This may not be the appropriate place to post as it is not a discussion of any single designer in particular. Please reassign if needed Faust.
So there are designers that refuse to be bound by "fashion" and have a distinct vision of how they can, in essence, broaden its horizons. And there are those who masterfully manipulate classics. While the latter may push the envelope to a point, they may not exactly be redefining anything.
A couple of examples I'd like to present to start this off are:
Artistic expression: Martin Margiela's cloven hoof shoe was dismissed by many and brushed under the carpet because they were ugly. I saw these and I was instantly transported to a fantastic realm of mythological beings running across rolling hills. Haha! Silly as it sounds, I was moved. I thought they were wonderful. Though Tabi/split toe shoes are not uncommon in Japan, Margiela had unveiled it with reconfigured lines that gave the shoe a pronounced beast-like appearance. Marvelous.
Sartorial engineering: Maurizio Amadei had taken the wallet and produced a piece that exhibits infinite refinement. The everyday men's accessory is still the same in shape, but so much more elegant upon handling. A single piece of leather that has been folded and molded without sign of seams. It is the obvious product of brilliance that instills a sense of awe due to the designer's technical prowess. Or at least this was the case with me on my first handling.
Both provoke strong visceral responses, but they are very different in nature. Which is it that holds more merit to you in its relation to fashion? Why? And let's not get into the marriage of both are ideal or one cannot be without the other cop-out. Where's the fun in that? Oh, and a synopsis of an experience with your choice would be great too. That should provide some fun reading, non? Thanks.
Comment