What is the point?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little Star
  • Start date Start date
I think the really big brands can get away with doing more artistic shows, and the more it gets people talking the more they get people interested about the brand. All the big houses always have very wearable collections and the runways don't necessarily represent that aesthetic...and don't forget that each house has a very strong core fanbase, especially for haute couture (probably a stronger core than RTW which is more fickle)

This year was generally very toned down and wearable so I'm glad there are still a few crazy shows out there to give me a kick.
 
^ With a few notable exceptions, what we seem to have ended up with, is a season full of super-dull shows, with a few super-kooky shows, to break them up. :huh:

I keep thinking of the Colin Hunt character appearing in a wacky shirt, in an office full of grey suits and sensible blouses and cardigans, on The Fast Show (sorry if that means nothing to you, it's a very British reference)! :lol:

Where have most of the interesting, artistic, but still largely wearable collections gone? :huh:

Without Phoebe Philo and Tom Ford, things are looking pretty dire, IMO. :(

Chloe today and I'm expecting that to be about as subtle and refined as a brick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i find it so annoying that people speak of "mainstream" and "quirky"

quirky isnt very objective, is it?

i find it a bit insulting, to be honest.
 
^ With a few notable exceptions, what we seem to have ended up with, is a season full of super-dull shows, with a few super-kooky shows, to break them up. :huh:

I keep thinking of the Colin Hunt character appearing in a wacky shirt, in an office full of grey suits and sensible blouses and cardigans, on The Fast Show (sorry if that means nothing to you, it's a very British reference)! :lol:

Where have most of the interesting, artistic, but still largely wearable collections gone? :huh:

Without Phoebe Philo and Tom Ford, things are looking pretty dire, IMO. :(

Chloe today and I'm expecting that to be about as subtle and refined as a brick.

LOL no u long for the subtlety that Tom Ford offered? lol
 
"kooky" LOL

I didn't notice Suzy Menkes using that word to describe them....

You sound like my grandmother and it seems that you have a very conservative view on today's fashion (not just today, i guess)

By using these words, it seems as if you have no clue what these people mean in this bussiness, nor how many people wear and love their clothes........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL no u long for the subtlety that Tom Ford offered? lol


LOL! I knew someone would say that! :lol:

It appears to be an all too common mistake to confuse the style, or genre, a designer chooses to design in with their level of talent. :huh:

I am referring to subtlety and finesse of vision and execution; not subtlety of style.

Just because a designer produces 'sexy' clothes, it doesn't, automatically, make them less talented than a designer that produces non-sexy and/or conceptual clothes. :)

One needs to look a little deeper...
 
the only thing a designer can do is design to the best of his ability
i beleive any designers best work is when they forget about the customer and design for themselves, exactly what they had in mind...
but of course many people dont have the money or clientele to do this but dior is one example.

also, alot of diors peices look great as singles.
 
:rofl: Jennifer! Me too, me too... the mystery is a most potent drug, rly... :heart:

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. 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?

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. Besides all that, CDG is based largely on the garments whereas LV is sustained by the sell of bags and the like. 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. A similar tune can be sung about these 'artistic types' you speak of as well. Way too much labeling going on, I think. 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? 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?
 
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? :huh:


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! :rolleyes:

As I said originally; 'horses for courses'. :D

Believe it, or not, I would also shudder to think of only having two fashion designers working in today's fashion industry, too. :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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 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?

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. Besides all that, CDG is based largely on the garments whereas LV is sustained by the sell of bags and the like. 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. A similar tune can be sung about these 'artistic types' you speak of as well. Way too much labeling going on, I think. 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? 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?

Beautiful post, miss!. :heart:
 
We don't need personal attacks to have a discussion, guys. Do read tFS Guidelines some time.
 
why do you all want point(s)? Lines are much more fun! :cry: ...

I need a cigarette ...

And can somebody please erase the word "new" from our vocabulary! :innocent: ...

Thank you! :meow:
 
However, I think it still begs the question - if they also sell comparatively wearable clothing in their stores, why do they feature so little of it on their runways each season?

Because runways are advertising media... They create atmosphere, dreams and lust for the consumer who wants them, but can't really have them, either because they can't afford them really, or because the clothes are non-wearable....

The fantasy on the catwalk lures clienst into buying a glimpse of it, maybe by purchasing a more "down -to-eath" and certainly wearable and affordable handbag, perfume, pair of shoes... accessories are sometimes something of a memorabilia of a specific collection, like those you buy to remember a great concert or a great movie...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to note that where I refer to clients, I refer to the mass... there are people who do have the places to wear them and the money to afford such extreme and lavish creations which to others may seem insane...

most of the times though, you will find that many catwalk garments don't make it to the stores, or if they do, they are dramatically altered to become more "consumer friendly" and everyday, which also means a substantial reduction of production AND consequent sales cost....
 
:rofl: Jennifer! Me too, me too... the mystery is a most potent drug, rly... :heart:

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. 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?

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. Besides all that, CDG is based largely on the garments whereas LV is sustained by the sell of bags and the like. 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. A similar tune can be sung about these 'artistic types' you speak of as well. Way too much labeling going on, I think. 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? 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 loved what you wrote, so well-spoken. :flower:
 
Mass market relies on these collections for trends.
 
Well since starting the thread I've thought about this topic a lot more, and it's great to hear everyone's diverse opinions! Personally I've come to an opinion very similar to Melt's. I don't think its debatable that some of the clothes are basically unwearable...I can't imagine anyone wearing some of dior's origami geisha outfits or Viktor & Rolf's walking beds down the street...even if deconstructed. However I do think such original ideas really do show off the designer's creativity and the amazing skills of those actually making the clothes. It allows the label to stand out from the mundane and generate a lot of attention and publicity. It sparks the imagination and creates a mood that attracts those who want to be associated with that feeling...I'm finding it very difficult to express what I'm thinking here....
 
just want to say that...
in terms of clothes that are produced for the runway only and never go into production...
you NEVER see this at comme or yohji...
all that 'wacky' stuff will be in the store...along with LOADS more...

LV is the one most guilty of this...
M.Jacobs uses the LV runway as a playground...
i dare you to find most of those clothes in the stores...
same with dior...who is ALSO LVMH by the way!!!
dior makes TONS of money on cosmetics/beauty actually
*are those figures strictly LV or LVMH???

BTW-that 2004 CDG statistic is BEFORE the launch of the dover st market and Tao for cdg and lots of other developments...so it's bound to be seriously outdated by now...

i don't think we can judge anything by those numbers at this point...

but- certainly...
not everyone really 'gets' such advanced concepts in design...
so not everyone will understand how to wear them...
HECK-
we have loads of magazines and programs teaching the 'average' person what not to wear...:wacko:
i hope to GOD they do not attempt anything as advanced as yohji or comme if they cannot even figure out how to dress themselves on a daily basis...
it could be quite scarey...
:ninja:...

*imagine the typical luxury label wh*re customer
some glamourpuss tottering around in impossible platform bondage strappy heels with rhinestones from jimmy choo...loads of make up, fake tan, fat duck-like collagen lips, too much botox and hair stiff as straw from too much bleaching and blow drying....all draped in a long black dress with an assymetrical hem and high collar with one sleeve longer than the other...
EEK!...talk about scarey!!...
:lol:...

no thanks...
the world isn't ready for that yet...
:p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
213,260
Messages
15,215,591
Members
87,204
Latest member
Jaffykins
Back
Top