Is Fashion Still Cool?

[travolta]

i think the real revolution will not just be in innovative clothing, but with the options the consumer has, the service the fashion industry could supply. ebay, for instance is cool, and it's not exclusive.

 

[travolta]

basically i guess fashion is no longer about the illusion, and consumers see that. even the grunge look which tried ot go the oppisete spectrum was just as 'put on.' designers have to design clothing that the consumer can adopt and make it their own through cutting it up, or deconstructing it over time, letting the design be in the hands of the consumer. the 'true' design process happens when the consumer wears it and lives in it and breaks it. the consumer is the active collaborater with the designer because it is passed into their hands, they rip it, they stain it, it changes, and never stays the same. not the image a designer wants people to have.

anyways, this is exactly what issey miyake is trying to accomplish.

 

[faust]

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 think we are defining design differently. To me design necesseraly comprises function and aesthetics - one can not go without the other when I talk about something "designed". I'm not sure what you mean by it. The construction worker's jeans are pure function - there is no design element in it, so I don't see the correlation. It does look like you are confusing deconstruction with somethin else. Deconstruction simply means taking something apart and putting it back together in a different way, or it means not finishing the garment completely (rough edges, unfinished hems, etc...) Neither Rick Owens nor Ann Demeulemeester are known for deconstruction.

When you talk about adopting the high/lo look, it seems that you are referring to the hipsters who buy overpriced Rogan type clothes, which are for the most part salvation army tshirts that were given 2nd life (and a high price tag) by putting some phrase on them... which is actually what margiela has been doing for the longest time now... which i don't like either, but somehow i can get margiela doing it, because he pushed the boundaries of fashion at the time, and he sometimes can still do it in an amazingly clever way... but this kind of thing can only be done once, I think - more to make a point rather than quality clothes... once again, there can only be one malevich's black square, because the black square is not much in itself...

 

[faust]

basically i guess fashion is no longer about the illusion, and consumers see that. even the grunge look which tried ot go the oppisete spectrum was just as 'put on.' designers have to design clothing that the consumer can adopt and make it their own through cutting it up, or deconstructing it over time, letting the design be in the hands of the consumer. the 'true' design process happens when the consumer wears it and lives in it and breaks it. the consumer is the active collaborater with the designer because it is passed into their hands, they rip it, they stain it, it changes, and never stays the same. not the image a designer wants people to have.

anyways, this is exactly what issey miyake is trying to accomplish.

that's one way to look at it, and not a bad one. another way to look at it is that designer manifests his vision through creating - just like any other artist does. it is then up to the customer to accept or reject it.

 

[travolta]

i guess i am saying the construction workers pants are beautiful because they are lived in, and i find purely functional things beautiful, because it is perfect design. i find I beams and scaffolding on a construction site more beautiful than any piece of industrial sculpture. aesthetics are always trying to mimic these things the nature world. the carhartts are not meant to be anything, but that is why when my friends wear them w/ such grace they turn into things of beauty. i know rick and ann dem are not known as deconstructionists but, to me, they retain the feel, which i can't really articulate at the moment.

When you talk about adopting the high/lo look, it seems that you are referring to the hipsters who buy overpriced Rogan type clothes, which are for the most part salvation army tshirts that were given 2nd life (and a high price tag) by putting some phrase on them... which is actually what margiela has been doing for the longest time now... which i don't like either, but somehow i can get margiela doing it, because he pushed the boundaries of fashion at the time, and he sometimes can still do it in an amazingly clever way... but this kind of thing can only be done once, I think - more to make a point rather than quality clothes... once again, there can only be one malevich's black square, because the black square is not much in itself...

this is true. i think cleverness, especially in art, is overrated and ultimately won't get you anywhere, and this is my defintion of cleverness. if you're trying to be too clever, you only trip up.

 

[travolta]

that's one way to look at it, and not a bad one. another way to look at it is that designer manifests his vision through creating - just like any other artist does. it is then up to the customer to accept or reject it.

true, but fashion is different from other art forms because you actually live in it.

 

[evexa]

It is easy to pick away at the details but I agree with the article.
On the whole fashion has suffered a huge setback - it seems to have lost its way, atomised since 9/11.
This has created a gap that corporate america and the 'elitist' brands couldn't wait to fill - with stuff that is mostly rehashed or unwearable or completely homogenized.
Harsh but this is my opinion.

 

[nqth]

I think fashion is still "super cool":-) because

1. We are discussing here in tFS like no tomorrow:-P
2. Japanese teenagers still queing a night before shops to get items from new collection.
3. There are designers who make clothes that people are talking about.
4. There are people who talk about clothes, not designer's dogs and drinks.

 

[faust]

I think fashion is still "super cool":-) because

1. We are discussing here in tFS like no tomorrow:-P
2. Japanese teenagers still queing a night before shops to get items from new collection.
3. There are designers who make clothes that people are talking about.
4. There are people who talk about clothes, not designer's dogs and drinks.

you bet just because the so-called "cognoscetti" have bowed to the mainstream corporate lords, doesn't mean we have to.

 

[evexa]

you bet just because the so-called "cognoscetti" have bowed to the mainstream corporate lords, doesn't mean we have to.

Who are 'we' though?
We aren't representative of society as a whole and therefore we cannot alone make fashion 'cool'.
For that to happen the general populus would have to regard high fashion as cool again, and I get the feeling that may take awhile.

 

[faust]

Who are 'we' though?
We aren't representative of society as a whole and therefore we cannot alone make fashion 'cool'.
For that to happen the general populus would have to regard high fashion as cool again, and I get the feeling that may take awhile.

of course we aren't. but that's the thing - the general populus has never considered fashion. it now does, more than ever - but just like in all other instances, the populus is neither knowledgable nor discerning, and chances are it won't be. i have long ceased lamenting about the general state of the populus. instead, i concentrate on those akin to myself

 

[fourboltmain]

Wow. This thread is so damn good I actually took notes like I was in class. First of, I think Evexa hit the nail on the head by saying, "Who are 'we' though? We aren't representative of society as a whole and therefore we cannot alone make fashion 'cool'." That is exactly how I see it.

And what is fashion to begin with? It's all relative, as all our tastes are different. To say good design is generally accepted by all, then I would have to say those Carhartts are far superior than anyone ever realized, considering more people wear them than say some Paper Denims, or Citizens, or whatever is the flavor of the month.

I have also thought that music and fashion are very much dependant on each other and both are very stale right now, as they tend to go through times of change every 12 years or so. Just as these fake distressed jeans and sh!tty screened tees are being recycled, so is music, with every band out there sounding like a bad Cheap Trick cover and every hip-hop artist is still sampling old Grandmaster Flash beats.

I also have to say I hate this whole retro rags looking trend that seems to be on it's way out, just because I don't like affluent people wearing clothes that look like the clothes I had growing up because we were poor.

Anyway, upon all of this, you can't blame the sheeple (people + sheep = sheeple) for all buying in to whatever is going on now. Sheeple are afraid of something different, and will wait for someone credible to make the first move toward change. Then the hipsters jump on the bandwagon, and when the style hits Target or Wal-Mart, it finally becomes within reach of the rest of the flock. And right now with gas and housing prices through the roof, I think everyone is comfortable with generic design.

So yes, fashion is still cool to most, but maybe you're too cool for fashion right now.

 

[travolta]

fourboltmain, great post.

I have also thought that music and fashion are very much dependant on each other and both are very stale right now, as they tend to go through times of change every 12 years or so.

i think right now fashion conglomerates/ corporations create a stagnant look, and so as homogenization grows, an underground movement will run parallel...whew, life balances out! i think there is a current embrace of a 'folk' style, and this is also related to the current music scene, however it's subtle. it functions as basically is the oppiesete end of the spectrum of generic. through more 'democratic' systems such as ebay and music downloading it's all about the consumer influencing what is put out and what is recognized.

 

[travolta]

for instance and somewhat off topic: dangermouse made one of the most highly acclaimed albums of the year, but it was a bootleg -- illegal. however, w/ the power of filesharing, free access it eventually ended up at entertainment weekly, and they labeled it the best album of 2004. it was made by some guy, not some suits in a corporation.

"In the future, history books will say there was once a time when people got paid millions of dollars for selling CDs. Kids will be like, 'Get out of here with that crazy talk!'"

his quote

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/rave.html?pg=6

this could be the future of fashion??

 

[travolta]

unfortunately, you can't pass around clothing in the same way you can music. you can't keep creating duplicates until everyone has a copy -- that's a movement. so i guess fashion will be more about people viewing it without a different mindframe, which is starting to happen w/ luxury goods and logos.

 

[fourboltmain]

Excellent writing, I want to add but I can't. I like the relation between copies and copies becoming a movement.

I also wanted to state how much I love Carhartts. People trip when they ask you where you got them and I reply "Sears." They look hella cool when the knee patches wear through and I sometimes draw within them with permanent markers. The damn things are so durable that when new they stand up on their own. I like Dickies too, just because I don't feel bad when I destroy them.

 

[travolta]

^ i always wanted carhartts overalls. i'd cut off the pants and make it a dress. but yeah, those things are like cockroaches. no need for starch

 

[travolta]

imagine this as a metaphor for music sampling...not only is everything connected, but you can alter bits individually...

 

[travolta]

also...i really think this idea is cool, and it relates....

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26232

 

[evexa]

Fashion as an entity.

of course we aren't. but that's the thing - the general populus has never considered fashion. it now does, more than ever - but just like in all other instances, the populus is neither knowledgable nor discerning, and chances are it won't be. i have long ceased lamenting about the general state of the populus. instead, i concentrate on those akin to myself

Oh I am by no means claiming that the general populus are discerning or aesthetically adept - they are the sheep, but there is a new shephard in town . I think that the main point of the topic is that fashion as an entity formed from constantly changing ideas and aesthetic perceptions, has not been so focused on recently - it isn't as glamourous and formidable as it once was.
I agree with fourboltmain in his connecting music to clothing trends, but more than ever (and without making this a political arguement) I think fashion is becoming more closely linked with politics.
Conservatism is very prevalent right now, there isn't a big trend to be 'different' and homogenization and corporate influences are rampant. This trend does not direct the population toward new unusual designs and new concepts in cothing, rather it moves them toward the safe and trusted rehashed styles that have been circulated by the likes of Marc Jacobs and Michael Kors in the upper price bracket, and Abercrombie/af/ae etc.. in the lower price brackets. These are of course examples only but I could go on all day about this topic.
As travolta said, edgy fashion is taking a backseat and running underground for now - until the economy/climate provides adequate conditions for its germination
At least we know what fashion is