Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I just don't get it...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • macuser3of5
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2006
    • 276

    I just don't get it...



    When designers/labels create very nice looking garments, beautiful forms of color, shape, and texture, and still feel that it is necessary to add their 'mark' to the work. I've been searching around for various f/w items, and I keep running into clothes with stupid, nonsensical, and just plain gaudy branding on otherwise stellar items. Example:





    From yoox.com Bikkembergs jacket, very nice color, nice silhouette, but what is that funky mark on the left sleeve? That's right, it's 'BIKKEMBERGS' written around the sleeve. Ugh. No thanks.





    Yoox again. Givenchy blazer with an incredibly off-putting faux-gothic G on the back. WTF? Why can't people just de-logo their shit? It just cheapens the overall austerity of the garment and makes these pricey items look incredibly Urban Outfitters (not necessarily bad in of itself, but I don't recall UO selling $500 blazers, either). Which is another point... Adding logo flourishes has got to cost more than just leaving them off, so for high-end labels, what is the motive? Help me out here[:S]

  • Faust
    kitsch killer
    • Sep 2006
    • 37852

    #2
    Re: I just don't get it...

    Well, it's really pretty easy, I think. People just want to flaunt their shit. I think two principles drive them - keeping up with the Joneses, and being easily recognized and therefore fit in (tribal effect). It's pathetic, yes. It's especially pathetic when someone like Bikkembergs does it, who USED to do excellent work before he sold his soul to the Eurotrash devil. Some do it in a very clever way - I cannot account for how many items Margiela sold due to the 4 white stitches. I don't mind it much, because I happen to find the 4 stitches aesthetically appealing and downright genius, while the huge D&G logo repulsive. The funny thing is, branding can be a good thing, because it sends out an alert about the wearer. It's superficial, of course - I fully recognize it. Yet, having a certain character and aesthetic, I know that I would more likely to start talking to the guy/girl with 4 stitches than someone with D&G plastered all over his tee.
    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

    StyleZeitgeist Magazine

    Comment

    • Servo2000
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2006
      • 2183

      #3
      Re: I just don't get it...



      [quote user="Faust"]Well, it's really pretty easy, I think. People just want to flaunt their shit. I think two principles drive them - keeping up with the Joneses, and being easily recognized and therefore fit in (tribal effect). It's pathetic, yes. It's especially pathetic when someone like Bikkembergs does it, who USED to do excellent work before he sold his soul to the Eurotrash devil. Some do it in a very clever way - I cannot account for how many items Margiela sold due to the 4 white stitches. I don't mind it much, because I happen to find the 4 stitches aesthetically appealing and downright genius, while the huge D&G logo repulsive. The funny thing is, branding can be a good thing, because it sends out an alert about the wearer. It's superficial, of course - I fully recognize it. Yet, having a certain character and aesthetic, I know that I would more likely to start talking to the guy/girl with 4 stitches than someone with D&G plastered all over his tee.
      [/quote]



      Well, that's what branding is for, in my opinion. Our taste is different than theirs, and the branding shows that. They manage to find other D&G fans, and we manage to spot the fellow wearing vintage helmut lang or whatever works for you.

      WTB: Rick Owens Padded MA-1 Bomber XS (LIMO / MOUNTAIN)

      Comment

      • rach2jlc
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2006
        • 265

        #4
        Re: I just don't get it...

        I agree. It's funny that you posted the Givenchy blazer, because I looked at it on yoox and liked it very much until seeing the reverse side. I thought the same as you, "Why did they ruin a beautiful blazer?" Not only does it date the blazer terribly (could you imagine wearing that in ten years?) it also trivializes it and would probably make other wonder why you've got a "G" on your blazer, unless your last name is "Groves" or something.

        Comment

        • Faust
          kitsch killer
          • Sep 2006
          • 37852

          #5
          Re: I just don't get it...



          [quote user="rach2jlc"]I agree. It's funny that you posted the Givenchy blazer, because I looked at it on yoox and liked it very much until seeing the reverse side. I thought the same as you, "Why did they ruin a beautiful blazer?" Not only does it date the blazer terribly (could you imagine wearing that in ten years?) it also trivializes it and would probably make other wonder why you've got a "G" on your blazer, unless your last name is "Groves" or something.[/quote]



          Imagine someone sees you in it and says, "Hey, nice Guess blazer!" [;)]

          Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

          StyleZeitgeist Magazine

          Comment

          • Servo2000
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2006
            • 2183

            #6
            Re: I just don't get it...

            [quote user="Faust"]

            [quote user="rach2jlc"]I agree. It's funny that you posted the Givenchy blazer, because I looked at it on yoox and liked it very much until seeing the reverse side. I thought the same as you, "Why did they ruin a beautiful blazer?" Not only does it date the blazer terribly (could you imagine wearing that in ten years?) it also trivializes it and would probably make other wonder why you've got a "G" on your blazer, unless your last name is "Groves" or something.[/quote]



            Imagine someone sees you in it and says, "Hey, nice Guess blazer!" [;)]



            [/quote]







            I'm trying to remember exactly what brand it was, but I had a friend who had an absolutely incredible blazer from Yoko Dev-whatever or a brand along those lines, and I believe in one day that I was with him it was mistaken for a jacket from the GAP at least twice.



            It was rather amusing.

            WTB: Rick Owens Padded MA-1 Bomber XS (LIMO / MOUNTAIN)

            Comment

            • rach2jlc
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2006
              • 265

              #7
              Re: I just don't get it...



              Faust, I could only imagine the reaction: "WHAT! Guess? Try Boateng for Givenchy!" And, certainly, the original asker of the question would look at you like you were from Saturn.



              I'm still rather bewildered by that jacket; in general, the Givenchy collection is so subtle and nice (I have some shirts and things from s/s 2005 in that gorgeous shade of brick-red so dominant through the collection) but that jacket just doesn't make any sense...



              Comment

              • threerepute
                Member
                • Sep 2006
                • 39

                #8
                Re: I just don't get it...

                [quote user="Faust"]

                [quote user="rach2jlc"]I agree. It's funny
                that you posted the Givenchy blazer, because I looked at it on yoox and
                liked it very much until seeing the reverse side. I thought the
                same as you, "Why did they ruin a beautiful blazer?" Not only does it
                date the blazer terribly (could you imagine wearing that in ten years?)
                it also trivializes it and would probably make other wonder why you've
                got a "G" on your blazer, unless your last name is "Groves" or
                something.[/quote]



                Imagine someone sees you in it and says, "Hey, nice Guess blazer!" [;)]



                [/quote]





                you
                joke, but shit like that happens constantly. i work at emporio
                armani and i have to constantly explain to people why we dont sell the
                graphic tees with A|X that they are looking for. some people are
                just crazy for "logoagogo" but to me that shit belongs in outlets.

                Comment

                • rach2jlc
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2006
                  • 265

                  #9
                  Re: I just don't get it...



                  That must be terribly frustrating.Whenever I see shirts smattered with A/X, I just wonder who they're trying to impress. Fashion fansdon't really love Armani anyway andArmani people certainly don't like A/X. I guess they are just trying to look cool to the masses who've heard of Armani but don't realize that A/X is just an Asian license? Anyway, the other day, a fraternity kid in one of the classes I teach had a shirt with A/X on it and beneath that "Alpha Chi." So, apparently it's even seeped into being copied by lame collegiates.



                  Just wait, Faust my friend, soon you'll see "D by Demeulemeester" diffusion line, made by Ittierre, complete with an AD monogram logo! Or, "Junya Jeans" targeted at an aggressive price point for younger markets!



                  Comment

                  • djrajio
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 143

                    #10
                    Re: I just don't get it...



                    The reason labels create diffusion lines and items that are heavily branded is because it hugely profitable. Most subcontract the production to mass-production companies where they can be made for a fraction of the cost they are sold. It's no secret that the first luxury/fashion items consumers buy are these cheaper brandeditems, so it helps bottom line revenue for a label.



                    Frankly, I have no problem with companies doing this. Business is business. And to assert that I'm not guilty of having purchased an item because of its "label" would be a lie. I think a lot of fashion concious people want to believe that they are above this,but even the ideas/silhouettes/signature cuts/stitching of a designer fall within this scope IMO. For example, people on the Yes or No thread questioning whether they should buy a Helmut Lang/Ann D./etc item. IMO they areonlyconsidering the itembecuse it is fromsaid designer, but had thelabelbeen someone else, they wouldn't evenconsider it.



                    I know its a grossgeneralization, but I thinkin this day and age,itsimpossible to completely disassociate from branding, since now even our lifestyle choices/way of dress/beliefs and convictions are becoming increasingly shaped and modified by corporations/branding (i.e. Apple and i-pods). How many of us are on this board are completely in love with C.Diem because of its anti-Brand / deconstructive approach? Isn't this in and of its itself inherently the same force that compels one to purchase an A | X t-shirt; to adopt and consume an item that we wish to identify with/appreciate/communicate to others a certain level of status/association? For those mis-informed about the nature of C.Diem, wouldn't they consider your C.Diem boots to be a complete waste of money for a pair of boots that look like they were left an a dumpster?



                    Basically,its a choice between thewearer and audience whether to accept theovert/subversive branding or react to it. When I see a person wearing an A | X t-shirt, I typically don't get irritated or mad; since I understand the set of processes that induced that person to buy it; frankly I've been there / done that (bought a lot of A | X in my day). More over, like Faust referred above, the fact that he/she wants to associate with said brand/label gives me a pretty good idea of what type of individual he/she is; it's up to you as the audience to determine how you'll react to it.

                    Comment

                    • Faust
                      kitsch killer
                      • Sep 2006
                      • 37852

                      #11
                      Re: I just don't get it...

                      [quote user="rach2jlc"]

                      That must be terribly frustrating.Whenever I see shirts smattered with A/X, I just wonder who they're trying to impress. Fashion fansdon't really love Armani anyway andArmani people certainly don't like A/X. I guess they are just trying to look cool to the masses who've heard of Armani but don't realize that A/X is just an Asian license? Anyway, the other day, a fraternity kid in one of the classes I teach had a shirt with A/X on it and beneath that "Alpha Chi." So, apparently it's even seeped into being copied by lame collegiates.



                      Just wait, Faust my friend, soon you'll see "D by Demeulemeester" diffusion line, made by Ittierre, complete with an AD monogram logo! Or, "Junya Jeans" targeted at an aggressive price point for younger markets!





                      [/quote]



                      This will be the day I hang my fighting gloves and get away from fashion.

                      Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                      StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                      Comment

                      • rach2jlc
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2006
                        • 265

                        #12
                        Re: I just don't get it...

                        [quote user="djrajio"]

                        IMO they areonlyconsidering the itembecuse it is fromsaid designer [Ann D, et al], but had thelabelbeen someone else, they wouldn't evenconsider it.



                        I[/quote]



                        I agree, for the most part. But, it isn't only that people choosing a brand like Helmut or CCP or MMM orAnn D. or Jil Sander do so BECAUSE of the inherent seeming "coolness" of the brand itself. Instead, one generally begins purchasing a non-brand brand (or any brand that isn't terribly well known or smattered with logos) because of the way it looks on them or the construction. From there, they then go on to choose that label because it becomes associated with that particular cut. In short, it is something that we can rely on as a customer.



                        I don't think that's the same with A/X or even a lot of Armani (or Hugo Boss). The initial attraction thereWAS the brand,not the garment.People buy a shirt with A/X on it BECAUSE it has the A/X on it, not because of the way the shirt is made. This is different than Ann D or MMM, because there isn't the conspicuous branding (except for the stitches). And, they aren't very famous except in certain circles and these circles are very different than the typical A/X buyer.



                        A small distinction, perhaps, but one that is important. Although, I do agree that it is hard to get away from branding and I understand fully why brands make diffusion lines.As for label-queening,I do it myself all the time, but I like to think that it is because of a history that I have with a brand (for example, being more apt to buy a shoe or a shirt from a brand I know and have had good experiences with than one I don't) than because of the actual BRAND itself.

                        Comment

                        • Faust
                          kitsch killer
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 37852

                          #13
                          Re: I just don't get it...

                          [quote user="djrajio"]

                          The reason labels create diffusion lines and items that are heavily branded is because it hugely profitable. Most subcontract the production to mass-production companies where they can be made for a fraction of the cost they are sold. It's no secret that the first luxury/fashion items consumers buy are these cheaper brandeditems, so it helps bottom line revenue for a label.



                          Frankly, I have no problem with companies doing this. Business is business. And to assert that I'm not guilty of having purchased an item because of its "label" would be a lie. I think a lot of fashion concious people want to believe that they are above this,but even the ideas/silhouettes/signature cuts/stitching of a designer fall within this scope IMO. For example, people on the Yes or No thread questioning whether they should buy a Helmut Lang/Ann D./etc item. IMO they areonlyconsidering the itembecuse it is fromsaid designer, but had thelabelbeen someone else, they wouldn't evenconsider it.



                          I know its a grossgeneralization, but I thinkin this day and age,itsimpossible to completely disassociate from branding, since now even our lifestyle choices/way of dress/beliefs and convictions are becoming increasingly shaped and modified by corporations/branding (i.e. Apple and i-pods). How many of us are on this board are completely in love with C.Diem because of its anti-Brand / deconstructive approach? Isn't this in and of its itself inherently the same force that compels one to purchase an A | X t-shirt; to adopt and consume an item that we wish to identify with/appreciate/communicate to others a certain level of status/association? For those mis-informed about the nature of C.Diem, wouldn't they consider your C.Diem boots to be a complete waste of money for a pair of boots that look like they were left an a dumpster?



                          Basically,its a choice between thewearer and audience whether to accept theovert/subversive branding or react to it. When I see a person wearing an A | X t-shirt, I typically don't get irritated or mad; since I understand the set of processes that induced that person to buy it; frankly I've been there / done that (bought a lot of A | X in my day). More over, like Faust referred above, the fact that he/she wants to associate with said brand/label gives me a pretty good idea of what type of individual he/she is; it's up to you as the audience to determine how you'll react to it.



                          [/quote]



                          There is some truth to what you say, Rajiv. However, let's not discard the value of the garment itself and the philosophy that goes into making the garment. Yes, you can say that philosophy could be just another marketing tool, and I definitely agree - but that all depends on the designer. I think my MA thesis will have to do a bit with how we make value judgments; that if we take away the marketing industry and think about how one picks a garment (or a work of art, or a lover, or anything else, really) - we will see that there is something innate in human nature that points us to make a quality choice (and I will offer a theory on what it is).



                          Anyway, I agree that to get away from marketing/branding is nearly impossible. Here is how the scenario you offer with the example in the "Yes or No" thread works for me - indeed, I often look at who made the garment. However, the reason I look at it is that it significantly narrows down my scope of buying/looking. I don't care for the sea of brands out there - I would go insane if I had to walk into every single store in New York (and I can only imagine how it is in Tokyo!) and look for something that I would love. It is enough for me to look for brands that have proven themselves to me as being well made and sharing my aesthetic. After them - le deluge! It helps me keep my corner of the universe neat, tidy, peaceful, harmonious. Otherwise I'd probably go insane. It is a bit of a paradox, because at the same time I do look at what's new out there, but I rarely purposefully seek it out - they kind of float up from the sea of labels. I am sure I am missing on some cool brands, but I'm content with what I see. So, yea, in a way branding can help!



                          I remember how I started liking whom I like now, with a notable exception of Poell. I saw the garments first, and I was smitten. After I bought a few things, I started paying attention to the designers behind them (these designers never advertise (could be another anti-marketing marketing gimmick, but who knows? at some point man becomes the measure of all things - it's how you think about it). I wanted to know not only how they do what they do, but why. Baudelaire once said that fashion will inevitably reflect the Zeitgeist, and I think it's true to an extent. I did not think in these terms back then, but I knew (felt?) there had to be something behind the clothes. That's how I found out about the Antwerp Six, and about how they came to do what they do. The rest is history.



                          As far as Poell, I did not like his earlier work. I just don't like polyester, and most synthetic materials that feel polyestery, and he used to use a lot of those. Some of you must remember those gaudy neon-blue and neon-orange polyester tshirts with "Carol Christian Poell" all over them - yuck! I did not turn back to him until Atelier re-introduced him to New York (before Atelier only Barneys carried him for men, and IF for women - and they both dropped him). I must say Runner from tFS had some influence on me, because he explained what goes into production of these garments. But, is it marketing or is it information? At some point one has to decide. This is THE debate about marketing - whether its purpose to skew consumer's decision making by offering images and lies or is it a conduit of information?

                          Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                          StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                          Comment

                          • macuser3of5
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 276

                            #14
                            Re: I just don't get it...

                            Oh, I have nothing against brand association and identification, I'm a Helmut Lang whore through and through.[:)] The only thing that bugs me about outward logos is that it limits my ability to use the garment in the greatest number of ways. Take the Bikkembergs blazer: What could be something very dressy is limited to casual affairs by virtue of the logo. That's what frustrates me, the reduction (in my mind) of garment flexibility.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X
                            😀
                            🥰
                            🤢
                            😎
                            😡
                            👍
                            👎