Announcing... The 2nd Annual theFashionSpot Awards. Vote NOW via the links below:
Designer of the YearThank you for participating!
VOTING WILL CLOSE 27/12/2024 EOD!
This is too much like Sonia Rykiel (and all the other influences mentioned such as The Beautiful Fall). Too much. He is a very inconsistent designer, very derivative.
the talons really come out for marc jacobs in this forum, don't they? i bet marc jacobs sees the genius in the givenchy couture and tom ford ready-to-wear collections recently. seriously, marc jacobs doesn't have a problem with the fashion press, the buyers, the clients, or really anyone except for the rabble-rousers who choose to pick him apart in the blogosphere but who come to love it after everyone else starts copying it and he throws two or three of their favorite models into his next advertising campaign.
I need to agree about it. not that I attended the show too, but I have the feeling that I was amazing in real. All the colours, various fabrics and atmosphere it creates. Seems not that interesting at first, but my oppinion has changed after another time looking through the collection and checking the datailsI will be the first person to admit that I am not a fan of Marc's recent work for MJ, but I had the privilege of seeing this show in person tonight, and it absolutely blew me away. It was an amazing experience from the first look to the last, and although the colors echoed one of his recent LV collections, the silhouettes were absolutely flawless. It has definitely prompted me to reevaluate my views on his creative aesthetic!
Well, I for one don't really care what the fashion press, the buyers, or his clients think. They've already subscribed to his vision; I haven't. I don't see how that invalidates any criticism directed towards him. Yes, Marc Jacobs is commercially successful, but, again, I don't really care. Money is not my barometer for success. I think this is close to crap, no matter what those aforementioned people or what his bank account says.
Redundant and superficially vapid. The epitome of today's fashion. This collection is going to be a hit.
my larger point remains: does marc jacobs really concern himself and should he concern himself with what those in the blogosphere think if it's so unrelated to every other tangible measure of success? when it's in line with everything else, i could see a designer taking note, but when it's so boldly out of step, one begins to question relevance.
after all, he's designing for his customer......he can't really afford to just put out stuff to please those who would never step foot in his boutique anyway.
Well, I for one don't really care what the fashion press, the buyers, or his clients think. They've already subscribed to his vision; I haven't. I don't see how that invalidates any criticism directed towards him. Yes, Marc Jacobs is commercially successful, but, again, I don't really care. Money is not my barometer for success. I think this is close to crap, no matter what those aforementioned people or what his bank account says.
Redundant and superficially vapid. The epitome of today's fashion. This collection is going to be a hit.
You do realise that fashion is supposed to be enjoyable and saleable too, though, don't you(?) and not just some sort of academic exercise, with the sole intention of making the designer look clever and innovative (whether they actually are, particularly, if you dig a bit deeper, or not)?
Eek!
You do realise that fashion is supposed to be enjoyable and saleable too, though, don't you(?) and not just some sort of academic exercise, with the sole intention of making the designer look clever and innovative (whether they actually are, particularly, if you dig a bit deeper, or not)?
The truth is that, as far as I can see (short of some radically different new fabrics and/or techniques being created), at this point in time, almost anything that could have been invented fashion-wise and still look half-decent (along with much that didn't!) and function properly as clothing has already been done.
I'm all for innovation, where it can be acheived without the result looking uglier than its inspiration - but, unfortunately, it is so often the case, now, that beauty is sacrificed on the altar of so-called innovation, that I will take derivative over fugly, any day.
Although, having said that, I don't feel this collection is solely derivative, anyway...
I think the reason it may look it, superficially speaking, is because it is so adeptly done.
If you look at this in a few years' time I think you will, almost certainly, be able to clearly see that it was a 2010 take on the mid-to-late 1970s - but, by its very nature, the 2010 'take' will, of course, be quite hard for us to detect now.
Presumably for that very reason, I think some people feel they need to see some sort of obvious awkwardness in collections, to prove to themselves, somehow, that something is a sufficiently original 'take' on an earlier design?
Whereas, personally, I'd prefer to not to have to see (or wear!) that obvious awkwardness, if at all possible and to just know that people will always add a touch of themselves and their time to their designs, whether they want to, or not.
Just think of movies from a few years, or decades, ago that were set in even earlier times.
When you watch them a few years later, you can always see the year they were made, from the costumes - often, even more clearly than the era they were supposed to have been set in, itself.
Even though, when viewed at the time they were made (in the 1970s, or 1980s, or whenever), they may have looked almost completely convincingly Victorian, or Art Deco, or 1960s, or whatever.
Of course I know that. I am not naive or blissfully oblivious to the realities of the market. Fashion has to sell. However, as I mentioned above, I am NOT interested in that aspect of the industry, so I couldn't care less about the COMMERCIAL side when forming an opinion. And seeing as I DO NOT wear women's clothing. I've already outlined what I find important in fashion in my post following the one you quote: technique, vision, and design solutions. Did I say a designer has to be clever or innovative in particular in order to be successful? No. I despise the obsession that people have with originality as if it were the end-all and be-all of quality. There are several excellent designers who are not particularly innovative or clever. Alber Elbaz, for one. Personally, a designer is only successful if he or she is a good designer. Emphasis on design. It's as simple as that.
I also dislike that just because I say that I could not care less about the accounting books that I am automatically pigeonholed as someone who thinks fashion should be some sort of academic or artistic exercise. So if I don't think sales should matter, I think fashion shouldn't be beautiful or functional? Please. Let's leave the extremism behind and not so easily stereotype opinions into either/or, black and white, and draw the line dividing art, academia, design, and commerce in so simplistic a manner. In the same way, I think the idea of beauty is constructed personally and by social forces, so I really don't believe there should be a "default" or "accepted" notion. People can see a beautiful collection here. I don't.
I don't know why you're bringing up the timeliness of cinema, because, really, is it that important that the movies were box office hits when they were released or that they were expertly made? Citizen Kane (although I personally do not like it) was not a runaway success, but it survives and is important because of Welles's skill, technique and vision and not because people bought tickets.
The bottom line is I don't think Marc Jacobs is a good designer, whether he sells or not. Period. Now I hope people will stop putting words in my mouth.