You know a trend is out when...

[_R_]

^right. I agree with a lot of this. I think this topic is maybe more about when a trend is no longer desirable than when it is "over", b/c it's technically still a trend when everyone's little sister and mass retailer are doing it.

the catch and maybe everyones differing opinions here is that the question is 'when is a trend no longer...avant garde...", which is kind of a paradox. once something becomes a trend, it is no longer avant garde, original, unique, or out there. A [mainstream] trend stems from an avant garde expression..

 

[The_Ida]

I don't think that a trend necessarily stems from something avant garde. Look at chinos...everyone and their mum are wearing them, and they have never ever been avant garde. Or pastel colours. Or whatever. Not always avant garde...

But I do think a trend is over when Victoria Beckham has worn it.

 

[Menace]

Basically,
Avant-Garde Design -> Runway -> Boutiques / The fashion forward -> Upscale department stores -> Celebs -> Department stores

IMO, something will have become a "trend" when celebs start wearing it and it hits the department stores.

Also, I think that the really fashion-forward people have a sense of what will become trendy in the near future. I always have, a little. Don't hate.

 

[_R_]

I don't think that a trend necessarily stems from something avant garde. Look at chinos...everyone and their mum are wearing them, and they have never ever been avant garde. Or pastel colours. Or whatever. Not always avant garde...

But I do think a trend is over when Victoria Beckham has worn it.

Don't think chino's (assuming we're talking about pants here and not the fabric types) would really be classified as a 'trend' but rather as a staple; like a wool suit. Just like the cut of a suit, the cut of a chino pant could follow a particular trend (capri, ankle biters, tight, baggy...) which could pull away from the status quo of the time, thus being avant garde/potentially starting a new trend for that era. Thom Browne/Black Fleece leaps to mind. Suit's still there. staple. short jacket, ankle showing, new trend emerges. blah blah blah. But the pant itself, like the suit, remains a sartorial norm.

 

[The_Ida]

Don't think chino's (assuming we're talking about pants here and not the fabric types) would really be classified as a 'trend' but rather as a staple; like a wool suit. Just like the cut of a suit, the cut of a chino pant could follow a particular trend (capri, ankle biters, tight, baggy...) which could pull away from the status quo of the time, thus being avant garde/potentially starting a new trend for that era. Thom Browne/Black Fleece leaps to mind. Suit's still there. staple. short jacket, ankle showing, new trend emerges. blah blah blah. But the pant itself, like the suit, remains a sartorial norm.

I don't think it does at all. No one ever wore chinos, and suddenly everyone did - why can't so-called stables become trends? There's no reason to, and I can't see you have stated why it couldn't.

I don't buy into that every trend comes from something avant garde. Some trends start on the streets, pretty much out of nothing. That is simply not true.

 

[_R_]

I don't think it does at all. No one ever wore chinos, and suddenly everyone did - why can't so-called stables become trends? There's no reason to, and I can't see you have stated why it couldn't.

I don't buy into that every trend comes from something avant garde. Some trends start on the streets, pretty much out of nothing. That is simply not true.

absolutely trends can start out on the streets or anywhere else, whatever the inspiration. when i say staple i'm using that in a generational context. the term 'avant garde' isn't synonymous with couture and the runways. its a statement that implies a departure from the norms of the society in question. If your mother or father rolled to work tomorrow in their crisp new BR chino's odds are they wouldn't get a second glance. if dad opted for capri's and mom thugged it out with some rockawear chinos half-way to her knees..

 

[lmelanie]

when it hits the mall and the suburbs.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

I'm wondering, can't a trend exist without being "trendy" and massive?
I think that the trendiness is what bothers my eyes the most...

I always thought that a trend could also refer to a current, a shift of mood, a vibe in the atmosphere... not necessarily to what is actually being followed by the masses (athough I can see the possible oxymoron of what i'm saying)...

That's a good question. I don't think so. Everything usually comes full-circle. In order for a trend to truly become a 'trend' there needs to be a following and that following is usually the masses.

Anyhow a trend is on it's way out when:
- it's in Nylon Magazine
- it's Urban Outfitters 'fresh, new' creative direction
- it's on most of the NYC fashion week runways (excluding the few NY designers who do their own thing)
- it's in any chain store (forever 21, H&M, Mango, Target, etc.) w/ Walmart taking the cake

 

[The_Ida]

absolutely trends can start out on the streets or anywhere else, whatever the inspiration. when i say staple i'm using that in a generational context. the term 'avant garde' isn't synonymous with couture and the runways. its a statement that implies a departure from the norms of the society in question. If your mother or father rolled to work tomorrow in their crisp new BR chino's odds are they wouldn't get a second glance. if dad opted for capri's and mom thugged it out with some rockawear chinos half-way to her knees..

I still don't agree about the avant garde-thing. A lot of trends from the streets have never actually been avant garde, no departure there...sometimes something just catches on. Kind of like all the stripes we're seeing right now - stripes have never been avant garde, they haven't been outside the norm. Which must be why they're all over the NY runways...I have to agree with you there wheneveriwakeup NY Fashion Week is pretty lame, most of it anyway.

 

[Menace]

There seems to be a slight difference of opinions between being avant-garde and being fashion-forward, but the difference in the definition is pretty minuscule when it's applied to fashion (at least in my opinion).

I thought tights, spikes, leather, those crazy shoes/booties were all pretty "avant-garde" (fashion forward) when it first came out in recent times. Most of them still are, thankfully.

Avant-garde: people or works that are experimental or innovative, particularly with respect to art, culture, and politics.

Fashion forward: There is no universally accepted definition, but (imo) it just means to be "ahead of the trend."

 

[Menace]

I can't edit my reply so I'll just make a new one

It's interesting how some avant-garde items never make it into becoming a trend (like booties, leather) and some become the biggest thing to hit the malls (like tights/leggings, plaid, wayfarers, animal print). I wonder what makes something avant-garde susceptible to becoming a trend or not...

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

Booties and leather were and still are huge trends. They are hardly ever avant-garde. The conception of a trend is the only time its ever avant garde. It usually trickles down to the masses eventually - it wouldn't be a trend if it didn't, it'd be more of a stylistic motiff if anything.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

Actually, I wouldn't even call leather pieces - jckts, pants - a trend. They're classics. Maybe a leather skirt could be classified as a trend since they aren't seen too often and aren't regarded as a 'staple' in a wardrobe. Personally speaking, I think leather skirts are a classic but its all subjective.

 

[TommyGirl]

Trend is out when I´m starting to like it I wear more classic style than top trends, so it takes me a while to understand all the tricks.

 

[Birgit]

A trend is over when no one wears it anymore.

 

[dramatique]

A trend is out when my mother decides she needs to get in on it

 

[Ryan Weld]

^lol

 

[666tubeamp]

Actually, I wouldn't even call leather pieces - jckts, pants - a trend. They're classics. Maybe a leather skirt could be classified as a trend since they aren't seen too often and aren't regarded as a 'staple' in a wardrobe. Personally speaking, I think leather skirts are a classic but its all subjective.

I agree too that leather pants and skirts are classic in the sense that they will always be around, but there are noticable peaks and valleys in terms of popularity that, IMHO, speak of a trend.

For example, when the GAP and Bananna Republic carried leather pants, I think that was a clear indication that they were trendy, popular or whatever adjective we wish to use. For a major retailer of "yuppie" clothing to sell something that is still regarded by many as a symbol of [insert stereotype here] is telling. However, the popularity of them went into the crapper soon afterwards, almost to a degree where you couldn't pay someone to wear them. In fact, leather pants attained such a level of unpopularity that Danier - the largest retailer of non-biker leather in Canada - dropped them entirely from the men's line and radically reduced their numbers in the women's line. They simply weren't selling even though they had a great run in the early 2000's.

 

[Menace]

wheneveriwakeup, I guess I was just speaking on behalf of the general US public.
Sure leather and booties are a classic piece to every fashionista, but most of the girls here in the US seem to be a bit more conscious about being too fashion-forward... so they just go with what's trendy.
I've seen lots of girls wear leather jackets in Europe, but I rarely see any in California (same thing goes for booties)

So, yes, it really is highly subjective and depends on what you classify as a trend or avant-garde... and also what you see everyday.

 

[adorevintage]

when bloggers are doing it.
when people under 15 wear it.. with their school uniforms.
when forever21 is carrying it.

Couldn't agree more!