Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Circus of Fashion - Suzy Menkes | A Must Read

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nqth
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2006
    • 350

    #31
    Vanessa Friedman made an interesting point of view, perhaps partly related to this topic, no need for fashion criticism?

    the whole art. is here:
    News, analysis and opinion from the Financial Times on the latest in markets, economics and politics


    "Which reveals both the increasingly complicated scheduling of the fashion collections, with cities crammed in back to back as more and more designers jump on the schedule, as well as one of two possible realities: either Marc doesn’t really care about the UK, because it is a tiny market for him, and hence has made the executive decision that he can accept that loss in exchange for a better show, or the show itself has become less about the industry than those outside it: the general public, who do see the livestream.

    So which one do you think it is?

    I lean towards the latter, which is the subject of my column in tomorrow’s paper; effectively I think fashion week is turning into a reality TV show, which isn’t necessarily in fashion’s best interests (though it may work for those who run/own the Fashion Week event). Anyway, I’d be very interested in your thoughts on the matter."

    Comment

    • Faust
      kitsch killer
      • Sep 2006
      • 37852

      #32
      Can you post the entire article? This registration thing is killing me.

      Point well taken, Christian.
      Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

      StyleZeitgeist Magazine

      Comment

      • Pumpfish
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2010
        • 513

        #33
        Originally posted by BSR View Post
        so you would say it's necessary to be pals with rembrandt to deliver a proper analysis of his paintings?

        pushing to the absurd, BSR. Does Rembrandt, like, show in Paris or Meelan?


        still wondering who these patent critics are, copacetic.....
        spinning glue back into horses. . .

        Comment

        • stagename
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2011
          • 497

          #34
          ^

          "Yes, it’s more Marc Jacobs news! The Jacobs show, aka the most-anticipated show of NY Fashion week due to the designer’s ability to turn on a dime season after season, has just emailed all of us fashion types to announce they are moving the show from Monday, the usual slot, to Thursday at 8pm due to “weather and production problems”.

          Here are some excerpts:

          “Dear Friends and Marc Jacobs Family,

          We are writing to let you know that due to delivery issues with fabric and accessories we have made the decision to postpone our collection show until Thursday February 14 at 8pm… We are sincerely sorry for any inconvenience and expense that this may cause you and your team. We very much hope you will be able to make it to the show at the new time, but if you cannot we completely understand.

          We don’t want to cause any issues for those who are scheduled to attend the London shows and we know that this schedule change makes for a difficult transition. For those who will not be able to attend, we will be streaming live worldwide at live.marcjacobs.com.

          We wish you safe travels and look forward to seeing some of you next week. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

          Most Sincerely, Marc Jacobs and Robert Duffy”

          I feel their pain, but in solving his own problems Marc and co have created lots of new ones — for other people and themselves.

          First, there’s the whole ruin-Valentine’s thing, which is a good way to create a plethora of grumpy people in one go. Especially because most of the American lot are about to leave their families for circa 20 days as they embark on their European show odyssey, and the 14th is probably their last night at home. (Guilty; that was a little personal whine.)

          More importantly, however, from a professional stand-point, there’s the fact that since the New York shows were supposed to end with Calvin Klein at 3pm, and the London shows start friday morning, most British critics — and indeed, anyone rushing to the UK’s fashon week — has booked a plane ride out right after Calvin, meaning they will miss Marc’s show.

          Especially because in these recessionary days, most employers insist on lowest — and non-changeable — plane fares. Which means less coverage for Mr Jacobs. As for the live-streaming thing — well, his critics will be in the air and unable to view it in real time.

          Which reveals both the increasingly complicated scheduling of the fashion collections, with cities crammed in back to back as more and more designers jump on the schedule, as well as one of two possible realities: either Marc doesn’t really care about the UK, because it is a tiny market for him, and hence has made the executive decision that he can accept that loss in exchange for a better show, or the show itself has become less about the industry than those outside it: the general public, who do see the livestream.

          So which one do you think it is?

          I lean towards the latter, which is the subject of my column in tomorrow’s paper; effectively I think fashion week is turning into a reality TV show, which isn’t necessarily in fashion’s best interests (though it may work for those who run/own the Fashion Week event). Anyway, I’d be very interested in your thoughts on the matter."

          On Christian's point, Triple Canopy published last year an interesting piece on International Art English and how it relates to the authority (and, I'd argue, linked meaningfulness) of a critique:
          "Authority is relevant here because the art world does not deal in widgets. What it values is fundamentally symbolic, interpretable. Hence the ability to evaluate—the power to deem certain things and ideas significant and critical—is precious. Starting in the 1960s, the university became the privileged route into the rapidly growing American art world. And in October’s wake, that world systematically rewarded a particular kind of linguistic weirdness. One could use this special language to signal the assimilation of a powerful kind of critical sensibility, one that was rigorous, politically conscious, probably university trained. In a much expanded art world this language had a job to do: consecrate certain artworks as significant, critical, and, indeed, contemporary. IAE developed to describe work that transcended the syntax and terminology used to interpret the art of earlier times."

          Comment

          • Chant
            Banned
            • Jun 2008
            • 2775

            #35
            Absurd questions request absurd replies

            Originally posted by Pumpfish View Post
            pushing to the absurd, BSR. Does Rembrandt, like, show in Paris ?
            Definitely.

            Comment

            • BSR
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2008
              • 1562

              #36
              Originally posted by Pumpfish View Post
              pushing to the absurd, BSR. Does Rembrandt, like, show in Paris or Meelan?
              Designers create shapes. These shapes can give rise to interpretative discourse (which as Christian says, can't be really true or false, but meaningful or not). In my experience, it is what is meant when someone talks about understanding a piece of work, or, as you put it, "developing insights of real value" regarding this work. Then, I don't see the difference between a dead painter and a living designer who 'shows in Paris'. Both produce shapes. Living or dead. Showing or not showing.

              Honestly, your view reminds me of Sainte Beuve's theory about literature, i.e. the idea that you cannot understand a novel without knowing about the author's biographical details. We all know from Proust that this is a very dubious take on things.

              Actually i can't make sense of any of your points here, except under the assumption that you never opened a book, which is a bit unrealistic...
              pix

              Originally posted by Fuuma
              Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

              Comment

              • Faust
                kitsch killer
                • Sep 2006
                • 37852

                #37
                Originally posted by BSR View Post
                Designers create shapes. These shapes can give rise to interpretative discourse (which as Christian says, can't be really true or false, but meaningful or not). In my experience, it is what is meant when someone talks about understanding a piece of work, or, as you put it, "developing insights of real value" regarding this work. Then, I don't see the difference between a dead painter and a living designer who 'shows in Paris'. Both produce shapes. Living or dead. Showing or not showing.

                Honestly, your view reminds me of Sainte Beuve's theory about literature, i.e. the idea that you cannot understand a novel without knowing about the author's biographical details. We all know from Proust that this is a very dubious take on things.

                Actually i can't make sense of any of your points here, except under the assumption that you never opened a book, which is a bit unrealistic...
                I think he's merely saying that fashion criticism is not art criticism. It's an interesting point of discussion.

                Suzy is right about one thing though - there is no way you can properly judge a show from frontal photos on style.com. I have experienced it firsthand. Seeing movement, the back, side, etc. creates a totally different understanding of the clothes. Moving to video may alleviate the problem, maybe even solve it, but I am not sure.
                Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                Comment

                • BSR
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2008
                  • 1562

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Faust View Post
                  I think he's merely saying that fashion criticism is not art criticism. It's an interesting point of discussion.
                  why not? but why? curious to hear more on the special features of fashion criticism, as i am not sure the principles to make sense of a collection are very different from the principles to make sense of a movie or a book or a painting or a performance. to come back to pumpfish's case, in any of these fields i see the relevance of acquaintance with the author actually. quite the opposite. as godard once said, the intent of the author has nothing to do with what is on the screen at the end.

                  regarding your second point i fully agree. it's like the difference between watching a video of a performance and attending the performance.
                  pix

                  Originally posted by Fuuma
                  Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                  Comment

                  • Faust
                    kitsch killer
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 37852

                    #39
                    When I say "interesting" I mean "I have to think about it carefully and I cannot now because I'm doing 10 things at the same time and I need an assistant and an intern and a masseuse."
                    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                    StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                    Comment

                    • BSR
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2008
                      • 1562

                      #40
                      ^amen to this
                      pix

                      Originally posted by Fuuma
                      Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                      Comment

                      • Chant
                        Banned
                        • Jun 2008
                        • 2775

                        #41
                        Originally posted by Faust View Post
                        I think he's merely saying that fashion criticism is not art criticism. It's an interesting point of discussion.
                        Medium may be different (art vs fashion), but the critic has to deal in both cases with material and forms. Hence same critical tools are efficient. As I already said, a proper fashion critical discourse should be informed by some knowledge in semiology in visual arts, history of art, history of the body representations and history of clothing. And, as far as I know, none of the so-called fashion journalists, even great Suzy Truc from great NYT, master any of these fields.

                        Suzy is right about one thing though - there is no way you can properly judge a show from frontal photos on style.com. I have experienced it firsthand. Seeing movement, the back, side, etc. creates a totally different understanding of the clothes. Moving to video may alleviate the problem, maybe even solve it, but I am not sure.
                        Stating the obvious. Same goes for danse or architecture, i.e. all the arts that implies movement by themselves or of the viewer.
                        As for fashion, best combo is of course "show+pictures+showroom visit".

                        EDIT : Completely agree with copacetic of course.

                        Comment

                        • Pumpfish
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2010
                          • 513

                          #42
                          Originally posted by copacetic
                          i think we have a lost in translation moment here.
                          no, you have a lost sense of humour moment.

                          I merely requested more than your two word rebuttal of my statement.

                          One of my points is that I do not think fashion design stands up to rigourous intellectual scrutiny. Probably not a mainstream view on this forum. And clearly at odds with you.

                          And you can PM my arse.
                          spinning glue back into horses. . .

                          Comment

                          • Chant
                            Banned
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 2775

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Pumpfish View Post
                            no, you have a lost sense of humour moment.
                            And you can PM my arse.
                            Had a brief moment of cognitive discordance.

                            Comment

                            • BSR
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2008
                              • 1562

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Pumpfish View Post

                              One of my points is that I do not think fashion design stands up to rigourous intellectual scrutiny.
                              why not? even soccer does
                              pix

                              Originally posted by Fuuma
                              Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                              Comment

                              • Faust
                                kitsch killer
                                • Sep 2006
                                • 37852

                                #45
                                Originally posted by Christian View Post
                                Medium may be different (art vs fashion), but the critic has to deal in both cases with material and forms. Hence same critical tools are efficient. As I already said, a proper fashion critical discourse should be informed by some knowledge in semiology in visual arts, history of art, history of the body representations and history of clothing. And, as far as I know, none of the so-called fashion journalists, even great Suzy Truc from great NYT, master any of these fields.
                                As far as you know, yes. You'll be surprised how many fashion journalists and editors are smart cookies. Actually was talking to a colleague yesterday and she said that for her the draw of fashion journalism is finding out cultural influences on designer and then researching them. Perhaps the difference between fashion and art criticism is also that fashion criticism has much to do with the zeitgeist, whereas most of art criticism dwells in/on the past.

                                Stating the obvious. Same goes for danse or architecture, i.e. all the arts that implies movement by themselves or of the viewer.
                                As for fashion, best combo is of course "show+pictures+showroom visit".
                                I know it's obvious, to us.
                                Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                                StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎