Too Poor for High Fashion?

[fashionista-ta]

^ I have to believe that dirty looks ruin the effect of a Tom Ford gown ...

 

[squilliam]

As my mom says, it's not what you wear but how you wear it. I've seen numerous ugly poorly-made expensive designer stuff, and numerous beautiful well-made non-designer stuff. I certainly don't have the money to spend on high fashion, and I wouldn't save up to buy something like a $600 pair of shoes because I just cannot justify that (the few designer things I do own were gifts). I think even if I suddenly became rich it would still take me a while to consider paying that much for clothes (especially knowing that some designer stuff is way overpriced and isn't really worth all that money).
A friend of mine once posed the question when we were talking about designer clothes covered in labels: if you pay so much to buy a designer garment, shouldn't be obvious that it's a designer garment?
What are your thoughts guys? I know there are certainly people who like to flaunt their wealth or brag that they have a genuine LV purse or whatever so they buy the most labeled stuff.
Personally I think fashion is personal, you wear it to please yourself not others. If you buy an LV purse shouldn't be only because it's a status symbol.

 

[Nymphaea]

A friend of mine once posed the question when we were talking about designer clothes covered in labels: if you pay so much to buy a designer garment, shouldn't be obvious that it's a designer garment?
What are your thoughts guys? I know there are certainly people who like to flaunt their wealth or brag that they have a genuine LV purse or whatever so they buy the most labeled stuff.
Personally I think fashion is personal, you wear it to please yourself not others. If you buy an LV purse shouldn't be only because it's a status symbol.

Totally agree!!! I almost hate (a bit too strong word, but it will do) people for flaunting their designer stuff, especially the logos of designers. I buy designer clothes but I also buy at Zara etc. I buy things that I very much like, can last for years and don't carry obvious designer labels at the outside of a garment. I am always looking for the best quality and unfortunately (I mean the price ) most of the time I am buying the designer stuff in the end, but also designers can sell stuff that's not of a high quality, so I'm always judging the garment for its quality, not designer. And luckily I'm VERY picky, so it keeps itself in balance: price vs quantity. I also in a way try to save up money so I don't squander it and in that way I'm very sure that I really want to buy/own it, so no impulse buys.

 

[squilliam]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141202183309.htm
I thought this was amusing. Apparently this study shows that monkeys, unlike humans, aren't fooled by higher prices.

 

[squilliam]

Totally agree!!! I almost hate (a bit too strong word, but it will do) people for flaunting their designer stuff, especially the logos of designers. I buy designer clothes but I also buy at Zara etc. I buy things that I very much like, can last for years and don't carry obvious designer labels at the outside of a garment. I am always looking for the best quality and unfortunately (I mean the price ) most of the time I am buying the designer stuff in the end, but also designers can sell stuff that's not of a high quality, so I'm always judging the garment for its quality, not designer. And luckily I'm VERY picky, so it keeps itself in balance: price vs quantity. I also in a way try to save up money so I don't squander it and in that way I'm very sure that I really want to buy/own it, so no impulse buys.

That's why I liked some of those Celine purses, the logo is very small and hidden. Maybe when Audrey Hepburn was carrying monogramed purses it was chic, but that ship has sailed.

 

[fashionista-ta]

As my mom says, it's not what you wear but how you wear it. I've seen numerous ugly poorly-made expensive designer stuff, and numerous beautiful well-made non-designer stuff. I certainly don't have the money to spend on high fashion, and I wouldn't save up to buy something like a $600 pair of shoes because I just cannot justify that (the few designer things I do own were gifts). I think even if I suddenly became rich it would still take me a while to consider paying that much for clothes (especially knowing that some designer stuff is way overpriced and isn't really worth all that money).
A friend of mine once posed the question when we were talking about designer clothes covered in labels: if you pay so much to buy a designer garment, shouldn't be obvious that it's a designer garment?
What are your thoughts guys? I know there are certainly people who like to flaunt their wealth or brag that they have a genuine LV purse or whatever so they buy the most labeled stuff.
Personally I think fashion is personal, you wear it to please yourself not others. If you buy an LV purse shouldn't be only because it's a status symbol.

I do not buy things with obvious logos. To me the point of designer things is the design. I also like to support my favorite designers. It's not impossible to find really good designs at a lower price point, but it is challenging ... and too, 'designer' is not just one price point. There's a big spread between van Noten and Vuitton.

If you look at the leather used for mid-range and high-end bags, it isn't the same. So there's a significant quality difference too.

I've seen poorly-made designer items in the past, but not recently in person. I don't know if it's just the designers I'm looking at, the store buyers sifting appropriately, or what, but this is unusual in my experience.

What I have seen very recently is items that are high-quality but fail to distinguish themselves in any way from lower-end items. If I'm going to pay a high-end price for something, I expect a design as well as a quality payoff. That isn't always available.

 

[squilliam]

I do not buy things with obvious logos. To me the point of designer things is the design. I also like to support my favorite designers. It's not impossible to find really good designs at a lower price point, but it is challenging ... and too, 'designer' is not just one price point. There's a big spread between van Noten and Vuitton.

If you look at the leather used for mid-range and high-end bags, it isn't the same. So there's a significant quality difference too.

I've seen poorly-made designer items in the past, but not recently in person. I don't know if it's just the designers I'm looking at, the store buyers sifting appropriately, or what, but this is unusual in my experience.

What I have seen very recently is items that are high-quality but fail to distinguish themselves in any way from lower-end items. If I'm going to pay a high-end price for something, I expect a design as well as a quality payoff. That isn't always available.

It's just that sometimes I see these designer pieces like a simple Lanvin dress and the material is so thin and there's no lining or a printed Roberto Cavalli top made from basic jersey...I just expect more for such a price you know? Some of these clothes just don't look too polished. I see pictures of them and they look great, but then in real life they don't look special at all

 

[fashionista-ta]

It's just that sometimes I see these designer pieces like a simple Lanvin dress and the material is so thin and there's no lining or a printed Roberto Cavalli top made from basic jersey...I just expect more for such a price you know? Some of these clothes just don't look too polished. I see pictures of them and they look great, but then in real life they don't look special at all

I don't think any Lanvin item I own, aside from a bag, is lined ... but that doesn't mean poor quality. The things I have are either heavy silk or an opaque wool blend. Linings are kind of old school ... they preclude (as far as I can tell) certain draping methods. Lanvin is all about the fabric floating on the body, and a lining would interfere. If the dress cannot be worn as is, then I would consider that a problem. I have seen pieces that have two distinct layers.


Roberto Cavalli I cannot speak to.

 

[Nymphaea]

It's just that sometimes I see these designer pieces like a simple Lanvin dress and the material is so thin and there's no lining or a printed Roberto Cavalli top made from basic jersey...I just expect more for such a price you know? Some of these clothes just don't look too polished. I see pictures of them and they look great, but then in real life they don't look special at all

I can totally see your point here. For the amount of money you're paying you want some substance, not a simple dress with a simple design you could have made yourself. Such pieces I won't buy, I have to see where the money is going, in the fabric and/or in the difficult sewing or design etc.

 

[fashionista-ta]

There is such a thing as deceptively simple Sometimes a great deal of trial and error goes into a design that in the end looks very simple ... and yet is and was difficult to execute.

Sometimes trying a piece on will reveal what it's all about.

I know a lot of people believe there's no difference between expensive wine and wine from the grocery store. Believing that is one thing ... understanding there's a difference and still feeling that the payoff isn't worth it for you, is another.

Fabric is another reason why replicating something yourself is a lot easier said than done.

 

[Melisande]

Exactly. For me, I think three things; wearing the actual designer pieces (long-term), and really learning to sew, and careful study of well-made garments throughout history, greatly enhances our appreciation for well-made clothes and fabrics and how much they're actually worth.
Lanvin is SO well made it's not even funny. Nobody else can execute those pieces in those fabrics like that.

Of course, not knowing is bliss too...as in your friends with the wine. I'm not a connaisseuse of wine at all, and am pretty much satisfied with grocery-store wines (well...grocery stores in France, that is...) but I'm starting to notice how TRULY AMAZING wines can taste, and that kind of discovery is like falling in love with life, so I'm starting to study up and attend wine-tastings.

 

[Drusilla_]

having started off as exactly the thread title when I first became a TFS member, and moving on to having enough money to buy secondhand some of the pieces I admired back then, it's a bit sad to remember that genuine interest in fashion was so often dismissed if the person didn't have the money to buy it firsthand or at all. Being poor doesn't mean you can't observe collections and see trends or changes in design filtering through them, or just appreciate clothes as beautiful things in their own right. No one expects every art lover to actually own the paintings they admire, why is this expectation then placed on people who are interested in fashion? It's a field that is at its best when it's aspirational - well, aspiration also belongs to people who have hopes of owning fashion in the future even if they don't in the present.

To an extent, owning or at least handling beautiful pieces does give you invaluable firsthand knowledge of what well made clothes and accessories are supposed to look and feel like. On the other, it's also true that money alone can buy you all the latest trends but it can't buy you true style, not even if you buy the "right" labels and vintage, no matter how refined you present your taste as and how much Vogue plays along. Put it this way, you can buy access to Marilyn Monroe's dress, but you will never be Marilyn Monroe, just some tacky cosplaying as her. Someone can buy a whole shop full of Dries, The Row and Yohji and still look like a fashion victim if they don't understand their true tastes. And I would trust the opinion and knowledge of a retail employee (who often don't make enough to buy the things they sell at luxury retail) or a TFSer ahead of any of the people who make it their business to be photographed as 'street style' - at least anyone who's here. or still here, is because they are interested in fashion.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I've always had the impression that the vast majority of people here weren't buying designer things. The thing I find irritating about that is that those people prioritize art over function. In my mind, something that's unflattering or non-functional isn't something good. I will say though, back when I was a poor student, I bought a lot of second-hand. I owned beautiful Calvin Klein, Hana Mori, Krizia, and Ralph Lauren pieces ... so anyone can do it. I was buying at thrift stores and a private school charity shop at very reasonable prices.

 

[Drusilla_]

^you have a point about the prioritisation of art over function, but money isn't really a barrier to appreciating other aspects of fashion besides owning clothes and accessories, e.g. the magazine covers/editorials/campaigns, threads on photographers, etc. I often joke that Rei changed my life long before I could ever afford a piece from Comme des Garçons, and it's no less true now that I can (very sparingly).

As a poor student I owned exactly two "designer" pieces and they were picked up secondhand/from the rejects pile too, not from any buzzy labels (Geoffrey Beene/Pierre Cardin), but not everyone lives in countries with well-stocked and accessibly priced charity shops, or even in countries that have a culture of reselling/secondhand selling. Wearing "castoffs" is still considered taboo in quite a few Asian countries, even though Japan has a long tradition of secondhand/vintage shops and now other countries like Malaysia are developing into good places to pick up secondhand designer gear, but it's not as easily organised and shoppable as it is for someone in the Anglosphere/Western Europe/Japan, hell even ebay can sometimes be prohibitive if you live in the wrong country, with higher shipping rates and taxes attached to even secondhand goods.

 

[Benn98]

I actually think OP's sentiment is more relevant than ever even in the art and dance circles as well, just the goalposts changed. There are definitely people in the high fashion, hypebeast, and even dance/art cirlces who still feel immense pressure to prove their interest in fashion through costly collections and 'drops' that will age in 2/3 months. Add to that the logomania craze which puts even more pressure on everyone.
Went to an event last year and started chatting to a gallery assistant who had just entered the workforce and naturally wasn't earning much. He felt less than being constantly surrounded by fashion people flaunting blue chip labels and I almost got mildly annoyed with him. For starters, these were mostly fashion and beauty editors who as we all know get comps/discounts that in most cases cost more than their entire salary. Furthermore, please go to their homes - the glamorous and luxury illusion will quickly wear off, trust me.

If you understand fashion in a broader sense, that wouldn't be an issue. Nowadays there are clusters of fashion communities who only shop from never-heard-before slow brands, from new designers, from Japanese labels only, and even custom tailoring is slowly making a comeback. Add vintage fashion to that as well! You can admire a certain designer's collection or aesthetic but never to the degree that you feel bad for being unable to afford them.

Personally I look at the silhouettes and trends each season and apply only what works for my personal style and budget. That's what fashion is all about after all, self-expression. You were never supposed to wear blue chip head to toe. My first luxury buy was a two-piece look from Calvin Klein under Zucchelli and over the years I'd get a few pieces from other designers here and there I don't buy hyper luxury (Burberry/Prada etc) at all. There are far too many smaller, respected brands that do great work at different price points.

 

[Phuel]

Having access to hIgh fashion and being able to afford expensive offerings is never synonymous with possessing genuine style and cultivating refined taste. More so than ever these days.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Even using the term "high fashion" grinds my gears these days because so many people reduce the idea of pushing boundaries down to like wearing what Benn said, blue chip stuff, which is limited to logos and using the word "archive". I get a legitimate visceral reaction from that word now. Yeah I'm into high fashion. Got my Rick Owens geobaskets on with my Daniel Lee Bottega pants and my ugly archive Margiela shirt from yoox.com that nobody wanted for 15 years but I tell myself it's special because it's 1:1 not available anymore. Finish it off with a Prada nylon crossbody to carry my puff bar and early 2000's Gaultier sunglasses. I should really buy that used LV Murakami cardholder I've been eyeing for $700. Gonna be worth so much later. Wouldn't you know wearing 7 different beanie baby trophies on your body makes you look a tad bit goofy babes. High brow or high on meth

 

[Lola701]

I think having a real understanding of your style and your personal aesthetic trumps being able to afford HF or Designers’s clothes.
But the environment also influence that feeling of « feeling too poor for HF ». In France loud logos or too much fashion is seen with a side eye and so in a way you are forced to find your style with some kind of strict rules.

Growing up with a grandmother who was a seamstress and having worked in fashion myself, you are either representing or working for a brand you clearly cannot afford. Fashion can be very intimidating from the outside looking but the reality is just more grounded as @Benn98 said.

Growing up I had a real understanding of fashion but maybe the two brands that I saw at home occasionally were Longchamp and Sonia Rykiel. I quickly realized that the clothes I saw on TV and in the magazine required a certain lifestyle. The access to HF was through perfumes and beauty but even buying clothes had a sense of pragmatism. Looking back, I realize that I was lucky but growing up you don’t want to hear « let’s buy the sweater in wool because it will last long ». You just want the beautiful sweater that will probably not last.

Discovering sample sales made me have access to HF quite early but it was much more of a personal pleasure in my environment most of the people didn’t care.

The saddest thing in a way is that by the time we can maybe really afford the pieces we want, we have past the time of experimentation.

I feel like today social media creates an unnecessary pressure for young people who thinks that they have to wear the specific brands to prove that they are into fashion. But there’s an undeniable difference between enjoying fashion and just being able to afford it.

It seems like today a lot of people can afford very expensive things but there’s very little real personal style. I think about the people who wears Rick Owens from head to toe today…They were the same who wore YSL by Slimane 7 years ago.

It’s important to create the lifestyle you want and to have the life you want but clothes or HF shouldn’t be on the forefront of it.

We love HF here. We judge Couture shows each season. I’m sure the majority of us cannot afford it and even if we can, I’m not sure spending 30k on a suit will be our first decision.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I think having a real understanding of your style and your personal aesthetic trumps being able to afford HF or Designers’s clothes.
But the environment also influence that feeling of « feeling too poor for HF ». In France loud logos or too much fashion is seen with a side eye and so in a way you are forced to find your style with some kind of strict rules.

Growing up with a grandmother who was a seamstress and having worked in fashion myself, you are either representing or working for a brand you clearly cannot afford. Fashion can be very intimidating from the outside looking but the reality is just more grounded as @Benn98 said.

Growing up I had a real understanding of fashion but maybe the two brands that I saw at home occasionally were Longchamp and Sonia Rykiel. I quickly realized that the clothes I saw on TV and in the magazine required a certain lifestyle. The access to HF was through perfumes and beauty but even buying clothes had a sense of pragmatism. Looking back, I realize that I was lucky but growing up you don’t want to hear « let’s buy the sweater in wool because it will last long ». You just want the beautiful sweater that will probably not last.

Discovering sample sales made me have access to HF quite early but it was much more of a personal pleasure in my environment most of the people didn’t care.

The saddest thing in a way is that by the time we can maybe really afford the pieces we want, we have past the time of experimentation.

I feel like today social media creates an unnecessary pressure for young people who thinks that they have to wear the specific brands to prove that they are into fashion. But there’s an undeniable difference between enjoying fashion and just being able to afford it.

It seems like today a lot of people can afford very expensive things but there’s very little real personal style. I think about the people who wears Rick Owens from head to toe today…They were the same who wore YSL by Slimane 7 years ago.

It’s important to create the lifestyle you want and to have the life you want but clothes or HF shouldn’t be on the forefront of it.

We love HF here. We judge Couture shows each season. I’m sure the majority of us cannot afford it and even if we can, I’m not sure spending 30k on a suit will be our first decision.

Well, I don't really consider it sad. I don't know if it was the pandemic, getting older, or what, but I'm definitely at an age where I don't think a pair of shoes, a skirt, or pretty much anything I buy is going to change my life. The fantasy is gone. And that's actually true. Is it a bad thing that I know what my style is, and certainly don't need to experiment to find out? I don't think so. And that doesn't mean that I don't still occasionally surprise myself with a purchase.

I love the details you (should) get with high-end clothes, but I've also found that a really great color has largely the same effect, and you can often find that at a lower price point. These days I'd rather buy a cashmere sweater in a gorgeous color from Naadam, which is taking steps to be sustainable, than Brunello Cucinelli (whose head is in the clouds). That decision saves me money as well, so what's not to love?

 

[MulletProof]

and even dance/art cirlces who still feel immense pressure to prove their interest in fashion through costly collections and 'drops' that will age in 2/3 months. Add to that the logomania craze which puts even more pressure on everyone.

That interest to prove a legit fashion association usually stems from financial/professional struggle, especially in performing arts, where salaries are low and favoritism is rampant. Dancers need to branch out and go do some (sometimes horrid and demoralizing) fashion gigs to get the funds and the exposure dance can't provide and fashion seems to so easily hand out to virtually anyone.

Having worked in performing arts and now in fine art, I think the insular nature of both fields creates this obnoxious tunnel vision towards the structure of success and hierarchies that anything else is considered meaningless/not sophisticated enough, so when venturing out (usually for money, or because someone was kind enough to dog walk them lol), they quickly feel disarmed and 'not cool enough'. I have dancer friends who have visited me at work and quickly left because they didn't feel appropriately dressed or like they 'understood that much about art' (as if I -or anyone else at work- did..).

I think Drusilla raised such a wonderful question on the expectation linked to an interest in fashion and how that contrasts to the way we explore other creative fields. It's something I have noticed even at tfs in all the one hundred years I've been here and that makes me genuinely.. a little sad. Poor (title of the thread) does not really reflect what the OP actually mentions, which is deservingness, and it's certainly not only in his/her mind, there seems to be an active dynamic among people into fashion to discredit one another based on proximity to high fashion and of course there's the gigantic cliché of the snobby and cruel 'all things fashion' character that permeates popular culture, as if fashion was strictly a consumerist/latest trends experience that has nothing to do with a creative output that can reference all kinds of things that aren't historically linked to clothes. In reality, fashion is so limited for everyone for all kinds of factors (activity, geography, lifestyle, age, height, width, income, gender norms) that it could benefit from more humor about the irony of thinking someone deserves it less just because, say, they've never entered a Prada store or can't financially afford it, and of course, it would benefit from solid interests that produce confident and knowledgeable opinions that can hopefully elevate the field from the rock bottom it's in.