Is a Runway Show Really Necessary?

[Macro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/fashion/30iht-rshow.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

food for discussion.

[lowrey]

This is a very interesting topic and I'm sure we'll see a lot of discussion come up surrounding this.

A show is always a show, its not where you purchase clothes but a venue for a designer to showcase their vision. I don't think the article puts much emphasis on this. In terms of selling, showrooms play the biggest role, so in that sense, I don't see why videos couldn't work to some extent. Then again, Adrian Joffe brings up this point in the artice:

“Rei is dying to find another way to show her clothes,” said Mr. Joffe, but he added that Ms. Kawakubo, who has always ruled out a static presentation, finds it hard to envisage how the texture and feel of the clothes could be expressed on film, along with the feeling.

Feelings and atmospheres could be expressed on film, but obviously they won't be the same on a computer screen as on location. But on the other hand, fashion shows cater to a couple of hundred people, while thousands view them through photographs which are not always very good and hardly emit any sort of vibe nor can you get a very good idea of materials and textures. But if you do both a video (artistic vision + feeling) and a lookbook (a closer view looks + garments), in theory it covers everything that is in a runway presentation. I suspect that for some, it still quite isn't the same thing, though.

I haven't been to a video presentation like Pugh's, so I can't really say from experience how it feels compared a runway show. But then again, I put much more value on seeing collections up close and personal, hence why the showroom is essential.

[Eye]

Very interesting point indeed.

I always thought that runways were adding a very personnal point of view from the designer to its collection, which could sometimes narrow the vision i have on the clothes itself. (cf julius runways that i rarely appreciate, even if i own some pieces that rocks).
However, it allows us to see great fit pictures of the pieces, to estimate how they'll move while worn, and to consider the influence of the collection.
I also appreciate the music in the runways, think it adds a lot to the aesthetic.
But i agree with lowrey, i often prefer showrooms and lookbooks to the runways.

[Faust]

Quite interesting to see a shoot-myself-in-the-foot article like this. Having been at many shows, I can tell you that NOTHING can replace the atmosphere, the anticipation, the energy at the fashion show (I can only imagine what it's like to have been at a McQueen show). Yes, in a way you can do more with video, and the theater vs. film comparison is absolutely apt, but maybe not in the way Menkes has intended. Both have their advantages, one does not replace the other. Knight is delusional if he thinks that the tactile experience of clothing does not matter. Of course he speaks as a photographer/film-maker, so he has to pull in that direction.

Thanks for posting, D.

[CUTUP]

Beat me to it ^

How much of the "mood" of a collection can still be brought across in a video presentation?

I myself have never been to a show, but I can only imagine the difference of being able to see the clothing worn as the designer intended a few feet away from you, and being put on a video screen

I also wouldnt want to think what would happen if the video trend catches on in a big way and designers begin to spend more time with CGI and effects then the rest of the clothing presentation and design

I can see videos being used as good viral marketing and ways to spark initial interest in new collections ect, but not to replace the shows themselves. They are completely separate entities INO

[hurricane08]

A runaway supposed to be the mirror of the designer's personality ,the moments that stay alive in fashion history and where the fashion revolution starts

[MaxM]

A runaway supposed to be the mirror of the designer's personality ,the moments that stay alive in fashion history and where the fashion revolution starts

Maybe, but the media coverage and prestige you get of a runway show is certainly not negligible. Fashion is a business like any other after all...

[hurricane08]

That's why i used the word "supposed" .I prefer to see a collection in a motion than static images and yes a fashion is a bussiness and the reason some houses do 4 shows in a year.

[MaxM]

I know, but i just happen to believe runway shows are not reeaaaaaally necessary. They are a very useful marketing tool, nothing more.

The "clothes in motion", "designer's personality" etc is just bullshit that serves as a pretext for those who don't want to see the real face of fashion. At least in my oppinion...

[kompressorkev]

While the real test is in the showroom, there is some merit to a runway presentation. Regarding the business of fashion motivating runway shows, I don't buy that argument necessarily. Seeing it in real life, in motion, contextualized according to the designer's vision, is appreciable to a viewer's understanding of the collection. I think of the Josephus Thimister HC show 1915: Bloodshed and Opulence, where there was live acapella, like somber chanting, as if it were a memorial - fitting to the military theme. When it's live, everything's working together - the sound, the close-up view of the fabrics, even the way the models walked. Some of the foil-lined ultra-thin dresses limited the models' movement, creating a very noisy and awkward gait down the runway, showcasing the theme of opulence in opposition to the sense of utilitarianism referenced in the military theme. You could see the airiness of the silk contrasted with the rigidness of the foil underlayer. The runway presentation enhanced my appreciation for the clothes in the collection, in ways that i don't think could've been achieved as effectively through watching it online. Runway shows aren't ultimately necessary, but they can be helpful for conveying the narrative of the collection and thus the clothing.

If anything, i find a video more of a marketing contrivance. The editing, the music layover, is all done after. I'm not saying a video's an ineffective or false representation, but I think it's more about communicating the brand identity rather than the feeling of the clothes themselves. It's not bad, just different. Admittedly, the overwhelming majority of runway shows are often self-indulgent, but there's a few out there that are worthy.

[Faust]

MaxM, you are wrong. No matter what Pugh says, it's cheaper to do a video than a runway show. Shows are what gives fashion its special place, it's THEATER. When I interviewed Rick we talked about advertising, which he was reluctant to do until he recalled those iconic Helmut Lang ads on NYC yellow cabs. To him, in his words, that was A FASHION MOMENT. A great runway show can be that fashion moment. And without fashion moments fashion loses a lot of its allure. Personally, I love it and I would be really sad if it went away. Shows are memorable - who will remember that Pugh video? Maybe Mike Nouveau, but that's because he saw it on a 30ft screen, which is a show in itself, and not on his computer.

While we gained instant access in the age of the internet, we are losing something very important - QUALITY. No computer monitor can replace a good TV, no MP3 can replace a CD and a good speaker system, no fucking ipad can replace a book, and no photos or videos can replace a live show.

[marco-von]

I see fashion shows the same as expensive hookers. If you have the access to them you are gonna enjoy them because they are within reach. therefore i can neither hate nor like them but merely give the malaysian girl a extra fiver to try put on a posh cambridge accent.

[christianef]

i think some of the limits of a show are what make it work. as theatrical as a show can get the designer and clothes generally remain the focus of the collection and because its a unique format they are always [somewhat] interesting. videos are banal, you can do too much with videos; it would put too much empehesis on the filmaking ( the director, cinematography, editing, shot reverse shot.) and it would become a shooting match of who can direct the cooler film not design a nice collection. i didnt think of the pugh video as a good or bad collection but a mediocre clip.
plus the novelty seems like it would wear off fast; pugh`s seems somewhat cool now but i assume as more designers took this approach it would get boring fast - video killed the radio star but video concept was the new big deal. there;s clips of everything now. it seems like an already played out idea, personally. while shows still remain relevant.

[christianef]

and as for convenience i can skip through a collection in a minute of two on style.com etc. it took me like a week before i could find the energy to sit down on watch the pugh film, depsite mutliple the proverbial watch glance, in its entirety.

[MaxM]

Faust, of course runways are "fashion moments", and put the clothes in context etc.
It just seems to me like for 99% of the houses, it's more the commercial aspect than the creative one that drives them to do a runway show.
Or maybe i am just being too sceptical about all this.