Sign of the Times

[Faust]

Excellent article by Cathy Horyn in T:Magazine about the state of fashion. I could not agree more, literally exclaimed at every paragraph.

SIGN OF THE TIMES
Straightforward, commercial clothes used to be the antithesis of high fashion. Now, they are the benchmark.

"In the summer of 1965, after several lackluster seasons, Yves Saint Laurent took a major step forward. Not only did he introduce his famous Mondrian shift, he also showed baby-doll dresses with wide collars and sashes. With their patent-leather shoes and hair bows, the models looked like little girls, Gloria Emerson wrote in The Times.

Nonetheless, she called the collection “the brightest, freshest and best he has ever done.” The eagle-eyed Emerson also raved about the small jackets worn with studded belts: “Saint Laurent has probably never come face to face with a real Rocker, but his big belts seem reminiscent of the ones they wear.”

At 29, Saint Laurent had finally caught the winds of the ’60s. But the youthful mood didn’t last. Before long he was paying extravagant homage to gypsies and Russian peasants — not the freewheeling girls on the Left Bank. His clothes never again had the erotic sweetness of those lollipop dresses.

That is, until Hedi Slimane revived them at Saint Laurent. His are not so sweet, but that is not the point. Slimane located the moment when the brand was truly cool, the years between 1965 and 1968. His predecessors at Saint Laurent tended to look at the whole YSL career, going for the key moments. Slimane, though, has largely confined his view to a single window. Then, adding a dark gloss of California rocker angst, he has kept his message stunningly simple — to the point where his clothes, while clearly high in quality, have the attitude of a trendy street label. It’s as though he refuses to strive for the standard goals of a luxury designer — to make modern, conceptual or intellectually resonating clothes. Instead, he makes straightforward commercial fashion that a woman can instantly relate to..."

Full text here - don't be a lazy fuck and click on the link to read in full. And DISCUSS.

[syed]

As much as Lipovetsky's writing style annoys me, this makes me think of two of the paradoxes of fashion he notes in Empire of Fashion.

Paradox 1: "We speak of the expansion of fashion at the very moment when dress - the characteristic emblem of fashion - is continuing to lose its prestige and when spending on clothes is declining."

Paradox 5: "The more the democracies commit themselves to the race for the new, the more they are fascinated with the past, and the more interest they show in rehabilitating, conserving and valorizing what is old."

Where the first is concerned, I was reading the Ethical Consumer May/June edition where it stated that in the UK "Around 1.7 billion garments (30% of clothes we buy) lie unworn at home." Along with "Unworn clothes worth around £30 billion when purchased new, hang unworn in our wardrobes, yet last year UK consumers spent £44 billion on new clothing."

I think it is not simply the case that fast fashion is where this waste comes from, it is an entire societal shift that treats fashion and clothing as entirely disposable. People don't care about meaning, they don't care about originality, they don't care about clothes evoking some powerful feeling when they wear it - they only care about how good this will look on Instagram or Facebook, and how many likes this new branded purchase will get me. Poor example, but look at the hashtags for luxury items on Instagram, just about every outfit with black is tagged with a slew of designers, because it's just about playing with different costumes and symbols.

Nobody cares about the garment itself, only the status it is perceived to confer. Of course this is nothing new, but it has certainly been accelerated, and Slimane taps into this perfectly. With Saint Laurent the consumer does not have to worry about being in fashion, or how to put it together, or anything. They can pick up anything he designs and know that it is branded of-the-moment cool. It doesn't even have to be well made or creative, it just needs that Saint Laurent tag and the price tag to match.

And the exhumation of '60s style plays into current nostalgia and the yearning for some past that never was. We are continually looking back due to the anxiety and shock of today (whether that be due to the recession, or governments that are not as strong as they used to be, etc.). So we have Mad Men on TV, we have TV shows about baking (Great British Bake Off) and sewing (Great British Sewing Bee) and this allusion to the affluent '50s, and have digital radios styled to look like '70s classics. We are hurtling into the future with new technology and new knowledge and new events, but everyone wants to go back to (what they think of as) a more stable time.

Every day a new model of phone comes out, a new type of TV, a new Macbook, a new iPad, whatever it may be. Technology gets more complex and more technical, but the packaging gets simpler and sleeker. There are no bells and whistles to the designs, just sanitized and neutralized design that speaks to luxury and wealth. Fashion is following suit because that simple branding is all you need to sell. It is comforting, because it makes the choice simple for the consumer.

I think fashion has always played into anxiety, because at its heart fashion seeks to negate (or at least neutralize) the spectre of death. In disrupting the progression of time through constant referencing to disparate elements in the past, fashion is all about the present. So is popular culture - it references the past only insofar as that past is now neutralized and nostalgic. The immediate past is too raw, and where fashion is concerned, too saturated and widespread.

There are so many designers creating simple and easy cookie-cutter "modern" looks, because it is what people feel they need for now. We have so many fashion tribes and so many different trends, there are no dominant styles like there used to be. There is no Chanel, no Patou, no Yves. We have multiple fashions and they are all valid. I think that is why we have so many designers looking inward and referencing their own pasts and their own work.

Rei said "Fashion has no reality except in stimulation", but people don't want to be stimulated anymore, they don't want to think. They just want to be acknowledged and accepted as fashionable, whether that be on social media or in real life. Yes, I realize that has always existed, but now it is more readily apparent in everyday life. And boy is Hedi cashing in on it.

[dommoney]

There are so many designers creating simple and easy cookie-cutter "modern" looks, because it is what people feel they need for now. We have so many fashion tribes and so many different trends, there are no dominant styles like there used to be. There is no Chanel, no Patou, no Yves. We have multiple fashions and they are all valid. I think that is why we have so many designers looking inward and referencing their own pasts and their own work.

Rei said "Fashion has no reality except in stimulation", but people don't want to be stimulated anymore, they don't want to think. They just want to be acknowledged and accepted as fashionable, whether that be on social media or in real life. Yes, I realize that has always existed, but now it is more readily apparent in everyday life. And boy is Hedi cashing in on it.

Do you think that fashion is becoming more democratized as well as "modern"? I feel like if a brand increasingly simplifies their collections and try to appeal to the masses, they will become a mere commodity.

It is sad that many people don't want to be stimulated or think deeply about the clothes they are wearing anymore, sure. But there will always be that small niche of people that will. And every brand has that small niche of people. If the brand suddenly changes and tries to gain mass-appeal, then they will lose brand-loyalty from those customers for sure. However it may be worth it if the masses are giving the brand money like crazy.

[syed]

Oh absolutely, fashion is open to all, and constant exposure (along with the Internet and social media) means more people can access fashion than ever before. There will always be that niche of fashion lovers, but for the majority it is simply a matter of commodities. But part of this is also the fact that there are so many strands of "fashion", and just about any person can print t-shirts and start a streetwear "fashion" label.

If everything is valid, finding something worthwhile becomes difficult without a detailed knowledge - see the art world. Nowadays you can't just look at something and say "Wow, that's skillful" like you could with a painting some hundred years ago. Take your average person off the street and stick them in front of Rothko, and they say "my kid could paint that". But we also have an artist like Martin Creed putting a screwed up ball of paper on a pedestal and calling it art.

Fashion, in terms of innovation and originality, is becoming ever more niche. She says in her article that people could recognise fashion a mile off, with a police officer recognising Molyneux. But now we have so many things that constitute fashion, it would be impossible for a police officer to do that now.

I think the problem is that the term "fashion" has been devalued, because it seems that nowadays all dress is termed fashion. When was the last time you could go into a clothes shop and not buy fashion? Even something like work boots or hi-vis jackets can be appropriated as fashion, if street style deems it so......

[mikko]

Every day a new model of phone comes out, a new type of TV, a new Macbook, a new iPad, whatever it may be. Technology gets more complex and more technical, but the packaging gets simpler and sleeker. There are no bells and whistles to the designs, just sanitized and neutralized design that speaks to luxury and wealth. Fashion is following suit because that simple branding is all you need to sell. It is comforting, because it makes the choice simple for the consumer.

This paragraph really resonated with me and brought into mind this post I just read a couple of days ago: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/a...the-pack-rats/

In these terms I can see the changes of fashion (esp. Slimane) playing into the same continuum of simplicity equaling wealth. The cheaper brands that do this simplicity on a high street level (eg. COS) just mirror the same thing with lower quality and price tag.

[Faust]

Oh absolutely, fashion is open to all, and constant exposure (along with the Internet and social media) means more people can access fashion than ever before. There will always be that niche of fashion lovers, but for the majority it is simply a matter of commodities. But part of this is also the fact that there are so many strands of "fashion", and just about any person can print t-shirts and start a streetwear "fashion" label.

If everything is valid, finding something worthwhile becomes difficult without a detailed knowledge - see the art world. Nowadays you can't just look at something and say "Wow, that's skillful" like you could with a painting some hundred years ago. Take your average person off the street and stick them in front of Rothko, and they say "my kid could paint that". But we also have an artist like Martin Creed putting a screwed up ball of paper on a pedestal and calling it art.

Fashion, in terms of innovation and originality, is becoming ever more niche. She says in her article that people could recognise fashion a mile off, with a police officer recognising Molyneux. But now we have so many things that constitute fashion, it would be impossible for a police officer to do that now.

I think the problem is that the term "fashion" has been devalued, because it seems that nowadays all dress is termed fashion. When was the last time you could go into a clothes shop and not buy fashion? Even something like work boots or hi-vis jackets can be appropriated as fashion, if street style deems it so......

Could not agree more and exactly what I said two years ago here. The term fashion no longer has any meaning. That's the real "democratization."

Thank you so much for your thoughtful posts, syed. More, please.

[interest1]

Excellent article by Cathy Horyn in T:Magazine about the state of fashion. I could not agree more, literally exclaimed at every paragraph.

Me, too.


"I’m no fan of Slimane’s, but he’s clever. In two years as creative chief, he has barely broken a sweat as he fetches another pussy bow from the ’60s time capsule."

"The easiest to see is branding. It’s so pervasive in our culture that it functions for some as a means to fulfillment."

"Clothes suddenly acquired meaning (think of the efforts to “decode” a Helmut Lang show or almost any by Martin Margiela)."

"It’s also true that stuff we never had to think about before, like smartphones and new kinds of entertainment, has gained the upper hand, inspiring us in many ways but also narrowing our sights with all manner of guardrails, so what was once noble is now a universal fast-track to fabulousness."


So many great lines in her piece, I found myself re-reading them out of sheer enjoyment. Loved how she drew Susan Sontag into the fold, whose observations on art she quoted I couldn't agree with more.

Article could have easily been titled Mind The Guardrails.

p.s. Noticed your remarks in the comments section. Totally knew it was you, even without the SZ-mag link.

[Faust]

Hehe :-)

Not only Sontag, but Hitchens quoting Saul Bellow - a Faustian intellectual orgasm!

[interest1]

Yep. That's what you'd call "the icing on the cake."

[Faust]

I agree that the shift is not societal at large when we talk about designer fashion (the societal shift IS there when we talk about disposability of clothes). I think what has happened was that in the 90s designer fashion was the playground of the weird of the wonderful - the people who DID care tended to be aesthetes and intellectuals in their own right (gallery owners/employees, artists, musicians, the creative class in short*, plus some kooky rick New York Jewish ladies like Iris Apfel). Designer fashion did not enter the mainstream consciousness. They made less money, but they had more creative support. Enter Arnault and LVMH and the game is changed - now fashion is a mass cultural artifact. Profits exploded, but creativity diminished. And now that the slew of these fashion conglomerates are publicly traded companies, their responsibility, ultimately, is the same as that of General Electric and CVS.

Margiela is dead. Lang is dead. McQueen is dead, literally. No one gives a fuck about Chalayan - he is all but dead. Viktor & Rolf happily churn out perfumes - dead. Ann - retired. Yohji wants to retire. The incredible 90s generation of Belgians - out of business, dead. Hedi Slimane is the living dead. Raf - fuck Raf. Rick is kinda holding up the torch, and so is Rei. Last man and woman standing. Aitor Throup is spread too thin, but I still have high hopes for him. Celine was cool for about a week, now busy churning out bags. Fuck fashion.


*Though Harold Koda told me once that it was the Japanese fashion students who first embraced Comme des Garcons. Maybe I should modify the sentence by saying "in the West."

[BlacknWhite]

"Income inequality is the primary cause; people simply can’t afford to risk new experiences."

Sure they can, that is why they turn to fast fashion, to get a taste of it. It is a smarter choice with money, and these "new experiences" will only keep ones attention for so long till someone else does something different. Recession or not, income inequality or not, designer easy to wear is just people thinking long term with their purchases.

[syed]

well i cant see how all this (caring about meaning, originality, feeling, etc) can be tied into a single societal shift. horyn mentions designers caring less about "conceptual, intellectually resonating clothes", and you seem to include the general populace in on this as well -- but no one has ever cared about stuff like that in their clothes, and the percentage of people who did are probably about the same then as now...i don't see any shift there. kids on instagram tagging #darkstyle are just nouveau rich and not emblematic of any shift, in my eyes anyway.

I agree, most people don't care about clothes having any intellectual grounding or originality, it's always been a small minority. But when I talk of a societal shift, I mean it in a larger sense - disposable clothes, disposable tech, supermarkets throwing out fruit that doesn't look quite right, etc. Fashion cannot be removed from culture and society, because it is not created in a vacuum, but nor is it a mere reflection. It is woven into the fabric of contemporary culture. In a few years we'll look back and laugh at the likes of Hood by Air, but it is a sign of the times, otherwise it would not have the traction that it does. I think sometimes we need to take a step back and consider changes in the industry in the wider flow of the "fashion narrative".

When we look at a widespread shift in high fashion towards simpler designs, whether it be at exhaustion of Zara copying designs, the end of grand houses, whatever the case may be, I think it would be naive not to consider it as part of a wider trend. But that doesn't fill me with sadness or nostalgia for better times, because it is part of the inevitable cycle - we'll have a few years of crap, and soon new lights will shine out in reaction to it. The designers who have now be written into legend all pretty much came to prominence because they were reacting against something. Fashion is change, so perhaps that goes without saying, but when you look at a million and one designers following the crowd, you realise just how rare that actually is. Rick can fall off into designing nothing but crappy Adidas trainers, Hedi can continue to spiral downwards, Ghesquiere can slip away quietly, but eventually, new talent will shake things up. Whether or not they actually come through traditional fashion industry avenues, there will always be the shock of something new.

Besides, people have always said fashion is dying, from the moment Poiret managed to turn attention away from the wearers and to the designer. Suddenly we had people writing about the tyranny of the designer. When Chanel and Patou replaced fussy ornamentation with slick, modern lines in the 1920s, people no doubt worried where it would stop. That change tied into advances in technology, the changing role of women, etc. Women were on the cover of fashion magazines standing next to beautifully drawn sports cars, they were doing sports like skiing, they were holding cameras or being photographed, amateur cinema was booming and showing people in constant motion. Suddenly women are sleek and athletic, rather than stationery and frilly.

World War Two comes and Paris is cut off, people assume fashion will die. Yet by the fifties we have the boom years of Couture. Dior was called the Watteau of couturiers and Balenciaga the Picasso of fashion. Was that the highest peak fashion reached? Hardly, because there was soon to be an even larger shift that would effect a far wider spread of people. Saint Laurent presented the first RTW, as we would understand it, collection in 1966 and that eventually changes the game (technically Cardin presented the first ever RTW show in 1959, but it was based on Couture designs, so he can suck it). Skip forward and we have livestreaming, Instagram everything on the front row, etc, etc.

The idea of fashion has been devalued - everyone from supermarkets to luxury houses advertise and sell some manner of "fashion" garments. But that devaluing has been going on since the Depression, when people realised that using the fashion model (i.e. applied to things other than clothes) could get people to buy more. Fashion is a disposable luxury item, and although it arguably always was, I think there will always be those designers and consumers who run counter to that. That is where SZ comes in, that is where the designers we value come in, that is why we are even here discussing this.

Cathy Horyn seems dispirited, but as far as I'm concerned this is actually an exciting time for fashion. Something new is just around the corner, we're all waiting for something to come and shake things up, and the more boring the state of fashion becomes, the more urgent that need. Whether it is a slew of new young designers, or the old guard blowing us away with a new energy, it will come, and I'm looking forward to it.

[Faust]

/\ Couldn't agree more, syed!