Margiela x H&M ???

[525252]

I don't know what either of you are trying to add by saying I'm doing it wilfully.. anyway

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.

That's probably the part I would have liked emphasised. No one's going to ban you for not boycotting H&M, no one's forcing you, but you do feel the glares on your internet presence. To put it as simply as possible: There is conformity among the non-conformists as there are with those awful conforming conformists.

I am not, repeat NOT defending H&M as a corporation. Maybe you are attacking them, but don't tell me I'm on the defensive just because I don't agree with you. Also my little spiel about this forum above was intended as a hypothetical farce. Obviously wasn't taken that way. I'm thinking of giving up communication on the internet altogether, I'd rather have a nice chat over coffee with you all.

[crtk001]

"You decide your own level of involvement" - Tyler Durden

Activist vs. Naysayer vs. Nihilist vs. Compliant

Sure, foxtrot, whatever makes you sleep at night.

My interest in this peaked at the discussion of how we attribute value, inherent value vs. constructs, dialectical materialism, since then we've taken a turn. I believe we're all in agreement that the current practices and models needed to sustain the fashion market, and well the developed world's obsession need for constant consumption, is causing atrocities. My main point in anything is to postulate alternatives to rampant capitalism, but thats even much more deeper than the fashion argument (Please, do not try to start an all encompassing conversation over this little remark). The thing is arguing over what can be done about it, and even then, with the exception of Foxtrot, want to do something to explore alternatives or force better practices.

Faust lovingly considers StyleZeitgeist this alternative, in which many ways it is. It's practice though is a solution for very few individuals as the scale of the designers is pretty small, and also rather expensive. SZ is utopian...for those who have the privilege of it. Even then to that I would argue the practices of the designers we admire even here need to be kept in check, and furthermore their ideologies. Its easy to get wrapped up in the stylistic aspects of SZ, are the designers looking for alternatives to the economic side of conglomerate fashion? Or just to the culture and aesthetic of "mainstream" fashion? In this, I would not say that SZ and its designers are infallible.

Margiela was a designer who had a very stern ideology, but as 52 has mentioned, its not infallible in itself either. Margiela's intent as we understand/mythologize it, never seemed fully implicated or realized, as the 4 stitches and such were co-opted by the fashion community. And the full death of ideology when Margiela was sold to Diesel. This thread has been not so much an ode to Margiela but to the idealizations of Margiela. Hell, its an idealization of Margiela's idealizations.

Can fast fashion be changed? Yes, I do believe so, which is so much nicer to say than my usual work that ends with, "I have to believe so". My earlier remarks in this thread are begrudged statements that fashion as we know it must die, this sadly includes the SZ, because I believe what needs to die for major change to happen is elitism (which got into another heated argument here), segregation, and the idolatry of designers. This is begrudging of me, since I do love fashion and I do love CCP, BBS, Rick, Raf (old and new, but mainly old), etc. What the heated argument has really seemed to apex around is the level of involvement. Boycotting, financially does nothing but can help spread you're reservations about H&M and fast fashion. Others seem to care to undermine all of fashion, 52, a commendable but inevitably challenged and arduous job. And as I said before, SZ is a utopian haven, but not a luxury all can afford.

I hate to see a discourse of such thoughtful, involved people getting derailed and uncivil about the direction of praxis, when the idea and hope is so common.


My last comment was my joy of seeing Zizek brought up, and I end here with him;

[BSR]

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

of course, it is the owner of the French H&M

[Shucks]

of course, it is the owner of the French H&M

i wanna see an LV & H&M collaboration now. just imagine the frenzy in the stores over the pleather monogram bags. oh wait - they're already pleather...

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

So this pleb has one more thing to say.

I've lived and worked in a middle income developing country and in my day job I'm working right now with an African NGO, so I know a bit about international development, although I don't pretend to be an expert. I'm not going to talk further about H&M or try to defend them, but in my world view there are far, far greater challenges out there than this one. I'm not at all happy with the fast fashion model of retail, but I'm not in a position to source the artisanal quality threads that you guys go out of your way to discover. I'm very busy and not that rich or cool, so like most plebs I shop where I can when I can. I pick my battles and you pick yours.

I've tried to share with you something of how the mainstream consumer thinks about fashion and understand your viewpoint as well. In spite of all the abuse and name-calling, this is a fascinating discussion. Faust, may I suggest you raise the standard of moderation in here so that people learn to be a bit more polite to each other. That way everyone would be happier and you'd have a truly amazing forum.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, particularly Faust, crtk001 and 525252. If I weren't so damn busy right now I'd engage with you further.

[Faust]

So this pleb has one more thing to say.

I've lived and worked in a middle income developing country and in my day job I'm working right now with an African NGO, so I know a bit about international development, although I don't pretend to be an expert. I'm not going to talk further about H&M or try to defend them, but in my world view there are far, far greater challenges out there than this one. I'm not at all happy with the fast fashion model of retail, but I'm not in a position to source the artisanal quality threads that you guys go out of your way to discover. I'm very busy and not that rich or cool, so like most plebs I shop where I can when I can. I pick my battles and you pick yours.

I've tried to share with you something of how the mainstream consumer thinks about fashion and understand your viewpoint as well. In spite of all the abuse and name-calling, this is a fascinating discussion. Faust, may I suggest you raise the standard of moderation in here so that people learn to be a bit more polite to each other. That way everyone would be happier and you'd have a truly amazing forum.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, particularly Faust, crtk001 and 525252. If I weren't so damn busy right now I'd engage with you further.

Foxtrot, I was actually very nice to you, I think (can't speak so for Schucks ), and you were the one whose responses to my statements became quite disrespectful. But that's Ok. It's a general issue with online forums that people are more blunt (and sometimes mean) - I am the prime offender - and we are used to it by now (believe me, compared to other forums this place is very civilized for the most part).

Also, your self-selected title of a pleb does you no favors, since, of course it's ironic and is merely used by you to implicitly call us snobs. Who's name calling now? I was actually very happy that you came to offer a dissenting opinion, but I guess we did not get very far. We did get somewhere though, so it's all good.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you that an average person may not have time and energy to do research on topics of consumption in his/her busy every day modern life. And capitalists know this very well so they make it their job to tell you what to buy. That's the whole point of marketing. You don't have time to do proper research, but you do have time to pick up an occasional magazine. Hopefully, you also have time to read news, and that's where critical journalism comes in. I was very happy for my part to see Twitter comments of the "I was going to buy into this, and now I am reconsidering because of this article." I could not have asked for more except making people think, and think for themselves. My article was counter to the immense marketing effort on the part of big business. And if it made however small a dent, well, I am proud of it.

Indeed, I have picked this battle and sometimes it may look silly, since there are things like politics, starvation, global warming and whatnot. But if you do enough research, the topic is not that silly after all. Fashion may not be serious, but garment manufacturing is - it is one of the biggest industries in the world and is one of the biggest offenders in terms of sustainability and sweatshop exploitation. Not so silly of a topic all of a sudden, is it? And when the likes of H&M use the veneer of fashion to spice up their goodies, fashion becomes a serious topic that they, not I, pull into a quite serious conversation.

[Faust]

"You decide your own level of involvement" - Tyler Durden

Activist vs. Naysayer vs. Nihilist vs. Compliant



My interest in this peaked at the discussion of how we attribute value, inherent value vs. constructs, dialectical materialism, since then we've taken a turn. I believe we're all in agreement that the current practices and models needed to sustain the fashion market, and well the developed world's obsession need for constant consumption, is causing atrocities. My main point in anything is to postulate alternatives to rampant capitalism, but thats even much more deeper than the fashion argument (Please, do not try to start an all encompassing conversation over this little remark). The thing is arguing over what can be done about it, and even then, with the exception of Foxtrot, want to do something to explore alternatives or force better practices.

Faust lovingly considers StyleZeitgeist this alternative, in which many ways it is. It's practice though is a solution for very few individuals as the scale of the designers is pretty small, and also rather expensive. SZ is utopian...for those who have the privilege of it. Even then to that I would argue the practices of the designers we admire even here need to be kept in check, and furthermore their ideologies. Its easy to get wrapped up in the stylistic aspects of SZ, are the designers looking for alternatives to the economic side of conglomerate fashion? Or just to the culture and aesthetic of "mainstream" fashion? In this, I would not say that SZ and its designers are infallible.

Margiela was a designer who had a very stern ideology, but as 52 has mentioned, its not infallible in itself either. Margiela's intent as we understand/mythologize it, never seemed fully implicated or realized, as the 4 stitches and such were co-opted by the fashion community. And the full death of ideology when Margiela was sold to Diesel. This thread has been not so much an ode to Margiela but to the idealizations of Margiela. Hell, its an idealization of Margiela's idealizations.

Can fast fashion be changed? Yes, I do believe so, which is so much nicer to say than my usual work that ends with, "I have to believe so". My earlier remarks in this thread are begrudged statements that fashion as we know it must die, this sadly includes the SZ, because I believe what needs to die for major change to happen is elitism (which got into another heated argument here), segregation, and the idolatry of designers. This is begrudging of me, since I do love fashion and I do love CCP, BBS, Rick, Raf (old and new, but mainly old), etc. What the heated argument has really seemed to apex around is the level of involvement. Boycotting, financially does nothing but can help spread you're reservations about H&M and fast fashion. Others seem to care to undermine all of fashion, 52, a commendable but inevitably challenged and arduous job. And as I said before, SZ is a utopian haven, but not a luxury all can afford.

I hate to see a discourse of such thoughtful, involved people getting derailed and uncivil about the direction of praxis, when the idea and hope is so common.

CRTK, thank you as always for a thoughtful response. I would like to make two points in this regard.

1. Nobody here lionizes Margiela. As enthusiastic as I am about fashion, I find designer worship ridiculous. In general what bothers me is that people think in polar opposites - if not, this, then something completely diametrically opposed.

Which brings me to

2. The world is not divided into H&M and Carol Christian Poell. There are plenty of alternatives that are decently/well made and are not very expensive. Rag & Bone comes to mind (yes, I said it!), or any number of denim companies that produce solidly made products of good quality. Can't afford a Loro Piana cashmere sweater - go to JCrew (some claim they are made in the same factory anyway, haha). The point is there are alternatives. Go on Ebay, go on YOOX, MyHabit, buy on sale at a department store. But, yes, it takes time and effort, which, as Foxtrot points out, not everyone has.

The point I made but could not develop sufficiently in the B of F article because of space constraints (perhaps a topic for another essay for them!) were how the price barriers are as much PSYCHOLOGICAL as they are real for many people. We simply get used to certain pricing structures and when we are forced to go out of our comfort zone (and that zone is a cheap, mass-market one), we panic. I remember distinctly buying my first $100 shirt (circa 98) - even though I could afford it perfectly well - for an immigrant who was just coming out of poverty it was like stepping into a cold lake. My barrier was purely psychological. I was used to cheap stuff all around me.

Nobody is arguing that you should buy what you can't afford. You should simply reconsider what "afford" means. Our shopping habits dictate our values, but it should be the other way around.

[lowrey]

^ the above two posts by Faust are something I wish everyone could/would read and consider, and I don't mean just here on SZ...

I am not, repeat NOT defending H&M as a corporation. Maybe you are attacking them, but don't tell me I'm on the defensive just because I don't agree with you.

I get that, and I wasn't actually adressing you, but you came to defend / spoke for the person who seemed to be making very naive points about why what H&M is doing is sort of ok.

Also my little spiel about this forum above was intended as a hypothetical farce. Obviously wasn't taken that way.

I took it as that, but bear in mind that it can also mask what you are really saying.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

Faust, thanks for this. My apologies if I came across as a bit snippy, it was not intentional. I think we all do sometimes on the Internet. My comments about conduct were by no means directed at you.

To be honest, I do feel like a pleb among connoisseurs here, but the word had been tossed around so liberally by other users that I wanted to reclaim it to focus on the mainstream consumer and the dangers of dehumanising him/her. And to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate here, as my inevitable slide back to the high street after years of more imaginative shopping has been something of a painful transition. I'm just too busy to do the legwork these days.

I think there is a very important discussion to be had outside the context of H&MxMMM about how clothing production can be used as a more positive force in international development. I'd love to talk about that on another occasion, if I'm welcome here.

But right now, I have work to do....

[malevich]

i wanna see an LV & H&M collaboration now. just imagine the frenzy in the stores over the pleather monogram bags. oh wait - they're already pleather...

There is a rumor about Givenchy(LVMH) x H&M collab, which is very close and only relevant LVMH brand that feels appropriate aesthetically!!! people around are questioning!! Is Mass Market a new Haute Couture? but who knows these collabs are getting more and more boring and irrelevant...


On the other hand, we should all understand that the exploitation and modern-day slavery issues do not necessarily relate to H&M manufacturing issues only. It is a global issue and if for example tomorrow H&M switches couple of main key management figures in the company and for some unexpected reason takes direction towards sustainable, more ethical manufacturing methods, and some how improve on themselves, THAT does not mean that any other rival up-coming mass market brand would not start exploiting H&M former methods in order to reach their rentability. This issue is very political one, as Faust says Garment Manufacturing Industry is enormous market, which i would totally confirm, and as we mentioned above this planet's richest men are garment industry owners as well, and as long as there is competition these harsh methods will be used, because this is a long time ago proven disadvantage of open economy. Unless each country manufactures for its own needs only, there will always be one country which leads and other which makes the dirty work.

[crtk001]

Thanks for sharing thatvideo, crtk001! I don't get though what's Zizek's problem really when he says that critics of capitalism don't have a constructive solution. He says himself that beside some vague moralizing maxims, there's a also social democracy as one of the available replies. Moreover, this isn't something that's never been tried at all, at least to some extent. I agree with him that a piecemeal approach to solving problems may very well be the best option we have, but I disagree that we have to sit and think out some new ideologies. Why wouldn't we just start with social democracy and its basic institutions instead?

I think social democracy (or when discussing capitalism and markets, socialism) is commendable, but Zizek (and I) would say that its more of a band-aid on a much deeper problem. For being as opinionated as he's known for, I find him a rather...nonchalant, not pushy compared to some of his contemporaries. Canada is a rather social state and is in debt but doing pretty well I think actually. The more radically socialist states in Europe...well you know what's going on there. So we don't really have an answer, rampant capitalism and socialism have created pretty much the same problem. Canada I do like for having a pretty middle ground between the two. What's really needed to keep us from ending up like England/US or like Greece/soon-to-be France, is a complete restructuring of markets/economies.

He says he goes back past Marx to see where his ideas came from, feeling that Marx was on the right path but there are flaws in his theory and communist theory that will end up as the Soviet Union was, violent and controlling. So there aren't any full solutions, but it's hard to theorize and all encompassing theory. I think social democracy is the best way forward from here, but in mediation and under tough regulation. Social democracy has a hard time defining it's own guidelines and given to the people they obviously want as much as they can get and being too democratic in that sense becomes harmful.

Its a stepping stone. For human rights its wonderfully accepting, it may of also been Zizek who said it's a form of libertarianism that too can become just as apathetic as conservatism, instead of saying to the state saying to the people "we don't care don't bother us" the libertarian can say the same to the state...so ugh, I know I don't seem to go anywhere, I don't make too strong of statements because I feel progress must be slow as to not act rashly. I'm going to try to sum up what I think;

Social democracy is the best in medium. If left to grow rampantly on its own it can be, not as much, but still harmful as conservatism and capitalism is. The best way forward from here is in the smaller step of social spending and wealth distribution, but it is a band-aid on a deeply flawed and failing system. In this I agree with Zizek when now is not the time for extreme action but slow progression as new solutions are being formed.

[crtk001]

Nobody is arguing that you should buy what you can't afford. You should simply reconsider what "afford" means. Our shopping habits dictate our values, but it should be the other way around.

I agree, and thats a very strong statement/soundbite (not being ironic or condescending, people should really hear that!). When I have it I try to buy clothes I know much more about the provenance of, $100 tees...unfortunately being a theory-based graphic designer doesn't pay for that. So until it does, I can only speak of idealizations.

[Edit/Addition]
I understand the pointlessness of talking about my current predicament, but its nice to relieve a little angst.

[rrok]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/zara-fast-fashion-slow-to-detox/blog/43092/

thats what happen when youve "the democratisation of fashion".

[galia]

yeah well I'm sure this is all very nice, but I'm wary of anything that comes out of Greenpeace as well. this smells really strongly of greenwashing, but I could be wrong

[tornaremavencer]

The next funeral isn't that surprising http://www.highsnobiety.com/2012/11/...oming-in-2013/