random fashion thoughts

[Faust]

I have to disagree with this on a certain level, the level that is outside of hype machines. Writing depends on both the reader and writer having shared points of references, cultural language, sentiments, etc. to even begin engaging, and not only does the writer need to be of a certain skill level in composing, but the work's interpretation relies on the reader's skill level to assess critically. The reader has to be sensitive to things like imagery, themes, and narrative voice and draw out "tissues" of meaning, so to speak. Otherwise, it's very easy for a reader simply to see what they want to see in the work like some strange confirmation bias, to think nonsensically what is not there.

Good clothing has a self-evident quality to it. When you pick up a Thom Browne coat and compare it with a fast fashion coat, there's no denying its substance or how much extra work must have gone into its construction and finishing. The larger Fashion machine, I can grant you the potential for pretense there; it, too, is a language that demands a prerequisite knowledge for any meaningful conversation. "F"ashion is certainly susceptible to the same kind of pitfalls as writing, but its content is (or at least should be) unmistakable, whereas writing is mere thought and purely abstract, unless you consider the paper and ink to be its form.

YEEEEES. That was part of my MA thesis, ages ago...

[FollowYourSeams]

I have to disagree with this on a certain level, the level that is outside of hype machines. Writing depends on both the reader and writer having shared points of references, cultural language, sentiments, etc. to even begin engaging, and not only does the writer need to be of a certain skill level in composing, but the work's interpretation relies on the reader's skill level to assess critically. The reader has to be sensitive to things like imagery, themes, and narrative voice and draw out "tissues" of meaning, so to speak. Otherwise, it's very easy for a reader simply to see what they want to see in the work like some strange confirmation bias, to think nonsensically what is not there.

Good clothing has a self-evident quality to it. When you pick up a Thom Browne coat and compare it with a fast fashion coat, there's no denying its substance or how much extra work must have gone into its construction and finishing. The larger Fashion machine, I can grant you the potential for pretense there; it, too, is a language that demands a prerequisite knowledge for any meaningful conversation. "F"ashion is certainly susceptible to the same kind of pitfalls as writing, but its content is (or at least should be) unmistakable, whereas writing is mere thought and purely abstract, unless you consider the paper and ink to be its form.

Sure, I recognize the differences in the intrinsic and extrinsic values of things. But does a book ever cost $4000? Just as many hours could have been spent on conceptualizing and constructing it as a Rick Owens leather jacket, if not more. We don't have "designer" books because nobody is interested in what the "latest abstract thought" is. Fashion lends itself to human narcissism and group mentality a lot more easily.

[DudleyGray]

Sure, I recognize the differences in the intrinsic and extrinsic values of things. But does a book ever cost $4000? Just as many hours could have been spent on conceptualizing and constructing it as a Rick Owens leather jacket, if not more. We don't have "designer" books because nobody is interested in what the "latest abstract thought" is. Fashion lends itself to human narcissism and group mentality a lot more easily.

So apparently you don't work in academia :P

[FollowYourSeams]

So apparently you don't work in academia :P

I do. That's how I know. I'm not saying that literature is not immune from those things, just saying that fashion is more susceptible to them.

[Pumpfish]

Fuck, that Gucci show was joyful.

[Faust]

Fuck, that Gucci show was joyful.

That's one way of putting it :-) Another way would be "This Gucci show was like a bag of Skittles continuously throwing up on you for half an hour."

[FollowYourSeams]

I'm more excited about the rumoured Tisci-Versace handover.

[Nickefuge]

That's one way of putting it :-) Another way would be "This Gucci show was like a bag of Skittles continuously throwing up on you for half an hour."

I gotta say, I do kinda like the underlying "fuck you" attitude of the new Gucci.

[NOHSAD]

"The Menswear/Fashion industry is harsh, it'll chew you up and spit you out" or "it's a no fucks given atmosphere". A shirt i wore sparked up a conversation with a stranger that happened to noticed it while i was on the train. When i told him i made it, he got into asking if i'm a designer, Do I want to be a designer and "Why don't you want to be a designer, you can be the next Rick Owens" etc etc (i face palmed myself internally at the Rick Owens comment.

I'd like to understand why most people like to think you're not a designer if your name isn't widely known (which is bullshit) or that you should be a designer "in the most traditional sense" because you know how to make your own clothes. I know SZ members Albert of Collateral Concepts and Adventshore of A Red August are Designers. Not in the traditional/typical sense (widely known, a fashion show during the various S/S and F/W Fashion Weeks, perhaps a few retail stores) but they're definitely designers.

Hell even Jan Van Essche, he only does once a year collections, does that not make him a designer? Or at best less of a designer? Clearly No, he's a designer who makes wonderful garment despite his take on releasing collections, but hopefully you guys know where going with this?

[DudleyGray]

"The Menswear/Fashion industry is harsh, it'll chew you up and spit you out" or "it's a no fucks given atmosphere". A shirt i wore sparked up a conversation with a stranger that happened to noticed it while i was on the train. When i told him i made it, he got into asking if i'm a designer, Do I want to be a designer and "Why don't you want to be a designer, you can be the next Rick Owens" etc etc (i face palmed myself internally at the Rick Owens comment.

I'd like to understand why most people like to think you're not a designer if your name isn't widely known (which is bullshit) or that you should be a designer "in the most traditional sense" because you know how to make your own clothes. I know SZ members Albert of Collateral Concepts and Adventshore of A Red August are Designers. Not in the traditional/typical sense (widely known, a fashion show during the various S/S and F/W Fashion Weeks, perhaps a few retail stores) but they're definitely designers.

Hell even Jan Van Essche, he only does once a year collections, does that not make him a designer? Or at best less of a designer? Clearly No, he's a designer who makes wonderful garment despite his take on releasing collections, but hopefully you guys know where going with this?

I've had the same question, albeit for other creative pursuits. For example, in terms of the definition 'musician' as someone who plays instruments or writes new music, I've always been a musician. 'Musician' often connotes more than that, though, the kind of musician, eg, hobbyist, amateur, bedroom, popular, avant-garde, semiprofessional, professional. In general conversation, professional seems implied, which really means very little when taken literally. A lot of cover bands earn a lot more than moderately well-known indie bands. But professional can demarcate something else, that the musicians' work has given meaning and made an impact beyond their immediate outlet. I think the same holds true for 'Designer.'

I agree with your sentiment, though, and would go so far as to ask the converse. Why would you want to be a "Designer," in the vulgar sense of the word? Why would you want to take something that you enjoy that gives meaning and value to your life and turn it into an obligated, arduous routine? Why would you want to commoditize your treasured creations and shill them out like trinkets to consumerist junkies who are incapable of appreciating all that went into your pieces and are just looking for the next fix? When I think about all that, I can only think money, so that you never have to do such things again in any facet, so that you can disappear and do whatever the hell you want for the rest of your life and live happily ever after. Just kidding, I'm guessing it's to create meaningful connections with people through your work blah blah blah

[zen dog]

Ok, Dudley and NOHSAD, I'll throw my two cents into the creative pool here.

NOHSAD I can't speak to the people you come across, but I've found people are positive and interested,and try to find some connection to one's stated creative outlet. I can't remember a time with me or my friends where someone has used an artist's lack of visibility as a value judgement. (If it occurs it is subtle and within one's own field: "Oh, you're an artist to" Who are you showing with?")

Perhaps a "designer" is seen as needing a buying audience to claim that title whereas "musician," "visual artist," "writer," "poet" (really free pass), and other expressions have less demands on them. I like to cook for friends, a number who've said I should open/work in a restaurant. I make it clear that I've risen to my level of pleasure and have the good sense to know it.

NOHSAD, I would consider your exchange as an opportunity to put out the idea that there are many creative people who pursue their passions out of joy and genuine interest and that exploration is available to all. There is no reason not to pursue an interest just because it won't manifest itself as some grand commercial exploit. You will have explained your efforts and hopefully opened that person's mind to a different way of seeing things. That could help them do something creative or encourage another in their circle to do so.

Dudley, your first paragraph would give a stranger some insights into how your creative work fits into the scheme of things. Your second, well, I'll just consider that "performing" for these pages, and that performance for a stranger would likely trade any connection for a short-lived release. :-) From these pages I can tell you are a good guy with an intense connection to his clothing but I'm not sure which road you would walk down. ;-)

[Faust]

I guess another category here is the good old merit? I mean, what makes someone a designer and not a seamstress, an artist and not a hobbyist producer of kitsch, etc.

[Law]

I guess another category here is the good old merit? I mean, what makes someone a designer and not a seamstress

When somebody other than a friend or relative parts with cash for something you've produced

[stagename]

I'm with Law. Going about it professionally is the only requirement. Like, I play hockey with friends but I'm not a hockey player. A hockey player earns a living off playing hockey. Same thing applies to the use of musician, designer, cook, etc. Like I have a number of friends who could be musicians by sheer talent, but they are lawyer or profs or cooks or truck drivers and wouldn't call themselves musicians. They are people who play music. Sometimes.

[aussy]

Merit and professionalism definitely hold higher weight as immediate determining factors, but it can be simplified to:
1. do you currently X?
2. have you X for a significant period of time?

Here are a few personal examples:

I've never played music professionally, but have been in bands and making music for the majority of my life and still do to this day. I'm a musician.

I've also made art for most of my life. I'm quite skilled, but haven't made anything but the occasional doodle in the past five years. I've also never sold any works. I no longer call myself an artist.

I've been surrounded by skate culture all of my life, but didn't start skating until recently (gotta before I get too old) and have consistently for the past year. Still, I'm not a skater since I haven't been doing so for very long. Obviously I also suck.