[quote user="laika"][quote user="Seventh"]
I have been away for
while (out west and away from computers), so I am just starting to catch up
with the discussions going on, so forgive me if this has been raised before...
It is an interesting
discussion, and it definitely seems like it raises some strong opinions. What I
am most interested by Thom Browne, is the cultural aesthetic that he is after.
I'll admit that I am not a fan, but it seems to go further than that.
The video that Laika
posted really bothered me and I took me a while to figure out why. I think it
was, overproduced, immaculate/pretentious, mildly culturally racist
(all white cast), engaged in a shorthand symbolic references to
"authentic" spiritual experiences (the baptism, wtf?) , safe and homogenous
(it only looks good on thin, boring-looking, young men), and trying to present
a look and feeling of false naivety and innocence. I know that is a lot to say
for a silly fashion video... :)
But I am sick of perfectly
coiffed, white, pretty and empty men, trying to look like serious innocent
men/children from an imagined (far more nobler) past, and clothing that encourages
this mentality. Do other people on the SZ have an opinion on how clothing fits
the zeitgeist of the contemporary times (no pun intended)? For me, I am
bothered that so much youth culture and design seems to be interested in the
fantasy of innocence and naivety, especially at this contemporary moment (a war
in Iraq, huge political corruption, split between rich and poor is getting more
extreme). Shouldn't clothing have an active language, what I loved about CDG
(back in the day) was that it seemed active--that deconstruction was so much
part of our experience and life in the 90s. Browne's work seems an escape from
an realities into a dream world that only certain people are permitted to
self-select into.
[/quote]
I think you and Faust might be missing the point here; or perhaps just overly conflating Anthony's vision with Thom's. Goicolea's work is supposed be disturbing--to show the dark, menacing underbelly of adolescence and of dreams. The "fantasy of innocence and naivety" that you refer to is constantly being undermined by intimations of violence--the sheep shearing, the dead octopus, the boy being nailed into a coffin by his peers. The uniformity of the boys, I think, just contributes to this mood of looming danger; and also underscores the dark homoeroticism that is always part of Goicolea's aesthetic. TB's clothes--which are simultaneously fascistic and androgynous, cruel and adolescent--work perfectly in this narrative. There is no innocence, that is the whole point.
Now, how exactly is this pretentious, please? [^o)]
I am really interested in the last part of your post, re: clothes and zeitgeist--will think about that and respond later on.
(And, welcome back, you were very sorely missed![51] )
[/quote]
Hi Laika! [51]
Thanks for clueing me in on Goicolea--I took a look at his website. But I stand by my reaction to video (and to his work in general); it is overproduced, immaculate/pretentious, etc. And if it is meant to evoke in me some dark looming danger built out of a self-reflexive irony, it is doing a terrible job because the whole film is built on tropes and heavy handed symbols (the restrained sheep, the octopus, the baptism), with the expectation that we, as culturally astute viewers ([|-)]) are supposed to read more into than what is actually there...(and this is deeply pretentious). I couldn't give a damn about the boys, I don't identify, empathize, feel any relevance to, or wish for their salvation--their only function is to look pretty and sorta wistful. And it is all about innocence, perhaps lost innocence, but nevertheless a fantasy designed to be appealing and nostalgic.
Anyway... I'm in a punchy mood.
Yeah--please respond to the clothes and zeitgeist part! I feel like Raf might be on to something in his Spring collection (but I need to spend more time looking at the pictures).
Comment