Page 243 of 243 FirstFirst ... 143193233234235236237238239240241242243
Results 4,841 to 4,860 of 4860

Thread: random fashion thoughts

  1. #4841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dddr View Post
    So dries' been acquired. can't say i saw that coming, surely over the years he's got numerous offers, wonder why the decision was taken now. is the business not doing so well financially or is he simply looking to expand? a new perfume line on the way perhaps? any insights?
    He's made it known atleast among his staff that he will be retiring at some point. However; I'm surprised he sold his company to Puig, they're known to destroy fashion brands (Gaultier, Nina Ricci).

  2. #4842

    Default

    So it seems like Andreas Murkudis in Berlin will be closing their doors. Just got an e-mail with "We’re closing …" in the subject line and "70% off" as the only text. Unless this is some kind of clickbait-y PR stunt I’m a little sad about this. While they may not have carried a lot of labels I’d actually buy (oh the irony) I’ve always had a good time there.
    "The only rule is don't be boring and dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in."
    -Paris Hilton

  3. #4843

    Default

    Haven't heard anyting about it yet. But this would be a bummer for sure, one of my favourite stores around.

  4. #4844

    Default

    Turns out it was just misfortunate wording on their part. They’re closing the store from August 4th until August 28 in order to do some refurbishing. And they’re having a big sale (70%) because of that.
    Last edited by Nickefuge; 07-14-2018 at 09:10 AM.
    "The only rule is don't be boring and dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in."
    -Paris Hilton

  5. #4845

    Default

    FFS...there is even fake Werkstatt now appareantly? I mean you probably can tell by the fact that it is not real silver, but I feel like you can't buy anything second hand anymore without the high risk of being scammed.

  6. #4846

    Default

    Inspired by the current OpEd thread I want to offer an unpopular opinion:
    BBS looks like the bro-version of someone who can’t decide between Rick and CCP.
    I wonder if someone agrees, seeing as most of the SZ users like his stuff very much.
    "The only rule is don't be boring and dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in."
    -Paris Hilton

  7. #4847

    Default

    Does yohji's shift to online commerce affect his status as a luxury company? albeit, ideological luxury

  8. #4848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supercilious View Post
    Does yohji's shift to online commerce affect his status as a luxury company? albeit, ideological luxury
    No, as Yohji has been available online through department stores / multi brand retailers already and his distribution, although small, is not that exclusive. The only real bold out that would be a game changer for a brand at this point would be Chanel.

  9. #4849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickefuge View Post
    Inspired by the current OpEd thread I want to offer an unpopular opinion:
    BBS looks like the bro-version of someone who canít decide between Rick and CCP.
    I wonder if someone agrees, seeing as most of the SZ users like his stuff very much.
    This isn't quite an "unpopular" opinion - more or less held by quite a few people. If you mean in a sense niche/experimental like CCP yet mainstream/commercial like Rick, then somewhat.

    In terms of the clothes they actually make, they have very different visions now, although many people think he was emulating CCP in very earlier seasons.

  10. #4850

    Default

    Emulating Rick and Damir more like and now he has surpasses the latter by miles.
    Last edited by Monoral; 08-30-2018 at 02:58 AM.

  11. #4851

    Default

    I've been revisiting some of the older content on the forum. This one in particular (and some of the "is fashion art?" discussion starting ten pages prior to it) got me thinking. I might write something more coherent on this later, but for now I'm curious. That discussion was 7 years ago.

    Since then we've seen numerous exhibits on fashion at The Met, Vancouver Art Gallery, and even smaller cities like Boston have done fashion exhibits. Iris van Herpen always has at least a couple of couture pieces in a museum somewhere in the world. Seven years ago there was disagreement about fashion as art (though it was specific to CCP, so it wasn't a wider discussion than that). But now we've had numerous exhibitions, and some of the more exquisite creations from Iris van Herpen, Thom Browne (I loved the Seeking the Ethereal editorial), and Rei Kawakubo (that Spring 1997 collection was as much a statement on beauty ideals as clothing) wouldn't look out of place next to some of the stuff coming out of World of Wearable Art.

    With all that in mind, can we credibly and regularly call fashion art? Of course I'm not talking about everyday pants and shirts, nor about ridiculous things like DHL shirts (though many years from now it will likely be the subject of some thesis), but I'm talking about pieces that show genuine craftsmanship and innovation. In addition to the designers above, Hussein Chalayan and Boudicca Couture come to mind.

    (I know this is a discussion that's been hashed out many times here, but I don't recall seeing it since fashion exhibitions became popular in smaller museums.)
    Last edited by Sombre; 01-08-2019 at 02:29 PM.
    An artist is not paid for his labor, but for his vision. - Random fortune cookie.

    Quote Originally Posted by BBSCCP View Post
    I order 1 in every size, please, for every occasion

  12. #4852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sombre View Post
    I've been revisiting some of the older content on the forum. This one in particular (and some of the "is fashion art?" discussion starting ten pages prior to it) got me thinking. I might write something more coherent on this later, but for now I'm curious. That discussion was 7 years ago.

    Since then we've seen numerous exhibits on fashion at The Met, Vancouver Art Gallery, and even smaller cities like Boston have done fashion exhibits. Iris van Herpen always has at least a couple of couture pieces in a museum somewhere in the world. Seven years ago there was disagreement about fashion as art (though it was specific to CCP, so it wasn't a wider discussion than that). But now we've had numerous exhibitions, and some of the more exquisite creations from Iris van Herpen, Thom Browne (I loved the Seeking the Ethereal editorial), and Rei Kawakubo (that Spring 1997 collection was as much a statement on beauty ideals as clothing) wouldn't look out of place next to some of the stuff coming out of World of Wearable Art.

    With all that in mind, can we credibly and regularly call fashion art? Of course I'm not talking about everyday pants and shirts, nor about ridiculous things like DHL shirts (though many years from now it will likely be the subject of some thesis), but I'm talking about pieces that show genuine craftsmanship and innovation. In addition to the designers above, Hussein Chalayan and Boudicca Couture come to mind.

    (I know this is a discussion that's been hashed out many times here, but I don't recall seeing it since fashion exhibitions became popular in smaller museums.)
    You will very much like this book:

    https://www.artezpress.artez.nl/en/w...-and-art/98519

  13. #4853

    Default

    ^That looks fantastic. Thanks a lot. I'll check out a copy at the local library and order from the website later.
    An artist is not paid for his labor, but for his vision. - Random fortune cookie.

    Quote Originally Posted by BBSCCP View Post
    I order 1 in every size, please, for every occasion

  14. #4854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sombre View Post
    Since then we've seen numerous exhibits on fashion at The Met, Vancouver Art Gallery, and even smaller cities like Boston have done fashion exhibits. Iris van Herpen always has at least a couple of couture pieces in a museum somewhere in the world. Seven years ago there was disagreement about fashion as art (though it was specific to CCP, so it wasn't a wider discussion than that). But now we've had numerous exhibitions, and some of the more exquisite creations from Iris van Herpen, Thom Browne (I loved the Seeking the Ethereal editorial), and Rei Kawakubo (that Spring 1997 collection was as much a statement on beauty ideals as clothing) wouldn't look out of place next to some of the stuff coming out of World of Wearable Art.

    With all that in mind, can we credibly and regularly call fashion art? Of course I'm not talking about everyday pants and shirts, nor about ridiculous things like DHL shirts (though many years from now it will likely be the subject of some thesis), but I'm talking about pieces that show genuine craftsmanship and innovation. In addition to the designers above, Hussein Chalayan and Boudicca Couture come to mind.
    This conversation feels not unlike a lot of debates regarding what gets to be included in the world of fine art (ceramics, woodworking etc). I remember Larry Shiner's Invention of Art exploring this in regard to craftspeople and skilled production being separated from art historical trajectories, which is text I might refer to in understanding why CCP's work might not be considered art in the same way that Ai Wei Wei's would.

    I personally don't agree with considering fashion design fine art, because I don't think that it would benefit either institution (fine art vs fashion), aside from validation from an immensely problematic enterprise (art history). Though as you stated fashion related content is becoming more common in the programming for many museums and public galleries. I think it's pretty great that we get to see retrospectives for fashion designers that engage in ideas outside of fashion, and also the public whose interests are in fashion and not fine art get to engage with museums too. But I also think there is a reason that one would find a fashion retrospective at the MET and not MoMA PS1.

    I notice that much of the public sees art as a one-dimensional category that should incorporate all artistic production, but maintaining distinctions between different forms of this production is important. Fashion is inherently artistic, and should be considered art, but not in the same way as artists whose practices are exclusively dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge and culture.

    It would be interesting if fashion designers were held to the same scrutiny as contemporary artists, artists are discredited if their work does not contribute anything of substance to larger conversations in art theory (referring to artists working right now, as opposed to Picasso and other problematic artists of the past). I don't think that the burdens held by contemporary artists to situate and justify their work in nuanced theoretical contexts is something fashion designers and enthusiasts would want, though maybe it would be beneficial.

  15. #4855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matglenn View Post
    This conversation feels not unlike a lot of debates regarding what gets to be included in the world of fine art (ceramics, woodworking etc). I remember Larry Shiner's Invention of Art exploring this in regard to craftspeople and skilled production being separated from art historical trajectories, which is text I might refer to in understanding why CCP's work might not be considered art in the same way that Ai Wei Wei's would.

    I personally don't agree with considering fashion design fine art, because I don't think that it would benefit either institution (fine art vs fashion), aside from validation from an immensely problematic enterprise (art history). Though as you stated fashion related content is becoming more common in the programming for many museums and public galleries. I think it's pretty great that we get to see retrospectives for fashion designers that engage in ideas outside of fashion, and also the public whose interests are in fashion and not fine art get to engage with museums too. But I also think there is a reason that one would find a fashion retrospective at the MET and not MoMA PS1.

    I notice that much of the public sees art as a one-dimensional category that should incorporate all artistic production, but maintaining distinctions between different forms of this production is important. Fashion is inherently artistic, and should be considered art, but not in the same way as artists whose practices are exclusively dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge and culture.

    It would be interesting if fashion designers were held to the same scrutiny as contemporary artists, artists are discredited if their work does not contribute anything of substance to larger conversations in art theory (referring to artists working right now, as opposed to Picasso and other problematic artists of the past). I don't think that the burdens held by contemporary artists to situate and justify their work in nuanced theoretical contexts is something fashion designers and enthusiasts would want, though maybe it would be beneficial.
    If I'm not mistaken you're taking an institutional approach, and there are aspects of that approach I agree with and aspects I disagree with. It's of course necessary to differentiate between Duchamp's Fountain and a urinal in a public restroom (though a recently potty trained 4 year-old might not see why), but much of the language around institutionalism is rather pretentious "I know it because I'm an authority and you're not" nonsense.

    I like Gaut's approach personally (aside from his assertion that art must comprise beauty and its subspecies - many movements have flouted that to great effect). With regard to his ten criteria, fashion as a field fails because for the most part designers don't seek to explicitly make art; this criterion in some sense employs the institutional approach. But I'd argue there are some who regularly include in their collections pieces that are meant to be taken outside of the context of clothing and exist as a vehicle for communicating meaning.

    While these are typically meant to build a narrative around the collection, I'd argue that those individual pieces serve only to disseminate knowledge and culture, to use your phrasing. I can think of Hussein Chalayan Spring 2007 which was a statement on fashion and technology, or Vikor and Rolf Fall 2015 couture which was a statement on the subject of this conversation, or some of Gareth Pugh's runway looks. I hesitate to bring haute couture into the conversation more generally because while the pieces are intended to display beauty, they are equally meant to display and highlight cratfsmanship of the design team, which pushes couture toward applied art, like pottery which you mention (though technical self-indulgence is seen in many purely artistic fields).

    With all that said, I would say some pieces do indeed meet those criteria, and I would call designers of those pieces artists provided it's something they do regularly, although their primary purpose is to sell clothing. You raise a good point when you say they're not held to the same theoretical standard as fine artists; I agree more of that would be beneficial.

    I realize I was too vague in my initial post. I didn't mean "can fashion in general be called art?" but rather, "do certain pieces constructed within the realm of fashion satisfy the same criteria we use to define fine art?"
    Last edited by Sombre; 01-10-2019 at 06:49 PM.
    An artist is not paid for his labor, but for his vision. - Random fortune cookie.

    Quote Originally Posted by BBSCCP View Post
    I order 1 in every size, please, for every occasion

  16. #4856

    Default

    There are so many ways to look at this that the answer would vary:

    Institutionally-speaking, 'Art' is whathever fits the 'Arts' institution. Wehn museum curators decide to have fashion collections showed between their walls, it legitimates fashion designers as artists.

    Continuing on this institutional trajectory, most theorization of any artistic field typically posits that actors are governed by the conflicting logics of art (i.e., making beautiful clothes for the sake of making beautiful clothes) and commerce (making clothes to make money). That works for/has been used to conceptualize theater, cinema, music, photography, fashion, the literary field, and Art. I'd assume that some designers at least make some of their pieces for artistic purposes. They make them knowing they will never end up being picked up by buyers. I guess whether they think these might contribute to their 'image' might play a role in evaluating whether or not they are pieces of art. So if we phenomenologically bend this institutional perspective, art would depend on whether or not the creator is considering themself an artist and/oir their product art.

    From a post-structural perspective, Art is just another way to establish a hierarchy within sets of actors (re: ceramics, woodworking etc). So it really all just becomes a masturbatory power play aimed at reifying often class-based distinctions ato elevate or discriminate against some or others and puts in place a structure to continuously do so. So Art is power/knowledge at play.

    As others, I don't see why any field requiring creativity shouldn't be declared artistic. Maybe not Artistic, but honestly who the f* cares. I'm pretty much done jacking off other people's egos. ;)

  17. #4857

    Default

    Really Rick?! https://www.ssense.com/en-us/men/pro...ychain/3608789

    Is Drkshdw becoming the new Supreme?

  18. #4858

    Default

    Still waiting on the perfumes...
    Suede is too Gucci.

  19. #4859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the breaks View Post
    Still waiting on the perfumes...
    https://www.rickowens.eu/en/US/men/p...fume-lamy-land
    "The only rule is don't be boring and dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in."
    -Paris Hilton

  20. #4860

    Default

    Nice. However:

    1) Perfumes is plural
    2) That is not drkshdw
    3) I was looking for something more in the 100 dollar range ;)
    Suede is too Gucci.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •