^ That's fair enough. It's not really about taking everything in for me, but making it a part of the puzzle when understanding the place they're coming from, similarities with their colleagues and certainly when trying to understand the place we're currently in (considering socioeconomic context, of course).
Just looking at their work is not informative enough for an explanation on how their work is sustained (logistically) or when trying to compare what makes an 'up' and a 'down' in an industry, which.. during the downs, may result in a lot of whining, resenting the 'now', and bitterness that could've been avoided when seeing these graphic shifts from highly educated, intellectual, creative types that offered, as people, even more enriching ideas than their clothes alone reported, to a devalorization of all of these foundations (coming creators and consumers alike) voiced out often explicitly, starting from pushing for a break from 'serious fashion', to cynicism towards 'pretentiousness', mockery, irony, a celebration of everything that's explicitly shiny and corporate and applauding those who make it there, ultimately leading to an absence of these types and an abundance of airheads whose idea of fashion is socks with a logo and who, when you read them in interviews, explain so well why their clothes look the way they do and why generally, fashion week looks the way it does: they're behind critical thinking, do not value anything too demanding (from their garments to the way they wire their head around them), generally seem like they
can't even articulate basic English (when this is seemingly their
only language) and their laughable interactions with other fields are simply an exercise for 'brand building'.