The Circus of Fashion - Suzy Menkes | A Must Read

[gall]

I would love Menkes’ article because I agree with a lot of it. But it opened with a club membership mentality, separating the “good” from the “bad” by describing a uniform that is supposed to symbolize substance and values. Clearly the “bad” (unethical, vapid) are those who do not fit this coined structured appearance. But a critic is someone that is capable of exploring their feelings and looks to explain them. Her definition of “fashion journalism” is certainly not that, especially if it entails “It isn’t good because you like it; you like it because it’s good.” I’m sure times were great when she was on the upside of the fashion spectacle, and doesn’t need to be reminded the article was technically posted on a blog. I would have the utmost respect for this piece if it had left out the Burn Book quality often found in checkout line gossip mags.

[malevich]

Great Article, pity it appears slightly short, most usually Suzy Menkes goes on and on about the problems, maybe the topic is really quite critical and touching, so she decided to keep it short and not go into a more detailed take on how lame the contemporary fashion wannabes and posers actually are.

There used to be clans, there used to be tastes and preferences, there was some kind of seriousness and the energy was concentrated on the show and the designer's new takes and visions, the garment, the hardwork behind production of this garment, fashion was art-house, fashion was independent, fashion was classy and exclusive. There were whispers not cry out loud screams, and now it is all about how much pufffier and more colourful chrismass tree you tend to appear. The was a moment when a term fashion guy was associated with mystery, slight notes of timidity on the outside and serious and enormously inspiring world on the inside of that so called "fashion person".

Today, these posers humiliate the industry, it is so uber colourful on outside and total zero on the inside, major crowd gets the impression that fashion is all about being a clown, and has nothing to do with the craft. Everyone wants to be a fashion designer and noone wants to hold scissors in their hands or crawl the floor to pin the perfect hemline. wtf? fashion schools lack qualified pattern-makers.

I think the term "15 minutes of fame" is kind of long gone from our everyday life, but what Suzy Menkes is talking about is this "15 minutes of fame" kind of people, yes its hip and hype and what so ever, but it is no foundation to build upon. Very glad she raises this topic.

[Fuuma]

Great Article, pity it appears slightly short, most usually Suzy Menkes goes on and on about the problems, maybe the topic is really quite critical and touching, so she decided to keep it short and not go into a more detailed take on how lame the contemporary fashion wannabes and posers actually are.

There used to be clans, there used to be tastes and preferences, there was some kind of seriousness and the energy was concentrated on the show and the designer's new takes and visions, the garment, the hardwork behind production of this garment, fashion was art-house, fashion was independent, fashion was classy and exclusive. There were whispers not cry out loud screams, and now it is all about how much pufffier and more colourful chrismass tree you tend to appear. The was a moment when a term fashion guy was associated with mystery, slight notes of timidity on the outside and serious and enormously inspiring world on the inside of that so called "fashion person".

Today, these posers humiliate the industry, it is so uber colourful on outside and total zero on the inside, major crowd gets the impression that fashion is all about being a clown, and has nothing to do with the craft. Everyone wants to be a fashion designer and noone wants to hold scissors in their hands or crawl the floor to pin the perfect hemline. wtf? fashion schools lack qualified pattern-makers.

I think the term "15 minutes of fame" is kind of long gone from our everyday life, but what Suzy Menkes is talking about is this "15 minutes of fame" kind of people, yes its hip and hype and what so ever, but it is no foundation to build upon. Very glad she raises this topic.

The people hanging around Montana or Mugler def weren't flashy fashion wannabes and were def not perceived as clowns. Not everyone in the 80s was Yohji or Alaïa.

[laika]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see Suzy bringing anything new to the table. These are the same complaints about bloggers and editors that can be read all over the place and for some time now. Do we really need to be told again that Bryanboy lacks "critical perspective." It's like criticizing celebrities, too easy.

Christian raises a good point though, as do BSR (thank you for clarifying the Spinoza) and Fuuma. When are fashion critics going to start reflecting on the lack of critical discourse in their own practice? What is the role of the critic vis a vis the consumer/spectator? Should fashion criticism be prescriptive? etc.

[mike]

similar to how an artist helps the audience become conscious of specific emotions with art, the role of the critic is to help the audience reach a more complete understanding through critical analysis. the sheer number of fashion blogger types is testament that true critique is not being practiced on the correct scale within the realm of fashion.

[Faust]

Short translation : Despite what this very gentle lady likes to think, there was no added value in the former "fashion journalism" compared to the bloggers' offer, since they never offered any critical discourse. And the reason why is that the magazines depend entirely on publicity. Hence her critics to the lack of ethic is absolutely laughable. Her whining about how nice times were in the aristocratic/analogical era are nothing but pathetic, and the symptom that the times have changed, and let her on the downside of the road.

You are conveniently forgetting major newspapers, who don't sing to the advertisers' tune and have offered and still offer critical opinion. She's not saying people shouldn't judge for themselves - she's saying one needs experience and knowledge and education in order to judge anything properly.

And, being the main fashion critic and in the top three most influential fashion journalists hardly qualifies her as someone sidelined.

[BSR]

^funny you say that copacetic, to me film criticism is one of the worst areas. indeed, many erudites, but no method, and no taste to be found in 99% cases. i'd like to be pointed to the right places and be proved wrong on this issue though.

[Pumpfish]

I think it is a lot to do with proximity to the creatives and the commerce. Fashion is a much smaller, more intimate world than other critical arenas.

It is difficult to develop insights of real value without knowing the designers. So the critic has to develop a stature (within the world of fashion) that balances the relationship with the creator.

The self-promoting fuckwits add a bit of colour and a bit of a laugh, but in mainstream reporting, it is still the daftest of statements from the catwalk that make the news, not the pageant outside.

[ES3K]

Yeah but copacetic has a point. IMHO it is because video game and fashion is quite a closed sector circling around itself. If you are in the video game business, you only get ads from video game publishers. Same with fashion publications/blogs etc I think.

I see ads for Red Bull, banking or cars in magazines covering movies and music, but hardly in a video game publication.

[BSR]

It is difficult to develop insights of real value without knowing the designers. So the critic has to develop a stature (within the world of fashion) that balances the relationship with the creator.

so you would say it's necessary to be pals with rembrandt to deliver a proper analysis of his paintings?

edit: copacetic beats me to it

[BSR]

patently untrue.



so, in a way you're right. my guess is that the rigorous method you're looking for isn't the kind of thing that gets published in magazines or newspapers. a lot of the method is sublimated for talented critics like anthony lane and david denby. they know the method -- they just can't write with it in full show because, well, people without graduate coursework in philosophy wouldn't be able to handle it.

but i lived in chicago for a while, and that city was filled with all sorts of events and speaking series surrounding film. in terms of authors (who write books but often write articles and speak in public as well), you might start with stephen teo, peter hames, amos vogel, david halberstam, richard roud, jonathan rosenbaum, dave saunders... i could go on. even salman rushdie and slavoj zizek have some wonderful writing on film.

thanks! much appreciated

[Pumpfish]

patently untrue.

Who dat?

[Faust]

so, in a way you're right. my guess is that the rigorous method you're looking for isn't the kind of thing that gets published in magazines or newspapers. a lot of the method is sublimated for talented critics like anthony lane and david denby. they know the method -- they just can't write with it in full show because, well, people without graduate coursework in philosophy wouldn't be able to handle it.

but i lived in chicago for a while, and that city was filled with all sorts of events and speaking series surrounding film. in terms of authors (who write books but often write articles and speak in public as well), you might start with stephen teo, peter hames, amos vogel, david halberstam, richard roud, jonathan rosenbaum, dave saunders... i could go on. even salman rushdie and slavoj zizek have some wonderful writing on film.

I was gonna say, The New Yorker. Another problem with film criticism is lack of space. New Yorker film reviews used be 10,000 words in the 70s-80s - now they simply are not given that much space to write, so the reviews have to be short.

Anyway, we digress.

[Faust]

so you would say it's necessary to be pals with rembrandt to deliver a proper analysis of his paintings?

edit: copacetic beats me to it

Maybe not, although you'd probably be surprised how much it could influence the analysis, probably proving quite a few of them dead wrong.

Knowing how to paint would probably help in the analysis too. Going back to Suzy's point that expertise no longer seems relevant in the world where everyone is a critic.

[Chant]

Maybe not, although you'd probably be surprised how much it could influence the analysis, probably proving quite a few of them dead wrong.

I'm under the impression that you are confusing meaning and truth : the purpose of a critical discourse is not to be true, but meaningfull. The designer disagreing or contradicting an interpretation doesn't mean that it has no sense or no validity.