WTF

[snafu]

Squat i really don't want to get into a big discussion, im really too busy to get into that just now. But i will try and make a fair response this time.

You cannot argue that Carol Christian Poell is a brand like any other wether it be coca cola or nike.

The fact you say you buy the items for what they represent individually is totally flawed: they carry the tag of the brand of CCP, they carry the patented stitching, the very individual leather polishing and finishing that is unique to the CCP brand among so many other little details that make it obviously a product of the CCP brand. It may not communicate to the everyday person down the street, they most likely do not know CCP. But at the same time what is the difference between the snap on the CCP zipper pull and and the braided leather of Bottega Venetta, or the tassels on a Balenciaga handbag.
All these details are present in the good and clothing is an expressive communicative tool, you buy them not only for a functional aspect; which is nearly always secondary in high fashion, but to represent who you are as a person to either make you belong to a group or to differentiate yourself from others.
All of the above falls into brand image and brand identity. Wether you like it or not you buy CCP not as an object simply to hang in your closet and appreciate to yourself. You wear the clothes outside and to communicate something about yourself to others, wether they know it or not. Even more so they may impress others around you who may gain knowledge of the brand through yourself, or impress people who already know the brand of CCP.

Boris is young, so is Bossert what is the differnce age shouldn't come into it.

Iv worked and studied design people are inspired by things that existed before them. Fucking Carol did not invent a fencing jacket, he didn't invent a parachute vest, he didn't invent rice bag stitching.
What he did was find things he like and recontextualized them by sticking his own name on, he might alter on change the proportions of garments/objects: make them in leather instead of cotton etc etc... but he puts his brand name on the object it comes totally different.

His jewelry line is often made up one 1:1 copies, he takes teeth and makes them earrings, he took the pantograph and made it into the proportions of a ring, is this creative yes... but would the original creator say he 'ripped him off' possibly so if they were still alive.
But there is markets which are already saturated and bossart is most likely aiming his product (which is open to anyone) but likely he sells to peole like you who already own CCP. Would you buy his product if you knew nothing of CCP unlikely ... chainstiching, overlock and taping are all very much the characteristics of CCP. The fact he uses these references seem to be more of marketing tool than explanation, anyone can call a stitch anything really.
He does blatent rip off, no different to Boris... in my own opinion boris make rip off from many people but finally he is starting to come into his own,,, many painters study the great masters first to help them create their own technique.

Im not saying creativity doesn't exist in fashion, im saying its normal for people to copy in fashion, its pretty much impossible not to. Im saying i wouldn't buy bossfarts stuff because it lacks effort. I think you are in denial if you think you buy products simply because of technical craftsmanship, we buy fashion, CCP is fashion wether he does one collection a decade it still is fashion, there is nothing wrong with fashion, its part of the world we live in accept it rather than think your above it.

[stagename]

...It may not communicate to the everyday person down the street, they most likely do not know CCP. But at the same time what is the difference between the snap on the CCP zipper pull and and the braided leather of Bottega Venetta, or the tassels on a Balenciaga handbag.
All these details are present in the good and clothing is an expressive communicative tool, you buy them not only for a functional aspect; which is nearly always secondary in high fashion, but to represent who you are as a person to either make you belong to a group or to differentiate yourself from others.
All of the above falls into brand image and brand identity.

Relevant: Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption:

While theories of signaling and conspicuous consumption suggest that more explicit markers facilitate communication, this article examines the utility of subtle signals. Four studies demonstrate that while less explicit branding increases the likelihood of misidentification (e.g., observers confusing a high-end purchase for a cheaper alternative), people with more cultural capital in a particular domain prefer subtle signals because they provide differentiation from the mainstream. Such insiders have the necessary connoisseurship to decode the meaning of subtle signals that facilitate communication with others “in the know.” Consistent with the notion that these effects are driven by outward communication, they are stronger in identity relevant product domains and situations where consumption is more public. This work highlights the communication value of less explicit signals and discusses the implications for branding, signal persistence, and the communication of identity.

[Shucks]

thanks for that article, stagename. will read, with interest.

[Johnny]

we buy fashion, CCP is fashion wether he does one collection a decade it still is fashion, there is nothing wrong with fashion, its part of the world we live in accept it rather than think your above it.

Yes to the above (apart from the shit spelling)! Spot-fecking-on.

[DamageX]

Well, at least Bossert is getting some free publicity and advertising

[888]

Getting back to some WTF...

[BSR]

re snafu/squat controversy, which is interesting to me contrary to what interest1 and lowrey suggest (grrr ):

'copying' is too broad an idea, because in the context of fashion or garments making one should not treat as similar the following practices:

***copying a designer's garment from A to Z (the first augusta boots / CCP side zips)
***borrowing an idea that you can find on a designer's garment (CCP applying the object dyeing technique that comes from benetton to leather)
***copying a classic (i.e. non branded) design (margiela sneakers / german army shoes)
***copying a non-fashion object (the teeth or pentograph examples given by snaf)

[Faust]

Im not saying creativity doesn't exist in fashion, im saying its normal for people to copy in fashion, its pretty much impossible not to. Im saying i wouldn't buy bossfarts stuff because it lacks effort. I think you are in denial if you think you buy products simply because of technical craftsmanship, we buy fashion, CCP is fashion wether he does one collection a decade it still is fashion, there is nothing wrong with fashion, its part of the world we live in accept it rather than think your above it.

I would like to modify the above, because this bipolar view of genius/copy cat is too simplistic. I think what basically happens is that as a creative discipline becomes more saturated it becomes increasingly harder to be truly original. So, it's not that creative horizons close down, but rather they narrow with each new thing produced. I mean somebody HAD to be truly original at one point in order for others to be influenced by them. I think the rise of postmodernism is not a coincidence, but rather a condition of narrowing creative horizons. So much shit has been already done, that riffing, mixing, repurposing, and so on was inevitable.

In fashion, Vivienne Westwood, Gaultier, Comme, Yohji and the Belgian Six were incredibly lucky because no one was there to do what they did and it was easier to be original. There was no punk fashion (in the "designer fashion" sense of the word) before Vivienne Westwood. There was no gothic/poetic fashion before Ann Demeulemeester. There was no post-punk fashion before Raf Simons. There was no minimalism before Jil Sander and Helmut Lang.

Now, it's increasingly difficult NOT to follow in those guys steps because they have staked their claim and put down their signature. However, it is not impossible to come up with an esthetic unique enough to differentiate yourself, it's just more difficult - in the last decade Rick Owens has obviously done it (you cannot say he is original, but he is definitely unique), Carpe Diem, Ghesqiere at Balenciaga, as well as Hedi at Dior Homme and Elbaz at Lanvin. I do not know who that designer would be in this decade - maybe Tisci? (I hate to say it!) or Ackermann? - perhaps it's too early to tell.

[Shucks]

I think the rise of postmodernism is not a coincidence, but rather a condition of narrowing creative horizons. So much shit has been already done, that riffing, mixing, repurposing, and so on was inevitable.

actually, i'd posit that postmodernism developed more out of the perceived failure of modernism to accommodate the psychosocial needs of human existence. at least in architecture this is so.

as for copying, IP is a big part of what i work with, so i'll try to chime in soon.

[Faust]

actually, i'd posit that postmodernism developed more out of the perceived failure of modernism to accommodate the psychosocial needs of human existence. at least in architecture this is so.

as for copying, IP is a big part of what i work with, so i'll try to chime in soon.

Eager to hear, since I've done quite a bit of research on that myself.

[endorphinz]

posted THIS before. I think it's apropos now

btw.please excuse my ignorance,what is IP?

[lowrey]

intellectual property

[endorphinz]

ahhhhh, thank you

[guardimp]

Of these four types of copying what would you say the big differences are. Such as for one, three, and four the only difference to me seems to be the source material. Is there really a big difference between the three, or specifically between one and three? Does the "classicness" of an item make it fair game? If so what defines this trait of an object? And how much change needs to be made for it to be "acceptable?"

[BSR]

In fashion, Vivienne Westwood, Gaultier, Comme, Yohji and the Belgian Six were incredibly lucky because no one was there to do what they did and it was easier to be original. There was no punk fashion (in the "designer fashion" sense of the word) before Vivienne Westwood. There was no gothic/poetic fashion before Ann Demeulemeester. There was no post-punk fashion before Raf Simons. There was no minimalism before Jil Sander and Helmut Lang.

funny because as you write it here fashion is intrinsically derivative: there was no punk fashion before vW but there was punk (or not in this case since 'punk' is nothing but fashion ;-)), and the gothic/poetic type Ann D puts on runaway was of course something very documented in other fields before.