I'm all for imperfection in design (and a good theory of gradual decay increasing the aesthetic quality of a piece) as long as the designer doesn't cling to it in an effort to justify design flaws.
I'm not suggesting that's what Poell does but it's easy to see how a designer could rationalize any shortcoming by saying it adds interest and character to a piece.
I can see that becoming an issue for lesser-skilled tailors and designers. Like the little disclaimer tag you get on some garments which claim, "All inconsistencies and damage were purposefully created to add interest to the garment and should not be considered a flaw."
"Any flaw in the fit or symmetry of this garment should be considered stylish and subtle character added by the designer in the design process."
I see the appeal... I actually like the idea of subtle flaws as long as the piece still fits the body well.
I'm not suggesting that's what Poell does but it's easy to see how a designer could rationalize any shortcoming by saying it adds interest and character to a piece.
I can see that becoming an issue for lesser-skilled tailors and designers. Like the little disclaimer tag you get on some garments which claim, "All inconsistencies and damage were purposefully created to add interest to the garment and should not be considered a flaw."
"Any flaw in the fit or symmetry of this garment should be considered stylish and subtle character added by the designer in the design process."
I see the appeal... I actually like the idea of subtle flaws as long as the piece still fits the body well.
Comment