What Do You Expect?

[LostInNJ]

As I read through the thread's on the men's shows, I am seeing a common trend emerge. People seem to say that the clothes are nothing new, too simple, something that could be found at such and such's store, and so on. In my opinion, with men's fashion, there isn't much that can be done. When I first saw the pics from the McQueen show, I immediately thought- What the hell is this?...Many of those pieces looked, IMO, as if they belonged in a movie. On the other end of the spectrum, the Bottega Veneta collection was wearable and easy- something many people could relate to. My question is, what do you expect from the men's shows...wearability, flash, simpleness? Is it fair to say that after a while, it's all been done, without becoming something that isn't in tune with reality? At the end of the day, isn't the point to sell the clothes? Tell me what you think...

 

[Lena]

excellent thread lostinNJ..
for one, in menswear (and womenswear) i expect creativity but in a discreet way, like reworked 'classic'
i'm looking for the twist, the new be it on the fabric or a cut, shape, or print
problem is most collections turn to either the one or the other extreme...
but i've seen menswear collections that i liked like burberry's & Prada, BV was also ok.

European Fashion industry is facing one of it's biggest even econonic crises and this affects designers towards the 'commercial' which is quite understandable.. but one doesnt 'fight' crisis with 'safe' ..
its only innovation, detail and quality that will make a difference between 'designer' and 'highstreet' and yes, products need to be client centered.. long gone the times when we could afford en mass unwearable items...

 

[rach2jlc]

I agree with Lena.

For me, what I expect is a collection that has wearable clothes but that are interesting without being gimmicky. I like a collection that is able to encompass an idea or mood while still being good clothes. For example, a collection that might be described as fun, quirky, dark, etc. without looking like something out of a music video, kindergarten, or sci-fi film.

So far, with the collections I've seen this year, I haven't really been terribly impressed. I liked the Prada collection, which I thought was wearable but interesting. LAST year's McQueen collection really impressed me... I'm not sure about wearability, but the way the items were put together was really impressive without looking ridiculous or too theatrical. This year's collection seemed a little too... out there.

Anyway, at base, it comes down to wearability for me. If I'm spending such an amount for a piece of clothing, I want it to be something that works.

John

 

[.francesca]

For me, what I expect is a collection that has wearable clothes but that are interesting without being gimmicky.

i totally agree with this. in general, i sort of try to imagine guys i know who are stylish (my boyfriend, for one, but that's so easy...) wearing things and how it would work together in any incarnation. like, mixing and matching the new burberry or prada stuff together, and how it would work to marry different styles. i really love classic looks like the jackets and sweaters for burberry, and some really outlandish stuff too, but as john said...as long as it's not gimmicky. i guess i can't give you an exact definition for gimmicky. it's one of those 'i know it when i see it' situations.

fashion isn't an across-the-board thing for me. i like and dislike so many random things that it's really hard for me to say what i expect. i'm not floored by many of this season's offerings, but then again, i'm really happily surprised by a lot of it (what i've seen so far, anyway). if i can sort of tell something is trying too hard (Dsquared2, for instance), i don't really think about it. it's undefineable, but sometimes you can just tell when something comes naturally and when something is being forced. maybe it's a gift, i don't even know if i have it, but when it's too obvious, it's just too obvious.

 

[rach2jlc]

Francesca,

Exactly as you said, "gimmicky" clothes are those that TRY too hard. They are clothes that are not original or interesting enough in themselves and thus need something tacked onto them that makes them looked "forced" while nevertheless trying to convince you of their effortlessness. Dsquared, as you mentioned, also seems VERY gimmicky to me, with their goofy slogans, cheesy settings, and what not. They seem like they are trying to make sexy, fun clothes but don't realize that Dolce & Gabbana already does that really well. So, they have to add their little slant to make them different. But, I don't think it comes across as anything but sort of kitschy or "gimmicky."

I like Prada, too, but I sometimes think that they can be gimmicky in the exact opposite direction. Sometimes, with some Prada collections, they try to be TOO pseudo-intellectual without actually making intellectual pieces. They just make odd pieces that use the intellectual angle as a gimmick and when people don't buy into it, critics use the "oh, you just don't get it" angle. I would compare this to someone like Jil Sander or Helmut, who never really seemed gimmicky to me (I hate that I have to use the PAST tense there). Others may disagree, but I think that their work was, on the whole, quite effortless without too much needless pretension.

John

 

[Lena]

what do you mean by 'intellectual and pseudo-intellectual pieces' rach?

 

[rach2jlc]

Hi Lena,

I just mean that Prada isn't much of a visceral, sexy, sensory brand. Miuccia has said as much, namely that her objective is NOT to make sex objects out of the wearers of her clothes. As such, the clothes therefore would require a more "intellectual" appeal, namely something that makes them interesting outside of mere sexiness or visual appeal. It would be something that appeals to the mind or to one's more abstract ideas of fashion.

For many of Prada's seasons (like this spring), they do that really well without gimmicks. But, I think that sometimes they just make some odd pieces WITHOUT much appeal at all and rely on the critics to call it SOO intellectual that nobody really gets it. So, that is what I mean by pseudo-intellectual.

John

 

[Lena]

perfectly understood, thanks rach

 

[rach2jlc]

You're welcome, Lena.

Thanks for asking me to clarify. It helped me to clarify it for myself, too...

John

 

[Johnny]

This is a great question actually, although I'm not sure I know the answer. I think the problem is that we're really in a proper post-modern period for, in particular men's, fashion at the moment. Compared to say 10 years ago the market is saturated and the consumer is so much more aware. It's not enough now that there is men's fashion as such, it needs to be something else. The difficulty is that I'm not sure anyone really knows what it should be - should it be quirky or progressive or classic and wearable? The natural tendency for "fashion aware" people is to look to the former, but my impression is that when that does happen we're kind of put off, and don't actually like it in practice. That's my own view anyway. What most men do I think is take individual pieces and put them into what is generally a uniform wardrobe - jeans, trainers, shoes etc - these are all things that are relatively "permanent", where not much changes. The detail tends to come in the top half - a shirt or jacket or coat (less so in the latter case). What I think gets one collection looked at over another is the combination of (a) the overall "image" of the brand (Prada is great at selling on this basis - appealling to "intellectualism" etc) and (b) one or two appealling pieces that can be assimilated into an already existing wardrobe and which are slightly progressive - maybe a new colour or a tighter fit etc. Fundamentally, most men are conservative in what they wear, and for the most part what goes down the catwalk is just irrelevant.

Bit of a ramble....

 

[kit]

It's the ' twist ' that matters .

Men's clothes , of their nature cannot change much from season to season , since men are limited to a classic and conventional body of wardrobe items that has changed little in the past 100 years.

Women on the other have a vast array of items , ethnic , workwear , glamourous evening wear , to name but a few .

For the fairer sex , highly noticeable change of accent on very different shapes , proportions and colour is expected with each season , whereas men have to be satisfied with 'twists' in such aspects as colour with the usual repetoire of ' classic ' items each season . That's why you get a huge hyped up controversy if David Beckham wears a ' SKIRT ' , ( actually a sarong ) in the red-top tabloids - he MUST be a puff wearing ' women's clothes - Victoria being no help in trumpeting that he also wears her underwear .

That's why Gaultier's , Watanabe's , Kawakubo's and Tornade's skirts for men will NEVER take off - they run counter to what convention expects a man to wear .

I can hear sarcastic jeering in the background there , that Dame Karla paraded round in one of Hedi Slimane's Samourai ' kilts ' , but we're talking MEN here , not potty old queens, ' with an obsession to beat time ' problem .

What I actually expect each season are new ideas of proportion , influence ( eg ' ethnic ' , ' historical ' etc etc ) , and an ability to ' catch the zeitgeist ' on the part of the designer , which at the moment I find in Paris , rather than Milan .

I rest my case . B)

 

[VICTIM]

from mcqueen i dont really expect something thats wearable (most of the collection yes) but i want to see something amaizing like with most of his womes collections i want that hard edge rawness that his earlier womens collections had but for men

 

[Mr-Dale]

When I think of menswear fashion week, I expect to see nothing special at all. I've always had the prejudice that in menswear, you cannot vary to much. It's a suit, a shirt, some pants and a sweater. There isn't more that can be done. Only variations in colour, print and perhaps length. So I have always preferred womenswear fashion weeks, because I felt that more creativity could be carried into that fashion. More variety and perhaps more beauty.

It wasn't untill relatively recently that I found out that there was so much more about menswear. Like said above somewhere, the cut, shapes, the more creative stuff. Which also includes variations in inspiration and how those are reproduced in different ways by different designers.

So what I am saying, is that I used to think there was nothing to it in menswear, but that that has changed for me. But still, that feeling I had when I still thought of that prejudice, has not disappeared. When I think of menswear, I still expect nothing spectacular and I am not excited for the entire fashionweek either.

This perspective of mine sometimes gets assured by collection of Dolce & Gabbana and Jil Sander (same stuff over and over, every season) but other designers do it the complete other way in terms of McQueen and Galliano. Or even the boys from the Dean & Dan Ranch. So I expect either dullness or couturish stuff, both in terms of creativity. Nothing in between.

 

[kit]

Quotation from Mr-Dale .

" Or even the boys from the Dean & Dan Ranch . "

Do you think that weekend breaks there will become available ? At a REASONABLE price , of course ................

 

[LostInNJ]

This perspective of mine sometimes gets assured by collection of Dolce & Gabbana and Jil Sander (same stuff over and over, every season) but other designers do it the complete other way in terms of McQueen and Galliano. Or even the boys from the Dean & Dan Ranch. So I expect either dullness or couturish stuff, both in terms of creativity. Nothing in between.

The way I see it though, both Galliano and McQueen rely heavily on theatrics for their clothes...after a while it will become old...they still put the usual suits and other wearable pieces in...Pretty soon, people will begin to say, it's nothing new....I guess in the end, it's how bored people get with the clothes.

 

[AlexN]

There was a thread exactly like this during the last round of collections.

Like Kit said, it's the "twist" that matters. Everyone else has already gone to great lengths explaining things, so I'm gonna be lazy and leave it at that.

 

[Mr-Dale]

Do you think that weekend breaks there will become available ? At a REASONABLE price , of course ................

Weekend? Yes. Reasonable price? Haha, hell no

And I agree LostinNJ... the theatrics will get bored. A lot of us are already I think, reading through what evertone thinks of McQueen's new collection.

 

[gallianoboy]

what?

As I read through the thread's on the men's shows, I am seeing a common trend emerge. People seem to say that the clothes are nothing new, too simple, something that could be found at such and such's store, and so on. In my opinion, with men's fashion, there isn't much that can be done. When I first saw the pics from the McQueen show, I immediately thought- What the hell is this?...Many of those pieces looked, IMO, as if they belonged in a movie

HELLO??? You say that menswear is all the same yet when something new comes along its too much theatrical for you? You just contradicted yourself! You cant have it both ways! The Mcqueen show was hot and Im highly anticipating the galliano homme show on july 1. When you see the clothing pieces outside of the shows you see just how wearable they can be! The John GAlliano shop in paris is amazing. Jean Paul Gaultier too! Have you ever even been in a boutique?

 

[AlexN]

^It isn't a contradiction. Something can be new and fresh without being ugly and annoying. And IMO, that McQueen stuff isn't anything new anyway.

 

[andrew]

Like others have said, menswear by it's historical nature is fairly limited in regards to garment. From a general artistic standpoint, this can be seen as both a blessing and a curse. With the basic canon of pieces set in place (pant, jacket, suit, shirt, etc) what are we left with to work on? (Keep in mind this is my own basic outline for looking at art in general, and isn't really mean to be authoritative in any way)

• Construction (how it is made)
• Shape/line/volume (the way it imposes itself against the body and positive space)
• Color (Pretty straightforward I would think)
• Texture (how it tactilely & visually feels)
• Concept & context (ideology, politics, reference, mood, etc)

Fashion/clothing, unlike most other forms of art, has a special role of being highly sensual (meaning touch, not eroticism per se) and everyday. Clothing is worn in a variety of contexts that are not commanded by the designer, and through the act of wearing, even the simplest/cheapest of clothing becomes loaded with personal meanings & significances that other forms of art wish they could approach. In this kind of philosophical mindset, like others have indicated, the devil is in the details. From 100 feet, perhaps the difference between a Helmut Lang shirt (weep!) and something from the GAP are not readily apparent, but because of the relationship one attaches to said shirt, the specialness & intricacies of the design slowly surface. I've often been told that spending $300 on a dress shirt is silly, that is until someone wears it... I think they begin to understand there is more going on than color & texture, they become aware of their body in an odd way, the subtle 'touch' from the garment that other shirts do not possess.

I'm kinda rambling here (slow day at work), so suffice to say, I don't want a revolution in the sense of whacked-out clothing & crazy theatrics, but the steady aim towards work that embodies the above bulleted qualities well, and through that a timeless, aesthetic beauty. Menswear has a very classic approach overall, so yeah, I get excited & inspired when I see something that deals with these things well.

-Andrew