Carol Christian Poell

[mesh]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

I really want that black belt and possibly the crewneck. Carol just seems to get better and better at doing what he does it's amazing.

[Faust]

Re: Carol Christian Poell



[quote user="mesh"]I really want that black belt and possibly the crewneck. Carol just seems to get better and better at doing what he does it's amazing.[/quote]

depth, and not breadth - that's where it's at. [Y]

[DHC]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="johnny_herb"]

Hi, I'm new here.

Just thought I'd say that I have managed to get a pair of 96 Poell trousers. They are in this crazy material. Haven't got them with me know but when I do I will put some details up, its all written on the label inside. I'll also be selling them sometime soon, they are too small for me.

I also find it interesting about people saying that when someone is 'pulling off' wearing something, it does something that art cannot. But can we compare this with art!? A kettle can boil water, which art cannot principally do (although I'm sure there are modern installations with kettles in) but we don't compare it to art. I have often pondered over why I am interested in what I wear, it has caused me great anxiety: am I justincredibly materialistic and vain?I think for me it is principally about being an individual, perhaps it is a psychological flaw on my part: making up for something which I think I lack in my personality. Would be interesting to see what you guys think about this? I know its going off the Poell topic so, does anyone know what angle he may reply to this kind of questioning?

Cheers

[/quote]

Hi Jonathan!

Welcome to SZ! I'm sure you'll soon find yourself here quite often.

I think that was in response to clothing being fabric and thus could not be art, which I couldn't disagree with more. Case in point, Carol Christian Poell, which brings us back to topic. His creation of a sleeveless coat composed of human hair. I believe it was an anthropomorphic manifestation of the oppression of women. It inspired deep contemplation of inequality in society, brought to light through an article of clothing. It is a compelling piece and it is absolutely art. From the brilliantly tailored restricted arms as if bound yet free to the composition of hair as a medium of adornment and all masterfully constructed. How can one argue that it is not art?

Allow me to digress or I'll rant on and on...

As far as your "interest" in what you wear, here is an excerpt from one of Faust' blogs (hope you don't mind Faust) at http://fashion-critic.blogspot.com

"...to be unconcerned with fashion, and therefore to be unconcerned with
appearance. Yet anyone who claims to be unconcerned with their
appearance has always seemed like a hypocrite to me. One is ALWAYS
concerned about ones appearance, and some people who choose to dress in
ill-fitting clothing from bargain bins just may have put more
calculation into how they look than a person who throws together a
well-designed outfit. So, the problem is the same - the problem of image."

I am in complete accord with the thought he has shared here. It's something that we all share in at one level or another. Vanity is vanity and it is an intrinsic human trait. You can rationalize it any which way you want. An appreciation for the aesthetic of an article of clothing is one thing but the desire or need to don it is another. The degree and direction may stem from different emotions and/or intentions, but it's all vanity.[75]

OK, again I rant, so I'll cut myself off here.

Again, welcome to SZ! And let me know when you get those jeans. I shipped them out yesterday and emailed you. Don't know if you got the email. Let me know!

Cas! Can't wait to see pictures of you wearing that sweater! It's beautiful! [Y]

[Casius]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

Finally a picture of the jointed leather jacket...

[bellapietra1501]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

the joints in the elbows and back are really nice. thanx for the pix casius. where'd you get it?

[Johnny]

Re: Carol Christian Poell



It looks good, but also looks to be exactly the same idea/techique that Junya Watanabe did for men a couple of winters ago.

DHC - could you expand on your idea that a tight hairy coat is some kind of comment about the expression of women?

[Casius]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="bellapietra1501"]the joints in the elbows and back are really nice. thanx for the pix casius. where'd you get it?
[/quote]

I agree, the jointing on the jacket and trousers looks sooooo much better than on the shirts. They're way more structured and 'joint-like' unlike the shirts which are more like a curved shaped sleeve.

The picture was actually courtesy of Runner over on TFS.

[Faust]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="Johnny"]

It looks good, but also looks to be exactly the same idea/techique that Junya Watanabe did for men a couple of winters ago.

DHC - could you expand on your idea that a tight hairy coat is some kind of comment about the expression of women?

[/quote]

Yep, I remember that. Do you recall me getting a pair of jeans with joints? I had to sell them - they were too slim. Anyway, these things demand a very particular height, because they joints must sit in line with the wearer's anatomy.

[Johnny]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

i didn't know you got those Faust, but I can imagine how they were. That whole collection was shrunken and I thinkthe point of the joints for JW was to work a way of making clothes that small that would somehow still work - thus the jointing to make movement easier. But, erm, it didn't work, for the reasons Faust said.

[nqth]

Re: Carol Christian Poell



I think if he used his own hair, or pretended that the hair was his, it could be pure art:-)

Johnny I think the joint is more about to construct the trousers in a raw and primitive way. Kind of punkish, DIY from existing clothes.

[DHC]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="Johnny"]

It looks good, but also looks to be exactly the same idea/techique that Junya Watanabe did for men a couple of winters ago.

DHC - could you expand on your idea that a tight hairy coat is some kind of comment about the expression of women?

[/quote]

LOL! Wow! I don't know how to take that Johnny. Your question seems to be an attempt to discount my thoughts to be perceived as pretentious jibberish. That's cool man. I can respect that.

Art is open to interpretation. It can provoke thought or it can simply be oil smeared on a sheet of cotton.

In my own defense, I believe what I was saying was pretty straight forward and I also believe the common noun there was oppression. It is not an expression of "women", but the "plight" they have had to endure throughout history. I really don't understand how that could have been confused.

So I guess I'll humor you by expanding a bit. The "tight" coat does not have sleeves to accommodate arms. Thus care must be taken in the use of the arms when said coat is worn or it can result in the long coat coming off(disrobed). For one to be mindful of a natural act and having to place limitations on one's movement lest they expose their shame is what I interpret here as oppression. I use the word shame because the only image of the coat I have seen is worn by a man with no shirt or "half naked". So these thoughts spin off within the context of that picture. Naked=shame as Adam and Eve were ashamed in the Garden of Eden when called by God, for they were naked. Yes, it was the genitalia that was the source of their shame, but remember that there are cultures today that frown upon women showing their faces. Is it really necessary for me to go on like this? It's all one's own perception and open to interpretation. Yeah, it's a hairy coat, I perceive it as more. One man's trash is another man's treasure...etc..etc. It is what it is to you and it is what it is to me. Nothing but love man..nothing but love.[75]

[Johnny]

Re: Carol Christian Poell



DHC, i was being playful, no offence intended, and I don't think you took any. That said, if i'm going to do such things I could at least type what I actually mean. I did, of course, mean oppression, not expression! Anyway I see that you cut throught that partiular confusion well enough.

I asked because I suppose it did strike me as a bit pretentious ( I still don't see it, but do understand that there is subjective merit in what you say), but also because I think I find some of Poell's older work for women quite misogynistic. He did a collection ora series of them based on different sections of the body in which these sections did not fit with what is customarily accepted as the normal sections of the body for which clothes are formed (torso, head legs, feet). So his sections would cut through those customs,and thus for example hisskirt would start at the thigh, exposing an area not normally exposed by a skirt.The models faces were also covered with tape or otherwise blanked out, presumably in an attempt to be puristic about the clothing itself. However.....they ARE clothes, and are looked in that context. And as such I was quite annoyed at them - seriously, what sort of woman would be attracted by an image in which the face is blanked out and genitalia is expossed. At the very least it seems to me to beinconsistent with theidea offemale emancipation or power.So, subjective validity notwisthstanding, Ican't agree about the coat.

[DHC]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="Johnny"]

DHC, i was being playful, no offence intended, and I don't think you took any. That said, if i'm going to do such things I could at least type what I actually mean. I did, of course, mean oppression, not expression! Anyway I see that you cut throught that partiular confusion well enough.

I asked because I suppose it did strike me as a bit pretentious ( I still don't see it, but do understand that there is subjective merit in what you say), but also because I think I find some of Poell's older work for women quite misogynistic. He did a collection ora series of them based on different sections of the body in which these sections did not fit with what is customarily accepted as the normal sections of the body for which clothes are formed (torso, head legs, feet). So his sections would cut through those customs,and thus for example hisskirt would start at the thigh, exposing an area not normally exposed by a skirt.The models faces were also covered with tape or otherwise blanked out, presumably in an attempt to be puristic about the clothing itself. However.....they ARE clothes, and are looked in that context. And as such I was quite annoyed at them - seriously, what sort of woman would be attracted by an image in which the face is blanked out and genitalia is expossed. At the very least it seems to me to beinconsistent with theidea offemale emancipation or power.So, subjective validity notwisthstanding, Ican't agree about the coat.

[/quote]

Right on brother! Right on! Forgive me if I conveyed the impression that the coat embraced the idea of female empowerment. That is certainly not the case. Not in my wildest dreams could I envision an article of clothing achieving such a task. I thought that the coat was for his men's collection (and at best, in a positive light) striving to invoke a sense of empathy towards the struggle women face. I still embrace this point of view. I do concede in that my exposure to his women's collections outside of 2005 is limited to say the least. So the glorification of Poell's work in this respect may very well be the sum of ignorance. Do you by chance have a link to collection that you are referencing? I'd appreciate it if you threw it my way. I have to say that I also appreciate you and your post. You rock brother!

[Faust]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

[quote user="nqth"]

I think if he used his own hair, or pretended that the hair was his, it could be pure art:-)

Johnny I think the joint is more about to construct the trousers in a raw and primitive way. Kind of punkish, DIY from existing clothes.

[/quote]

Don't give Carol any ideas.

[the breaks]

Re: Carol Christian Poell

Wow this is a great thread for a great designer [Y] And now i'm making it worse with my no-content posting [N]