MulletProof
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 28,511
- Reaction score
- 6,625
exactly. perfectly said, spike.
This decade is one of fashions worst missteps since the 80's
- Thread starter tctra
- Start date
breathe0xygen
I loved you
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 5,055
- Reaction score
- 1
hilarious.Les_Sucettes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
- Reaction score
- 278
Well in one hand this decade has no originality whatsoever, I wonder what the teens of this age will have to remember, but on the other hand we perfected every single item of the past, and there are some truly nice thing out there because of that.
I wouldn't say is as bad as the 80s, the 80s WERE BAD fashion wise, I should know, but what bothers me is that we cannot even at the moment create a bad decade, designers just simply gave creating some sort of new aesthetic.
I wouldn't say is as bad as the 80s, the 80s WERE BAD fashion wise, I should know, but what bothers me is that we cannot even at the moment create a bad decade, designers just simply gave creating some sort of new aesthetic.
sergio lessa
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
Without being too insistent, I hope, fashion is not a complex on its own pure and simple. It stands inside a society and is related to others complexes as well as to the totality of social being (remember: totality is always MORE than the sum of its parts). This is what gives to fashion the possibility (or not, as it seams to be the case under debate) of expressing a more precise, full of content, human condition or otherwise, express a low density of humanity, with its material and emotive goals, trends, etc. I would say that:
1) to express this fact is not underestimate the power and importance of fashion for our world;
2) does not mean to subsume fashion to the economic complex, does not mean to disregard it obvious (and fantastic) relative autonomy in this filed);
3) and does not mean to disregard the huge importance of the development of the social substance of every singular individuals (in what they have of typical, AND not) to the fashion trends;
4) it means that, if we want to understand what fashion is all about, it is very important to try to understand it as a expression of the concrete, historical, determinated, human being that we are.
5) those are the pressupotion underlining my intervention before.
Sergio Lessa
1) to express this fact is not underestimate the power and importance of fashion for our world;
2) does not mean to subsume fashion to the economic complex, does not mean to disregard it obvious (and fantastic) relative autonomy in this filed);
3) and does not mean to disregard the huge importance of the development of the social substance of every singular individuals (in what they have of typical, AND not) to the fashion trends;
4) it means that, if we want to understand what fashion is all about, it is very important to try to understand it as a expression of the concrete, historical, determinated, human being that we are.
5) those are the pressupotion underlining my intervention before.
Sergio Lessa
I have trouble believing people here are debating on fashion without going deep in the subject and seeing why it is constantly regressing so much. Because we can all agree that the last decade hasn't bought anything innovative to the fashion scene.
Of course like Mulletproof stated there can be some exceptions because there are some very talented designers out there. But take a close look at there backgrounds, they're wether highly backed up (money wise) or unknown to the vast majority.
We're going through a terrible economic crisis living through capitalism. "Capitalism creates a society divided into two antagonistic social classes: a small, elite ruling class and a large, exploited working class. The ruling class owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and are thereby able to monopolize the wealth. "
Just to give you an example, Alexander McQueen which was introduced to us by Isabella Blow was known to be an EXTREMELY creative and rebellious designer. He was highly applauded by fashion lovers all over the world. It was rumored he was on income support at that time...... But slowly big buyers weren't interested in his designs because they weren't bringing in the money. So he turned to MUCH more commerciable designs and slowly forgot about the art he was known for.
This means that fashion, which was originally intended to be a form of art, cannot progress in this contradictory system. Its sole purpose is to make profit. And the big luxury entreprises that have the monopole of this billionaire empire are kicking out designers as quickly than ever because they need stuff that sell.
Just read through ANY high fashion magazine, new designers come and go as quickly than ever, and those who stay in big fashion houses make VERY commercial designs and their main focus has to shift towards accesssories that sell (just think of the Balenciaga motorcycle bag, or YSL beauty line, just to name a few).
Designers have to live from their art. Therefore, no more art can exist.
Of course like Mulletproof stated there can be some exceptions because there are some very talented designers out there. But take a close look at there backgrounds, they're wether highly backed up (money wise) or unknown to the vast majority.
We're going through a terrible economic crisis living through capitalism. "Capitalism creates a society divided into two antagonistic social classes: a small, elite ruling class and a large, exploited working class. The ruling class owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and are thereby able to monopolize the wealth. "
Just to give you an example, Alexander McQueen which was introduced to us by Isabella Blow was known to be an EXTREMELY creative and rebellious designer. He was highly applauded by fashion lovers all over the world. It was rumored he was on income support at that time...... But slowly big buyers weren't interested in his designs because they weren't bringing in the money. So he turned to MUCH more commerciable designs and slowly forgot about the art he was known for.
This means that fashion, which was originally intended to be a form of art, cannot progress in this contradictory system. Its sole purpose is to make profit. And the big luxury entreprises that have the monopole of this billionaire empire are kicking out designers as quickly than ever because they need stuff that sell.
Just read through ANY high fashion magazine, new designers come and go as quickly than ever, and those who stay in big fashion houses make VERY commercial designs and their main focus has to shift towards accesssories that sell (just think of the Balenciaga motorcycle bag, or YSL beauty line, just to name a few).
Designers have to live from their art. Therefore, no more art can exist.
Yes, its time for a revolutionary who will buck commercial trend, stick to their guns no matter what, compromise for no-one, a vision so complete that he will be remembered in the history books as the person single handedly changing the face of 21st century fashion forever. A new way of dressing, a new way of thinking. Revered, an inspiration to millions. Is there anyone out there willing to take up the challenge?
You should first take the time to read about revolutionary organization before saying such nonsense.
If you want to read more visit nefac.net, cause it's going to be off topic in this thread.
I think there have been some brilliant collections over the past decade (Lanvin, Givenchy, Jil Sander, Calvin Klein) and there have been some consistently terrible ones (Gareth Pugh, Miu Miu, Prada)
I also believe that anything that isn't relatively 'classic' in aesthetic has the possibility of being looked back upon as cringe-worthy.
Of course, people's definitions of greatness vary. Many people insist fashion has to be 'innovative', some only want 'wearable', while others simply just want beautiful clothing.
I also believe that anything that isn't relatively 'classic' in aesthetic has the possibility of being looked back upon as cringe-worthy.
Of course, people's definitions of greatness vary. Many people insist fashion has to be 'innovative', some only want 'wearable', while others simply just want beautiful clothing.
Last edited by a moderator:
You should first take the time to read about revolutionary organization before saying such nonsense.
If you want to read more visit nefac.net, cause it's going to be off topic in this thread.
Nonsense? You give me this site and your earlier post is so anti capitalist. Peace!
I think there is too many different styles now to even catagorize what this generation could be labeled. In the 80s there were many trends but the overall fashion was something you could label. Now...there is way too many different fashions.
even some things from those decades still look daft.
even the 80s left us with things that are getting appropriated in the present and will continue to be readjusted/reinvented.
it's unlikely that the whole first decade of the 21st century will be dismissed as complete rubbish....but i do hope some of the tack is trashed a.s.a.p.
What stands out about this decade is - an extreme sense of retro that is enhanced and enabled by the internet.
The 70s drew a lot of inspiration from the 40s (and 30s) but through the lens of designers and photographers. The early 90s drew from the 50s (less successfully so, IMO, but that's a personal assessment). In this decade, the previous century has been recaptured and merged before us, with no particular preference for any one decade.
It will definitely be interesting to see the obituary of the 00s fashions.
The 70s drew a lot of inspiration from the 40s (and 30s) but through the lens of designers and photographers. The early 90s drew from the 50s (less successfully so, IMO, but that's a personal assessment). In this decade, the previous century has been recaptured and merged before us, with no particular preference for any one decade.
It will definitely be interesting to see the obituary of the 00s fashions.
KhaoticKharma
Amour Comme Hiver
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,550
- Reaction score
- 3
I also belive, in my part of the States at least, that slacking off- basic jeans and tees, hoodies and flats- has become much more rampant than it ever was. People care less, which could be a result of the general poor state of the nation. Even the items that could, sadly, reflect the early part of the 2000's, such as the revitalized poncho and Ugg boots, kind of mirror a sort of slacker look.
But, as I stated earlier, for every fashion action there seems to be a re-action; shows like Gossip Girl have sort of brought this latter part of the decade into a more "artsy money" look.
But, as I stated earlier, for every fashion action there seems to be a re-action; shows like Gossip Girl have sort of brought this latter part of the decade into a more "artsy money" look.
ApertureRomance
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,345
- Reaction score
- 0
Key word here is accessiblity.
The internet has taken away some of the exclusivity that fashion thrives on. Now the average person on the street only has to use google or ebay for emmulation.
I know she isn't a fashion designer but there was a great comment on Cindy Sherman on a recent photography documentary on BBC ; about how we're living in a post-modern world , she shows us how we have no idea who are really are so we use the past to create our indentity because we find nothing new.
The internet has taken away some of the exclusivity that fashion thrives on. Now the average person on the street only has to use google or ebay for emmulation.
I know she isn't a fashion designer but there was a great comment on Cindy Sherman on a recent photography documentary on BBC ; about how we're living in a post-modern world , she shows us how we have no idea who are really are so we use the past to create our indentity because we find nothing new.
I agree. But I this this era has a lot to offer, it's just that we are recycling things from the past, good things I guess. but you made such an important point: Combination of clothing, sometimes I see such horrendous outfits walking down the street, like neon colored sunglasses, with mini skirts, yellow legging, oversize shirts and then I'm like "well, I'm not looking that bad after all"...
But I guess it's all part of our own style, I'm fan of those people who create their own style and succeed.
But I guess it's all part of our own style, I'm fan of those people who create their own style and succeed.
Ya'll are a bunch of haterz.
What's great is that these days people can create their own styles, instead of following the herd. What is considered "tacky" to some people is considered interesting and innovative to others, while what's "good fashion" is actually boring and repetitive (Fashion Police on E! & GFY comes to mind).
For instance I think Jennifer Aniston has terrible style sense, while others think black dresses, white tank tops and flared jeans are the epitome of good style.
What's great is that these days people can create their own styles, instead of following the herd. What is considered "tacky" to some people is considered interesting and innovative to others, while what's "good fashion" is actually boring and repetitive (Fashion Police on E! & GFY comes to mind).
For instance I think Jennifer Aniston has terrible style sense, while others think black dresses, white tank tops and flared jeans are the epitome of good style.
disco54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 4,852
- Reaction score
- 1,643
I live through the 80s , and it was horrible and current trends are similar but Im seeing thats fashion is improving as clothes move away from tackiness so hopefully in the next decade good taste will return in the mainstream and realize in 2012 that those leggings they purchased at american apparel were a horrid decision . hehe
Not to be completely contrary, but the bubble shape or volume of any kind of that matter is not new or exclusive to this decade.
Cristobal Balenciaga became famous for rounded bubble shaped dresses in the 60's, and in the 80's practically every designer did what became known as "pouf" skirts, short, puffy and turned under at the hem to create that shape. Christian Lacroix was well known for helping to start that trend.
The only difference is that now a lot of the bubble shapes have been done in softer fabrics so that they're not as voluminous, but they're not new.
Cristobal Balenciaga became famous for rounded bubble shaped dresses in the 60's, and in the 80's practically every designer did what became known as "pouf" skirts, short, puffy and turned under at the hem to create that shape. Christian Lacroix was well known for helping to start that trend.
The only difference is that now a lot of the bubble shapes have been done in softer fabrics so that they're not as voluminous, but they're not new.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar Threads
- Poll
