Very interesting discussions so far.
One thing that strikes me, however, is that this definition of 'avant garde' makes it quite hard to post the contemporary avant-garde... for essentially, it argues that the difference between simply being eccentric and being avant-garde is that in being avant-garde you are some kind of vanguard. That soon it will be recognised by the masses -or, at least, a group -as something to be adopted in a more mainstream way. That you push the boundaries of acceptability through innovation and manage to move them.
Now, talking about this historically, this all makes a lot of sense, and it's clear that YSL, the flappers etc. were avant garde. But how am I meant to know if my unusual dressing today is avant garde, or simply weird? How can you talk about being the start of a future movement today?
I also think a lot of the Japanese designers mentioned fall under the umbrella of 'eccentric' or, rather, adjacent to mainstream fashion rather than avant-garde. They have been doing what they have been doing, with their own history and evolution, for decades now and I can't see them ticking over so that in ten years we'll all be dressed in CDG. There's a certain snobbery in deeming your fashion territory to be that of the 'avant garde', the super-progressive, the uber-clothing... rather than just the niche you like to occupy.
Putting aside my general reservations about the concept of avant-garde clothing... I think what I see as very new are looks that combine a lot of texture and pattern, moving away from the grey/black/white minimalistic-with-drapey-details orthodoxy of a lot of edgy niche fashion. The kind of stuff Marras has always done, and which Dries does on the runway, styled like that rather than in a pared down tasteful way. Actually, Jane at sea of shoes is the most modern dresser I've seen for ages, I love her style because of this. It reminds me of the times before commercial fashion where you'd see a painting and the fabrics worn by the subject would be all different intricate patterns, colours and textures, less about being cool and more about an aesthetic landscape, and adornment. Love it. Don't have the guts to wear it 95% of the time, but I'm starting to do it more.
One thing that strikes me, however, is that this definition of 'avant garde' makes it quite hard to post the contemporary avant-garde... for essentially, it argues that the difference between simply being eccentric and being avant-garde is that in being avant-garde you are some kind of vanguard. That soon it will be recognised by the masses -or, at least, a group -as something to be adopted in a more mainstream way. That you push the boundaries of acceptability through innovation and manage to move them.
Now, talking about this historically, this all makes a lot of sense, and it's clear that YSL, the flappers etc. were avant garde. But how am I meant to know if my unusual dressing today is avant garde, or simply weird? How can you talk about being the start of a future movement today?
I also think a lot of the Japanese designers mentioned fall under the umbrella of 'eccentric' or, rather, adjacent to mainstream fashion rather than avant-garde. They have been doing what they have been doing, with their own history and evolution, for decades now and I can't see them ticking over so that in ten years we'll all be dressed in CDG. There's a certain snobbery in deeming your fashion territory to be that of the 'avant garde', the super-progressive, the uber-clothing... rather than just the niche you like to occupy.
Putting aside my general reservations about the concept of avant-garde clothing... I think what I see as very new are looks that combine a lot of texture and pattern, moving away from the grey/black/white minimalistic-with-drapey-details orthodoxy of a lot of edgy niche fashion. The kind of stuff Marras has always done, and which Dries does on the runway, styled like that rather than in a pared down tasteful way. Actually, Jane at sea of shoes is the most modern dresser I've seen for ages, I love her style because of this. It reminds me of the times before commercial fashion where you'd see a painting and the fabrics worn by the subject would be all different intricate patterns, colours and textures, less about being cool and more about an aesthetic landscape, and adornment. Love it. Don't have the guts to wear it 95% of the time, but I'm starting to do it more.
...
....
...
...
