random fashion thoughts

[Faust]

Move it.

[daou0782]

"PH is like artisanal Barbour."

There I said it.

(The thought popped into my head after seeing L'Eclarieur's current stock.)

[daou0782]

I'm glad you took the time to re-write all that nevertheless. I agree with you, and it pretty much settles the matter for me. Thanks.

edit: i'm left thinking about the "is cereal soup?" question. some could argue cereal is soup because etymologically soup refers to soaking up liquid which cereal does. others could argue cereal is a salad where milk could be considered a dressing (not as crazy as it sounds, I've had endive and pancetta salad dressed with buttermilk).

the answer is there is no right, definitive answer. we collectively make up the categories--or rather the diffuse boundaries of the spectrum. so, yes, agreeing very much with you, what constitutes the "sz brands" is an open-ended, ongoing, negotiated, fluid, contingent, dialectical, historical, relational, etc. construct.

on that note, when I said I saw PH like artisanal Barbour, I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. Perhaps to better understand that statement it is helpful to know that I have had very little exposure to PH other than images on the web. Most of those images (with the exception of MikeN and Vasili) are black coats (even if "shoemakers" is in the name of the brand, i don't think i've ever seen the shoes or anyone commenting on the shoes, and though i've read about them, the footwear i've seen at IF has not been particularly impressive). Seeing the PH stock at L'Eclarieur--so much of it together at once (shoes, sweaters, shirts, oiled canvas, jumpers, and, yes, jackets and coats, unlike a couple of jackets and pants here and there)--allowed me to have a less fragmentary glimpse of the brand's "universe." And my gut reaction to that "brand universe" was rural England (which is very much true for PH), and, in terms of clothing, the mainstream brand I associate most with rural England is Barbour.

[Senpai]

Hey.... I have a WTB: PH shoes thread so that aspect of his work is not completely ignored here!

Excellent post FMC, I've often pondered the oddity and range of what sz's "typical style" (for lack of a better phrase) has become. When I mentioned sz brands a while back, which I think sparked this debate, it's because I clearly have an image in mind when thinking of what I'm likely to see posted and discussed here. I don't get the backlash at the term though, I think having some sort of "aesthetic" is important for forums such as this. It allows for more focused conversation, instead of having to compare say M.A+ and acronym in the same thread. Most forums seem to have their list of designers they're interested in discussing and I think that's a good thing. I know if I want to see Japanese tech or 90s minimal I can head over to SF, if I want to discuss artisanal design (or if I hypothetically wanted to discuss Julius and Rick) I'm safe to assume I'll get a better response over here.

[Faust]

/\ bingo. PH has nothing to do with Barbour. I don't know where you get your notions about England, Daou.

[Faust]

To address your musings, FTC, I'd like to give some historical/ethos perspective of SZ, which might also be good for newer members.

The ethos of StyleZeitgeist is that fashion does not have to be a bourgeois pursuit and that it can stem from an anti-bourgeois culture. That's my personal stance and that was the basic premise of SZ when I started it.*

I started SZ in 2006. The milieu was radically different then. Ann Demeulemeester and Raf Simons were still putting out their best work. And though Hedi Slimane had not put out a great collection since 2004, it was still very fresh on people's minds. Same goes for Cloak in New York. Poell just began being Poell that we know, and Carpe Diem was the strongest ever. Rick Owens was just coming into his own. Undercover and (N)umber Nine were producing their strongest work. All of the above were anti-bourgeois in their own way, though their work differed. Ann did straight rock'n'roll, Raf post-punk, Hedi his own version of music-inspired fashion, Rick did the goth thing, Poell crazy experiments, and Carpe Diem the washed leather and arte povera.

2006 was also the year when everything started falling apart. Ann went soft. Dior Homme went Pete Dogherty. Raf and Jun began producing uninspired work (Slimane is not even worth mentioning). Number (N)ine went out of business. Carpe Diem closed and its numerous successors never quite matched his creativity. Poell hasn't produced new work in a long time. Rick is going strong and that's why the forum's direction has narrowed.

Paul Harnden fits into all of this, because he does his own anti-bourgeois version of the thing. It's arte povera and it is artisanal. It's not youth culture, but it ain't no fucking Barbour either.

*The Fuuma disclaimer - I am very well aware that some of these aspects have been hijacked by the bourgeoisie. This does not negate the general aesthetic direction of the work itself.

I also understand that we are talking about expensive clothing that only the upper middle classes can afford. That's a whole separate discussion.

[daou0782]

Ziggy Chen FW15-16 is looks like it could be Asian Paul Harnden.

[nahneun]

I also understand that we are talking about expensive clothing that only the upper middle classes can afford. That's a whole separate discussion.

I really don't see it as a separate discussion because it's really an absolutely integral part of the story. You can wax all the poetics you want, but at the end of the day, brands live or die based on their bottom line, and that can be completely independent of the vision of the brand (marketing probably plays into it more than anything else, really). While opinions may vary on the strength of Rick's recent output, the inevitable truth is that his brand lives on because it's making money. The irony and hypocrisy of SZ's anti-bourgeois ethos is its dependence on consumerism to support the very brands that claim to be separate from such capitalist workings. Well, of course, unless the brand is backed by a giant trust...

[Faust]

I really don't see it as a separate discussion because it's really an absolutely integral part of the story. You can wax all the poetics you want, but at the end of the day, brands live or die based on their bottom line, and that can be completely independent of the vision of the brand (marketing probably plays into it more than anything else, really). While opinions may vary on the strength of Rick's recent output, the inevitable truth is that his brand lives on because it's making money. The irony and hypocrisy of SZ's anti-bourgeois ethos is its dependence on consumerism to support the very brands that claim to be separate from such capitalist workings. Well, of course, unless the brand is backed by a giant trust...

Yes, brands die based on their bottom line and I'd rather see those brands live. There is nothing hypocritical about that. Buying things does not equal consumerism and quality things cost. It's cynics like you that take all the oxygen out of this.

So, fuck you and your attempts to belittle what we have created here. Get the fuck off of SZ if you don't like it.

[nahneun]

I am not attempting to belittle or deny what SZ represents or has built, but the fact of the matter is, everyone here is culprit to consumerist behaviors. Say whatever you want about the values and philosophy of SZ brands, but when you're dropping multiple grands every season/year on these brands, that's consumerism through and through.

[zamb]

R,

I think that there are certain distinctions that needs to be made when discussing these things. While one could make an argument that most SZ Members or most people with an above ordinary interest in fashion do participate in “consumerism” it isn’t that simple

There are brands that do not live and die based on their bottom line. Or put another way, do not make their every design/marketing/ production decisions based on bottom line. There are brands who are genuinely interested in making quality things by respectable standards and are committed to that. There are brands whose owners/ creators are independently wealthy and do not see their design companies as “investments for profit” but as an outlet for creative expression.

I for one, whether I am making money selling clothing or not, will always make clothing for the simple fact that I have the skill to do it and enjoy the creative process just for the sake of it. It has ZERO to do with whether I am making money or not. All that making money does is give me more time to invest in creating rather than finding something else as a source of income. I know of several designers who hold the same mindset as I do. It isn’t simply about making money but having an outlet for creative expression . The brand lives, not based on the bottom line but based on the creators need and determination for an outlet to continue to create.


the second part of it is that there are customers (I have many of them) who believe in the philosophy of a brand, and they do not buy just simply to consume, but buy to support the vision and philosophy of the designer/ company, they buy because they beleve in a world where such brands should exist as it adds a counterweight and an alternative universe to a world filled with H&M, Zara, Topshop, Prada etc……….which would be a rather sad world.

There is a reason why a customer like you is committed to a brand like Devoa. I don’t think you buy simply from a consumerist mindset but because there is something beyond trendiness about Devoa’s offerings that speaks to you.
For me consumerism is about trends and buying the latest hyped thing just to be in the new, effectively a shallow wasting of money.
that to me is different from someone who buys because they believe in the work, even if they are spending more money per year/ season than the trendy buyer……….

I am not attempting to belittle or deny what SZ represents or has built, but the fact of the matter is, everyone here is culprit to consumerist behaviors. Say whatever you want about the values and philosophy of SZ brands, but when you're dropping multiple grands every season/year on these brands, that's consumerism through and through.

[nahneun]

Very fair points, Z, and while I agree that I was oversimplifying things, I still think the basic tenets still stand. I actually don't think most brands make their designs based on the bottom line, but at the very least, they will make enough so that they know they will be in the black or as close to being in the black as possible. A business is a business is a business. You can't be operating on a loss year over year unless you have significant financial backing. You'll have your bread and butter and the stuff you can take risks on. While I know StyleForum is largely disdained around here, I believe Robert Geller's interview is an extremely insightful piece on what it's like being an up-and-coming designer. Many of the things he says are issues applicable to all small business owners on a day to day basis.

I do not believe that consumerism has to be limited to mindless or conspicuous consumption. At the very least, the vast majority of SZ readers are informed consumers. The internet has made it very easy for the average consumer to be informed. Rather, I believe it is the norm for the average SMART consumer to be informed. But regardless of any and all caveats, the average SZ user is spending an exorbitant amount of money, whether it be to support a brand or as a mode of self-expression. Consumerism is still consumerism, regardless of who's responsible for the consumption. We may believe that we're being socially conscious, but at the end of the day, dollars are still dollars spinning the cogs of this global economy.

[DudleyGray]

I think it's worth considering not just what SZ stands for or against in general terms like bourgeois or consumerism, but what it is about those things that are worth celebrating or rejecting. With the bourgeois, it should be self-evident after spending five minutes talking to one. The constant need for approval and acknowledgement is just vulgar and turns human interaction into an ugly game of sorts, rather than an effort to make a genuine connection. And this game takes its toll on the environment and exploited workers. Does SZ fight it in any meaningful way? Maybe, maybe not, but at the very least, it says "fuck that shit."

I personally think of the common thread amongst the SZ brands as being something representing an existential angst. It's not easily definable in terms of visual aesthetics, which might explain the wide range of labels, but it's there. Rick is even blowing his brains out on his receipt card, and the most well-received TB collection to date involves a suicide and funeral.

The outrageous pricing also seems to reflect this; for every grand you spend on a jacket, that's a grand you're not spending elsewhere. Some people are just so rich that it really doesn't matter to them, but I don't think this is the case for most here. It's almost as though we're on here screaming with our wallets for something to truly matter, and nothing ever "truly" does, but at least it feels good.

The other thing that I think ties SZ brands together is luxury for the weirdos. I could never buy into luxury before because I felt like it was just not me. Buying a Gucci sweater would have felt buying into a system that celebrates status and a certain kind of conformity to traditional western aesthetics. As a skinny Asian male emasculated by Western media, that deck is stacked against me. It's why my introduction to this stuff through shuit resonated with me so strongly, like wow, Asians can look amazing without looking white washed.

But now there are expensive things expressing that my weirder side is not only acceptable, but beautiful and worth wrapping in the finest fabrics. In that regard, the pricing is a necessary evil. Without it, I'm just a crazy weirdo, but with it, I can insist that my weirdness has value.

SZ to me doesn't just reject bourgeois values, although that might have been its original intent, but brings into question things like the existential, gender norms, and sexuality as well. Ultimately, that's why I come here instead of places like sufu, even though on some days I might fit in better over there.

Apologies for the tome, I can get chatty after my morning cup.

[gregor]

Ziggy Chen FW15-16 is looks like it could be Asian Paul Harnden.

the inspiration and aesthetics of the two lines are arguably quite similar, a villein is not much different in garb than a peasant in shanghai

[Fuuma]

I really don't see it as a separate discussion because it's really an absolutely integral part of the story. You can wax all the poetics you want, but at the end of the day, brands live or die based on their bottom line, and that can be completely independent of the vision of the brand (marketing probably plays into it more than anything else, really). While opinions may vary on the strength of Rick's recent output, the inevitable truth is that his brand lives on because it's making money. The irony and hypocrisy of SZ's anti-bourgeois ethos is its dependence on consumerism to support the very brands that claim to be separate from such capitalist workings. Well, of course, unless the brand is backed by a giant trust...

Faust did not focus on capitalistic economics but bourgeois values. It is important to distinguish between the disappearing values of the bourgeois from pro-capitalistic ones. Let's do a quick comparison using "the new economy" and its paladins.

so bourgeois/new economy:

tradition/disruption

grounded in a place and community/world citizens

hierarchy in aesthetics and premium placed on culture/superflattening (i.e. maybe a cartoon or videogame can be discussed like a work of art and placed at the same level).

avoiding humiliation (the decent society) / avoiding injustice (the just society)

value placed on tradition and social reproduction / value place on merit (work & education) & self-fulfillment

one-nation conservatism and a society of classes working in harmony / ultraliberalism, libertarian economics and individualism

paternalistic and white men rule /pluralistic distribution of power
etc.

Capitalism does not give a fuck if you buy a bespoke suit or a luxury leather jacket with studs, in fact the new economy people are much more adapted to late phase capitalism. SZ style is defo anti-bourgeois from the start but then fashion reflects that because that fight is already being won, the bourgeoisie is a dying class.

FYI I think the new set of values is leading is to utter social ruin but I certainly do not blame SZ or want to go back to staid bourgeois domination, this is why thinkers are currently trying to revive the idea of socialism, think Badiou, funnyman Zizek or dudes like Michéa.

tldr: Faust used the term bourgeois not capitalist, he is entirely right.