What's your criteria when judging fashion?

[SilkyJean]

I think that's a very difficult question. A few have an eye for what is considered as fashion and what's not. The others base their opinion on what the others like or not. That's at least my opinion. But of course everyone have an opinion on what they like or not. That's just personal. And that's what makes it fun. Otherwise everyone would wear the same. And about the dress ... I completely understand that you don't like it

 

[ultramarine]

What about Balmain? It has nothing to do with its past.
What about Givenchy? It has nothing to do with its past.
What about Lanvin? It has nothing to do with its past.
What about Nina Ricci? It has nothing to do with its past.
What about Rochas? It has nothing to do with its past.
What about Louis Vuitton under Marc Jacobs? It had nothing to do with its past.
What about Gucci under Tom Ford? It had nothing to do with its past.
What about Céline?


And I could go on and on...


No one thinks Hedi is respecting the YSL archives yet he is maybe the designer who has sent more archival pieces down the runway.

Sweet Dior! All the houses you mentioned have had a very subtle approach to their style. Thats why the revamp of them with this new designers who basically created their identity. Like Jacobs, for LV, which btw CREATED the whole clothesline, which didnt exist before him. And Ford for Gucci USED the codes and amplified a million times with the vavaboom sex appeal.

As wellHedi's first collection drew directly from the 70s vibe and even critics NOTICED. Here's Tim Blanks for Vogue:

Not the case tonight. Post-show, Betty Catroux, longtime muse to Yves himself, was delirious with delight, proclaiming Slimane the savior for all womankind. But a reality check suggested something less grandiose, more in tune with the way Slimane has been spending his time since he left fashion five years ago. In the City of Angels, to be precise. True, he hot-wired himself into the YSL legacy with Le Smoking, the mousselines, the p*ssy bows, the shot of animal spot, and that thing called Saharienne (which will always be Veruschka in Vogue). The tassels said Morocco—they also said Opium, à la Yves.

Darling, this may veer into "flame wars" which is a no-no in this forums, but I suggest you check your facts.

 

[elletheduck]

Another with a first post, and I am not a fashion professional, just a student.

I don't just judge based on just the show I'm watching, and I usually only really judge RTW shows. I look for trends that thread from one collection to others, shapes and designs that emerge as the "trends", I watch to see what colors are common on the season. I try to forecast the season and the trends while seeing the shows. Once the week is over, I look at the notes I took on the shows and then look at what I had forecasted to see how close I've come.

I then judge each fashion shows based on my own knowledge of fashion; its history, the label, even what I know of the designer. Sometimes, I don't know much about them or their label (happens with area I really like, but that aren't in Milan, Paris or New York), which I try to figure out who they are by what I see, what their label is, things like that. Then I judge it based on the wear factor for the average person. Does it take tweaking to make it wearable? Is it wearable art you'll never see again, or is it already close to being street wear? If it's not, how much work would it take to be at any high end store. I often watch a show 2 or more times to really be able to figure it out.

So my own liking it often doesn't enter into it until it comes down to buying it (and that happens much later).

With couture shows, I watch them like I would an art exhibit.

 

[BetteT]

Welcome to the Fashion Spot, elletheduck!!

A great explanation of your process. I can tell you love fashion for the visceral experience as well as wanting to learn about it.

 

[Fashionstuff]

"Your criteria when judging fashion?" Really good question.

I think it depends of many things and everyone judge it different in the different situations as BetteT wrote yet:
" ..I judge it differently, depending on what I think the intentions are."

And also like Creative said : "Clothes that make you look twice".


DNA is important but of course not all, anyway I agree with Fashionista-ta
Suzy Menkes believes codes are important, and I agree with her. A house needs an identity, and its customers want it to have one

If i buy the closes for myself, in this case i'll be a customer (wearer) , i want to have the clothes with identity- DNA. It can be something Little but it must be some kind of BRand's symbol. Than it must be bold, it must be comfortable, it must be elegant also if it a casual but who cares about me.

The buyers are choosing the items , so here to "judge" if the items can be trend and the customers will buy it.

Than Haute Couture, this is an art, the dream and finally same- how the Person will be looking on the red carpet. goreous or tasteless-like an iceberg or like a princess.

I don't know what Dolce and Gabbana wanted to tell with this dress. It is not the dress which we are normally see in their collections. To judge this, exactly this one dress, is not easy. Maybe the textile is very good, maybe it is awesome. Somebody like somebody doesn't like .But , anyway, it's not the kind of dress which i personally waiting to see in D&G collection.
Same time, John Galliano in his Maison Margiela Haute Couture F/W 2015 collection sent on the runway one embellished potato sack coat. It was awesome. It is haute Couture and i appreciate in this cases the kind of art. ( here to tell that all this "potato sack" pieces are not new anymore, recycling, ect, all we saw yet)

In conclusion: i think the fashion is impossible to judge. The Fashion is an art. It is possible to judge the items which the people are wearing but in this case is also depend of taste?

 

[rayoflight]

To me it's more functional. It's always the question in my head, do these clothes look good? Or, do they look good on a person (or me)? Meaning, 'good' in a sense that the proportions/silhouette/colors/textures form a harmonious or symbytic relationship with the wearer. Not the infamous, clothes wear the wearer. If someone, anyone, who claims to be a designer, couture or high-street, cannot achieve that, and people wearing the clothes look unbecoming, frumpy or clown-ish - means their work is lacking. A good designer can make witty clothes or take something ugly and make it work (Balenciaga under Ghesquiere), make the person wearing their clothes look good, it's their job and if they want to play in the big league, they better step up their game.

Valentino is, to me, a good example of this. The old Valentino was all about making a woman look desirable, beautiful. Since he retired and the new designers took over, it's been ugly. What is nowadays Valentino are exactly the clothes a childless, asexual governess with a mean, crude and bitter nature could wear. If life were a movie, Valentino could dress the main villain who poisons the mother, marries the father and smothers children in their sleep to cash in the insurance, and then, after staging an accident to kill the father, instead of driving away in a yellow Ferrari with her secret lover suddenly wearing Versace, she peels of her prosthetic face and burries herself in the basement to sleep for decades before picking her new victims. That's how far Valentino is now from anything remotely attractive or flattering.

When I see clothes on someone, on street or runway, there is only the one question. I does not matter to me how much personality or what story goes behind that outfit, if that person wearing those clothes looks wrong, then it is over. Then I'm not interested who made it, how much it was, how artistic someone thinks it is, or how individual someone thinks it makes them look. They failed, the wrong clothes, the wrong fit, could've as well grabbed something out of basket from Red Cross with much better results probably. If someone has the body for it they can wear slouchy t-shirts and loose sweatpants, and I won't even raise an eyebrow. But dress like or dress someone like a neon bird accident slash pre-industrial Japanese peasant with a beard like a rhododendron (very bad on girls) and you had it coming.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ A Freudian analyst could have a field day here ...


I think there is some split in the responsibility when someone looks wrong in a designer's clothes. I remember recently Catherine Deneuve looking really ... unflattered in Vuitton recently. Guesquiere is certainly not an incompetent designer, but perhaps is not giving sufficient thought to how things will look on real women vs. a model with characteristics far from the norm.


It's obvious when you put on the clothes how much attention a designer is giving to working with fit models, and how much the designer cares about how the clothes work in real life. Unfortunately this kind of attention and concern also seems to be far from the norm, but it's something I appreciate very much. At the moment, with Alber and Donna no longer designing, the number of designers who work this way has dropped precipitously, in my view anyway ... ridiculous when you think about it.

 

[fashionista-ta]

PS I can't edit my post, I'm getting that box thing instead of the text. Just wanted to add that I believe Catherine should have said NO to that dress. Each of us has some responsibility for determining what looks good on us and what doesn't ... it's different for everyone. But I blame the designer for that one ... I'm not sure even Iman would have looked good in that dress. It's the kind of thing you'd look good in spite of, if you're lucky.

 

[dior_couture1245]

I think there is some split in the responsibility when someone looks wrong in a designer's clothes. I remember recently Catherine Deneuve looking really ... unflattered in Vuitton recently. Guesquiere is certainly not an incompetent designer, but perhaps is not giving sufficient thought to how things will look on real women vs. a model with characteristics far from the norm.

It's obvious when you put on the clothes how much attention a designer is giving to working with fit models, and how much the designer cares about how the clothes work in real life. Unfortunately this kind of attention and concern also seems to be far from the norm, but it's something I appreciate very much. At the moment, with Alber and Donna no longer designing, the number of designers who work this way has dropped precipitously, in my view anyway ... ridiculous when you think about it.

I absolutely agree with this. I recall a friend once mentioning it can be quite obvious when a designer is a "sketcher" and when a designer is a "maker." That has always stuck with me.

In regards to Ghesquiere, in particular, his work at Vuitton - as you have brought up - is very much falling into the "sketching" category. His first two seasons were shockingly NOT user-friendly when I visited the Vuitton stores. I was very disappointed at how stiff, heavy and card-boardy everything was! I couldn't imagine a woman being comfortable in anything…it'd be like wearing sandwich boards! Proenza Schouler is another "sketching" designer. I always find their clothes so tricky and over designed….flaps hanging everywhere, too many snaps, and buckles, heavy hardware, etc…nothing that makes a wearer comfortable.

I remember this not being so much the case with his work at Balenciaga…which, even at it's most complicated, always seems light as air on the hanger.