Silent By Damir Doma

[Ochre]

I do think it would be a nice guesture (and quite a challenge) if designers would try their hands also at pieces that don't necessarily fulfill the luxe-criteria of their mainline oeuvre but that is still clearly bearing their signature within the boundaries of an accessible pricepoint - Especially with someone like Damir whose prices are continuously rising upwards from season to season.

I whole-heartedly agree with this.

Coming from a perspective of being a college student with no funding beyond my (semi-decent paying) job, I feel severely restricted in my options for building a wardrobe. With lines like Silent, +J, Y-3, etc.. it is great to be able to experience the influence of a designer that I admire (and would otherwise be unable to own) even if it is diluted. I suppose some will argue that a designer straying from their initial concept or vision in order to appeal to a lower price-point is a foolish move and I understand where they're coming from. But I believe good design is fluid and adaptable (within reason, of course). And I do think Damir was successful in translating his vision into a more accessible price point in this Silent collection.

[Castor]

The discussion of whether or not diffusion lines are justified seems pointless to me. It all comes down to integrity.

Even fine artists have diffusion lines. One could argue that painters like John Currin, Lisa Yuskavage, and Elizabeth Peyton, who all work in the print medium, use prints as a sort of diffusion line. Where their paintings may fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars (and even over $1MM in the secondary/auction market), a print can be had for under ten thousand dollars and is a true representation of their respective work. Sometimes because of the type of print (etching for example), there would be no other way to produce such work, making it even more valid.

I don't think it hurts the artists and I don't think it should hurt the designer if handled with integrity.

[Faust]

Actually, the discussions of integrity are quite pointless when it comes down to diffusion lines. They are licensing agreements where designer rents out his name. The idea that they somehow involved in these labels is laughable. Ochre, if you think Yohji has anything to do with Y-3, then the marketers succeeded in their job.
And as far as +J, it is the biggest perversion in fashion history. When you style is minimalism, it becomes about the precision of cut and the highest quality of fabrics. Otherwise, Jil Sander would have never made it - her line would be pointless. And now she prostitutes her name for an entity that is diametrically opposed to everything she has stood for. And, please, spare me the politically correct democratization of fashion bullshit.

[Castor]

I don't know if it is politically correct or not, but +J is very well executed when considering the price. I do not think it is about minimalism or luxury so much as classic and functional. +J is superior to most department store offerings at 5 times the price.

[Ochre]

Faust, I wish I had more time to devote to an answer but I'm drowning in homework.

Unfortunately, my entire argument is based around the democratization of fashion and the idea that good design can be flexible between various pricing structures. I understand and respect your position on this matter and have no intention of trying to change your mind. But for the sake of my personal rebuttal for others:

I think +J is doing something really well.

What is a person to do if they don't have much money yet have an aesthetic in mind they hope to achieve? Simply rely on the constant mundanity of shopping @ H&M, Zara, etc..? I think options like +J offer a great avenue for people who just don't have the funds to support a luxurious wardrobe. Although I agree that the 'simplicity' ideology clashes with Uniqlo's overall chaotic aesthetic, I think it is nevertheless a good philosophy for a larger demographic to adopt or at least become exposed to (especially in our over-saturated world of nonsense graphics and flagrant use of color).

Yes, material and quality cuts have to be made but I own a few +J pieces and I am very satisfied by their construction for their price. Additionally, a lot of the silhouettes from the line are quite pleasing. There is no doubt that sacrifices have to be made to lower costs but for some, this is the best they can get. And I'm glad lines like these exist so a person's financial situation isn't restricting their goals of achieving a personal aesthetic.

[Faust]

Ochre, don't get me wrong. I am all for the consumer. I realize that the majority of people in this world cannot afford expensive clothes, and the prices for designer/luxury goods are out of control. I am glad in a way that something like +J exists, where you can get decent stuff at a good price. But, that has nothing to do with Jil Sander's ethos - that's what I'm saying. Second, when a garment reaches a certain complexity, such as outerwear and footwear, there is just no way to produce these cheaply. Good stuff at that level costs money, end of story. It's just economics - there is no way around it. You cannot produce a good jacket that retails at $100. I buy my tees at Uniqlo too, and I've bought two pairs of jeans from them, and those are all good for what they are. I also like their merino wool sweaters. But look at their outerwear, +J included, and you will see that it just doesn't work - it's ill cut, the fabrics are shit, and chances are it won't hold up well.

My main problem with chain stores (and let's face it, Uniqlo is the single bright spot among them) is not that they produce cheap shit per se, but other, socioeconomic problems. Many people don't have money, and that doesn't mean that they should be banished to Kohl's. My problem is that the ostensible purpose of these stores - making fashion affordable - is often overshadowed by the real purpose - driving consumerism. There are people who buy stuff from there every week, then throw it out, sometimes with tags still on them, and they don't feel bad about it. Then come sustainability problems. Then sweatshop problems. Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

[Ochre]

Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

And there is a whole group of people who would argue that such an attachment to material goods can be a bad thing .

But I agree with everything else you said there. I must have misunderstood your first post and I'm glad you think there is at least some place in the world for lines like +J (but maybe without the forced designer relationship). I hate how department stores encourage mindless consumerism with little care for anything else but how to make money. I have friends who shop @ places like Forever 21 and they're always so excited that they found a jacket for $30 or whatever and literally a week later it begins to fall apart. Additionally, it is sad that these absurdly low prices are now engrained in the general consumer conscience and many refuse to pay more than $30 for a jacket because they think it is unfairly costly. When the fact of the matter is $30 is actually unfairly low! haha

I also had a friend from school tell me that she refuses to spend more than $50 on any article of clothing which kind of left me scratching my head at the arbitrariness of it all.

But I don't mean to get too far off track from the original discussion of Silent. I only meant to voice my support for a cheaper alternative that a fashion/image-conscious person could utilize that doesn't have the financial backing to support a wardrobe containing higher-cost goods.

[lowrey]

Ochre, don't get me wrong. I am all for the consumer. I realize that the majority of people in this world cannot afford expensive clothes, and the prices for designer/luxury goods are out of control. I am glad in a way that something like +J exists, where you can get decent stuff at a good price. But, that has nothing to do with Jil Sander's ethos - that's what I'm saying. Second, when a garment reaches a certain complexity, such as outerwear and footwear, there is just no way to produce these cheaply. Good stuff at that level costs money, end of story. It's just economics - there is no way around it. You cannot produce a good jacket that retails at $100. I buy my tees at Uniqlo too, and I've bought two pairs of jeans from them, and those are all good for what they are. I also like their merino wool sweaters. But look at their outerwear, +J included, and you will see that it just doesn't work - it's ill cut, the fabrics are shit, and chances are it won't hold up well.

My main problem with chain stores (and let's face it, Uniqlo is the single bright spot among them) is not that they produce cheap shit per se, but other, socioeconomic problems. Many people don't have money, and that doesn't mean that they should be banished to Kohl's. My problem is that the ostensible purpose of these stores - making fashion affordable - is often overshadowed by the real purpose - driving consumerism. There are people who buy stuff from there every week, then throw it out, sometimes with tags still on them, and they don't feel bad about it. Then come sustainability problems. Then sweatshop problems. Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

CHURCH

[Faust]

"

And there is a whole group of people who would argue that such an attachment to material goods can be a bad thing .

Yes, particularly the intellectuals. Funny, I wrote a part of an article on exactly this, but I had to scrap that part because of space limitations. Good thing I have SZ - here is what I wrote;

" If before, artisanal production would have been dismissed as another Ruskin-Williams naturalistic utopia, today it has more validity, as we are chocking under the flood of overproduction of mass-manufactured goods and sustainability concerns become very real. All of a sudden the question of living in harmony with, and therefore giving more weight to, your material surrounding, clothes included, no longer seems shallow. "

But I agree with everything else you said there. I must have misunderstood your first post and I'm glad you think there is at least some place in the world for lines like +J (but maybe without the forced designer relationship). I hate how department stores encourage mindless consumerism with little care for anything else but how to make money. I have friends who shop @ places like Forever 21 and they're always so excited that they found a jacket for $30 or whatever and literally a week later it begins to fall apart. Additionally, it is sad that these absurdly low prices are now engrained in the general consumer conscience and many refuse to pay more than $30 for a jacket because they think it is unfairly costly. When the fact of the matter is $30 is actually unfairly low! haha

I also had a friend from school tell me that she refuses to spend more than $50 on any article of clothing which kind of left me scratching my head at the arbitrariness of it all.

But I don't mean to get too far off track from the original discussion of Silent. I only meant to voice my support for a cheaper alternative that a fashion/image-conscious person could utilize that doesn't have the financial backing to support a wardrobe containing higher-cost goods.

I am glad we understand each other Don't worry about going on tangents - this is what makes SZ read-worthy.

PREACH IT, LOWREY!

[yffet]

Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

Agreed. Cherishing clothes, what a great and weird sensation.

Im gonna give a try to the Silent sneakers( High cream color). Pictures on the web teased me quite enough and its a pain to find any decent sneakers those days.

[the breaks]

I think the fashion forum equivalent is buying the $1000 coat online, trying it on once and selling it for 800.

[yffet]

Silent Sneakers are Online at Oki-ni....

Damn, so disappointed.....Its not the same shape/color from previous pictures. Hate internet :)

[huckleberry]

I actually quite like them. The leather looks suprisingly nice on them and I like the colour of the grey ones. Only draw back is I can tell those soles would be gone within a few wears.

[beardown]

Ochre, don't get me wrong. I am all for the consumer. I realize that the majority of people in this world cannot afford expensive clothes, and the prices for designer/luxury goods are out of control. I am glad in a way that something like +J exists, where you can get decent stuff at a good price. But, that has nothing to do with Jil Sander's ethos - that's what I'm saying. Second, when a garment reaches a certain complexity, such as outerwear and footwear, there is just no way to produce these cheaply. Good stuff at that level costs money, end of story. It's just economics - there is no way around it. You cannot produce a good jacket that retails at $100. I buy my tees at Uniqlo too, and I've bought two pairs of jeans from them, and those are all good for what they are. I also like their merino wool sweaters. But look at their outerwear, +J included, and you will see that it just doesn't work - it's ill cut, the fabrics are shit, and chances are it won't hold up well.

My main problem with chain stores (and let's face it, Uniqlo is the single bright spot among them) is not that they produce cheap shit per se, but other, socioeconomic problems. Many people don't have money, and that doesn't mean that they should be banished to Kohl's. My problem is that the ostensible purpose of these stores - making fashion affordable - is often overshadowed by the real purpose - driving consumerism. There are people who buy stuff from there every week, then throw it out, sometimes with tags still on them, and they don't feel bad about it. Then come sustainability problems. Then sweatshop problems. Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

I don't mean to wallpaper the page with this post by having it quoted again but comments like this are why I love SZ.
There are a lot of variables to be considered when it comes to fashion and garments, pricing, manufacturing and retail.

This basically sums it all up. Well said, Faust.

[Faust]

Thank you.