Why Is The Fashion Industry In The State That It's In Today?

[Nimsay]

yes ofc knowing how to make clothes influences your ability as a designer. What a ridiculous argument honestly. If they didnt know how make clothes themsleves they wouldnt be able to direct the Atelier.

like … keep the standards high. Why do you want to drop the standard on everything.

 

[blueorchid]

I disagree. They didn't make clothes because they were designers. Sewing clothes were not their job or metier. What I'm saying is that knowing how to make a dress don't make you a good designer, there is no necessary cause and effect between those skills. If there was , LVMH would be dragging petit mains to be creative directors. And Maria Disgrazia would be a great designer.

That doesn't make any sense. Having (and I would say it's more important to UNDERSTAND) technical skills for sure makes it easier for a designer to actually design their clothes... c'mon, so they know the limits of the pattern, fabrics, embellishments, etc. whatever.

 

[Nimsay]

I mean this is exactly why that guy you hate - Harris Reed - struggles. He doesnt have the skill to execure his designs correctly. Hes over designing. I guess he doesnt think its important so he is using like run of the mill local fashion week construction and its failing miserably.

Being able to produce what you design on a piece of paper with perfect accuracy is a skill itself. Not to mention if that item is attractive stylish or even - hopefully - fashion forward. All the skills needed to be a CD is truly why there are so few candidates.

 

[Alquimista]

yes ofc knowing how to make clothes influences your ability as a designer. What a ridiculous argument honestly. If they didnt know how make clothes themsleves they wouldnt be able to direct the Atelier.

like … keep the standards high. Why do you want to drop the standard on everything.

That doesn't make any sense. Having (and I would say it's more important to UNDERSTAND) technical skills for sure makes it easier for a designer to actually design their clothes... c'mon, so they know the limits of the pattern, fabrics, embellishments, etc. whatever.

I agree with both of you. When I say knowing, I'm talking about executing, the mastering of executing the savoir faire. Understanding pattern making and construction can help a lot, but I disagree that knowing, mastering the skill is necessary to be a great designer. A designer should spend more time sketching obsessively like Karl did. Having the knowlege of construction can only help, not only that, but being curious in general can lead to innovation. But that's not possible when young designers live in their secluded moodboard universe.

And them I ask myself wth are these fashion schools doing? I would like to read a response if some of you had the experience with university.

 

[blueorchid]

It’s interesting that you mention that designers “should be” sketching. Lots of designers weren’t known for their sketching ability, Yves and Karl changed that. But designers like Chanel, Balenciaga, Cardin, etc. definitely didn’t spend their days sketching, but draping, etc.

 

[lookatme]

A designer doesn't NEED to be able sew to perfection - that is what the atelier and sample makers are for. But a designer SHOULD have an interest in the construction of their garments and should be able to articulate and dialogue with their atelier. If a designer doesn't know what setting a sleeve entails, for example, that means that there's not really going to be a conversation between the designer and the atelier about different ways to set a sleeve and how to go about it.

Is a designer studying vintage and antique clothing? Inside and out? Are they challenging themselves in their design process and implementing unique finishes into their work? Are they challenging the ateliers? The answer these days is pretty much NO.

That's why designer fashion these days is so basic and beginner-sewer status. It's cheap and easy to execute. It's also why everything is "oversized." It's an easy "trick" to make something look interesting.

 

[Alquimista]

It’s interesting that you mention that designers “should be” sketching. Lots of designers weren’t known for their sketching ability, Yves and Karl changed that. But designers like Chanel, Balenciaga, Cardin, etc. definitely didn’t spend their days sketching, but draping, etc.

Did I went too far?

We can agree that designers can have different processes. You can drape a manequim, a doll, sketch like Karl, you can even do just shapes like Thom Browne. I just don't like the essentialism implied in "know how to sew = real designer" .

Cardin was a terrible fashion designer. My opinion, of course.

Edit: Forgot to mention 3d software

 

[philophile]

Edit: Forgot to mention 3d software

True. Iris van Herpen is a trained couturieuse and she does 3d printing. Not that she's liked 'round these parts, but her idea of fashion is pretty valid (and beautiful).

 

[blueorchid]

Did I went too far?

We can agree that designers can have different processes. You can drape a manequim, a doll, sketch like Karl, you can even do just shapes like Thom Browne. I just don't like the essentialism implied in "know how to sew = real designer" .

Cardin was a terrible fashion designer. My opinion, of course.

Edit: Forgot to mention 3d software

No? I'm just saying that it's a limited view.

I always find myself interested in discussions about technical vs. artistic skills (or softer skills, in some fields). For example, the field I'm in isn't artistic, but it's connected to arts & literature, and I got into the field via a technical route vs a theory route (which I also ended up learning when I got my Masters in the area of study). IMO, the technical skills make it so much easier to help patrons/clients, plan the delivery of our services, etc. because I understand the limitations of what can be do technically. I think it's the same in many fields that have a tech. vs. artistic/soft skill side. (Like, knowing how to do my field's equivalent of sewing a dress -- which is much more boring -- has been super beneficial, even if I never have to "sew the dress")

 

[Lola701]

When I look at those Central Saint Martin graduate shows, I think to myself "wtf told these kids this is good design?" It seems like they are trained to be artists who happens to make clothes, not fashion designers. It's a big problem cause you create generations of designers who don't care about design, they want to be artists. Can you imagine that happening in architecture, graphic design schools? That is the art extreme imo. The other extreme is people who believe you can only be a great fashion designer if you know to sew clothes. That to me is absurd and it can lead you to conclude that Lagerfeld and Saint Laurent were not good designers because they couldn't hold a pin. That is the craft extreme.

So one of the problems lie in education. Fashion schools teaching designers to be artists. And on the other extreme, people who believe that being a great petit main will turn you into the new Saint Laurent. Where is design in this conversation? Forgotten, in the middle, maybe. lol

I'm graduating in system analysis and software development now, but I'm gonna work with web design, and I know that developing a software is not the same as designing a website. To be a good web designer, I need to know the fundamentals of design: color, simmetry, variety, unity, proportion, pattern, etc. These are different skills. In my opinion, the future fashion designer need to know the principles of design (fashion has a few more like texture etc), then take his pen, computer, ipad, whatever and start sketching. Let the engineer do his job, and you do yours of designing great clothes, which is not a art or a craft. That does not mean it will bad to know about art or tailoring, it only mean that design is something else.

@Lola701 I would love to read your take on this.

I agree at 100% with what you are saying.

It’s maybe a controversial take but for me CSM is a scam. It’s a stamp of approval, it’s a great place where people can discover themselves but in reality, the designers who have made it and came from there do not owe their success to the school.
In France, it’s different because of the weight of Haute Couture and the weight of fashion in the economy.
I saw the show from the graduates of the IFM and I was impressed. CSM creates good design assistant though.

Designers wanting to be seen as artists is like designers wanting the lifestyle of being a designer without the reality of it.

I think the culture of fashion is totally lost. This is the biggest thing today.
When I say culture is in every way.

Designers used to have an artistic intention, high skills but more than that, a desire to dress people.

Sometimes, I feel like Galliano and McQueen have kinda hurt fashion in a way. The expression of their work was a 360 experience where the show became as important as the clothes. And they have became the standard for a lot of people in the young generation….

The thing is that the young generation forgets about the clothes. What I love the most about Galliano and McQueen was the clothes. Lee was maybe more conventional in his approach to clothes but John made those Dior ateliers work!

Designers for me are like geeks. They are geeks of fashion. They are supposed to talk about fabrics and execution…

Cardin was a terrible fashion designer. My opinion, of course.

I’m distancing myself from you now lol.
Probably overlooked compared to his contemporaries and far from being my favorite but he was a fantastic designer. A laboratory of ideas and so disruptive for his time.

 

[gallianostan]

galliano and mcqueen set the standard so impossibly high that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to reach or already be at that level. but the problem is that most designers now aren't even meeting the bare minimum. it's a matter of complete incompetence.

 

[LadyJunon]

Thoughts on the current conversation:
• While I don't believe that a creative director has to be a master technician, there's a certain level of excellence that technical skills equipe them with. There's this Loïc Prigent video of Chloé, Fendi and Chanel technicians reviewing Karl's design sketches and explaining the precision of his sketches, despite their heavy stylisation.

• This leads into garment construction. The 90s and 00s really pushed the limit on designer ready-to-wear production, so this era of extreme standardisation (side seams, vertical bust darts, set in sleeves, 1/4" hem finishes) really is huge step backwards. While this is obviously due to corporate meddling, younger independent designers don't seem to care about pushing the limit of construction either.

• British fashion schools (and British fashion as a whole) have been so desperate to recreate the Galliano/McQueen success story without looking beyond the surface layer of loud showmanship and extravagance. They produce and support designers who can create aesthetics, but can't design actual clothes, unless the designer actively seeks out that technical knowledge. Belgian schools seem to produce more convincing and capable avant-gardist designers.

 

[lookatme]

The thing is that the young generation forgets about the clothes. What I love the most about Galliano and McQueen was the clothes. Lee was maybe more conventional in his approach to clothes but John made those Dior ateliers work!

Designers for me are like geeks. They are geeks of fashion. They are supposed to talk about fabrics and execution…

This is the heart of the issue. Designers now want all the style with no interest in the substance.

The production of those iconic shows from Galliano and McQueen were always in service of the actual clothes. The shows contextualized the collection. But once you take it all apart - you got some seriously fabulous clothes to incorporate into your wardrobe...clothes infused with style in every stitch. Nowadays, you take away the show and you've got some pretty sad looking designer duds...and duds they really are!

And you're so right about designers being geeks. If anyone has ever watched old documentary or backstage footage of Galliano talking about his work...the man could barely contain his excitement while talking about cutting the fabric a particular way. I always remember him describing listening to flamenco music while cutting the ruffles for the Fall/Winter 2003 Dior Couture show so that the ruffles could be infused with flamenco passion.

Can anyone imagine Sabato or Jacquemus or Harris Reed or Kim Jones even thinking in such a way?

 

[NYLA22]

I agree at 100% with what you are saying.

It’s maybe a controversial take but for me CSM is a scam. It’s a stamp of approval, it’s a great place where people can discover themselves but in reality, the designers who have made it and came from there do not owe their success to the school.
In France, it’s different because of the weight of Haute Couture and the weight of fashion in the economy.
I saw the show from the graduates of the IFM and I was impressed. CSM creates good design assistant though.

Designers wanting to be seen as artists is like designers wanting the lifestyle of being a designer without the reality of it.

I think the culture of fashion is totally lost. This is the biggest thing today.
When I say culture is in every way.

Designers used to have an artistic intention, high skills but more than that, a desire to dress people.

Sometimes, I feel like Galliano and McQueen have kinda hurt fashion in a way. The expression of their work was a 360 experience where the show became as important as the clothes. And they have became the standard for a lot of people in the young generation….

The thing is that the young generation forgets about the clothes. What I love the most about Galliano and McQueen was the clothes. Lee was maybe more conventional in his approach to clothes but John made those Dior ateliers work!

Designers for me are like geeks. They are geeks of fashion. They are supposed to talk about fabrics and execution…


I’m distancing myself from you now lol.
Probably overlooked compared to his contemporaries and far from being my favorite but he was a fantastic designer. A laboratory of ideas and so disruptive for his time.

I think "Phantom Thread" was a good example that drives this point. It was all about the clothes (even with a lot of ego by the designer). The quest for perfection in regards to the actual product.

 

[Alquimista]

No? I'm just saying that it's a limited view.

I always find myself interested in discussions about technical vs. artistic skills (or softer skills, in some fields). For example, the field I'm in isn't artistic, but it's connected to arts & literature, and I got into the field via a technical route vs a theory route (which I also ended up learning when I got my Masters in the area of study). IMO, the technical skills make it so much easier to help patrons/clients, plan the delivery of our services, etc. because I understand the limitations of what can be do technically. I think it's the same in many fields that have a tech. vs. artistic/soft skill side. (Like, knowing how to do my field's equivalent of sewing a dress -- which is much more boring -- has been super beneficial, even if I never have to "sew the dress")

The technical knowlege can be benefitial, for sure. It gives you a holistic vision. What is important to me is just not to confuse design with technique, it's more than that. Although the confusion between art and design seems to be more prevalent among young fashion students.

I agree at 100% with what you are saying.

It’s maybe a controversial take but for me CSM is a scam. It’s a stamp of approval, it’s a great place where people can discover themselves but in reality, the designers who have made it and came from there do not owe their success to the school.
In France, it’s different because of the weight of Haute Couture and the weight of fashion in the economy.
I saw the show from the graduates of the IFM and I was impressed. CSM creates good design assistant though.

Designers wanting to be seen as artists is like designers wanting the lifestyle of being a designer without the reality of it.

I think the culture of fashion is totally lost. This is the biggest thing today.
When I say culture is in every way.

Designers used to have an artistic intention, high skills but more than that, a desire to dress people.

Sometimes, I feel like Galliano and McQueen have kinda hurt fashion in a way. The expression of their work was a 360 experience where the show became as important as the clothes. And they have became the standard for a lot of people in the young generation….

The thing is that the young generation forgets about the clothes. What I love the most about Galliano and McQueen was the clothes. Lee was maybe more conventional in his approach to clothes but John made those Dior ateliers work!

Designers for me are like geeks. They are geeks of fashion. They are supposed to talk about fabrics and execution…


I’m distancing myself from you now lol.
Probably overlooked compared to his contemporaries and far from being my favorite but he was a fantastic designer. A laboratory of ideas and so disruptive for his time.

Oh lola, I can't. He's my least favorite of the space age dudes. Haha

Maybe young people missinterpreted Galliano and Lee. But in my opinion the real problem now and them is the business model.

 

[blueorchid]

I think "Phantom Thread" was a good example that drives this point. It was all about the clothes (even with a lot of ego by the designer). The quest for perfection in regards to the actual product.

Yes! I think the same thing was represented well in the new Balenciaga series, too. Where he had to physically be stopped from tearing the seam of a sleeve minutes before it goes out. 😭

 

[Snejana Onopka]

imo the problem is bigger than fashion and much more generalised, to use that cliche and a bit corny aphorism: fashion is a reflection of society/the world and tbh the world is really sh*tty right now lol

im gonna ramble a little and itll sound like a first year social science student but w/e I feel like being pretentious lol we're basically living in a hypermodern debordian nightmare, to put in a very crass manner imho nowadays our identities are defined by what/when/where/how we consume things, be it clothing, food or midia, almost every part of our lives is commodified its all very narcissistic, individualistic, contraditory and excessive. theres no room for subjectivity bc theres no time, everything is so fast its practically impossible to curate and fully develop an aesthetic or even an identity.

i believe language and discourse not only describe subjects and objects, but they also actively construct said things and at one point we have to question what is being shaped and created, what is being naturalised by the rulling discourse. like, language is not a transparent medium w/o any intention, what those fashion conglomerates are trying to say, and in consequence create, when theyre pushing this frantic consumerism to the masses.

fashion designers working for big brands are at the fore front of this machine, they have to play by the music and the music is basically saying that fashion is capitalism's dream or favourite child, and this monstruous child has to be fed lol and actually developing a skill, curating an aesthetic, taking a deeper look at culture wont do the job. there wont be another balenciaga, not because people are less intelligent or skilled but because theres no time to be spent looking at art, reading books, watching good movies, perfecting a sleeve or the fit of a dress, fashion designers have to sell a LOT and constantly.

i feel like fashion used to be the perfect balance between commerce and art (i know fashion is not art and blahblah) but nowadays its pure commerce, merchandising and the next viral moment that will be forgotten in a week. designers like ghesquiere are a miracle, he's one the few that can manage this balance and move the fashion conversation forward even if its just an inch, the rest are just responding to the suits' demands and knowing how to make a trendy moodboard on canva is sufficient to get praise and things done.

 

[blueorchid]

I'd argue that fashion wanting to be an art is what caused "its downfall" take that however you will. I agree that couture can be an art. But fashion on its own? No. Brunelleschi's buildings are art, but a run of the mill apartment block? No.

 

[lookatme]

I've always hated comparing fashion to art. It's so cringe when no-nothings gag over old McQueen, for example, and call it ART!!

Fashion is its own thing. It's not greater than or less than art. It's fashion.

 

[NYLA22]

imo the problem is bigger than fashion and much more generalised, to use that cliche and a bit corny aphorism: fashion is a reflection of society/the world and tbh the world is really sh*tty right now lol

im gonna ramble a little and itll sound like a first year social science student but w/e I feel like being pretentious lol we're basically living in a hypermodern debordian nightmare, to put in a very crass manner imho nowadays our identities are defined by what/when/where/how we consume things, be it clothing, food or midia, almost every part of our lives is commodified its all very narcissistic, individualistic, contraditory and excessive. theres no room for subjectivity bc theres no time, everything is so fast its practically impossible to curate and fully develop an aesthetic or even an identity.

i believe language and discourse not only describe subjects and objects, but they also actively construct said things and at one point we have to question what is being shaped and created, what is being naturalised by the rulling discourse. like, language is not a transparent medium w/o any intention, what those fashion conglomerates are trying to say, and in consequence create, when theyre pushing this frantic consumerism to the masses.

fashion designers working for big brands are at the fore front of this machine, they have to play by the music and the music is basically saying that fashion is capitalism's dream or favourite child, and this monstruous child has to be fed lol and actually developing a skill, curating an aesthetic, taking a deeper look at culture wont do the job. there wont be another balenciaga, not because people are less intelligent or skilled but because theres no time to be spent looking at art, reading books, watching good movies, perfecting a sleeve or the fit of a dress, fashion designers have to sell a LOT and constantly.

i feel like fashion used to be the perfect balance between commerce and art (i know fashion is not art and blahblah) but nowadays its pure commerce, merchandising and the next viral moment that will be forgotten in a week. designers like ghesquiere are a miracle, he's one the few that can manage this balance and move the fashion conversation forward even if its just an inch, the rest are just responding to the suits' demands and knowing how to make a trendy moodboard on canva is sufficient to get praise and things done.

This is the same feeling I get with editors at fashion magazines. It used to be that all they had to worry about was a single print magazine once a month. Can you imagine? How quaint that seems now. Today, it's a print magazine, a website, Instagram, commerce/affiliate revenue, events/conferences (Vogue World, etc), not to mention worrying about getting canceled or saying the wrong thing on social media, and on and on. Who has time to think about deeper meaning or quality? They are now trapped on this hamster wheel of producing endless content -- which people forget about two minutes after they see it. So why bother trying to accomplish the impossible task of making anything good or lasting? There is no time now.