The consequences of affordable collections

[Lena]

Alaia is a very good example of a designer who simply could not be produced in mass production

*we have luxury, we have the illusion of luxury and we have the 'i dont care' camp
i belong at the third option

what annoys me is the way people die to wear the illusion of luxury since its the only thing they can afford.. it makes me sad

 

[zamb]

Alaia is a very good example of a designer who simply could not be produced in mass production

Very good, as his work has always been quality over quantity, and probably one of the most uncompromising in this regard. thats why he never (except for knitwear) expanded his business beyond his atelier- directly surpervised by himself..............
a kind of business i am trying to have............... and one of the reasons he is in a three way tie (with just a nose beyond the other two , Balenciaga and Richard Tyler namely) for my all time favorite designer.....................

 

[Deleted member 7575]

People only know the famous European labels. An american designer, Charles Kleibacker, did all of his production in house because it was too complex to be done at facotories. He draped every size on the mannequin (no grading) and cut just about everything from collars to sleeves on the bias.

 

[Karl.Popper]

^ i'm not changing my tone, i'm defining what "true education" means to me
let me make myself clear: to me, true education means the education to match someone's potential

Then it is hardly the case that "today the rich still are the ones who get a true education" now is it?

By your _new_ definition wealth is not the defining quality of proper education. For even a poor person whose potential is matched by CSU Longbeach can be said to have had a "true education".

So how is it the case that "the rich are still the ones who get a true education" when even the poor do, by your definition?

Your words are self-contradictory. Clearly a result of shifting definitions, or if you didn't change your tune as you claim, then self-contradictory from the beginning - an even bigger muddle!

 

[Karl.Popper]

what annoys me is the way people die to wear the illusion of luxury since its the only thing they can afford.. it makes me sad

Like? Examples would be helpful.

 

[JJohnson]

it might be off topic, but does Alaia make a profit? from clothes or accessories including leather goods?
he seems to keep production low, and so the cost might be quite high...

Hmmm his items are very expensive. Barney's and Ikram Chicago carry them. It sells there I like it! I wish he would have fashion shows....wow

 

[DJCNOR]

KP,
Like the entire market for "designer" fakes.

 

[stylegurrl]

I don't think that wearing all designer gear automatically makes someone fashionable or stylish, nor are higher priced goods always of higher quality. I have seen poorly dressed people who have spent thousands on their outfits and I have had the experience of expensive garments that don't hold up well. I actually prefer thrift, vintage and consignment shops. In these places I find well-made garments that I won't see ten other people in and I don't have to put myself into debt trying to afford. I feel sorry for anyone who bases their self worth or the value of others on how much they paid for something or the name on the label inside of it.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

his work has always been quality over quantity, and probably one of the most uncompromising in this regard. thats why he never (except for knitwear) expanded his business beyond his atelier- directly surpervised by himself..............
a kind of business i am trying to have............... and one of the reasons he is in a three way tie (with just a nose beyond the other two , Balenciaga and Richard Tyler namely) for my all time favorite designer.....................

alaia isn't my favorite (although he is up there) but his determination is very inspiring

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Your words are self-contradictory. Clearly a result of shifting definitions, or if you didn't change your tune as you claim, then self-contradictory from the beginning - an even bigger muddle!

probably some sort of freudian slip
i still stand by that "today the rich still are the ones who get a true education"
csu long beach would be true education to some people, princeton to others. but to the people who have the academic ability to attend princeton but cannot afford it, they can't get their true education
of course starting this year i believe, all the ivy's have adopted a very very generous financial aid program, which now defeats my whole argument, but this wasn't the case a few years ago...

this discussion is kind of off-topic (sorry zamb, i really didn't mean to to spam your thread) so if you're still confused, please feel free to PM me

 

[Karl.Popper]

i still stand by that "today the rich still are the ones who get a true education"

You are only repeating your own confusion.

You stand by the above statement, while also standing by your new definition of what "true education" entails - viz. "true education means the education to match someone's potential".

How can you stand by both statements when they are inconsistent with each other?

Clearly if you admit that "csu long beach would be true education to some people" - even the poor - then it cannot be the case that "today the rich still are the ones who get a true education" since by your own admission the poor get it too.

Not exactly rocket science is it? Your conflation of differences in degree (better vs. lower quality education) with differences in kind ("true" vs "false" education) is at the root of your confusion.

And this is exactly relevant to the debate on whether even lower quality, affordable fashion is fashion or not. (It is. Otherwise we would end up in absurd contradictions as you did.)

 

[DJCNOR]

KP.

You, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, splitting hairs.

 

[zamb]

KP.

You, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, splitting hairs.

He contributes very little to this discussion, His intent seems to be to seek out questionable arguments with the intent to refute them.
we still have yet to see him post his own views of the subject without making reference to a post by someone else.
worst of all is, his posts are never in validation or agreement with the views and opinions of anyone, only disagreeing with them in a condescending manner..............

 

[lucy92]

does anyone else think some designers sell out by NOT making their creations available to more people?

for example, stella mccartney will soon come out with an organic skin care line but it will sell for a high sum and most people will not be able to afford it. also she frequently says she created her handbag line so women would have an alternative to leather, but the bags are inordinately expensive.
sometimes i wish some designers would put their money where their mouth is and market to more people. if her ideals lie in organic skincare and cruelty free items then why not make them more available to people?

ultimately, i have come to the realization that there is nothing revolutionary about a $500 pair of jeans.

 

[style_expert]

^ well I think it's definitely something psychological..for example: if Stella would price her skincare very low or even normal, some people wouldn't buy it because they think : it's cheap, it can't be good. That's actually how a major part of the consumers thinks, especially when it comes to fashion, cosmetics etc. In their eyes high price means high quality and exclusivity (because it's so expensive not a lot people will buy it)

 

[DJCNOR]

Lucy, you have a valid point because the objection that most folks have to not living carbon-neutral fair-trade-only name-your-virtue lives is that they can't afford it, and that the same objection/excuse is often given for not dressing better or patronizing emerging new designers.

Several reasons for why the small manufacturer must charge more have been given in this thread. Are they worth paying more for? Maybe, if the things you have to give up in order to do so are not near necessities, because in doing so, you literally "buy into" the qualities of the local culture that makes such enterprises viable.

If you were in Britain, I would have a site suggestion for relatively affordable skin-care products. For those who are Brit, it's www.wheredoi.co.uk and I have no personal interest in it aside from my general interest in supporting small local independents rather than mass-marketers. I know that the US is far behind Europe in such enterprises, but maybe somewhere there is such a US source.

 

[Alexandra8715]

^ Yeah I agree. One of the reasons why I think it is worth spending money on designer and other expensive clothes is because I get the impression that not only is the garment well designed but also it is very high quality. However, from what I've heard this isn't always true. So, why not therefore spend less money on designer inspired pieces that are cheaper? I don't necessarily agree with this as I still feel the quality must be superior but sometimes I do wonder......

 

[fashionista-ta]

does anyone else think some designers sell out by NOT making their creations available to more people?

for example, stella mccartney will soon come out with an organic skin care line but it will sell for a high sum and most people will not be able to afford it. also she frequently says she created her handbag line so women would have an alternative to leather, but the bags are inordinately expensive.
sometimes i wish some designers would put their money where their mouth is and market to more people. if her ideals lie in organic skincare and cruelty free items then why not make them more available to people?

ultimately, i have come to the realization that there is nothing revolutionary about a $500 pair of jeans.

I think the key point here is that Stella wants to make money more than she wants to do good And hey, that's the boat you're gonna be in if you're owned by Gucci Group.

While I agree that people question the quality (and if their thinking caps are on, the fair trade/labor) if something's too cheap, I think that break occurs fairly low on the continuum.

While it's true that Hermes produces products that last a lifetime/can be handed on to the next generation, I'm looking for a bag that's going to perform well when carried continuously for a couple-three seasons. Most of us don't need (and maybe don't want) the level of quality that comes with true luxury products (I don't mean those with overblown logos--cough LV cough )

Also wanted to mention, I'm seeing a lot of motivations attributed to people who buy knockoffs, etc. in this thread ... but I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all motive. For example, I've seen tons of photos of the Hilton sisters for example carrying fakes and surely they can afford/get for free the real thing. I'm assuming they're carrying those bags because they perceive them as fun/cute and in some way equivalent. I'm not completely sure they know the difference So I think we can't just assume that our theories about why people buy what they buy are correct ...

There also seems to be a high level of interest in low-priced designer lines both here and in fashion magazines ... and I've seen a lot of people here have bought from those lines, or complained about not being able to. Even tho we're talking mass retailers, this merchandise seems to be LE in many cases and therefore has its own rarity--and I'm not sure the masses are the target (no pun intended) audience.

PS In the US anyway, a good education is available to anyone who really wants it ... the real problem we have here is that we're lacking in the kind of trade education where Germany for instance excels. So you better hope you're the "college type" ...

 

[JJohnson]

They probably had those bags because they know ppl will think they're real, but they'll save a lot of money with the fake! Once again it seems to be about what people think it is.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Also wanted to mention, I'm seeing a lot of motivations attributed to people who buy knockoffs, etc. in this thread ... but I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all motive. For example, I've seen tons of photos of the Hilton sisters for example carrying fakes and surely they can afford/get for free the real thing. I'm assuming they're carrying those bags because they perceive them as fun/cute and in some way equivalent. I'm not completely sure they know the difference

I think with LV, the monograms completely destroyed whatever artistic value the bags had. No matter what effort marc puts into them now, it doesn't matter, because people only see the monogram.