Rick Owens

[hobo]

mmm i think it's 99% right...

if some one buy a total look thinking "now i'm on!!!" (here we have the 99%..) is a victim in the same way you have told before.. (i think it's just a short way to be something that you arent just for get approvation or disapprovation...)
but if some one (i think a lot of people here) match a look of some piece of the same designer looking at the proportion, etc.. i think he just like what he wear ...

Agreed

[BSR]

I don't know... I think that a total look of any designer shows a certain lack of thought. It's easy to wear a look that you see on the catwalk or in a magazine, but it shows nothing of your own identity. It shows only the identity of the designer and stylist (if it's from a mag). To me this denotes a fashion victim, whether it's LV, Prada, Comme or Rick. A victim is not someone who wears some wild and outrageous thing that you don’t happen to like. Individual style has nothing to do with it! That is subjective and by that line of thinking we would all be victims, of one sort or another, in someone’s book. No, a victim is someone who makes a bold statement with their clothing and the statement says absolutely nothing. It's like standing in the street and shouting, “listen to me, listen to me!” and then when everyone listens, you say "oh I forgot what I wanted to say." That’s a victim.

Clothing should make a statement about who you are, where you’re from and who you aspire to be. It can be bold or it can be subtle. It can be Gucci or it can be Grandma, but it must be honest. I see little honesty in a ‘total look’, unless you happen to work for the designer.

Come on, give it some thought!

This is quite a point against total looks and label whores indeed, but I am not sure to endorse the viewpoint that someone's got style if and only if one expresses his/her "true" self with what one chooses to wear. I would suggest that a style can also be seen a means to create a character and not necessarily be a "faithful image of the self" (if it has a meaning). It can also be interesting to build a wardrobe that reflects all the characters we want to be, meaning, all fantasies we still have. Some days I want to dress like a manga hero, others an Austrian prince, others a Polish peasant, others a corrupt politician and others a Dreyeresque vampire... why should I restrict to unveil and impose to people my own identity?

[cabl3]

You of course have the choice to do that, but I cant help but believe in that fact that, even amidst all of the deconstructionalism, drapiness, assymetry, anatomical construction and other forms of stylistic variations present in the creations of many of the designers we are so attracted to, there must be some form of cohesion or structure in the way you dress yourself.

Otherwise, it just becomes "dress up".

[BSR]

You of course have the choice to do that, but I cant help but believe in that fact that, even amidst all of the deconstructionalism, drapiness, assymetry, anatomical construction and other forms of stylistic variations present in the creations of many of the designers we are so attracted to, there must be some form of cohesion or structure in the way you dress yourself.

Otherwise, it just becomes "dress up".

I see what you mean, but I would not draw the line between dress vs dress up this way : dress up for me would be when your outfit doesn't match a fantasy you really have in your subconscious or something like that. In that case you're dressing up and you're a victim of others' ideas. But we will agree at the end, cause of course we don't probably have the fantaisies we have by chance, but by virtue of who we are...

[philip nod]

I think he means that's a lot of dick.
Works for me. Dick goes well with Dick as Faust said.
I am milano today and it doesn't work quite the same way with some of the lovely Italian labels on display here. Ouch. I stick out like a sore dick.

fixed. for layering purposes.

[mrbeuys]

fixed. for layering purposes.

Cheers mate. Always there to 'lend a hand'.

[philip nod]

[hobo]

You of course have the choice to do that, but I cant help but believe in that fact that, even amidst all of the deconstructionalism, drapiness, assymetry, anatomical construction and other forms of stylistic variations present in the creations of many of the designers we are so attracted to, there must be some form of cohesion or structure in the way you dress yourself.

Otherwise, it just becomes "dress up".

^ Conceded!

However I would like to clarify that what I’m talking about is not necessarily creativity, although one must have some in order to think this way. What I’m talking about is a scene of self and of self worth and from that a person choosing to use his/her clothing to express his/her personality, whether it’s super cool, bland or just fucking nuts. That may be realised in a pair of Gap shorts and a second hand T-shirt, or it might be by looking like the girl in French Vogue, but it can’t be realised by dressing up to try to convince the world and yourself that you are in fact someone else. So, I suppose that you’re right in that the expression may be realised in a ‘total look’.

Thanks; A good point and well put!

This is quite a point against total looks and label whores indeed, but I am not sure to endorse the viewpoint that someone's got style if and only if one expresses his/her "true" self with what one chooses to wear. I would suggest that a style can also be seen a means to create a character and not necessarily be a "faithful image of the self" (if it has a meaning). It can also be interesting to build a wardrobe that reflects all the characters we want to be, meaning, all fantasies we still have. Some days I want to dress like a manga hero, others an Austrian prince, others a Polish peasant, others a corrupt politician and others a Dreyeresque vampire... why should I restrict to unveil and impose to people my own identity?

I see what you mean, but I would not draw the line between dress vs dress up this way : dress up for me would be when your outfit doesn't match a fantasy you really have in your subconscious or something like that. In that case you're dressing up and you're a victim of others' ideas. But we will agree at the end, cause of course we don't probably have the fantaisies we have by chance, but by virtue of who we are...

I think that you are both arguing the same point, to be honest. As I said in the post above, "whether it's super cool, bland or just fucking nuts" if it's your personality, go for it. BSR, your clearly fucking nuts. But that's you so go for it. I think that you are dressing a certain way because that's how you feel. You may be playing dress-up but you're still presenting something of yourself. You're not dressing up to try to convince others (and yourself) that you're something that you're not. I think, there lies the difference.

[homi]

http://www.oki-ni.com/icat/rickowenseastpakall

drkshdw x eastpak on oki ni

[Konzern]

I thinks some the bags look quite good, nice detail with the welding teqnique but 199GPB is a bit steep...

[Ivans On High]

They have them at why-lip as well, and they are slightly cheaper (not including proxy fees).

http://www.why-lip.com/drkshdw_mens/

[SHYE_POSER]

i wouldnt say the "welding" is a new/innovative technique,i have a nike gym bag using the same thing!
Its more like a thermal tape rather than a weld.

[Catfood]

I really don't see the appeal of those bags, nothing very special about any of them. In fact I'd say most of them are quite ugly.

[MikeN]

agreed

[lowrey]

I think they're alright for what they are - somewhat sporty backpacks and bags. the stonewashed material looks kind of neat compared to classic nylon that usually used on such bags, and the taped seams make them look quite streamlined imo. nothing revolutionary but I do like them more than the puffy Raf ones, for example.