This is all subjective, Chloehandbags. One could go on for a lifetime about the unabashed arrogance and vulgarity exhibited by Mr. Ford throughout his career at Gucci and YSL or one could praise his ambition and fearless perspective till the cows come home.
Very true.
Not to sound bitchy but you speak of depth yet you box and close all possible exceptions to the very rules you claim to abhor, no?
Well, of course, I don't think I do. But then I am, no doubt, biased in regards to my own behaviour; as we all are.
I feel I am pretty open-minded, but, obviously, if there is something that is lorded as clever and/or attractive and/or well executed, but that I don't agree is and/or if I feel that form doesn't follow function, I will say so.
Comparing CDG's yearly revenue to that of Louis Vuitton is rather pointless. For starters, Louis Vuitton advertises in all major magazines across the Globe. CDG rarely does adverts which cuts substantially.
True.
I still doubt that CDG would appeal to as large a proportion of society, even if it was widely advertised, though, as it is simply not as commercial.
Not that there is anything wrong with that at all - as I say, they provide a valuable service for a relatively niche market.
Besides all that, CDG is based largely on the garments whereas LV is sustained by the sell of bags and the like.
Yes, I know.
That point was addressed earlier in the thread.
How many women, even these 'glamour girls' you speak, are actually running out to buy the latest pieces from LV collections? These 'glamour girls' are usually the ones who view bags/shoes as a symbol of style and superiority, no? It is much easier to throw on a bag or a pr. of shoes as opposed to personally styling a garment from a collection whether it be CDG or LV.
Yes, of course, but there are also plenty of glamourous and wealthy women who purchase R-T-W clothing, too.
Not that I like LV, personally, you understand (in fact, I can't stand most of it), but still.
As I say, even if 2/3 of LV sales were for leathergoods, that would still leave over $2,000million spent on R-T-W clothing, wouldn't it? A fair amount, no?
A similar tune can be sung about these 'artistic types' you speak of as well. Way too much labeling going on, I think.
Once again, I wasn't the one who labelled the typical CDG customer as a 'quirky artist', originally (or the Versace customer as 'high glam', for that matter - although, I would agree); Spike413 was.
One of the lovely gifts of fashion is creating individuality. Why must one subscribe to a subculture in order to enjoy the wares of certain designers?
Who suggested you should?
It's rather sophomoric, tbh. You're truly missing the beauty of fashion... the choice. I shudder at the thought of only having Phoebe Philo's and Tom Ford's working in today's fashion industry... how daunting it'd be. Why eliminate all possibilities of choice? If that's the case, why not eliminate clothing all together?
I'm really not, you know.
Just because I don't really like CDG, personally, it doesn't mean that I'm trying to eliminate them!
As I said originally; 'horses for courses'.
Believe it, or not, I would also shudder to think of only having two fashion designers working in today's fashion industry, too.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/792ea/792ea4faf25dc9095c7a992f2146a718b10a2382" alt=":shock: :shock: :shock:"
Whoever they were.
I love and welcome diversity.
I just miss what Phoebe and Tom brought to the table, that's all; i.e. a bridge between dull and conservative and wacky and conceptual.