Margiela x H&M ???

[525252]

i think we could still call it a reasoning pattern that includes some logical fallacies

nopenopenope, a confusion or misunderstanding or an invalid syllogism is a logical fallacy. This does not involve logical fallacy, it is an irrational mode of logic where the conclusion holds true.

why some reasoning has become irrational.

I hate to keep drilling arguments when it feels like the discussion has wrapped up a little, but no reasoning has become irrational, this irrational logic is a condition of human perception and understanding which was always there. However we made the observation that it feeds capitalism and vice versa.

the fact it could have been rational

intended or not, there always seems to be a bias which values rationality over irrationality. Rationally, there is no reason to value reason more, but the bias exists. And that bias is irrational. And there you go!

[525252]

yeah i think you really lost me now :p

ohnoooooo!

The thing is, and maybe I shouldn't be using the word "logic", but this logic involves no reasoning. When we look for an example of fruit, we look at an apple and agree that it is a fruit. There is no reasoning, it is an arbitrary given truth. Yes there is a classification and criteria for "fruit", but for example, often tomatoes are thought as vegetables, but it is later found that "edibles that carry seeds are fruit" is true, therefore tomatoes are now fruit. The rule "edibles that carry seeds..." is arbitrarily given yet understood to be true. We do not attempt reasoning to understand it, we don't argue how a tomato does or doesn't resemble the fruit-paradigm "apple". It is simply understood that tomatoes now qualify as fruit because of criteria "edibles that carry seeds...".

I will attempt to summarise: There is an irrational logic (counter-intuitive phrase, I know) which involves no reasoning, and connects concepts which are seemingly disparate and have little to do with each other. "Soup can" and "art" had little to do with each other, but how did it then become an icon of art? It did because it could. Some people know absolutely nothing about Andy Warhol or Postmodernism, but they know those soup cans are art. Actually, Maurice Merleau Ponty kind of covers this in The World of Perception.

As for capitalism being human condition: I don't see it as a human condition but capitalism is as natural an occurrence in history as feudalism and the attempts at communism.

Zizek on Badiou, very very very relevant to everything we've discussed

Irrational conclusions are not necessarily incorrect, I must stress this! And rational conclusions are not necessarily correct! The notions of infinity, zero, and paradoxes just about debunk the claim that rationality is necessarily truth.

I also disagree that valuing rationality is an "irrational bias", since such an evaluation can be based on good reasons

your evaluation of what is a "good reason" is completely irrational..

[Faust]

Zizek on Badiou, very very very relevant to everything we've discussed[/URL]

Sometimes serendipity in this place is too surreal.

[525252]

I think I just exploded my own brain, we've gotten quite lost in terminologies and methodologies and discourses and now I no longer have any will to do anything except watch David Attenborough.

[crtk001]

Zizek on Badiou, very very very relevant to everything we've discussed

Reading your comments I knew it was leading here!
I'm just familiar with some essays and lectures (and his friendship with Lady Gaga), but serendipitous as Faust said, I just purchased Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism yesterday, so I'll get back to you in a 8 months when I finally make it through this beast!

[Faust]

where are those quotes from (they're amazing)?

I suppose we would need quantitative data here too: for instance what is the proportion of 'poor people' who shop at H&M in the US among the total number of H&M clients and conversely, what is the proportion of 'rich people' who shop at H&M, what is the average amount they spend in there, and how does this amount compare to the average amount they spend on clothing per year on other brands (making a distinction between low range and high market)?

One more for you, from the New York Times.

"One thing Mr. Manuzak never wants to see in an H&M store is “a piece of clothing lying on the floor.” As he said that, a woman, who said she was “insane for Margiela,” dropped two armfuls of clothes in matching mounds, then began trying pieces on. Mr. Manuzak swept everything up into shopping bags and sent her to a dressing room. This isn’t Filene’s Basement. The woman spent $1,600 that day."

[nellytheelephant]

I think I just exploded my own brain, we've gotten quite lost in terminologies and methodologies and discourses and now I no longer have any will to do anything except watch David Attenborough.

A fine last resort.

[nellytheelephant]

One more for you, from the New York Times.

"One thing Mr. Manuzak never wants to see in an H&M store is “a piece of clothing lying on the floor.” As he said that, a woman, who said she was “insane for Margiela,” dropped two armfuls of clothes in matching mounds, then began trying pieces on. Mr. Manuzak swept everything up into shopping bags and sent her to a dressing room. This isn’t Filene’s Basement. The woman spent $1,600 that day."

Funnily enough that's exactly the scene in Dover Street Market on the morning of the seasonal Paul Harnden drop. And people are dropping 20x the H&M's woman's spend in one hit. Just goes to show whatever the budget, aesthetic or philosophic sensibility, we consumers are mostly the same.

[Faust]

/\ Speak for yourself, buddy. And, you completely missed the point.

[LupinTheFourth]

Plaah.

This topic got over-analyzed and derailed long time ago...

[nellytheelephant]

/\ Speak for yourself, buddy. And, you completely missed the point.

I was using the royal "we" ; )

But seriously most of aren't given the clothes we wear. In fact I'd bet most SZ users covet and buy to an extent even Miss H&M might find a tad excessive.

Perhaps I was missing something from earlier...In any case please could you explain how I missed the point or what the point of the NY Times article extract was?

[Faust]

I was using the royal "we" ; )

But seriously most of aren't given the clothes we wear. In fact I'd bet most SZ users covet and buy to an extent even Miss H&M might find a tad excessive.

Perhaps I was missing something from earlier...In any case please could you explain how I missed the point or what the point of the NY Times article extract was?

The point, in reference to this quote and the ones from the Guardian, is the one about H&M's "democratization of fashion," which leads not to offering affordable clothes to the masses (the poor, lower middle class, etc.) - the ostensible and good goal - but to consumerism. If you can drop $1,600 on clothes in one go, you are not poor (and you don't get to accuse me of snobbery for pointing it out in an article :-)).

[malevich]

I had few thoughts about Renzo lately though, that if he needed that badly to exploit his investments in MMM, why didn't they, a huge corporation of its own, who definitely does not require an exposure via H&M, simply took some time and effort and figured some ways around MMM x Diesel concept.
MMM FOR SUCCESSFUL LIVING or maybe even MMM FOR CONTEMPORARY LIVING!
Digging deeper and toying around Diesel Denims with a conceptual over the top MMM approach, reworks and editings, as Margiela reedits and reconstruct old Levi's garments anyways. In that case i am sure from the design esthetics and perspective point of view the designers from both brands could find many links in common to toy around with as a real collab. I also remember back in somewhataround 2004-2005 Diesel released a great short movies compilation "Diesel Dreams" with young artists which was really really inspiring. So despite Diesel's overall tastelessness in clothing, there is still an effort towards creativity. Obviously it would have been less commercial, but still more affordable than a Designer Line, and would not get any less exposure. In addition to that there will be less compromise on quality and a fashion crowd would be slightly less negative about the deal, because honestly NOW it seems like a low-quality knockoffs simply officially approved by the copyright holders. No collaboration whatsoever. The deal was signed over maximum 5 minutes telephone call: -"Hey guys we had this idea to knock of MMM for such a long time, what is the price of this question if we include your tags as well and call it a collab???" - "HHHMMM, OKEY, XY-$ UPFRONT AND XY-% from sales after sales report!!!" DEAL-DEAL!
H&M collabs are so last season anyways, every roller coster has an expiry date and MMM is a great full stop, the ones before were swallow-able, the ones after would simply stink and frankly speaking no designers names left no more either.

[Johnny]

The point, in reference to this quote and the ones from the Guardian, is the one about H&M's "democratization of fashion," which leads not to offering affordable clothes to the masses (the poor, lower middle class, etc.) - the ostensible and good goal - but to consumerism. If you can drop $1,600 on clothes in one go, you are not poor (and you don't get to accuse me of snobbery for pointing it out in an article :-)).

what about the other quote from the guardian that I mentioned that indicates that the ostensible good goal can be met?

anyway missing a point in this thread is almost inevitable...

[Faust]

Sure, Johnny. I am not painting everything with the same brush. I am saying though that there is probably a significant number of people like I described. Obviously, I, nor anyone else, have the numbers, but anecdotal evidence like this (plus the fact that most H&M stores of the world are located in well off areas) speak pretty strongly to my point.