Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

fashion in the age of instagram

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BSR
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2008
    • 1562

    fashion in the age of instagram



    not very new, except that now designers design with the 2D reproduction of the garments in mind, so the iconic madness eventually affects the very nature of the objects. this is again very postmodern: you don't really wear a garment (well) unless you are wearing it (well) in a picture. it is not how you look like for real that matters, because 'for real' has been replaced by 'in picture'.

    it tells something about the nature of fashion too: fashion is clearly on the side of the "yes-thinking" and belongs to a culture of unambiguous adherence (cf the recent discussion about the lack of true critical authorities in this world). so it has to adopt, and to adopt fast, all the major behaviors of the days, instagram included. it is interesting to see some of the designers discussed on SZ as strong iconoclasts, refusing the proliferation of 2D digital copies of their work. Hasn't the avant-garde turned reactionnary ?
    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.
  • Mail-Moth
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 1448

    #2
    Originally posted by BSR View Post
    this is again very postmodern: you don't really wear a garment (well) unless you are wearing it (well) in a picture. it is not how you look like for real that matters, because 'for real' has been replaced by 'in picture'.
    I remember a very (very) old discussion on BG about garments being more or less consciously chosen depending on the way they would look on pics - hence the general defiance regarding wide cuts, which were less flattering than more adjusted ones. It was six years ago, more or less (déjà !), and we were already producing static silhouettes more than anything else - willingly or not.

    PS : Hi ben, hi everyone.
    I can see a hat, I can see a cat,
    I can see a man with a baseball bat.

    Comment

    • Pumpfish
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2010
      • 513

      #3
      I think this phase will be quickly superseded by technology. Pictures today will be more interactive high def, 2d and 3d videos tomorrow.

      As the image is devalued, and as the audience gets jaded, the more sensual experience which clothes offer will come back to the fore.

      Fuck. I'm talking in riddles to impress the French guys

      Welcome back!
      spinning glue back into horses. . .

      Comment

      • BSR
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2008
        • 1562

        #4
        WOW. People of SZ, I made the Moth come back.

        hi F :-) I remember this discussion very well, and thought about it while reading the NYT article and posting this thread.
        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

        • nevermind
          Member
          • Sep 2007
          • 32

          #5
          Two funny things stood out to me. The Wang quotes speak for themselves. Populist means for a populist market. Raf's comments were a bit odd though. Not sure why he's complaining. The people, the right ones (the fashion nobilities), who need to see the show would of been physically present at the show. The ones away, looking through the windows of their smartphones, are just just like the concert goers who couldn't even score the most cheapest of seats. Isn't the success of a concert measured through its tickets and DVD sales?

          It seems the fashion experience is this: you get inspired online, you buy online, and you wear it online. Wearing it in 'real life' is just the backstage, the behind-the-scene, and the retreat to the online world seems to be symptomatic of a greater ill, if the 'strangers reactions to your clothing' thread is of any suggestion. 'Imagined communities' are the only safe heaven where your bleeding edge silhouette won't be grimaced at by daddy who paid for it, or scoffed at by the unfashionable public who've never associated a shirt with sums greater than 2-digits .

          Comment

          • Fuuma
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2006
            • 4050

            #6
            Originally posted by BSR View Post
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fa...w-nytimes&_r=0

            not very new, except that now designers design with the 2D reproduction of the garments in mind, so the iconic madness eventually affects the very nature of the objects. this is again very postmodern: you don't really wear a garment (well) unless you are wearing it (well) in a picture. it is not how you look like for real that matters, because 'for real' has been replaced by 'in picture'.

            it tells something about the nature of fashion too: fashion is clearly on the side of the "yes-thinking" and belongs to a culture of unambiguous adherence (cf the recent discussion about the lack of true critical authorities in this world). so it has to adopt, and to adopt fast, all the major behaviors of the days, instagram included. it is interesting to see some of the designers discussed on SZ as strong iconoclasts, refusing the proliferation of 2D digital copies of their work. Hasn't the avant-garde turned reactionnary ?
            It is interesting how the fashion world is basically unable/uninterested in assessing the impact of new technological practices outside of a 90% total agreement vs 10% reactionaries binary division.

            WB Moth!!
            Last edited by Fuuma; 04-14-2014, 02:06 PM. Reason: moth is back
            Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
            http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff

            Comment

            • Faust
              kitsch killer
              • Sep 2006
              • 37852

              #7
              Originally posted by BSR View Post
              http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fa...w-nytimes&_r=0

              not very new, except that now designers design with the 2D reproduction of the garments in mind, so the iconic madness eventually affects the very nature of the objects. this is again very postmodern: you don't really wear a garment (well) unless you are wearing it (well) in a picture. it is not how you look like for real that matters, because 'for real' has been replaced by 'in picture'.

              it tells something about the nature of fashion too: fashion is clearly on the side of the "yes-thinking" and belongs to a culture of unambiguous adherence (cf the recent discussion about the lack of true critical authorities in this world). so it has to adopt, and to adopt fast, all the major behaviors of the days, instagram included. it is interesting to see some of the designers discussed on SZ as strong iconoclasts, refusing the proliferation of 2D digital copies of their work. Hasn't the avant-garde turned reactionnary ?
              I don't think reactionary (or conservative) is necessarily a bad thing in this case. I think they just don't want to be part of the circus.

              But, yeah, going through Instagram feeds of my blogger buddies you can see what painstaking effort people go through to be photographed, customizing their clothes with phrases, slogans, graphics, anything that could be easily photographed and looked good on an iPhone. That designers are picking up on this makes sense - free advertising.
              Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

              StyleZeitgeist Magazine

              Comment

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