainly make the runway shows more diverse and therefore more interesting.

So you know, we have a very long lively discussion about that in The Etc.s of Modeling, here: Racial Diversity In Modeling #3
 
I barely follow high fashion anymore. A friend sends me collections to look at and they're all the same overly styled, impractical, ugly ultra layered looks.

I think the main problem is fast fashion. It used to take hundreds of years to see style shifts. Then it was a hundred, 50, 25, 10 etc. Now we're already sick of stuff that got released yesterday. It needs to stop. There are a few designers who are unwilling to participate in the ridiculous race, thankfully, but we need a majority of designers to adopt that attitude now.
 
I barely follow high fashion anymore. A friend sends me collections to look at and they're all the same overly styled, impractical, ugly ultra layered looks.

I think the main problem is fast fashion. It used to take hundreds of years to see style shifts. Then it was a hundred, 50, 25, 10 etc. Now we're already sick of stuff that got released yesterday. It needs to stop. There are a few designers who are unwilling to participate in the ridiculous race, thankfully, but we need a majority of designers to adopt that attitude now.

It never took hundreds of years for style shifts to occur. Most clothing is much less practical nowadays, as most people don't do (heavy) manual labor anymore, which has resulted in a "emancipation" of the clothing of the masses. But "casual" clothing that served no other purpose than to differentiate one individual from the other (through the use of stylistic differences, quality etc) has been around since.. a long time really.

There are theories that the current fashion system, with waves of trends was born around 1400 or a little earlier, with the influx of "exotic", "foreign" textiles from the Levant that increasingly flooded in during the aftermath of the Crusades (mind you, Middle Eastern textiles and clothing were already highly sought after before that period).

Levantine textiles were superior to those of Europe at the time and many a booty consisted of cloth and clothing. When you look at European painting in the aftermath you can sometimes see Mary or other people wearing robes with pseudo-Kufic (fake Arabic) inscriptions. It was considered a marker of clothing of superb quality. One of the earliest examples of cultural appropriation :D

What bothers me about fashion nowadays that quality is not the main objective to imitate items. It is this false sense of political awareness. Like kuffiyehs and bandana's. Or the trend of ripped jeans.

Man I love fashion theory.
 
It's quite shocking how uninteresting HC has become these past few years. The only one who seems to inject a little excitement into it is Galliano.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,575
Messages
15,189,677
Members
86,470
Latest member
federmess
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->