Patrik Ervell FW11 New York

[Faust]

Schneider comparison seems to be a constant one. Would like to suggest instead that it has a more comprehensive outlook than Schneider's line, in that it produces consistent motivistic arcs across seasons, and the two labels talk past each other (or not at all). Schneider is a masterful technician who explicitly speaks to his passion for fabrics, Ervell's concern is with defining his visual language of "menswear".

Really?

[tweeds]

^ Really.

"I felt a need to do nice, smart clothes. I think the Belgians makes clothes with a soul, but I wanted to give my clothes not a Bohemian humanity, but a smart humanity. Fashion doesn’t have to be so Bohemian. The person who wears my clothes doesn’t have to cover and hide his personality."

I think the quote bears this out - there's quite a difference between Schneider's approach, which is very much humanistic, about the person, the fabric and the piece, and Ervell's, who in interviews always talks about codes, language, messages.

Your article reinforces this, i think, in the constant references to "charm" and "quirks" in the "details" of Schneider's clothes; Ervell on the other hand "wants to make something more than clothes", he asks at one point what a particular "kind of hooded nylon outerwear garment" signifies.



I guess my point is that both Schneider and Ervell are excellent designers in their own right. I certainly enjoy both their pieces and presentations... What you see as inanity, seems to me to be an intellect processing the codes of menswear (as Raf and Lang did before him) and responding with his own language. Without iconography, but language all the same.

/tl;dr

[Servo2000]

I also find it interesting that people still complain about the amount of 'repetition' in Ervell's work. I'd say its become very apparent how vital the idea (i'd personally refer to it as a strategy) is to his vocabulary and also the progression of his work - I also personally see it as a method of, to a certain extent, combatting the hyper-aggressive and seasonal nature of the collections. Certain things remain in stores across seasons with only vital changes and pieces being introduced when they become conceptually (and of course seasonally) necessary. There is little apparent waste - that is to say, pieces for the sake of pieces and progression for the sake of progression.

Of the New York designers I pay any attention to (Robert Geller, half-an-eye on Wang and another half on Band of Outsiders) there's only who doesn't prop up their primary lines with a compromised secondary line of cheap, boring basics and minutia and that's Ervell. He hasn't put out a cotton t-shirt since 2006 (aside from the mockneck sweatshirt material one from last season) and there hasn't been a graphic print or image used since literally his first collection. There's a real purity of intent and execution here that demands the work be dealt with on its own terms rather than in relation to other superficially similar designers like Schneider, Band of Outsiders, et all...

[Faust]

Tweeds: You said that Ervell is trying to define the language of menswear (although god knows Gap has done it for him already), and Schneider doesn't. Schneider says "“My customer is always a boy inside, even a man who is 70,” says Schneider. “The charm of my customer is that they can keep a boyish attitude inside, and that I want to keep in the clothes. There is always a bit of humor in them.” Clearly has has an image in mind to which he tailors his language. So, either you meant something else and worded it incorrectly, or you are wrong.

But I guess you are into overalls with zippers, really fucking groundbreaking.

[tweeds]

No incorrect wording - I meant comprehensive outlook in that he has more than just an image of a "customer"/wearer in mind, a concept of a system broader than just the individual and the clothes.

Think we have to agree to disagree, I'm into a whole bunch of things and Ervell is just one of them.

[casem]

Hehe, Faust and I always argue about this collection. But I wanted to say, spot on Tweeds, I know exactly what you mean. That's what I like about Ervell, the reference and constant subtle reworking of iconic garments. His vocabulary is a kind of iconic Americana in the best sense ie. Kerouac and the beats, American intellectuals and avant-garde, as opposed to sack suits and sportswear. Whereas Stephan Schneider (if we must belabor this comparison) puts work into design and material but leaves me cold in terms of conveying a point of view beyond nice garments.

P.S. Servo, where are these all Ervell fits? I demand a WAYWT shot!

[Patroklus]

Why do half of the clothes fit slim and the other half like sacks?