Is Fashion Still Cool?

Astrid21

Active Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
8,718
Reaction score
7
Originally posted by New York Times
14fash.xlarge.jpg


Is Fashion Still Cool?

By GUY TREBAY

<span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>W
ho killed the cool in fashion? What exactly was it that drained the excitement out of this fascinating, frivolous, inspiring, transformative, gossamer and endlessly diverting business, one that also happens to be among the largest employers in New York City?

It seems mere moments ago that the attention of mainstream America alighted on the humble garment business, transforming models into household names, designers into media darlings and movie stars into dress dummies whose forays onto red carpets became notable less for celebrity pixie dust than for the labels inside their clothes.

This interlude — roughly the mid-1980's to the late 90's — was a time when fashion was a cultural product generated on the streets of New York by members of a determined but slightly madcap cognoscenti made up of people not likely to find gainful employment in many other fields. Theirs was a world in which people employed deliriously kooky argot, in which fashion editors were heard to say of a dress that it was "worked to its finest inch of nanosecond perfection," where ingenious drag queens counterfeited tickets to runway shows, where obscure models were at the center of personality cults and where creative people found it perfectly acceptable to seek inspiration from the way that heroin addicts or homeless people put themselves together at the start of each day.

"Is cool still cool?" asked Anna Sui, a designer who served as an unofficial arbiter of fin-de-siècle cool in the cash-rich 90's. Throughout the decade, Ms. Sui's runway presentations were hipster catnip. One was as likely to spot the Beastie Boys perched in the front row of her shows of wittily girlish designs as the sexually ambiguous actor Jaye Davidson, with Kate Moss on his lap. Naomi Campbell once strutted Ms. Sui's catwalk in backless chaps. The standing-room crowd practically hung from the rafters trying to catch a glimpse.

Ms. Campbell now poses for second-string hip-hop clothing lines and seems destined for the scrap heap of demicelebrity. Ms. Moss, the onetime poster girl for loaded issues like eating disorders and heroin chic, has become domesticated as a new mother and part-time artist's muse. Isaac Mizrahi, former darling of the cognoscenti, has designed a collection for the mass-market retailer Target. Ms. Sui herself is now less engaged with scene-making than, like many other Americans, with corporate survival. As she prepared for her spring 2004 show in the tents of Bryant Park during another Fashion Week, which began Friday and continues through next Friday, Ms. Sui casually noted the passing of fashion as a crossroads of all things lustrous and desirable in a boom economy culture. "I'm not sure cool is even a concept anymore," she said.

This is far from the first time the point has been made. Two years ago, after the 9/11 attacks, fashion joined the rest of the culture in a period of self-appraisal, or at least of enforced sobriety.

If an irrepressible spirit of expression gradually returned to the business, it did so haltingly and burdened by an unexpected problem, one that had less to do with a terrorist menace than the subtler incursions of the corporate world. It was as if no one knew whom to consult for direction and where to look for the spirited, rebellious or else indifferent outsiders who have historically infused fashion with the unstudied vigor of their style.

Who would act the role played until it became parodic by people like Sarah Lerfel, the owner of Colette, the relentlessly chic Paris store, where no-name designers were the sine qua non, until it became hipper to wear designers whose products were most often encountered in duty-free shops — Gucci, Chanel and Louis Vuitton? Who had anything like the spare time to challenge what scholarly journals used to call "the fashion system," when anyone with a pincushion was frantically trying to stay employed?

"Maybe the concept of edginess doesn't work anymore," Ms. Sui said, adding that the outsider postures of many musicians and entertainers now crowding the airwaves smack less of rebellious expression than careful market research. "You look at Pink, with her red hair and punk clothes, and you think she might be punk, but then she belts out a torch song," Ms. Sui said. "You watch the MTV Video Music Awards, and every single person is saying Coldplay is awesome, but they sound like Michael Bolton to me. You look at Christina Aguilera, and she has all the affectations of somebody who would be a rocker, and then you hear her songs and you think, Is this the Julie London of today?"

In other words, as the retailer and television stylist Patricia Field noted: "Fashion got flipped around. It got to be just about money and about industry, the way in the 80's the art world became an industry and was killed off."

James LaForce, a seasoned fashion publicist, said: "Fashion used to be about worlds upon worlds you didn't have access to. It was about decadence, excitement, a passion for clothes, that margin for error." Nowadays, Mr. LaForce added, "everything creative has to be done by formula from the moment you say you want to be a fashion designer. The chances for lightning to strike are rare."

In the not-too-distant past, said Kim Hastreiter, the editor of Paper magazine, "there was real excitement, some bated breath" about the surprises new designers might come up with. Ms. Hastreiter's magazine has been missionary in its pursuit of the new for almost 20 years.


"That's all gone," she said, "except for Marc." Ms. Hastreiter was referring to Marc Jacobs, a designer whose assertions that he is mystified by the aura of hip that envelops his every association ("I'm the least cool person I know," he has said) can seem coy.

Consider, after all, the irresistibly offhand allure of the advertising campaigns that Juergen Teller photographs for the Marc Jacobs collections and the phenomenally successful designs Mr. Jacobs commissioned from Stephen Sprouse and Takashi Murakami to add a dimension of superficial hipness to Louis Vuitton bags.

"Fashion has gone out into Middle America, where Fifth Avenue meets Main Street," Ms. Hastreiter observed, with a sly reference to ads for the Isaac Mizrahi collection picturing the designer at the imaginary and, one would have thought, implausible intersection of the two thoroughfares.

Few would grudge Mr. Mizrahi his affiliation with Target, whose knack for hiring insider talents and moving them onto a mainstream stage has proved to be a bottom-line success. But the man once beloved of the fashion claque for his theatrical éclat, his knack for tweaked historicism and his droll effeminacy clearly relinquished some of his insider credibility when he took up selling $15 blouses at his new address.

Or did he?

"The mainstream marketers have everybody figured out," said Evan L. Schindler, the creative director of Black Book, a fashion-oriented lifestyle magazine. "They know how to bottle the subversive, the margins, the fringe." When even ferocious protopunk drug anthems are sanitized to become jingles for television cruise line ads, as happened with Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life," "you have to rethink your ideas of what it means to be cool," Mr. Schindler said.

It would appear that in fashion, as in music and other art forms, there is at the moment "no new movement, no strong movement of coolness," the filmmaker John Waters said. "I'm sure at some point the children will think of something cool to get on the nerves of the generation before them," he added. But, in fashion, an event like that seems pretty far off.

The truth of this becomes acute as Fashion Week gets under way with the industry celebrating the 10th anniversary of the centralization of the collections under the Bryant Park tents. It is no overstatement to say that in the decade since Seventh on Sixth, the fashion industry trade group, first consolidated a loosely organized collection of presentations into a twice-a-year multistage spectacle, the fashion industry itself has also been transformed.

Seventh on Sixth gave logistical coherence to the presentation of new designer wares. And the central location strikingly increased press coverage, leading to a glut of runway images in popular magazines and on network and cable television and turning designers into celebrities.

The value of blanket global media coverage of fashion in the form of sexy women strutting the catwalks in expensive clothes is not lost on Mercedes-Benz, Olympus cameras, Fiji water, North Fork Bank or Siemens mobile phones, which are among the nearly 20 official sponsors of this season's Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week.

What is much less clear is how much an association with, say, Ortho Evra, the weekly birth control patch, which will be staging an "every woman" fashion show on Tuesday at the Bryant Park tents, adds to the profession's allure.

"Traditionally, we thought of fashion as something that came from houses, editors, designers, experts, and that has very much gone by the boards," said Virginia Postrel, the author of "The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Consciousness" (HarperCollins), a book that examines the cultural obsession with aesthetics.

"Part of what made fashion seem like high school," Ms. Postrel said, was the existence of " `in' groups, `in' people, who knew and decided what was cool."

The velocity of information flow is probably too great now for any group to sustain `in' crowd status for long. Magazine editors, for decades the creative autocrats of the business, have been forced to relinquish some of their power in favor of the consumer-friendly catalog-style editorials originated in Japanese magazines like Olive and Cutie and brought to a high state of polish by Lucky, Condé Nast's phenomenally successful shopping magazine.

IF there is any single trend among designers of the moment, it would seem to be one that unexpectedly mimics socially conscious movements like Slow Food and that favors unhip issues like political engagement and the sources for raw materials, and that actually entertains ideas less historically suited to fashion types than to policy wonks and nerds.

"Whatever we do, we don't call it fashion," said Angela, a member of the Manhattan design collective As Four, whose members live communally and eschew last names. "We have been very bored ourselves, lately," she said of fashion, criticizing its uniformity and the insinuating presence of corporate affiliations.

"It's like `The Devil Wears Prada,' " said Kai, a German-born member of the collective, referring to Lauren Weisberger's roman à clef about a magazine much like Vogue. "I don't understand why everybody is so willing to let themselves be taken over by other corporate identities, everybody all the time wearing gray and black. If your body is the host of your soul, why put it in a gray hut when you can build a fantastic house of gold?"

Few people in style history attained insider status faster than Miguel Adrover, a Majorca-born designer who became famous in an instant when his second collection was shown in 2000, only to be abruptly forgotten a year later, when he lost his design bearings, his media appeal and also his business. Mr. Adrover has emerged from this sobering experience with a philosophy better suited, it would seem, to a Peace Corps mission statement than to a business in which insiders rhapsodize about Hedi Slimane's new free-agent status or the cut of an Olivier Theyskens sleeve.

"What is fashion at the end of the day?" said Mr. Adrover, who now shows just once a year and whose clothes will be presented Monday night at the tents. Although they are termed a spring-summer 2004 collection, they are meant, he said, to be stylistically durable enough to be worn until they fall apart. "It is not enough to have buzz and show it off," Mr. Adrover declared. "It is not good that fashion is creating these unreal worlds."

Fashion is one frivolous undertaking that might benefit from regarding its own cultural impact more seriously, he suggested. "Fashion says something about the moments in which we live, and for a while now it has lost reality with what's going on in the world.

"People are gradually forgetting their individuality and how much power clothes have, that what you wear can get you sex or get you killed," Mr. Adrover added with emotion.

At various points in recent memory, Mr. Adrover's assertions might have smacked of disingenuousness or, worse, deadly earnestness. At the moment, however, they seem fairly cool.</span>

Interesting article that I thought I'd share. :ninja:
 
I dount co pleately agree with all of this, especially seeinga s theya re not really focuseing on the whole fashion world, mroe just new york, how ever tehre are alot of good points, fashion has been hermoginized(sp) cheap things can be in style people can copy the runway, people can make an image, but thats all it is image, pink can dress like a punk but is she? no. I dount think reall designers will ever fall pre to becomeing just anotehr label that makes trendy clothes.

Fashion just needs a revolution, but its coming have no fear :heart:
 
Originally posted by Spacemiu@Sep 14th, 2003 - 12:23 pm

Fashion just needs a revolution, but its coming have no fear :heart:
i hope so, Spacemiu! :smile:

well, it does seem like the spotlight is not really on fashion as much as it was few years
ago B) But it's only natural, considering recent events. and it's true that sometimes it seems like high school games of "i'm cooler than you, haha". even if you enjoyed this once, it becomes boring.
and i don't care what Anna Sui says, Coldpaly is NOT Michael Bolton! :blink:
 
Originally posted by Spacemiu@Sep 14th, 2003 - 1:23 pm
I dount co pleately agree with all of this, especially seeinga s theya re not really focuseing on the whole fashion world, mroe just new york, how ever tehre are alot of good points, fashion has been hermoginized(sp) cheap things can be in style people can copy the runway, people can make an image, but thats all it is image, pink can dress like a punk but is she? no. I dount think reall designers will ever fall pre to becomeing just anotehr label that makes trendy clothes.

Fashion just needs a revolution, but its coming have no fear :heart:
love the line :heart:

but...unfortunately...it seems that perhaps everything has been invented, or used, or designed. Don't get me wrong, there will always be unique designs out there...but as far as freshness is concerned, perhaps fashion is hitting the curb at the moment.

what fashion needs now is really a break-through, something to complete and utterly twist things up, and bring a new light to wearing clothing and looking and feeling great. only time will tell...we won't give up on fashion quite yet. :flower:
 
Originally posted by Elle Glamour@Sep 14th, 2003 - 5:30 pm


what fashion needs now is really a break-through, something to complete and utterly twist things up, and bring a new light to wearing clothing and looking and feeling great. only time will tell...we won't give up on fashion quite yet. :flower:
:heart: so so true :heart:

there really has not been a big revolution in fashion sens punk, nothing has really created such a big change in thought, so I guess this is what we are wating for

its all beging recycled, its all beging copyed

also fashion is in much more casual state, wich is great dount get me wroung, im not at all a fancy dressing person, its just casual often times means boring and simple.
 
i had no time to read the NYarticle yet,
but i get a general idea from your replies.

fashion needs more fresh attitudes and less pretentiousness,
its only clothes fgs, all this fake importance is tyring
the public, and rightly so.

designers need to concentrate more on fresh ideas
and alternative ways of working on their ideas.
as a fashion designer- i find shows and seasonal
collections completly paleolithic (hope you get my point)
something that was cool at the 30's cannot possibly
excite us in 2003. Everything is evolving but the way
fashion sees-treats herself.

changing mood every six months
is such an ancient way of dealing with fashion and style
we change mood every single day and apart from
:shock: chain mass production stores,
fashion industy has not yet found a formula to accomodate
our love for the new.

recycling past styles and old stylistic stereotypes is not
helping fashion to make a point.
the public is tired stiff and luxury labels sale figures are
finally reflecting just that. People look out for the unique,
try discovering young designers, get tired with "big lux"

and of course, like spacemiu said,
Fashion just needs a revolution, but its coming have no fear :heart:
 
I didn't read it all .. but I'll say ...fashion is just different ..has evolved, like everything ... on the 90's we had the era of the supermodels ... we got some -still, though not quite the same- but you don't see papers/tv/radio yapping about the latest catwalk-goddess faux-pas ...
September 11 set a milestone .. it happened during NYC Fashion week after all ...
And about designers and ability to shock ... now the enfant-terribles do not operate as 90's I-want-my-renowned-label-designer-wannabes (hiring supermodels for their shows) ...
Overall ... I dont see fashion as "mainstream" right now ... cuz on the 90's everyone wore CK, but now more and more people's a bit more style-conscious and wear their fave designers opposite trendy ones ... So ... In a way it's OK ... the article has a point
 
Well, yes, after the luxury goods explosion of the past decade with its resulting to new mass elitism, finding something different off-the-peg has become more difficult. That's why I think new and up and coming designers should go back to making things more exclusive. Luxury used to be rare and special, but now there is too much of it.

Another reason is designers are way too much referencing to the past! Hello didn't Tom Ford's Fall '03 collection for YSL give you a 70's de ja vu? or Marc Jacobs homage to Cardin and Courreges?

Also most small designers are copying major desingers. Shouldn't they be the one who should have fresh new ideas?

Lastly as Spacemiu said 'Fashion needs a revolution, have no fear'! :woot: I hope so! :heart: I thought it was going to be Ghesquiere, but since he signed up with Tom Ford, et all I'm kinda gave up hope on him. :unsure:
 
ignitioned32 said:
Another reason is designers are way too much referencing to the past! Hello didn't Tom Ford's Fall '03 collection for YSL give you a 70's de ja vu? or Marc Jacobs homage to Cardin and Courreges?
Yeah, the retro cherry-picking needs to go. Classic fashion is one thing, theme-yness is another.... Now that I think about it, yearly 'rediscovery' themes, I think, are stifling progression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the article Astrid:-)

I didn't get to the end of it tho. Too many names on it :-)))) This article was about celebrities fashion.

Did you notice a word "cut", or "fabrics" in it?:-P
 
thanks for the article astrid.

"The mainstream marketers have everybody figured out,"

i don't think this is true at all. just when they think the have figured people out, they realize consumers have become innate marketers. thus 'cool hunting'. and that is why people are looking for clothing that is unique and individual, and they no longer wish to be dictated. they create their 'own' cool.

it seems that perhaps everything has been invented, or used, or designed.

i can see where you are coming from, but only if you think along the lines of recycling ideas and creating endless hybrids. there is A LOT that hasn't been figured out. junya watanabe's collection's come to mind: a fusion of avant garde ideas and functionality -- very clever indeed. or issey miyake's textile innovations which looks cool because it is designed to function for ALL people every shape and size and class, ANDthey are allowed to customize their own clothing w/ this fabric. or his pleats please which is lightweight, washable, travel friendly - takes of little space, and comes in an assortment of patterns and colors. what about clothing that isn't too hot, or is designed to rip, unravel, basically deconstructs over time and through this process 'morphs' into another piece of clothing entirely so you could where it FOREVER. stuff like denim is super cool because it's functional -- it's gritty and real. innovative design is SUPER COOL and SUPER HARD.

and you can always look toward good ole rei kawakubo for 'coolness'...her guerilla store concept is the height of coolness.

oh, and they should present their collections in different ways besides the typical runway presentation. it's very much like a conveyer belt, but not in a good way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adding to my thoughts...

what's cooler: a bike w/ all it's gears exposed in all it's aesthetically straight forward glory, or a plastic one made by philip stark that is claimed to be aerodynamic because it's got slick curves?
i think fashion which isn't an illusion is super cool, gone are the days of the corsets and tom ford. i guess the answer is deconstruction: a critique of aesthetics, exposing and desiging w/ raw edges, beat up lived in. but i think a pair of authentic carhartt's- water repellent 12-ounce, firm-hand, 100% ring-spun cotton duck w/ reinforced back pockets welding burned and oil stained and paint splattered aunthentically is cooler than overpriced designer paint splattered clothing which has been painstakingly deconstructed looking. would you actually go out in the woods, or do anything that would ruin the deconstructed clothing? i like the aesthetics of deconstuction and i can see the art and craft in it, and the act of preserving a finely made piece, and that's cool. but it's not cool to buy something overpriced when you can buy something cheaper that works just as well. resourcefulness is cool.
 
Spacemiu really took the words right out of my mouth, that all sounds like it applies to New York. New York has this tendancy, more so then Europe, to create these superstars literally overnight (Zac, Proenza and company) Europe, though it most certainly has it's designers of the moment, and those moments that transform a designer to a fashion leader, it seems that it's a bit of a slower process. Take Lanvin for instance, Elbaz has been designing there since 2002 I believe, but it really wasn't until f/w 03 that everybody took notice and he became fashions man of the moment. And going by the attitudes expressed by members here, there's much less resentment towards his success then there is towards someone like Posen.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but this article, though very true in many ways, seems skewed towards the New York scene of barely flash-in-the-pan fame. I mean, Elbaz is going strong and his moment in the spotlight is lasting, how do you compare that to Androver, who was here and gone practically overnight.

But for what it's worth, even though it may seem like it, I don't think fashion has lost any of it's cool. It's just lurking in the shadows somewhere waiting for something really good to happen.
 
travolta said:
adding to my thoughts...

what's cooler: a bike w/ all it's gears exposed in all it's aesthetically straight forward glory, or a plastic one made by philip stark that is claimed to be aerodynamic because it's got slick curves?
i think fashion which isn't an illusion is super cool, gone are the days of the corsets and tom ford. i guess the answer is deconstruction: a critique of aesthetics, exposing and desiging w/ raw edges, beat up lived in. but i think a pair of authentic carhartt's- water repellent 12-ounce, firm-hand, 100% ring-spun cotton duck w/ reinforced back pockets welding burned and oil stained and paint splattered aunthentically is cooler than overpriced designer paint splattered clothing which has been painstakingly deconstructed looking. would you actually go out in the woods, or do anything that would ruin the deconstructed clothing? i like the aesthetics of deconstuction and i can see the art and craft in it, and the act of preserving a finely made piece, and that's cool. but it's not cool to buy something overpriced when you can buy something cheaper that works just as well. resourcefulness is cool.

agree, a little. agree on the fact that yes, you can try to make the deconstructed look yourself - but try actually having the same cut and fit of the one a good designer makes - big issue. i'd say, next to impossible. deconstruction was much bigger in the 90's, I don't think it's a trend anymore. it's a realm of the very few, i think. but maybe we are thinking different deconstruction. when i hear deconstruction, i think margiela, but something is telling me you think more in terms of Rogan...

and, the days of ford himself maybe over, but unfortunately the days of what he introduced are in full swing.
 
what travolta said above hits a little on how i feel about this...

first of all, this article is obviously focusing on the scene in newyork -newyork has never been the most exciting city in the world for fashion no matter how much it would like to think it is. second, it is saying that because people aren't as interested in anna sui *laugh* and vuitton anymore that suddenly fashion isn't cool or exciting or revolutionary? HELLO! *THERES* your revolution!! like the article said, information comes at the touch of a fingertip, we boot up our computers and we middleclass folk get the same information as the highclass folk. we then interepret the information as we see fit- and the industry scrambles to accomodate it.
these people are so blind to think that because a house or brand doesnt have complete power over the thoughts of the consumer then fashion must be dying. the fashion revolution is coming from the bottom up- the streets- as it has been for some time now... for example i am amazed at some of the stuff i see people wearing here...
the fashionable japanese street style that a lot of people adore.... you may not notice from the pictures, but a lot of that stuff is worn very oddly. for example, blouses are wrapped around the waist and worn as skirts... skirts go around the shoulder and act as capelets, people rip sleeves off of other shirts and sew them on another blouse... a shirt doesnt really *need* 3 sleeves, but it doesn't matter. i sometimes take a sweater, turn it upside down, wrap the ends around my neck, button it, and tie the sleeves around my waist. a long sleeve cardigan is transformed into a sleeves sweater vest. martin margiela is so popular here it even surprised me a little... avante garde-or, *individulaity* of the *world* consumer(not just NY) is turning fashion around.
we also have new technology being integrated into fashion...therein lies our revolution... and i for one am very excited!
 
faust said:
agree, a little. agree on the fact that yes, you can try to make the deconstructed look yourself - but try actually having the same cut and fit of the one a good designer makes - big issue. i'd say, next to impossible. deconstruction was much bigger in the 90's, I don't think it's a trend anymore. it's a realm of the very few, i think. but maybe we are thinking different deconstruction. when i hear deconstruction, i think margiela, but something is telling me you think more in terms of Rogan...

and, the days of ford himself maybe over, but unfortunately the days of what he introduced are in full swing.

and yet i disagree... its going more from being just slight "deconstruction" ie a few rips and tears here and there...to full on just taking everything apart and making a whole new silhouette. just because someone like margielas idea are not new, doesnt mean it cant be reinterpreted to create a new aesthetic... people get so caught up in what is "old" and "new" i feel they fail to see what could be a new possibility bubbling underneath :cry:
 
Spike413 said:
Spacemiu really took the words right out of my mouth, that all sounds like it applies to New York. New York has this tendancy, more so then Europe, to create these superstars literally overnight (Zac, Proenza and company) Europe, though it most certainly has it's designers of the moment, and those moments that transform a designer to a fashion leader, it seems that it's a bit of a slower process. Take Lanvin for instance, Elbaz has been designing there since 2002 I believe, but it really wasn't until f/w 03 that everybody took notice and he became fashions man of the moment. And going by the attitudes expressed by members here, there's much less resentment towards his success then there is towards someone like Posen.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but this article, though very true in many ways, seems skewed towards the New York scene of barely flash-in-the-pan fame. I mean, Elbaz is going strong and his moment in the spotlight is lasting, how do you compare that to Androver, who was here and gone practically overnight.

But for what it's worth, even though it may seem like it, I don't think fashion has lost any of it's cool. It's just lurking in the shadows somewhere waiting for something really good to happen.

yeah, i think the new york fashion scene always has been about the *business* ... maybe the city is miffed it hasnt created a ripple in the entire fashion world of late? :lol:
 
mishahoi said:
i am amazed at some of the stuff i see people wearing here...
the fashionable japanese street style that a lot of people adore.... you may not notice from the pictures, but a lot of that stuff is worn very oddly. for example, blouses are wrapped around the waist and worn as skirts... skirts go around the shoulder and act as capelets, people rip sleeves off of other shirts and sew them on another blouse... a shirt doesnt really *need* 3 sleeves, but it doesn't matter. i sometimes take a sweater, turn it upside down, wrap the ends around my neck, button it, and tie the sleeves around my waist. a long sleeve cardigan is transformed into a sleeves sweater vest. martin margiela is so popular here it even surprised me a little... avante garde-or, *individulaity* of the *world* consumer(not just NY) is turning fashion around.
we also have new technology being integrated into fashion...therein lies our revolution... and i for one am very excited!

i think i should clarify myself.... this strange aesthetic doesnt belong to the designer anymore- its so mainstream that the only people who bat eyes at it are the tourists- big brands try to come out with limited edition items to keep consumers on their toes and a sense of exclusivity but when will people get sick of that?
 
faust said:
agree, a little. agree on the fact that yes, you can try to make the deconstructed look yourself - but try actually having the same cut and fit of the one a good designer makes - big issue. i'd say, next to impossible. deconstruction was much bigger in the 90's, I don't think it's a trend anymore. it's a realm of the very few, i think. but maybe we are thinking different deconstruction. when i hear deconstruction, i think margiela, but something is telling me you think more in terms of Rogan...

and, the days of ford himself maybe over, but unfortunately the days of what he introduced are in full swing.

aesthetics are derived from function -- alexander mcqueen's clothing is striking to the eye because he understands proportions and defying those conventions -- physics, and the properties of the material, and this makes him a good designer. his clothing is like a really tight, well built, aerodynamic car, very powerful.

i appreciate a good cut and fit, it's makes a better design. but i argue is a really good cut and fit worth more than clothing that is able to function in different ways, like say jeans you buy at some store? the process of taking care of it and the occasions you could wear it makes it have many more options for use, whose to say that isn't good design? i guess i am talking about different lifestyles and class systems, because what is appropriate and desirable at a posh dinner party is different for a construction worker. anyways, i think i might be confusing deconstruction w/ the overall unglamorized, ashy toned urban chic of rick owens, ann d. etc, who aren't really deconstruction in cut, but has retained the same feel of it. those clothes say 'bad ***'...and they are slick in a whole other way. maybe i think that 'look' is bigger than it is, i base this off people's tastes in the fashion spot, so i guess it isn't very accurate. a mainstream example of deconstruction is the high/ lo look that is more about deconstructing genres of dress and trying to subvert it, and you could say these people think themselves cool.

I don't think fashion has lost any of it's cool. It's just lurking in the shadows somewhere waiting for something really good to happen.

but what would 'this' be? what is the criteria for cool? what are we lacking today?

I guess i'm saying referencing can be shallow, and cheap design. designing a really well built piece of clothing will always been in vogue, but not many designers are trying to do that, they are making collages of their favorite designers w/ a dash of personal nostalgia. nothing truely innovative, and not even close to creating functional clothing. that is why those japanese designers are still cool because it was based on realism. and this aesthetic has trickled down and influenced many. i guess my criteria for cool would be the principles of zen aesthetics, a design that is meant to wear and break down over time, 'flaw's are seen as beautiful and are exposed, an almost crude or rustic sensibility. but that's just me.
 
the fashionable japanese street style that a lot of people adore.... you may not notice from the pictures, but a lot of that stuff is worn very oddly. for example, blouses are wrapped around the waist and worn as skirts... skirts go around the shoulder and act as capelets, people rip sleeves off of other shirts and sew them on another blouse... a shirt doesnt really *need* 3 sleeves, but it doesn't matter. i sometimes take a sweater, turn it upside down, wrap the ends around my neck, button it, and tie the sleeves around my waist. a long sleeve cardigan is transformed into a sleeves sweater vest. martin margiela is so popular here it even surprised me a little... avante garde-or, *individulaity* of the *world* consumer(not just NY) is turning fashion around.

that's cool, wearing something how you feel like it, not because you are taught sweaters are worn right side out. it's ok if it's a little uneven, its 'good design' to cut up your sweater and turn it into a tank top if you're tired of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,465
Messages
15,186,122
Members
86,343
Latest member
karatsaroundmyneck
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->