Designer Greatness and Generational Debate

[galia]

... I think you're right. I believe John Waters said we are waiting for someone to makes us say "that's disgusting." Someone or something that will challenge our sense of deceny and renew an interest is seeing the experiencing things differently...until then, I think we will be in a perpetual state of boredom or worst still, complacency.

I always felt this preocupation with shock-value to be extremely futile. To quote Howard Barker "It offends today, but we look harder and we know, it will not offend tomorrow."

surprise is so fleeting, I see awe as a much more desirable sentiment when faced with any realm of creativity

that said, I have no answer to the general debate, just reacting on this particular point

[Faust]

/\ I agree with you there. Shock-value is so BTDT now, it's become irrelevant.

[Johnny]

That said, is there someone you can mark out as a "great designer" - or that is customarily marked out as a great designer - who has not provided a jolt to the then-prevailing system. It's perhaps not an absolute requirement (maybe Margiela didn't really do that), but I think it's almost always there. To my mind the idea of "greatness" in clothing design implies or requries a degree of influence or sociological effect arising from the work. The designer has to change the way we dress or relate to clothing. It's something more than simple talent.

[philip nod]

maybe that's the difference btw art and fashion. in art greatness can be a slow roll, in fashion it must be high impact clothinz designer

[philip nod]

although ccp is a slow roll, not really high impact, except to some nerds like us.

[Faust]

That said, is there someone you can mark out as a "great designer" - or that is customarily marked out as a great designer - who has not provided a jolt to the then-prevailing system. It's perhaps not an absolute requirement (maybe Margiela didn't really do that), but I think it's almost always there. To my mind the idea of "greatness" in clothing design implies or requries a degree of influence or sociological effect arising from the work. The designer has to change the way we dress or relate to clothing. It's something more than simple talent.

What about introducing a new aesthetic? I think that's a mark of a great designer, no?

[Faust]

Name one common thing between Ann Demeulemeester and Proenza Schouler.

This was a real, trivia question, by the way.

[Johnny]

What about introducing a new aesthetic? I think that's a mark of a great designer, no?

that's kind of what I meant! i don't mean shocking in an obvious and ephemeral sort of way - anyone can do that for sure. but, yes a new aesthetic that may not be appreciated to start with but which over time filters through into how others dress. it's the ability to influence that I think marks out a "great" designer.

[Fuuma]

This was a real, trivia question, by the way.

Both have designed pants?

[casem]

Much of this has probably already been said in one form or another on SZ, but I was just reading through this blog PostClassic and thought it relevant to this discussion. Even though he's talking about music (by way of health care ) I think it sums up nicely the problems between art vs. commerce, something that can't really be separated when it comes to fashion.

"You know, this health care debate is setting the groundwork nicely. Everyone is familiarizing themselves with the concept that for-profit insurance companies cannot possibly act in their customers' best interests because they're trying to maximize profits, which means giving minimum service for maximum return. The obvious next step is that art is the same way. The corporations that produce most of our art and entertainment (one of those distinctions I don't make, sorry) are trying to maximize profit, which means they give us art (entertainment) that appeals to the widest number of people on the most superficial, attention-getting level. To make that art thoughtful would be counter-lucrative, because they want us continually unsatisfied and coming back for more as quickly as possible. So our television and movies consist largely of pretty people mouthing innocuous banter; we can't stop watching, but we don't get anything from it. (Well, I haven't had TV reception in 20 years, but even I reflexively glance at Jennifer Aniston when she catches my peripheral vision.*) Art that feeds us, that sustains us, that makes life worthwhile, cannot be reliably produced by an organization whose primary goal is profit. Europe offers a lot of examples that art is one of those things that the social collective, represented by government, can do better for us than people trying to turn a buck on it. Next: socialized, government-supported art. Watch how health care does, keep an eye out, and be ready to strike."

*Note: These words are not mine, I copied this from the aforementioned blog because I liked it.

[galia]

government-subsidized art is almost always major fail

[Faust]

Both have designed pants?

Close! Both had their first collections bought by Barneys.

[casem]

Yea, I'm not sure what the solution is. I just know with the current setup in America, as a non-commercial composer I will probably never make a living at what I do.

government-subsidized art is almost always major fail

Gov't subsidized fashion certainly is not an option, but the quote below is what I thought most relevant to this discussion on why there are no more great designers. The question then is, how is this any different from before when many great designers where produced? My guess is the market for the luxury industry has exploded due to globalization and the internet thus: the bigger the market, the bigger the potential for profit, the dumber the fashion. The upside to this is the global fashion market is now large enough that a niche designer can cater to a very specific crowd and have a sustainable business. That's where you'll find the great designers, hiding in the corners (like SZ).

The corporations that produce most of our art and entertainment (one of those distinctions I don't make, sorry) are trying to maximize profit, which means they give us art (entertainment) that appeals to the widest number of people on the most superficial, attention-getting level. To make that art thoughtful would be counter-lucrative, because they want us continually unsatisfied and coming back for more as quickly as possible.

[Faust]

Good post, Casey!

[Fade to Black]

although ccp is a slow roll, not really high impact, except to some nerds like us.

CCP would probably be slow roll to an aspiring wearer, not sure if what he does is something I could ever really incorporate comfortably into my everyday dress code, financials notwithstanding...i have always been drawn to and fascinated by how he tackles the issue of the wearer's relationship with his garments though, as well as the clarity with which he communicates the violence and menace recurring throughout his pieces. From that viewpoint he'd probably be quite convincing with the oomph to anybody who manages to come across him, although that itself might be slower...

I remember Esquire featured CCP in an up and coming designers piece back in the mid-90s, although what they showed was a pretty conventional suit...not sure when he really took off and ran amok with his ideas, post-2000? If so then I'd say he's probably the one great designer to emerge from this era....him and Slimane, although I have always kind of viewed the latter's claim to the pantheon from a cultural stylist's angle despite a first couple years' run of very strong and statement-making work...