The Most Overrated Designers...

[lemeray]

I can't really say any. Each designer varies depending if it was a sucessful collection or not.

 

[Jacque Marcel]

Zac Posen...end of story

 

[yeny]

don't get me wrong... i actually liked her collections, but then, i think she had enough praises when she first join chloe, because after a few seasons, i kinda think she's being repetitive. but she kept on getting praises and all which is just too much for me.
like she's only have one style, or maybe she's too afraid to move on to another designs

I'm not sure if you know, but Phoebe Philo left Chloe after the SS 06 collection. If the collection looks repetitive now, it's because the design team is just maintaining the aesthetic she established before she left.

I actually think it's a mark of a great designer when their collections have a consistent look with a slightly new slant every season. To me it indicates that he/she has their own unique voice... I agree with those who've said that Marc Jacobs is overrated because he can't seem to decide what his aesthetic is -- grunge one season and super-ladylike the next, which also suggests that he has no clue who his customer is.

 

[reese06]

I actually think it's a mark of a great designer when their collections have a consistent look with a slightly new slant every season. To me it indicates that he/she has their own unique voice... I agree with those who've said that Marc Jacobs is overrated because he can't seem to decide what his aesthetic is -- grunge one season and super-ladylike the next, which also suggests that he has no clue who his customer is.

While I do agree that Marc Jacobs is overrated, I don't agree that he can't decide what his aesthetic is or that he has no clue who his customer is. I think that he just has a broad point of view. But I don't want to get off topic..But I also think that Miucca Prada is overrated. I never have understood why Prada collections are praised EVER. They just don't do anything for me, they are actually hideous in my opinion.

 

[seahorseinstripe]

I'm not sure if you know, but Phoebe Philo left Chloe after the SS 06 collection. If the collection looks repetitive now, it's because the design team is just maintaining the aesthetic she established before she left.

oh, i know that
that's why i love the f/w 2006 collection better, it's more decorative and daring... and the fact that the new designer worked for marni doesn't hurt a bit
btw, i think i'm not going to say anything about this anymore
it's just my private opinion...

 

[lilykarebare]

I think that Karl Lagerfeld tends to be overrated. He is a consistently good designer, but that's about it. I also think Michael Kors is REALLY overrated. He's just boring. I also don't like Matthew Williamson. I find him kind of tacky as opposed to cool.

 

[Whitelinen]

I have never gotten the hype about Lagerfeld, even if he does good pieces, especially for haute couture. He is talented, but sometimes he is hailed next to Coco herself, and I think that goes a little bit too far. Lagerfeld can be very tacky in his work.

 

[ETROsexualJ]

I agree with those who've said that Marc Jacobs is overrated because he can't seem to decide what his aesthetic is -- grunge one season and super-ladylike the next, which also suggests that he has no clue who his customer is.

You don't have to be consistent. His customer can be the same type of person. One day she might want to be a little darling and the next day she could decide she wants to grunge it up, etc.

I mean yesterday I was wearing Thom Browne, the day before Etro and today Jil Sander. It can be someones "look" or "style" to not subscribe to a specific look or style; but, instead choose to be dynamic.

 

[zamb]

I have never gotten the hype about Lagerfeld, even if he does good pieces, especially for haute couture. He is talented, but sometimes he is hailed next to Coco herself, and I think that goes a little bit too far. Lagerfeld can be very tacky in his work.

it is interesting how designers of old are often held in higher regard than thier present day peers.
was Coco chanel a better designer than Mr. Lagerfeld. I dont think so ( even though it is Ok for many to disagree with me) , while she deserves ultimate credit for estabishing her famed house and for her contribution to the simplification and practical designs in modern fashion, it is Mr. Lagerfeld that continues to make the house relevant.
had it not been for him , very little might have been known about her and the house (see rochas before theyskens and balenciaga before josephus thimister and nicolas ghesquire)
there are many dersigners who were very much esteemed in thier careers that are no more than a footnote in todays fashion lexicon (capt.molenuex, mainbocher, charles james, paul poiret, jacques fath, etc )
i agree that sometimes he does crap and he makes a lot of rude and ridiculous comments, but these things must be seen aside from his talents.
and today there is no designer at his age that is doing what he does.
and for him to be doing chanel for over 20yrs and still find ways to make it new and interesting without losing its image and signature is an amazing accomplishment.

 

[Whitelinen]

it is interesting how designers of old are often held in higher regard than thier present day peers.
was Coco chanel a better designer than Mr. Lagerfeld. I dont think so ( even though it is Ok for many to disagree with me) , while she deserves ultimate credit for estabishing her famed house and for her contribution to the simplification and practical designs in modern fashion, it is Mr. Lagerfeld that continues to make the house relevant.
had it not been for him , very little might have been known about her and the house (see rochas before theyskens and balenciaga before josephus thimister and nicolas ghesquire)
there are many dersigners who were very much esteemed in thier careers that are no more than a footnote in todays fashion lexicon (capt.molenuex, mainbocher, charles james, paul poiret, jacques fath, etc )
i agree that sometimes he does crap and he makes a lot of rude and ridiculous comments, but these things must be seen aside from his talents.
and today there is no designer at his age that is doing what he does.
and for him to be doing chanel for over 20yrs and still find ways to make it new and interesting without losing its image and signature is an amazing accomplishment.

I know what you mean about glorifying those from the past, but I hold Gabrielle Chanel as a better designer than Karl Lagerfeld, I simply like her designs better, not the modern interpretations or new designs of Lagerfeld. I also do agree with that Lagerfeld is responsible for the fact that Chanel continues to be one of the biggest fashion houses today, and if it wouldn't have been for him, Chanel would probably be history. Still, I have to say I do not like the direction Lagerfeld is taking Chanel, and that is why I do not think of him as one of the most legendary designers, even if he is a great designer. I simply do not get most of the clothes in his Chanel collections, and find many of them very cheap. That is why I do not think Lagerfeld is a God of fashion as many seem to think.

Nicolas Ghesquière is a key person for revitalizing the house of Balenciaga, still, I think he is an overrated designer.

I find both of these designers more as designers who are great in knowing what people are into and that way raising the forgotten fashion houses to new popularity. But for me the thing that I respect designers for is creating something new and unique, not just having a new point of view or giving things a twist or popularity.

I am not saying Lagerfeld is a bad designer, as he definetily is not, but I do not think he deserves all the respect he gets. Maybe he should be more respected as a revitalizer and a great businessman than a designer. I feel a lot of crap products get praise just because of his name, not the quality. He's done so many bad designs that if it were anyone else than him, he would get critisized.

I guess we just have different tastes in fashion, and that cannot be argued.

While I do agree that he has done great job in not letting the house of Chanel to die, I am always not sure should all these houses still exist. Maybe Chanel should not exist anymore.

His opinions aren't a factor, I like them in all of their ridiculousness

 

[zamb]

I know what you mean about glorifying those from the past, but I hold Gabrielle Chanel as a better designer than Karl Lagerfeld, I simply like her designs better, not the modern interpretations or new designs of Lagerfeld. I also do agree with that Lagerfeld is responsible for the fact that Chanel continues to be one of the biggest fashion houses today, and if it wouldn't have been for him, Chanel would probably be history. Still, I have to say I do not like the direction Lagerfeld is taking Chanel, and that is why I do not think of him as one of the most legendary designers, even if he is a great designer. I simply do not get most of the clothes in latest Chanel collections, and find many of them very cheap. That is why I do not think Lagerfeld is a God of fashion as many seem to think.

Nicolas Ghesquière is a key person for revitalizing the house of Balenciaga, still, I think he is an overrated designer.

I guess I do find both of these designers more as designers who are great in knowing what people are into and that way raising the forgotten fashion houses to new popularity. But for me the thing that I respect designers for is creating something new and unique, not just having a new point of view or giving things a twist.

I am not saying Lagerfeld is a bad designer, as he definetily is not, but I do not think he deserves all the respect he gets. Maybe he should be more respected as a revitalizer and a great businessman than a designer. I feel a lot of crap products get praise just because of his name, not the quality. He's done so many bad designs that if it were anyone else than him, he would get critisized.

His opinions aren't a factor, I like them in all of their ridiculousness

FOR someone to glorify crap because your name is on it, you have to first accomplish something noteworthy.
also, i want us to look at the designers body of work as opposed to one or two bad collection or items
bearing in mind that not all designers have the same responsibilities,
some have there own houses , giving them the freedom to do what the want, while others work for houses, where satisfying the employer and maintaining the legacy/ image of the house s part of the responsibility

 

[Whitelinen]

Yes well, I just explained why I do not give designers who keep old houses gracefully alive by following the old designer's style as much credit as to designers who have their own houses and therefore more unique designs. I do understand the responsibility ie Lagerfeld has for Chanel. I guess that is the matter of taste, I do not like modernizing that much. I understand why designer's under old houses need to keep the style as the house's traditional style, but I happen to prefer other kind of fashion.

Yes, to have "glorified crap" you need to have established your name as a great first. But even good designers can turn bad and I do not see why they should be always respected for all their work because they were great in the past. That is something overrated.

I agree that we should be looking at the designer's body of work, and I am basing my opinion on more than the collections he has done for Chanel in the 21st century. Still, as I said, people should not be forgiven for what they did in the past, since that was in the past. The designer can be given credit for his older work for that, but saying all he does is great because of his past is not right in my mind.

Ps. I edited my last post before this before I saw you had replied. It is a little bit different than in the quote in your post.

 

[zamb]

Yes well, I just explained why I do not give designers who keep old houses gracefully alive by following the old designer's style as much credit as to designers who have their own houses and therefore more unique designs. I do understand the responsibility ie Lagerfeld has for Chanel. I guess that is the matter of taste, I do not like modernizing that much. I understand why designer's under old houses need to keep the style as the house's traditional style, but I happen to prefer other kind of fashion.

Yes, to have "glorified crap" you need to have established your name as a great first. But even good designers can turn bad and I do not see why they should be always respected for all their work because they were great in the past. That is something overrated.

I agree that we should be looking at the designer's body of work, and I am basing my opinion on more than the collections he has done for Chanel in the 21st century. Still, as I said, people should not be forgiven for what they did in the past, since that was in the past. The designer can be given credit for his older work for that, but saying all he does is great because of his past is not right in my mind.

Ps. I edited my last post before this before I saw you had replied. It is a little bit different than in the quote in your post.

well, i think we have veered a bit off topic.
the thread is not about whether a designer is great or not, but rather , if they are overated.
some ppl have listed names, but i think it is good to give a reason why to the names listed.
i never said everything Mr lagerfeld does is great, all i am saying is. amidst everything that he has done, whether good or bad, can anyone really say that a designer as him, with the body of work he has (chanel/ fendi/ chloe/ jean patou/ and his many lines under his own name throughout his lifetime) and for him to be relevant todaY WHEN ALL OF HIS GREATEST COMPATRIOTS have all retired and a lot of them dead, how can we really say he is over-rated?
i dont think he is god, and he is not my favorite designer, all i am doing is butting biases aside and assesing his work as just that,
his work.......................

 

[yeny]

You don't have to be consistent. His customer can be the same type of person. One day she might want to be a little darling and the next day she could decide she wants to grunge it up, etc.

I mean yesterday I was wearing Thom Browne, the day before Etro and today Jil Sander. It can be someones "look" or "style" to not subscribe to a specific look or style; but, instead choose to be dynamic.

Obviously you should feel free to wear whatever style you want on any given day. But when talking about designers, I think the "great" ones, versus the overrated ones, are those that have their own consistent voice. For instance, if you made the comparison of designers to writers, I wouldn't think a writer was great if they wrote like Ernest Hemingway one day and Sylvia Plath the next. I'm not saying that designers should never change their style, but there should be something distinctive about their aesthetic.

 

[Whitelinen]

well, i think we have veered a bit off topic.
the thread is not about whether a designer is great or not, but rather , if they are overated.
some ppl have listed names, but i think it is good to give a reason why to the names listed.
i never said everything Mr lagerfeld does is great, all i am saying is. amidst everything that he has done, whether good or bad, can anyone really say that a designer as him, with the body of work he has (chanel/ fendi/ chloe/ jean patou/ and his many lines under his own name throughout his lifetime) and for him to be relevant todaY WHEN ALL OF HIS GREATEST COMPATRIOTS have all retired and a lot of them dead, how can we really say he is over-rated?
i dont think he is god, and he is not my favorite designer, all i am doing is butting biases aside and assesing his work as just that,
his work.......................

Well, that is just what I was saying. I simply think he is overrated for the reasons I listed, for the fact that I do not get some of his work and think it is bad, and therefore I think all the hype he has is overrated, therefore he is overrated (and I am not off topic). I did not mean you think he is a God etc, but that is the general feeling for example the fashion media gives him. I am not speaking of you overrating him, but the general public and the media.

I do know of his work for all these fashion houses, and cannot personally figure out what in his work is great enough to give him the status he has. That is why I think he is overrated. It is a matter of personal taste. I do not rate talent or reasons to be respected in income or years in business. I rate it in if I like the work, not the popularity.

I do get what you are saying however by him being in the fashion business for so long. It is admirable while he hasn't had an exact low in any point and can still produce good collections, but it does not make him to be respected the way he is in my opinion.

It is all my personal opinion, and I do not think other people should necessarily relate to that.

How do you rate someone to be overrated?

 

[zamb]

I find both of these designers more as designers who are great in knowing what people are into and that way raising the forgotten fashion houses to new popularity.

well........... if you are going to have any sucess today as a designer, you had better know what people are into.
as Zoran famously said "you dont have to be a scientist to be a designer, you have to sell... and thats that!"


But for me the thing that I respect designers for is creating something new and unique, not just having a new point of view or giving things a twist or popularity.

there is a reality that we must accept. almost no designer ever truly creates something new. the fact is that fashion is limited by the anatomy ( we only have two arms, two legs one head and one torso) the way people dress have been pretty much fixed for the last 200 years or so.
saying this all we designers have done is tweaked here , changed proportions there and made things interesting in a certain time frame. the fabrics, cuts and methods of constructin have preety much remained the same. and as far as i can see it wont much much (at least not while we are alive) as the customers simply do not want it to change , they like the cottons, linens silks and woollens that they get and as a result, as innovative as we try to be, the only things that are relevant are the ones which the customers ultimately can appreciate and relate to

 

[zamb]

for me overating someone is giving more credit than thier work warrants.
as in calling someone who as done two collections iconic or legendary (which i have seen before)

 

[zamb]

let me give you one thing about his work that make him deserving of all the credit.
he has never worked at a house that had gone bankruft or unprofitable during his tenure.
and he doesnt make unwearable clothing,
he perfectly understand his customers for all the lines he designs and does manage to make each of them very distinct

 

[Whitelinen]

I guess we have different point of views. While I do understand and agree that in order for a designer to succeed and to have longevity is to be popular (or have a very rich supporter, which probably is very rare), I do not make that the point of my appreciation. I can appreciate a designer that does five excellent collections and then has to stop because it does not sell, and therefore there would not be any longevity, therefore he might be in some circles be considered a bad designer. If I personally loved his work, then I would appreciate him very much. Longevity does not make a good designer (= a designer worth the praise) in my mind.

If we go that far, then yes you are very right in that any designer can't create anything new anymore. What I am meaning is new in a smaller scale; creating a collection that does not rely simply on the trends or take its inspiration from the past. There are small new things happening, but those probably will never get popularity since they are not even wearable. In the 90s there was still something new in terms of a certain style that can be attached to it, which 21st does not seem to have.

What do you mean by wearable? If I personally find his work crap, it is unweareble to me, though in theory I of course could wear it.

I just do not see the point why I should appreciate a designer because he is popular? Aren't we therefore saying money makes a designer?

 

[zamb]

I guess we have different point of views. While I do understand and agree that in order for a designer to succeed and to have longevity is to be popular (or have a very rich supporter, which probably is very rare), I do not make that the point of my appreciation. I can appreciate a designer that does five excellent collections and then has to stop because it does not sell, and therefore there would not be any longevity, therefore he might be in some circles be considered a bad designer. If I personally loved his work, then I would appreciate him very much. Longevity does not make a good designer (= a designer worth the praise) in my mind.

If we go that far, then yes you are very right in that any designer can't create anything new anymore. What I am meaning is new in a smaller scale; creating a collection that does not rely simply on the trends or take its inspiration from the past. There are small new things happening, but those probably will never get popularity since they are not even wearable. In the 90s there was still something new in terms of a certain style that can be attached to it, which 21st does not seem to have.

What do you mean by wearable? If I personally find his work crap, it is unweareble to me, though in theory I of course could wear it.

I just do not see the point why I should appreciate a designer because he is popular? Aren't we therefore saying money makes a designer?

well, of neccessity we all have to take something from the past. since skirts , blouses pants, jackets etc, existed before we came. and all we are doing is building on what already exist in our own way.
and no, money doesnt make a designer, as if that were the case , i could never be, as i dont have money, and every season i am this close to being bankrupt but i still do my collections (things are getting better now, thank God)
and yes longivity matters, as only then can you really see if the designer has genuine talent or is just a one hit wonder
by unwearable i mean something that does not fit the anotomy or fit into a particular context of the life of the customer he/she is trying to reach, meaning there is no occasion for them to wear such clothing