The consequences of affordable collections

[zamb]

I think i'll take a perspective that not very many ppl are taking
there are a lot of indie designers out there, and generally (please don't take this as an attack, zamb, as i am generalizing) they think they're great and genius (that's why they design), and the reason why they don't succeed is because success is fickle. This may be true for some indie designers, but it's definately not true for every single indie designer out there.
On the other extreme, successful "high fashion" designers also tend to be quite arrogant and proud (not every single one, of course, but with success comes pride).
This makes me think: these designers should know that the average person who shops at target isn't the most fashion conscience; perhaps having a target collection is a different challenge. The designer is possibly thinking to himself or herself: will the average person appreciate what I do. the average person who doesn't pay that much attention to fashion aesthete. If you consider fashion an art, reaching out to the average person is quite a challenge. for instance, with painting, almost everyone can stand in front of monet and have a purely aesthetic understanding for what they see, regardless of whether or not they know anything about monet or impressionalism. but then you take that same person, who can understand that monet is beautiful, and put a painting of campbell soup in front of them, and the experience will definately not be the same (if the person is equally ignorant of wharhol as monet).
this is probably an extremely confusing post; the bottom line is that extremely rich, privileged people have access to high fashion. perhaps, sometimes the designers feel that these ppl wear their clothing for status rather than appreciation. by putting out affordable collections, they're asking a more objective audience to judge their work.
with indie designers, it's a different response. the rich, status-conscious will consider their designs more objectively, so they do not have the same need/desire to be judged by someone else

well , i am not easily offended so i dont take it personally, (niether do i consider myself a genius.......very good yes, but not genius)
at the same time, i am not understanding your post so it would be nice for you to explain a bit bit more...................

 

[DJCNOR]

Compliment for BaroqueRockstar

The designer is possibly thinking to himself or herself: will the average person appreciate what I do. the average person who doesn't pay that much attention to fashion aesthete. If you consider fashion an art, reaching out to the average person is quite a challenge...the bottom line is that extremely rich, privileged people have access to high fashion. perhaps, sometimes the designers feel that these ppl wear their clothing for status rather than appreciation. by putting out affordable collections, they're asking a more objective audience to judge their work.

That's well thought out, and for any designer, a very interesting approach to the problem of pricing high enough for survival but low enough that the audience that appreciates you can afford to buy.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

this pisses me off...

basically fashion is for the rich, the others are f**k'd with the bad quality crap and awful fits.

Pretty much, it has ALWAYS been like this.

Fashion is an odd thing. Historically it was a privilege only the rich could enjoy. It is quite exspensive to change your wardrobe every 6 months and you have to keep in mind that up until the 30's women would wear several different outfits a day! Fashion was something rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you did your own sewing, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology in ready to wear have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Changing your clothes because of style rather than utility is something people can now afford to consider.

You're faced now with a consumer culture that feels entitled to "fashion" or what they think it is because they can buy it. But unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying "fashion", you're buying something that is marketed to you as "fashion".

 

[justlooking]

^^ Could you explain a bit more? Are you saying a person who can afford for example the 'real' $2000AUS Roland Mouret Titanium dress has been able to 'buy' fashion as opposed to the person buying a $200AUS copy of the dress?

 

[Deleted member 7575]

It means that decent clothes can be purchased cheap enough so that people can discard a garment even if it is in good condition due to a change in style.

The reasons they decide to change their style, what they consider "fashion" to be, has more to do with marketing rather than what high end designers are putting on the runways.

 

[JJohnson]

Indeed...if rich are willing to pay more then why not let them? This marketing seems quite practical so there can be profit from all sides of the spectrum

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ well yes, but when you market towards the middle class, you have a much bigger audience. more profit on the side of producers

zamb: my previous post was trying to say that established designers may sometimes feel that when the wealthy buy their stuff, they buy it because it is a sign of wealth, rather than buy because they appreciate the aesthetic value of it. because of this, they expand their consumer audience (with their more affordable collections) to see if their work will be appreciated by the masses. (to see if the masses think the work has aesthetic appeal)
hope this is a bit clearer...

 

[Lena]

New standards and technology in ready to wear have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Changing your clothes because of style rather than utility is something people can now afford to consider.

You're faced now with a consumer culture that feels entitled to "fashion" or what they think it is because they can buy it. But unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying "fashion", you're buying something that is marketed to you as "fashion".

excellent post, thanks mutterlein

 

[DJCNOR]

This is leading towards an argument that an affordable big-name designer line could, if it offered quality that was noticeably higher than the general offerings of low-price shope, develop that portion of the low-price consumers that is discerns the difference into discerning buyers of quality from indie designers should their future budgets allow it.

 

[JJohnson]

Pretty much, it has ALWAYS been like this.

Fashion is an odd thing. Historically it was a privilege only the rich could enjoy. It is quite exspensive to change your wardrobe every 6 months and you have to keep in mind that up until the 30's women would wear several different outfits a day! Fashion was something rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you did your own sewing, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology in ready to wear have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Changing your clothes because of style rather than utility is something people can now afford to consider.

You're faced now with a consumer culture that feels entitled to "fashion" or what they think it is because they can buy it. But unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying "fashion", you're buying something that is marketed to you as "fashion".

Why wouldn't it be considered fashion when it's something you can wear? Granted, I feel it's not on the level of HIGH FASHION regarding quality, but since it mirrors the creativity of an elite brand it still contains a few dubbed down elements of that designer's aesthetic. Of course marketing plays a big role in every aspect of fashion high or low. The high side is marketed via celebrities, fashion shows and ad campaigns. The lower side seems to have a more general marketing which seems gimicky to some, but is highly effective for the normal consumer who cant afford a $2000+ ensemble. The play upon elitism works for everyone who want to look lavish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference I see between expensive brands are: QUALITY, PRICE (method of production), AND WHAT YOU THINK IT'S WORTH.

 

[JJohnson]

here's the future of fashion, for anyone who is paying attention to reality..

who gives a F***

sorry to be a drag, but as much as I Looouuurve design/fashion (that's why I'm here!) with the insane amount of consumption of raw materials/finite resouces, what we might be more concerned about in the future is who gets the clean water to drink.

just another viewpoint..

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Why wouldn't it be considered fashion when it's something you can wear? Granted, I feel it's not on the level of HIGH FASHION regarding quality, but since it mirrors the creativity of an elite brand it still contains a few dubbed down elements of that designer's aesthetic. Of course marketing plays a big role in every aspect of fashion high or low. The high side is marketed via celebrities, fashion shows and ad campaigns. The lower side seems to have a more general marketing which seems gimicky to some, but is highly effective for the normal consumer who cant afford a $2000+ ensemble. The play upon elitism works for everyone who want to look lavish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference I see between expensive brands are: QUALITY, PRICE (method of production), AND WHAT YOU THINK IT'S WORTH.

You missed my point.

 

[JJohnson]

oh well

 

[Deleted member 7575]

here's the future of fashion, for anyone who is paying attention to reality..

who gives a F***

sorry to be a drag, but as much as I Looouuurve design/fashion (that's why I'm here!) with the insane amount of consumption of raw materials/finite resouces, what we might be more concerned about in the future is who gets the clean water to drink.

just another viewpoint..

I'm sure there are green and environmental forums on the web, you should try those instead of a fashion forum to discuss that.

 

[TheDesignStudent]

well,I think designers have been playing the masses for a long time anyway. i mean,look at the impact of Prada and Dior and the like. And celebrity. It's really been going on long before these endeavours so I don't believe doing something for some kind of retailer will make much difference on higher-fashion.

One could state with this in mind, perhaps Julien Macdonald has little value while creating for his own label rather than Givenchy, perhaps Giambatti Valli as well since departing Ungaro...?


Maybe the only fashion worthy names for 2006 are: Adeline Andre, Chanel, Christian Dior, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Givenchy, Christian Lacroix, Scherrer, Dominique Sirop, Frank Sorbier, Emanuel Ungaro, Armani, Versace and Valentino; members and guests of the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne.


Where would the line be drawn? Are the following playing to the masses as well?: Betsey Johnson, Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, Prada, Gucci and Tom Ford, Karl Lagerfeld, Vivienne Westwood, Dior, Sonia Rykiel, etc. ?

 

[JJohnson]

I'm sure there are green and environmental forums on the web, you should try those instead of a fashion forum to discuss that.

oh Mutterlein...

 

[TheDesignStudent]

the consequences of democratic design?

"X designer" for Target ... Ralph Lauren being able to buy Club Monaco ... and P&G buying french labels just to make $$$ for perfume ...

In a nutshell... all the stuff that ruins fashion for me.

Maybe on one hand, though on the other, it's precisely what finances 'fashion'... or the most pure art form, with more weight invested in creativity than commerce...

 

[JJohnson]

One could state with this in mind, perhaps Julien Macdonald has little value while creating for his own label rather than Givenchy, perhaps Giambatti Valli as well since departing Ungaro...?


Maybe the only fashion worthy names for 2006 are: Adeline Andre, Chanel, Christian Dior, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Givenchy, Christian Lacroix, Scherrer, Dominique Sirop, Frank Sorbier, Emanuel Ungaro, Armani, Versace and Valentino; members and guests of the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne.


Where would the line be drawn? Are the following playing to the masses as well?: Betsey Johnson, Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, Prada, Gucci and Tom Ford, Karl Lagerfeld, Vivienne Westwood, Dior, Sonia Rykiel, etc. ?

I think all designers play to the masses in some aspect of the company

 

[TheDesignStudent]

Pretty much, it has ALWAYS been like this.
...rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you did your own sewing, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology in ready to wear have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual.

You're faced now with a consumer culture that feels entitled to "fashion" or what they think it is because they can buy it...

This is interesting, in today's culture sewing or making your own clothes is considered as being something lowly, unless the maker of the garment labels themselves a 'fashion designer'...

Perhaps it's 'snob afterglow' from the 1920's... Hmmm...!

Make your own clothes, (insert laughter here... ) absolutely rediculous, I'll order from Sears Roebuck Trading and the stagecoach will be here by November...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

This is interesting, in today's culture sewing or making your own clothes is considered as being something lowly, unless the maker of the garment labels themselves a 'fashion designer'...

Perhaps it's 'snob afterglow' from the 1920's... Hmmm...!

Make your own clothes, (insert laughter here... ) absolutely rediculous, I'll order from Sears Roebuck Trading and the stagecoach will be here by November...

Well, if you could afford it you would have your dressmaker do it.

And Sears Roebuck totally helped RTW in america get off the ground as well as providing almost every imaginable city item to rural areas via catalog.