The consequences of affordable collections

[TheDesignStudent]

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

Again, very interesting and where would the line be drawn...

Four inches of garments being cut on a Gerbertech CNC laser guided machine in a factory in China or Los Angeles...

One 1/2" of garments be cut for Betsey Johnson or Paul Smith by hand with 4" rotary blades on an overhead compressor line in a South American trade park factory...

Or single layers being sliced and stitched by elderly women who should likely be retired in an Italian or French workshop...!

 

[JJohnson]

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.

yep I agree, *Offtopic: that catalog published here in Chicago was a monstrosity and many people lost their jobs when they stopped publishing it.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Again, very interesting and where would the line be drawn...

Four inches of garments being cut on a Gerbertech CNC laser guided machine in a factory in China or Los Angeles...

One 1/2" of garments be cut for Betsey Johnson or Paul Smith by hand with 4" rotary blades on an overhead compressor line in a South American trade park factory...

Or single layers being sliced and stitched by elderly women who should likely be retired in an Italian or French workshop...!

I'm not talking about a distinction in production equaling greater worth, I'm merely saying that clothes are really cheap now which means even those who aren't wealthy can shop for fashion rather than utility. What is your point?

 

[ibimus]

I think high fashion will not be respected, or even considered to have any exclusivness about it becuase everyone is going to own the Karl shirt, or the V&R shirt, etc...
Part of the fun of high fashion is that not everyone has access to it. Once they go into mass-marketing retail, well, what's so special about it then? Nothing.

People may not realize (or even care) about the difference between the Karl shirts from H&M, and Chanel, but for those of us who do, it's like something wonderful is being taken away. They will just go by the label and the title, rather than quality and luxury.

 

[JJohnson]

I think high fashion will not be respected, or even considered to have any exclusivness about it becuase everyone is going to own the Karl shirt, or the V&R shirt, etc...
Part of the fun of high fashion is that not everyone has access to it. Once they go into mass-marketing retail, well, what's so special about it then? Nothing.

People may not realize (or even care) about the difference between the Karl shirts from H&M, and Chanel, but for those of us who do, it's like something wonderful is being taken away. They will just go by the label and the title, rather than quality and luxury.

what if they cant afford the luxury? that's what we're talking about. Idk why every1 thinks cheaper labels is bad...

 

[Blithe Spirit]

From the consumer standpoint, I see two basic human urges at work. The first one is for a human to group himself with a better/stronger/smarter tribe. The other (conflicting) urge is to be an individual and stand apart from the crowd. Fashion provides a means to both ends.

The elitist buys "designer" and thinks they are now part of the elite (better tribe). An individualist buys whatever he wants and wears it how he wants. We all know that a person with style does not neccesarily have to have a lot of money, nor does one have to have a lot of money to appreciate good design and quality workmanship. A person who buys all couture or top designers can still look like crap (but a better quality of crap.)

So - who cares if some designers 'democratize' their design? Hopefully, they will provide quality workmanship and design at an affordable price. It may give a stylish person without a large income more design options and access to some decently made clothes. At the same time, it will give many lower and middle income people a way to buy into the elitist dream - which they do now anyway, with the endless cheap Coach bags, fake Pradas and Vuittons. You will always have the two camps - the ones with style, and the ones that try to buy style. The moneyed elitists will find something else to spend $$$ on to show the world how special they are.

 

[dannyboy0828]

I think people should just enjoy fashion regardless of who's wearing it, and who's making it.

I have a pair of Dolce & Gabbana (not D&G) jeans that are my favorite pair. I'm sure plenty of people have these jeans, or jeans that look similar, and I don't even like Dolce & Gabbana collections, but I LOVE these jeans, i love the fit and how they make me feel. My other pair of favorite jeans happen to be from H&M. Not designed by Karl of V&R, but once again I love the fit and how they make me feel. I have some designer pieces, but i also have a lot of high street clothes, and i dont like one piece over the other because the designer pieces are more unique or only a few people can afford them. Same with designer bags, my two favorite bags are my balenciaga messenger i paid over $1000 and a rafe new york bag i got on ebay for $20, i have no preference, i love them both dearly. I just think if you love something you should want to wear it, whether or not it makes you elite is silly.

 

[babyladybones]

PS I find that "democratic" fashion tends to be targeted to the very young ... so if you don't want a mini-skirt or something that looks like it should be accessorized with a lollipop

you're kinda forced to go for the "good stuff" ...

ha no kidding

 

[DJCNOR]

There's dressing rich and dressing richly

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'...

I spent 1995 and 1996 in Poland, coming there from the US. One of the things that visitors used to comment about was how well the Poles were dressed. How could this be true when they earned so little compared to the visitors?

I found out that there were several answers (in no particular order.

The lack of washing machines and laundramats. When machine washing is not an option, better fabrics like good wools and silks and linens (the types that Westerners dry clean but that actually can be quite easily handwashed) become practical, so the Poles wore more of these. Handwashed clothes stay good looking for a long long time.

The experiences of the Communist years. When you went to the store, you found only 20 size 32 ugly brown dresses in stock. What did you do? You bought one, took it apart, restyled, dyed or embellished it, and wore it. Almost every stylish woman was an experienced desigher-maker for all intents and purposes. They knew quality when they saw it.

Dress-making and tailoring were still viable professions. Getting your important clothes, particularly business attire, made to fit by a professsion maker was reasonably affordable.

The Poles anticipated wearing their clothes over a very long time period of itme and even passing them on to other family members. They wore a huge amount of classics, mostly in a color pallet of neutrals and neutral-friendly (like home furnishing) colors. When you limit your pallet that way, you are always color coordinated.

I took away a lot of lessons and still wear my tailor-made blazer.

 

[Karl.Popper]

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".

Education is an odd thing. Historically it was a privilege only the rich could enjoy. It is quite exspensive to be tutored and you have to keep in mind that up until the 20th century women would have to run off to an abbey or be privately tutored! Education was something rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you were an auto-didact, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Being educated as a matter of fact is something people can now afford to consider.

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

 

[Karl.Popper]

. . . this is only the case before the [SIZE=-1]dodecaphonism. I believe that NOBODY who totally ignore what serialism is is able to like this music - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Schoenberg and more. Maybe Stockhausen, with Sirius, is something easier... . . . It's hard to understand how Godard makes his films if you don't know anything about [/SIZE]Dziga Vertov....

Comedy gold.

 

[Karl.Popper]

. . . there are a lot of indie designers out there, and generally . . . they think they're great and genius (that's why they design) . . .

Quite. And they nurse grievances thinking they can do better than Galliano, or Pugh, and are generally disgruntled. At least that's the impression one gets. Whatever happened to learning from your betters?

If there's one thing the "democratization of design" did, it was to enable even persons from relatively humble backgrounds (read Galliano, read Pugh) to rise on merit and make something of themselves in the event.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Education is an odd thing. Historically it was a privilege only the rich could enjoy. It is quite exspensive to be tutored and you have to keep in mind that up until the 20th century women would have to run off to an abbey or be privately tutored! Education was something rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you were an auto-didact, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Being educated as a matter of fact is something people can now afford to consider.

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

It's the middle class, what can you do?

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Education is an odd thing. Historically it was a privilege only the rich could enjoy. It is quite exspensive to be tutored and you have to keep in mind that up until the 20th century women would have to run off to an abbey or be privately tutored! Education was something rarely enjoyed by the masses unless you were an auto-didact, which a lot of people use to do actually.

New standards and technology have enabled even the masses to partake in what normally was an elitist ritual. Being educated as a matter of fact is something people can now afford to consider.

true, but you can argue that today the rich still are the ones who get a true education. for instance, I have a friend who was accepted into princeton, but couldn't attend because he couldn't afford to pay, and got a fullride to a lesser known college. i also know a girl whose parents donated and commissioned an entire building at a college, and of course she was accepted no matter how impressive her credentials are.

as a parallel, the girl who paid her way in could be seen as the socialite who knows nothing about high fashion but can afford it, so she wears it. the guy who couldn't afford to go to princeton is comparable to the person who understands and appreciates high fashion, but can't afford it. what's he to do? affordable collections are hardly a fair compromise for him, but there aren't very many options.

 

[blackman]

to the question of long term effects of major designers doing cheaper high street fashion

Positives
* As long as the designer does a good job, the clothes can have a better aesthetic than previously available for the money.
* Increased awareness of high fashion names - bring some more people over to the dark side. My love of fashion was sparked by my mother but the flames were fanned by Hollywood (i.e. big business), spepcifically Audrey Hepburn, Katherine Hepburn, Nicole Kidman (greenish jg for dior at the 1997 oscars) etc.
* Perhaps some designers will realize that most of the world is not 20, a size 2, 6ft tall and made of money. i'm not bitter at ALL...

Negatives
* Watering down of such clear vision of talented designers.
* Promoting disposable fashion. Buy the best you can and take care of it.
* Dissolving the credibility of a designer's name when bad products are made because the designer losses control over the final product for whatever reason

imo it is a good idea if the intentions of the company and the designer are for the betterment of society and not just to make money. I live in a fantasy world where that might happen one day...

 

[JJohnson]

I spent 1995 and 1996 in Poland, coming there from the US. One of the things that visitors used to comment about was how well the Poles were dressed. How could this be true when they earned so little compared to the visitors?

I found out that there were several answers (in no particular order.

The lack of washing machines and laundramats. When machine washing is not an option, better fabrics like good wools and silks and linens (the types that Westerners dry clean but that actually can be quite easily handwashed) become practical, so the Poles wore more of these. Handwashed clothes stay good looking for a long long time.

The experiences of the Communist years. When you went to the store, you found only 20 size 32 ugly brown dresses in stock. What did you do? You bought one, took it apart, restyled, dyed or embellished it, and wore it. Almost every stylish woman was an experienced desigher-maker for all intents and purposes. They knew quality when they saw it.

Dress-making and tailoring were still viable professions. Getting your important clothes, particularly business attire, made to fit by a professsion maker was reasonably affordable.

The Poles anticipated wearing their clothes over a very long time period of itme and even passing them on to other family members. They wore a huge amount of classics, mostly in a color pallet of neutrals and neutral-friendly (like home furnishing) colors. When you limit your pallet that way, you are always color coordinated.

I took away a lot of lessons and still wear my tailor-made blazer.

I believe he was talking about American culture. I doubt many people in this new generation know how to sew their own clothing. A few grandma's might, but it's quite rare to find someone in their 20's doing such a task unless they are a designer

 

[JJohnson]

true, but you can argue that today the rich still are the ones who get a true education. for instance, I have a friend who was accepted into princeton, but couldn't attend because he couldn't afford to pay, and got a fullride to a lesser known college. i also know a girl whose parents donated and commissioned an entire building at a college, and of course she was accepted no matter how impressive her credentials are.

as a parallel, the girl who paid her way in could be seen as the socialite who knows nothing about high fashion but can afford it, so she wears it. the guy who couldn't afford to go to princeton is comparable to the person who understands and appreciates high fashion, but can't afford it. what's he to do? affordable collections are hardly a fair compromise for him, but there aren't very many options.

good answer

 

[Karl.Popper]

true, but you can argue that today the rich still are the ones who get a true education. for instance, I have a friend who was accepted into princeton, but couldn't attend because he couldn't afford to pay, and got a fullride to a lesser known college.

You could make that argument. But it would be a profoundly dumb one. It boils down to saying that anything but an education at Princeton, or an Ivy, is a false one, ersatz, not education at all. Woe be to the applicant who gets a scholarship at a state college, or Berkeley or Caltech but not Princeton - he's getting a fake education!

Sorry, the ridiculous point of view on which that argument is premised is too absurd to even seriously consider. Then again, it wouldn't bother me in the least if you're saying that none of you have an education. From some replies I get, made without irony, I might be inclined to agree . . .

 

[melt977]

^^^^ Are you serious????

I think you are plain rude! Is this educated enough for you to understand???

 

[DJCNOR]

Reply to JJonson

I believe he was talking about American culture. I doubt many people in this new generation know how to sew their own clothing. A few grandma's might, but it's quite rare to find someone in their 20's doing such a task unless they are a designer

I know. I'm saying that's a part of why so many do not discern quality on their own and thus rely on names, This makes it harder for new designers to establish themselves.