Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Avant-Bland"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • casem
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2006
    • 2590

    "Avant-Bland"

    Sorry to post a GQ article AND an annoying buzzword, but I thought this resonated with some of the aesthetics appreciated here.

    link to GQ article
    Brands like A.P.C. and Maison Martin Margiela have long capitalized on the idea of "minimalism". In fashion, this word essentially refers to garments that are intentionally left sparse, implying that there is something deeper...


    link to article referenced in GQ article


    "Brands like A.P.C. and Maison Martin Margiela have long capitalized on the idea of "minimalism". In fashion, this word essentially refers to garments that are intentionally left sparse, implying that there is something deeper to be appreciated in them. They won't try to lure you in with graphics or a bold pattern, but with the aspects that are, in the eyes of their creator, seen as more important, such as fabrication and fit.

    According to Alexander Fury at The Independent, a new trend, dubbed "Avant-Bland" is a cousin of minimalism. It's also having a moment in fashion on the biggest stages, although he stresses the difference between Avant-Bland and 2014 Internet-buzzword "Normcore". Where Normcore is intentionally basic in the worst sense of the word, Avant-Bland implies a deeper sophistication, often in craftsmanship, in clothing that looks simple at first glance, or are re-interpretations of rudimentary pieces and thus runway-ready. He heralds this movement because of the implications it has for what we as consumers value in a garment. If we appreciate something because it's made with better fabrics and by a more reputable designer, then in theory, it cannot be replicated or "knocked-off" and sold back as low-hanging fruit to consumers desperate to feel like they're up on the latest trends.

    This may seem nice for, say, Louis Vuitton and its customers who are sick of 99 percenters in knock-off monogram bags, but if this trend continues, then whatever small piece of high-fashion mass market consumers could buy into—a graphic, a pattern—will go away. All that will be left are quality, exensive basics and cheap, inexpensive basics. This serves to drive a wedge between those who can afford high-fashion and those who can't (even as aesthetically they become more alike), because it puts even more importance on the tag on in the inside of the garment, not what is seen on the outside. Minimalism, and by default Avant-Bland, are ideas that can often only be literally bought into, self-fulfilling prophecies that make the buyer feel good about their own tastes because they're the only ones who know what they have is better. But a lot of what is being sold is hot air and has mostly to do with the way in which garments are packaged. Take a $500 cotton sweater out of the high-end boutique and place it in Walmart, and see if snobs covet it for its "chic simplicity".

    That's not to say the idea of "taking elements from the everyday and making them extraordinary," as Fury puts it, doesn't have artistic merit. Raf Simons' colorblocked trainers are meant to emulate the kind of modern day running shoes one will find at any mall and succeed in honoring their inspiration. But they're clearly something that are more form than function, and work because its avant-garde ideas are communicated with the eyes, not the hand as Fury suggests. No one is picking up a Raf Simons trainer and saying, "I can tell these sneakers are nice because the rubber is better." And if this is the case, then these shoes are not "Avant-Bland," they're just plain old, surface-level fashion. Because if we're talking about taking everyday inspirations and making them more extraordinary, then this certainly is nothing new. In fact, that's mostly what designers do. They take a coat, a shirt, a shoe, a dress, and they make it something more than just that. But calling it something different for the sake of argument or trend-watching doesn't mean it is."
    music
  • yack
    Junior Member
    • May 2011
    • 21

    #2
    Take a $500 cotton sweater out of the high-end boutique and place it in Walmart, and see if snobs covet it for its "chic simplicity".
    Somebody shoot this guy (with an arrow to the knee or something).

    Always good to know what others are thinking though.

    Comment

    • ilurkaround
      Member
      • Jan 2012
      • 51

      #3
      i hate the terms that pop up like "normcore" and "avant-bland" in these type of articles. haven't even heard of avant-bland until this article. his example about brand packaging and a $500 sweater is cringe worthy, unless he's referring to givenchy tees. browsing through his prior articles he seems to appreciate the "menswear" aesthetic.

      anyways, here's his sneaker of the week

      Comment

      • apathy!
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2014
        • 393

        #4
        Honestly I feel like 90% of these "fashion think-pieces" are irrelevant bullshit. The standard for fashion journalism (I guess as with everything) seem to be pretty poor.

        Also I think that minimalism is a little different to reductivism which seems to be what he implied.

        Comment

        • Faust
          kitsch killer
          • Sep 2006
          • 37852

          #5
          Alex Fury is probably one of five fashion journalists worth reading today - I would not knock him. He is an extremely smart guy with extensive knowledge of culture and fashion - very impressive for someone young.

          The GQ piece is the silly one. Context matters, but not as much as the garment itself. Sometimes they come close. You could put a Margiela cotton sweater in Walmart and change the customer's preception. A Jil Sander cashmere, not so much.
          Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

          StyleZeitgeist Magazine

          Comment

          • DudleyGray
            Senior Member
            • Jul 2013
            • 1143

            #6
            Originally posted by casem83 View Post
            but if this trend continues, then whatever small piece of high-fashion mass market consumers could buy into—a graphic, a pattern—will go away. All that will be left are quality, exensive basics and cheap, inexpensive basics. This serves to drive a wedge between those who can afford high-fashion and those who can't (even as aesthetically they become more alike), because it puts even more importance on the tag on in the inside of the garment, not what is seen on the outside.


            Democratic fashion is not worth the cost of fast fashion.
            bandcamp | facebook | youtube

            Comment

            • apathy!
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2014
              • 393

              #7
              To clarify, I was meaning the GQ article. Just lazy phrasing.


              Even with the Alex Fury article, I feel like this "Avant-Bland" has been around for a long time. I mean this is what Margiela is all about, right?

              Comment

              • guardimp
                Senior Member
                • Jun 2010
                • 320

                #8
                I would disagree that minimalism is bland, in many cases it is just as much a statement to be minimalistic as it is to be stylistic. Neither of the two are traditional, they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Yes many pieces people call minimalistic are bland, but the base level for the garment in question is quite minimal. Yet when you talk garments such as blazers or jackets the difference is quite striking. It's really interesting to see minimalism talked about as bland, when what could be really said is the pieces themselves are just bland and not really very minimalistic
                Last edited by guardimp; 08-10-2014, 11:38 AM.

                Comment

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