Politics of Universe Making

[Sombre]

I think creating a universe, or an alternate reality in which the clothes exist independently of their mundane associations, is essential to the success of many of the designers frequently discussed here. If the designers cannot communicate that, they're just selling weird shit. Suddenly Poell's burial of leather for years becomes nothing more than selling damaged goods, Pugh is trying too hard to sell Hellrasier - 21st century edition, and Horikawa is just a depressed buddhist.

For anyone to buy these clothes without looking/feeling like they're wearing a costume, they have to believe in what the designer does and the reasons behind a particular collection. At the very least, the clothes must meet criteria that allow them to be integrated into the wearer's personal universe, either by aesthetic or philosophical similarities. This last sentence takes the control away from the designers, and turns their livelihood into a game of luck, so it's far more beneficial to them to credibly create this alternate world. Thus it serves both the designers and us as consumers to transport us away from reality (to the extent that it exists) to a place we believe their creations take form with the inspiration behind them.

[Mail-Moth]

^ I wanted to write something on the subject but I really have nothing to add after this. It perfectly sums up my opinion.

[pierce4]

"they have to believe in what the designer does and the reasons behind a particular collection. At the very least, the clothes must meet criteria that allow them to be integrated into the wearer's personal universe, either by aesthetic or philosophical similarities."

Exactly the point I was trying to make. It is us who want the meaning. We want to connect with the designer and the world he/she creates and give our selves up to it, through wearing the clothes, buying the items that symbolize the universe...the fashion designer as the cult leader ;)

[casem]

Hehe, sort of, depending on my mood. I hope it's not too naive a point, but obviously the meaning we attach to objects makes for a complex system of communication and communication can be good, so I'm not totally against it. But sometimes I'm not sure if our desire to communicate through objects enriches our lives or enslaves us, especially as mass production/globalization makes what we are communicating increasingly generic. I know everyone agrees the clothes we wear have meaning and we carefully choose them to say something to the world about who we think we are. But, what I would like to hear discussed more is, who is creating this meaning and who's interests is it serving (what "work" is it doing for you scholars)?

OMG, Casey, you are just a regular Marxist!!!

[pierce4]

"But, what I would like to hear discussed more is, who is creating this meaning and who's interests is it serving"

Interesting point. So by creating a universe based around some ideal, which people associate with and buy into, the designer is?

[Faust]

Hehe, sort of, depending on my mood. I hope it's not too naive a point, but obviously the meaning we attach to objects makes for a complex system of communication and communication can be good, so I'm not totally against it. But sometimes I'm not sure if our desire to communicate through objects enriches our lives or enslaves us, especially as mass production/globalization makes what we are communicating increasingly generic. I know everyone agrees the clothes we wear have meaning and we carefully choose them to say something to the world about who we think we are. But, what I would like to hear discussed more is, who is creating this meaning and who's interests is it serving (what "work" is it doing for you scholars)?

All fashion participants create meaning - designers, wearers, the media. All three interact and have the power to recontextualize the garment. It can go something like this

A) Ann Demeulemeester creates a white shirt because she is inspired by a Patti Smith photo. For her the white shirt is pure and poetic and fits within her universe.
B) Vogue uses the white shirt for a photo shoot on Malibu beach with a Gucci handbag and Versace shoes against a backdrop of Ferrari. The meaning has changed from poetry to display of social status.
C) A wealthy Texas bimbo buys the shirt because she saw it in Vogue, so she naturally must have it. The meaning has changed again into a bourgeois housewive projection of what is fashionable.

[Avantster]

I think we should name some designers first, before we fly away on the air balloon of abstraction. If you mean designers like Yohji Yamamoto, Ann Demeulemeester, Veronique Branquinho, etc. I think these designers don't create a world, but rather recreate parts of it in their own way. Life is too complex of a thing, so we choose cultural artifacts that speak to us, that we find value in, and proceed from there. If you look at the influences on the 3 aforementioned designers, they are very clear and palpable.

Agreed, these designers aren't so much interested in creating a world as much as progressing along a path through the examination of certain ideas and re-occurring themes that are ultimately reflected in their clothing. It's when the creation and proliferation of this 'world' becomes more important than the clothes themselves that we end up with lifestyle brands.

[fenrost]

well yeah, utilitarian function, to begin with, can be very isomorphically memetic still. I suppose there's much hardly many depths of "really own universal" so to speak in this area? imho

"But, what I would like to hear discussed more is, who is creating this meaning and who's interests is it serving"

i guess, the who, would be still .....us? such re-contextualization does not full stop, IMO - the alleged are still measured through our constant evolving on perceptions of all things which can be very cognitive biased too.

"Interesting point. So by creating a universe based around some ideal, which people associate with and buy into, the designer is? "

i suppose designers can be a spiritual guide/enlightenment to some, they also can be really irrelevant, and very simple - ppl just got the $$$ to consume their goods.

[eat me]

I actually think that it can be so much simpler in many cases. Say, I am a designer, creating clothing. Then I decide that I want to include some bags and footwear to compliment the looks and expand the story.

Then I envision a website/store that carries on that aesthetic and my vision, therefore making a foray into graphic design/interior design.

Then while working on my stuff a great idea comes to mind about the lighting I want to create in store and perhaps some audio ambience to fill the space - and here we go making installations and mixtapes. Later, perhaps attach a space to the store for like-minded people to socialise in? Etc.

The point is, a designer is (hopefully) a creative person, and why say that creativity should be constricted to clothing? As long as what you do makes you happy, and doesn't overstretch your enthusiasm/talent - why not go for it when you feel like going?

Having said that, putting Rick Owens on a pair of socks is completely different, more commercially driven than on a whim of inspiration.

[ultimaratio]

Having said that, putting Rick Owens on a pair of socks is completely different, more commercially driven than on a whim of inspiration.

But is it? If you are a designer, you would want to articulate your vision for a pair of socks at least as much as you would for the environment of your store. By putting your name on the socks, you are specifying that these socks are are an expression of your vision, in the way they are knit, their material, the way they sit on your leg. This would be especially key if the socks are a visible part of an outfit, and would inform your vision as much as a hat or gloves. One could argue that they're 'just socks' and buy a pair from Walmart instead. One could also buy pants from the Gap and alter them to look like Rick Owens. Is this a compromise of the designer's vision? What if I buy Julius shorts, and wear them in a look off Rick Owens' runway?

Also, I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong in being commercial, so long as there is some integrity to the overall vision. What's the point of making clothes for a living if you don't want to sell them? I suppose it goes back to the 'age-old' question of the line between artistic vision and designing for a client. In the case of the socks, you would need to consider if they truthfully speak to the vision of the designer, or feign some kind of congruency to make a dollar. As a 'designer', it's tempting to grow your vision in many parallel facets - of course, the more complex it becomes the more difficult it is to control, or maybe the more forceful you must become in order to control it at all ends.

[fenrost]

and, perhaps as escapade.

The point is, a designer is (hopefully) a creative person, and why say that creativity should be constricted to clothing? As long as what you do makes you happy, and doesn't overstretch your enthusiasm/talent - why not go for it when you feel like going?

exactly, i used the word utilitarian lightly.

i suppose a good example, which still questionable is poell, among many others - compromised functions/comfort, and breaking away from that confinement.

[Faust]

I don't know about socks. Seems like it's something that is a commercial proposition.

[zamb]

Then I envision a website/store that carries on that aesthetic and my vision, therefore making a foray into graphic design/interior design.
Then while working on my stuff a great idea comes to mind about the lighting I want to create in store and perhaps some audio ambience to fill the space - and here we go making installations and mixtapes. Later, perhaps attach a space to the store for like-minded people to socialise in? Etc.

this IS, a part of the problem, and its also a significant reason why many business go bust, because instead of focusing on the real product, ie. the clothing itself, and complementary products that fits well, is made well and had a defined aesthetic, too many designers are into too many things, and at the core of this is an underlying desire to promote themselves, than to do good work.
if i own a store and I need audio, why cant I find music made by already established musicians that complements my work rather than wanting to create it myself ?

The point is, a designer is (hopefully) a creative person, and why say that creativity should be constricted to clothing? As long as what you do makes you happy, and doesn't overstretch your enthusiasm/talent - why not go for it when you feel like going?

Again too many egomaniacs.........
why not strive to make the Client happy?
IMHO we designers are given this talent to be in service to others, to make THEM happy, our happiness is/ should be derived from the appreciation and joy the client gets from what we do, and hopefully being able to use our gifts to make a living and establish a legacy for ourselves.
While i am no Giorgio Armani fan, there is a statement he made that I have never forgotten.
When someone asked him how he knew what do design for next season, his answer was rather simple

"whatever sells is what I make, the stores (and by extension the Clients) show me the way"

[diamonds]

I think that socks and other necessary products are just a utilitarian piece that is manipulated to fit into the designer's world, I doubt they put much thought into products like that. Not that I would discard them completely but I doubt they are as important as the atmosphere of the show or the look of the store or the feel of the 'main' clothes...

===

I admit I haven't read the whole thread yet , I just thought I'd say that I think some of the theories here are a little too extreme.

When I think about manufactured universes, I always imagined it was more to do with the concepts behind the clothing, the atmosphere that was intended by it, and the interior design of the stores where it is intended to be sold. I think my idea is more focused to designers who seem to be in their own world and create based on a vision of a future or present where they would want to live (or maybe not want to live). Designers that I generally give credit to creating a universe of their own are Rick Owens, Raf Simons, Jun Takahashi (but he isn't very consistent)... I'm sure there are a lot of examples that I'm forgetting, unfortunately... Mostly I think of designers who have visions of the future and invite their customers to join. A romanticised vision of the past could also pass as a designed universe in my opinion as well.

Another huge part of a designers universe for me would be wearing or trying the clothes on. If there is a story or idea behind how that piece of clothing would be useful (even if it's not a use that you can rationalise) in whichever universe, it makes a huge difference to me. Fencing jackets are almost a good example, when in your life do you actually engage in sword-fights? I know that designer fencing jackets aren't practical but the idea behind them...

...

A neglected universe talked about here is the universe of the store owner, who has a lot of control over what comes into the store, and how their store looks. It might not be the topic on topic but I think it's a really interesting thing to talk about.

I have lost what I meant to say and therefore this ends like many of my posts, unfinished. :(

whoops

[eat me]

Have you seen these socks? If you had, then all the questions of "Is it? Maybe it's an integral part of RO's vision" would immediately become obvious.

And no, there is nothing wrong with commercial, as long as it's not for commercial's sake. In other words, sure make the socks, but please make them worth it. It's like with "designer" underwear - GAP and Calvin Klein and D&G and Burberry (oh yeah, they're at it now too) are all made in the same factories with pretty much same materials, only difference is the colour and the name stitched on. But GAP is £3, CK is £25 - you're not paying for anything but a name. With D&G etc. it is to be expected, but with RO - I would hope they're better than that.

But is it? If you are a designer, you would want to articulate your vision for a pair of socks at least as much as you would for the environment of your store. <...>

Also, I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong in being commercial, so long as there is some integrity to the overall vision. <...>