Politics of Universe Making

[eat me]

zamb, I think you're being a bit cheeky here.

Let me ask you something, do you make bags? Why? Following your logic you should stick to clothing.

But then you start talking about complimentary products. Now, is it bags only? Or shoes as well? Perhaps a wallet? Who says it can't be a table?

Thing is, I imagine you make bags that compliment your clothing because you know how to do them well. And because you know that keeping everything coherent is important.

So if a designer knows how to design a website well (understands the UI quirks, the attention span, the layouts, the tech behind it, etc), why say "trust it to someone else"? Sure, you can trust the technical implementation, but why not have a design input to make sure it suits your brand? Why don't you just outsource your bags? Say "I want a black leather one" and trust the factory and their designers? I can't see how this is different.

Designers come from all kinds of backgrounds. If a designer was actaully studying to be an architect, who says he can't build his own unique store implementing his vision perfectly?

It's good to limit yourself so that you won't overstretch, but if you're confident that you can guide/do something that compliments your vision and is relevant to your business but isn't necessarily clothes - why should you constrict yourself?

And zamb, making a client happy? Puh-lease, then we'd all be making H&M vests. Look how many millions of people they make happy. But you'll say "hold on, I want a particular client to be happy, he's very different from the H&M one" - well then, it kind of negates your statement then. You make what makes YOU happy, but it makes YOU happy more or less because it makes the client that YOU go after happy. Not the other way around - the client TELLS you what makes him happy, you make exactly that, and then you are happy.

That way of thinking is that of a tailor, not a designer. A tailor makes something that his client wants, how he wants it, with designs resembling something that a client envisions/owns.

A designer has it's own vision, even if it's derivative/inspired, or if it's mostly unique; and then follow the clients, the loyal customers, and then you stay true to YOURSELF and that way your loyals are happy and you are happy. If people would come up to RO and say "man, I really loved your AW09, AW11 is nothing like it, why don't you go and make it the same as it was 2 years ago, and how I want it?", and if he would accept that, than the brand would stagnate and become really old really quick. RO is a designer, not a tailor, he needs to explore some new material to keep himself motivated. He is not doing the same jacket as in 2003 for clients to be happy. Well, some of the things are re-imagined every season, but that's a bit different.

I hope you find my arguments coherent enough zamb, I know it's a bit of a mess. Early morning haha

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 ?



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"

[pierce4]

Interesting interview with Rick Owens stolen from another thread but relevant to this one in many ways. Even H***** gets a mention!

"I feel like I’m genuinely influencing the world in a way when I see people buying my clothes. I have affected their taste in a way, and changed the way they think. I infected, and it took. And there’s something satisfyingly hardcore about that."

http://www.032c.com/2010/from-rags-to-rags-rick-owens/

[christianef]

albeit seemingly quite similar i would discern between niche brands and lifestyle brands. i believe, similar to eat me, niche brands find their client and build thier world around it while lifestyle brand, zamb?, strive more to embody or appease theirs. though through, perhaps, essentially the same marketing means.

[ultimaratio]

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.

Well, I wasn't referring to those Rick Owens socks specifically, but instead proposing the possibility that 'utilitarian objects' like socks can become a key to understanding or revealing a designer's process as much as any other other aspect of a clothing line. This would presume that a designer would innovate the object according to his or her specific ideas, as opposed to relying on the manufacture of generic objects under several brands, like you said. I guess what I'm saying is that while making socks or wallets or key chains is a commercial exercise, it doesn't necessarily need to operate only within that realm - I thought you were drawing a line between more ephemeral means of 'universe making' (i.e. website/audio/etc.) and commercial goods (like socks), when I think these parts have the potential to equally constitute a designer's vision.

Also, christiane f I think that is a fair distinction to make. I think anyone would agree that clothes are most interesting when the vision of the designer/brand aligns synchronously to the needs of the client.

[andrew]

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.

I've been uber busy of late (bloody fashion weeks) so haven't had a chance to contribute here, and reading it back i dont really have anything of interest to add except perhaps that i think that influencing peoples perception is the key to as successful universe. ie you have to win people over in inclements before / as you build the world rather than building it to convince people of your world view. I think perception plays a big part in faust's example above ie the viewer is the defining force in all three rather than the designer media or wearer.

If Marc Jacobs had made the same shirt inspired by the same image would you attach the same meanings or would you assume he was meerly trying to cash in on the iconography of Smith

What if the stylist of Vogue was trying to subvert the idea of wealth dressing, she has surrounded the model with ideas of status but at the centre of it all is a Ann D shirt, simple, pure comfortable and beautiful without being explicitly about wealth.

What if the Texas bimbo saw the shirt as a wealth statement in this show of expense, but was drawn to it beacuse of a reminisiense of some piece she owned when she was young, the meaning has become personal and centimental and the antithisis of bourgeois.

My point being that i think that we are lead by designer and media to think in certain ways which help us assosiate with their view of things but perhaps also act to distance us from their rivals. How big a part of creating an all encompassing universe is subtly convining people that what the competeion is doing is of less worth, monetarily or, more likely, otherwise?

[pierce4]

Just finished reading the article High Fascism in the new york times and think it might be time to resurrect this thread.

"At the root of the whole system is the most elusive myth of all: the impossible promise that fashion can vanquish physical inadequacy and aging, conferring the beauty and youth we see on the runways and on every page of Vogue — a cult of physical perfection very much at home in the history of fascism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07Garelick.html

[Faust]

The myth is completely made up by that clueless author to promote her own pseudo-intellectual masturbation that academics are so adept at because their survival often depends on it. Nothing can vanquish physical inadequacy and aging - everyone knows that. Clothes can enhance one's beauty and that's it.

[marsa]

From a sociological point of view, looking at the social investigation of Fashion as an institutionalized practice of conformist behaviour and assert the concept of Fashion, it is ultmately a process of transformation from which tangible items of clothing attain intangible value. This applies extentively to the rants over ccp,harnden, carpe, augusta and so on...cus the primary understanding of Fashion resides in the collective obedience of an ambiguous process of diffusion, adoption and accumulations.

Historically, from the provincial manifestations of class and social order, the concept of Fashion is now becoming a process of producing practices of social ethos, rather than the notion of a conspicuous historical social ranking.

the much discussed universe is interdependent with a coherent connection of creations, in order for us to understand the contextualised sphere, otherwise we will not adhere to its structures.

The myth is completely made up by that clueless author to promote her own pseudo-intellectual masturbation that academics are so adept at because their survival often depends on it. Nothing can vanquish physical inadequacy and aging - everyone knows that. Clothes can enhance one's beauty and that's it.

[Faust]

I don't think you used the word 'rant' properly, unless I missed something.

My point is (and you can go to Elizabeth Wilson for more on that, if you are so inclined) is that fashion is IRRATIONAL, and therefore any reason-based analysis is ultimately reductionist, more so from the ironically named social sciences. It's the same reason why the fucking MBAs have run many a design company into the ground - they don't have the feeling for design and they think that they can explain everything away.

[marsa]

"rants" in terms of how some people argue the price - the grail status - and so on - sorry if that came out as unclear.

furthermore Im not saying there is a right or wrong - and my point is that there are no rational ways of determing what way we precieve the universe and process of creation.

A social inquiry with the aim of augmenting knowledge in order to resolve a given matter evokes a mixture of logical methodologies. As we take on all properties of Fashion as constituting its overall concept, we attain it to a focus of holism, as supposed to reductionism. Reductionism ignores the relationship between its constituent parts, allowing them to function independently, whereas holism threats the whole as essential to determine its behaviour, concisely put as the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

[Magic1]

Every lifestyle brand I've seen has been awful. And we all know they are commercial endeavors and have nothing to do with art. But if we ignore that for a bit, I still think the artists of the world can't really do it.

In the most successful art, the aesthetic and artistic significance is invariably interconnected, dependent, and influenced by the medium, even if the artist uses the medium in a new way. Hence I think it most often fails when an artist branches out into a new medium. If the artist tries to apply his established aesthetic or art sense (lack of a better word) to a new medium, it fails because the connection between the established aesthetic and art sense is not connected to the new medium. I guess the artist could adapt his form to the new medium, but now it'll just be a version of... and hence no where near as good.
In other cases the artist branches out into a new medium divorcing himself from his established vision and ventures on a new one. Sometimes this works, but it's pretty damn rare. It's very rare for someone to come along and master two distinct mediums in a way that transcends mechanics.

[Faust]

/\ but what if the art is not technically difficult? what if i paint the black square and then make a black cube? didn't i just do painting and sculpture?

[michael_kard]

Magic1: I don't think theoretical generalizations such as the above really take us anywhere, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about art or fashion or anything else.

I think it's very simple: it's simply a personal preference of a designer, to try to expand their aesthetic beyond "just" clothes or keep doing what they're doing.

However, I'd say that it's an inherently human quality to specialize. And this is why a lifestyle brand doesn't usually come off as original and, if you will, dignified; people are not meant to do everything, as they have been accustomed to interact in various ways thus helping each other. And perhaps this is why, lifestyle brands tend to suck; their work's incentive is super-normal profits so as to accommodate excessive lifestyle we've been used to over the past few decades, and not just the urge to create.

[Faust]

A good designer understands his limitations. End of story. The rest is commercial bullshit with a nametag on it.

[Faust]

I think Missoni Home is the equal or superior to the Missoni clothing line, and I think the Cavalli Casa line was far superior to Roberto Cavalli's clothing lines (even though it couldn't find its niche). I also thought their quality is/was on par with Dransfield & Ross and other designers who focus on home interiors.

That said, I would agree that some aesthetics translate better to the home, and that some designers can "design the world around them" more successfully than others.

Still, Karim Rashid's desire to "change the world" with design is better than some Joe Strummer keeping it real with "Cut the Crap" garbage. If a designer has a desire to test his limits, nothing wrong with trying and failing.

a penny for your thoughts, buddy