Margiela x H&M ???

[525252]

just a comment on this last point, 52: being nostalgic is one thing, and i'm all for the change! but change can be for the better or worse, right? i'm not now discussing Raf Simons in particular (though i don't like his recent stuff at all), you can see the same happening in music. there are many bands which i liked in the past and which have changed towards something more mass-compatible and became awfully boring.

yeah I get what you mean, and sure you can definitely see that things have changed: old raf does not equal new raf, at the least. but getting pissed off about it basically expresses that you are denying the right of something to change in a way that is adverse to your preference.

[Shucks]

I'm not AT ALL saying H&M has the best possible business model given the circumstances. However its own circumstances are inevitable and uncontrollable and it operates in that way because it has to.

1. you contradict yourself.

2. you appear to not know even the fundamentals of corporate strategy, yet you comment on H&M's. businesses both select and affect their business environment as much as they react to it. H&M are without question dominant enough to wield MASSIVE bargaining power with their suppliers (as well as with governments in the countries of production), and in selecting suppliers and negotiating with them. how they do this is a CHOICE.

but yes, you are right in one thing - my time is probably better served doing something else than debating with you, if i could just get you to STFU so you don't mislead someone else with your nonsense.

[525252]

Rilu, what you are describing is nostalgia, what I am describing is bitter cynicism. This could very much turn back into the "Margiela is good" discussion, though the thought of it is enough to make me want to stop myself (don't want to go there again for now, ha)

my thoughts put as simply as possible:

Nostalgia is the feeling of missing something, it is full of love and it is painful. When it is collectively experienced, something about it (to me at least) is beautiful.

The bitter cynic feels victimised and betrayed, is distrustful of people's means to change. To the cynic, Raf's change was hurtful and almost abusive, it seems impossible that Old Raf became New Raf of his own will. The cynic will call New Raf a sellout.

[525252]

but yes, you are right in one thing - my time is probably better served doing something else than debating with you, if i could just get you to STFU so you don't mislead someone else with your nonsense.

hmm why so angry?

It only makes me sad

[Faust]

There is definitely a lot of misunderstanding here, mostly on 52s part. I am not going to argue with someone who willfully misinterprets everything I say. You girls have fun.

[lowrey]

so the best way to get some feel-good news is to share it on facebook, encourage boycotting and feel like you made a difference?

are these really the only options in your view? either boycotting something on facebook, or directly supporting unethical business?

I cannot claim to be happy with what I already know about H&M's conduct, (thanks Shucks) but neither am I comfortable with the environmental record of the cotton or silk industries, and I have no intention of eliminating those materials from my closet.

right, so by your logic, since you have no choice but to buy garments from fabrics which might not be environmentally friendly, you might as well go all the way and support a store that exploits sweatshop labour to make insane profits.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

One paragraph that B of F edited out because it was a bit off topic was that the richest man in Sweden is the owner of H&M, the richest man in Japan is the owner of Uniqlo, and the richest man in Spain (and the third richest man in the world's third-richest (above Warren Buffet)) is the owner of Zara. Hello and welcome to Marxism. Don't tell me the story that they NEED to continue manufacturing at the current standards.

Now we're getting somewhere. They don't NEED to continue manufacturing at current standards, any more than any other industry NEEDS to exploit/pollute/otherwise endanger people. But here's the thing: these organisations are run by real people who have collectively made decisions about how they do business, according to a complex set of agendas that are very hard to change.

When it comes to needs, we all need to put clothes on our backs and we all need the approval of our peers. What we wear forms a unique signifier of who we are and our station in society. As such, fashion offers us all an unparalleled opportunity for social mobility, which is essentially what's on offer at the Big Three you cite above. Can't afford a Chloe handbag? Zara has something nicer. Jil Sander too expensive for you? Here comes +J. At some point, high street fashion becomes almost indistinguishable from the real thing, and in this ocean, H&MxMMM is the perfect storm.

Foxtrot, my point about the collaborations was that these collabs drive people to H&M by giving clothes a veneer of "fashion," when it's nothing of the sort.

Are you so very confident of your definition of "fashion" to make this call? It may not be "high fashion" and it certainly isn't couture, but "nothing of the sort"? Really??

As I point out, there is nothing of Margiela in that collaboration but the brand name and millions of dollars saved in advertising for H&M. The vast majority of consumers don't go there to buy quality garments or fashion, they go to by hype.

You state that there is "nothing of Margiela" in this collaboration. May I ask whether you actually saw any of the collection in the flesh to be able to say this with such confidence? Because I thought there was plenty, as I said earlier. This is categorically the end of line for the the brand, as all the participants probably know, so all that's left is the question of authenticity. Ersatz? Yes, undoubtedly. Cheap knock-offs? Hardly.

I'm also unconvinced by your assertion that "the vast majority" of customers for something like this aren't looking for quality. That's not the case. I stood in a queue with some very well turned out individuals who looked like they could tell the wheat from the chaff. And if some of them were wearing anoraks, it's because it was damn cold.

The simple question to ask is, what did you buy? What does the pantsuit represent? Is it a MMM item in your eyes? Does it have the proper fashion context? Provenance? What does it signify? Because you definitely did not go to H&M to buy a quality anonymous pantsuit. It's a very specific pantsuit with semiotic value.

Putting aside all the reasons why I chose to buy a size 78 oversized man's jacket and a pair of almost-matching oversized trousers, you may as well enquire after the proper context of my favourite belt (it pulls my whole wardrobe together) or the provenance of the blazer I wear to business meetings (there's a big name on the inside but they'll never get to see it.) It doesn't matter, because Margiela and H&M and the others all become irrelevant as soon as I put them on my back and they become part of me and my identity.

I always thought the whole point, the great beauty of Margiela's work was that you had to work that little bit harder to give the clothes your own context. Now it looks like I'm wrong about that, because it seems that the label with the four little white stitches acquired all the more significance with you because it was blank.

And, yes, I completely understand your point that our entire way of life is manufactured in Asia. I am not arguing for abolition of those practices - that would indeed approach on utopia - but for minimization of them. Electronics industry is an offender. But, after all, I don't buy 20 iPhones a year.

One is all it takes.

[lowrey]

Now we're getting somewhere. They don't NEED to continue manufacturing at current standards, any more than any other industry NEEDS to exploit/pollute/otherwise endanger people. But here's the thing: these organisations are run by real people who have collectively made decisions about how they do business, according to a complex set of agendas that are very hard to change.

Sorry but I don't think you are getting anywhere with this - real people? complex set of agendas? of course a business has an agenda and someone making decisions, what is your point?

If this is supposed to be a defence of their ethics, it might just be the worst one I've ever come across. "You know, someone really thought about this hard, and made the decision to exploit people, it was a collective decision and all, and well, they can't really back out now because they are only pocketing a couple of billion a year".

When it comes to needs, we all need to put clothes on our backs and we all need the approval of our peers. What we wear forms a unique signifier of who we are and our station in society. As such, fashion offers us all an unparalleled opportunity for social mobility, which is essentially what's on offer at the Big Three you cite above. Can't afford a Chloe handbag? Zara has something nicer. Jil Sander too expensive for you? Here comes +J.

I really, really hope I'm misinterpreting something here, but it seems like you are justifying shopping at H&M or Zara by the need to look socially acceptable / seek approval?

At some point, high street fashion becomes almost indistinguishable from the real thing

No, it absolutely does not.

[Faust]

Sure, foxtrot, whatever makes you sleep at night.

[BSR]

One paragraph that B of F edited out because it was a bit off topic was that the richest man in Sweden is the owner of H&M, the richest man in Japan is the owner of Uniqlo, and the richest man in Spain (and the third richest man in the world's third-richest (above Warren Buffet)) is the owner of Zara. Hello and welcome to Marxism. Don't tell me the story that they NEED to continue manufacturing at the current standards.

awesome! But isn't the owner of IKEA the wealthiest Swedish man?

[Faust]

No, it's the owner of H&M. The IKEA owner actually could in reality be the wealthiest, but they have this freakish tax evasion system where most profits are funneled into a so-called foundation, so officially he isn't.

And, of course, you know who the richest man in France is :-)

[Patroklus]

hypothetically speaking if i defecated into a box and mailed it to the man that owns H&M, could he press any charges against me and would it be him or an employee that would open it?

also, how should i package it in order that it arrives fresh, preferably still steaming?

[Ahimsa]

hypothetically speaking if i defecated into a box and mailed it to the man that owns H&M, could he press any charges against me and would it be him or an employee that would open it?

also, how should i package it in order that it arrives fresh, preferably still steaming?

You don't even need to defecate into it!

[525252]

There is definitely a lot of misunderstanding here, mostly on 52s part. I am not going to argue with someone who willfully misinterprets everything I say.

do i really wilfully misinterpret everything you say? I am only trying to understand and I only hope others would return the favour. The fact that we're on SZ already says we're going to have similar values, and sure, there are miscommunications, but at the end of the day I know we're pretty much arguing for the same thing.

I really, really hope I'm misinterpreting something here, but it seems like you are justifying shopping at H&M or Zara by the need to look socially acceptable / seek approval?

Lowrey, you're right, you have misinterpreted something. He is not justifying it. I am not legitimising or justifying anything either when I say H&M is not the enemy.

A lot of people on these forums come from not NY, not Paris, and their sense of dress quite often made fun of in their little town (see: Strangers' Reactions thread). But they stick to their guns, which is awesome, people not caving into the herd mentality, awesome. If they can't be understood in Whooptown, at least they can be understood here. They come to this forum, and learn that there are a set of rules, a kind of social conduct particular to this forum. But man, wouldn't it suck to be disliked here, or worse, banned from this awesome place they just found and love at first sight. Yep it would really suck if Faust or Lowrey or All The Other Awesome Members did not approve of their outfit or their contributions to the forum. So I Just Guess They Cannot Say Exactly What They Think, Maybe They Just Won't Mention It, But GOD FORBID ANYONE SHOULD EVER REFUSE TO BOYCOTT H&M THEY CAN GTFO.
Oh wait! Thats not something that feeds the need to look socially acceptable / seek approval?! Golly gosh what delusion have I been believing?!

Seriously though, I love this place but I remember shortly after joining I stopped posting for a year or two because I took the unpopular opinion that Raf Simons is not a sellout and I felt the glares upon my internet presence. I'm not trying to assert my point of view on anyone, so all who feel offended by my stance can stop taking it personally. I like discussing things, so if anyone would like to make an attempt to understand my cRAAaaaaAAAAAAzzzYY outraaaaaaaaaageous thoughts: I would appreciate that and thank you. I'm happy to listen to someone's opinion provided they're happy to give it. Provided they're not hurling insults at me.

[lowrey]

Lowrey, you're right, you have misinterpreted something. He is not justifying it. I am not legitimising or justifying anything either when I say H&M is not the enemy.

then what is he/she doing? it certainly seems like an attempt at justifying both the actions of the company as well one's own consumption habits.

So I Just Guess They Cannot Say Exactly What They Think, Maybe They Just Won't Mention It, But GOD FORBID ANYONE SHOULD EVER REFUSE TO BOYCOTT H&M THEY CAN GTFO.
Oh wait! Thats not something that feeds the need to look socially acceptable / seek approval?! Golly gosh what delusion have I been believing?!

This is saying a lot. I have to agree with Faust here, it certainly seems like you are wilfully misinterpreting what people are saying.

Read my post again. no one is forcing anyone to boycott anything. That doesn't mean I wouldn't criticize attempts to defend the actions of the company by some incredibly lame story about how decisions in corporations are made, or justifying purchases made there because "people need clothes on their back" (the ultimate cop-out). This is not the same thing as forcing to boycott something. I'm sure you could understand this if you wanted to, instead of jumping into some extravagant defensive mode which you are doing above.