Margiela x H&M ???

[crtk001]

525252 I think I am in love with you...


Too many parts and comments to quote and comment on.

I understand Rilu bringing in the idea of the music industry, but the truth is music is still a very different industry than fashion. Music is a much more democratic field ability to create music can be done cheaply and in your basement and then distributed internationally online now. There is still the appropriation of the "anti-" bands and counter culture music, but it is not as forcible as in fashion. (Side note: go back to the Owens goes Hip Hop forum and explore this). Few industries have marred itself to capitalism like the fashion industry, not just for means of elitism, to produce fashion on a global scale is a huge financial undertaking so capitalism seems to be necessary to fashion. As long as there are international designers and fashion as a global industry at all fashion is unable of true democratization.

What happens when we discuss the democratization of fashion is actually looking for the explosion of capitalism! If we produce more the price and value of fashion goes down, theres more product, so fashion is more available to more people and these seems like "democratization." In this regards what Margiela was doing in the early 90s, along with a Yohji, Kawakubo, and other designers were doing at the time with the anti-logo (umm i guess) "movement" was removing the elitism of fashion by removing the label. As to, 525252's question is it's become aestheticized, it immediately was as minimalist. Minimalism is a term that was common among the creative crowd at the time so it became an easy term to discuss the work among each other. Its not so much aestheticizing but marginalizing what was going on, taking it to the lower common denominator, a general generic look. In that regards the democratization failed, and the allure of this new work actually drove it's prices up.

Lets look at what Rei Kawakubo was doing though, her work of producing the now before the now. By creating work on a faster cycle she was killing her own work, she was deliberately devaluing her own work. I think its been well agreed on here that this H&M/MMM collection is devaluing the work MMM did himself (something I hold in such high regards it does hurt myself). But really does that not become the best means of democratization? Its a hyperbole of fashion itself, that devalues fashion. It seems in simple terms, everyone with Margiela makes Margiela worthless. Everyone in on this high fashion elitism makes the elitism itself pointless, there would be no elite.

As to 525252's response to Faust, SZ is a guarded stronghold of elitism and intellectualism in fashion. Maybe, the last stronghold of elitism. As much as it does pain me to say it, ideologically for the no-label, anti-fasion ideals to actually become applicable...I believe it was Che who said, "It is the duty of the intellectual class to collectively commit suicide."....Truly, Margiela and H&M is a painful step towards our death.

[525252]

As much as it does pain me to say it, ideologically for the no-label, anti-fasion ideals to actually become applicable...I believe it was Che who said, "It is the duty of the intellectual class to collectively commit suicide."....Truly, Margiela and H&M is a painful step towards our death.

I don't know why but this is hilarious! :)



For an honorable death I strongly encourage everyone hype the shit out of margiela. Tell everyone your coffee is by margiela, the organic soy milk in your coffee is margiela, you drink it while you type on your margiela laptop which is on your margiela table. You also happen to be sitting on a margiela chair.

[crtk001]

For an honorable death I strongly encourage everyone hype the shit out of margiela. Tell everyone your coffee is by margiela, the organic soy milk in your coffee is margiela, you drink it while you type on your margiela laptop which is on your margiela table. You also happen to be sitting on a margiela chair.

"What's that jacket? Margiela?"
Damn fucking right it is! Margiela on my everything!

[525252]

Hebrews 4:13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from Margiela's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

[Analytic Philosopher]

There are fashions (in terms of trends) that form organically such as when there are innovations in technology, and then within them are meta-fashions that artificially construct or aggravate trends.

We've reached a stage where all clothing is meta-fashion.

This is an interesting thought, though I'm wondering if I could push you to expand on this a bit. Specifically, what exactly is this distinction that you're trying to draw here, and what role does the second claim about clothing and metafashion play in that distinction?

I understand your distinction between organic and artificial developments in fashion to be something like the following: there are some things--say, new and improved designs of zippers--that organically make their way into fashion, and then there are other things--such as exposed seams or "invisible" logos--that artificially make their way into fashion. If my interpretation of your view is correct, then it seems to me that you're really just making a distinction between non-aesthetic and aesthetic--rather than organic and artificial--developments in fashion. That is, improved zippers "organically" make their way into fashion because they improve the non-aesthetic value of a particular garment. Non-aesthetic developments make a particular garment instrumentally better, by making the garment more durable, for example. Exposed seams and "invisible" logos, however, make their way into fashion for very different reasons. There are no instrumental reasons* to add these things to clothing. There are, however, (perhaps very widely construed) aesthetic reasons to do so. But if that's the case, then it seems to me that we're better off just drawing a distinction between clothing and fashion, rather than fashion and metafashion. That is, when you talk about fashion, you're just taking about clothing, and when you talk about metafashion, you're just talking about fashion. Analogously, when you're talking about fashions, you're talking about trends in clothing, and when you talk about metafashions, you're talking about trends in fashion. If we do this, however, I'm not at all sure what to make of your second claim, because it seems to me fundamentally wrong to say that all clothing is now fashion. Is that, in fact, what you want to say, or am I just way off base here?

* This is obviously debatable, but let's just assume that these things started happening for reasons other than just making money, for example.

All clothing seeks to be more fashionable than the rest.

I'm not sure what this means. In what sense is it the case the clothing we see at work wear stores or athletic stores is seeking to be more fashionable than other clothing, especially the kind of clothing that we associate with fashion?

Will anyone deny that part of their offence taken at this collaboration is partly that it challenges what they previously built their image upon? For those who identified with MMM now have to say they only like old MMM

I certainly think that is is a source of consternation for many, though (as you hint at) I think there are other ways to draw out the offense in light of the distinction above, namely that many take offence with what H&M and MMM are doing precisely because they're taking what many deem as fashion and reducing it to what many deem as mere clothing.

There are some commodities which have no effective option than to be mass produced like appliances, electronics, etc., and that's okay because nobody identifies their individuality by their refrigerator. Or maybe they do and that's especially rare and tragic.

This strikes me as a particularly odd comment. It seems to me that it's very obviously the case that people do characterize their individuality, in part, by which appliances, electronics, and so on they purchase and use, and that there's nothing rare about it--I leave open the question of whether or not this is tragic. That is, I don't see how characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular pair of headphones one chooses to buy is any different than characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular leather jacket one chooses to buy. This leads me to believe that I must be missing your point here somehow, so what am I missing?

[525252]

aaah I am procrastinating hardcore on my essay, I wish I could convert everything here into academic text

Anal. Philosopher (hahahha just kidding!!) its good that you pointed out the parallel between fashion/meta-fashion and clothing/fashion, similarities do exist, but I did mean there to be a distinction between those groupings though I used the terms without ever specifying the definitions.

I'm using "fashion/meta-fashion" firstly cause I'm (not) writing the aforementioned essay and these terms are necessary when contrasting the concept to a "meta-artwork" and then critiquing the industry of fashion rather than textile and garment industry in general.

Its funny that there is no definition in the dictionary that directly links "fashion" to clothing and garments. (look it up!) So terminology is particularly tricky, especially when you have one word "fashion" simultaneously describing opposing definitions. That might be where some misunderstandings arise?

But anyway the distinction (hope this doesn't become Barthes-ian levels of signification):

clothing is not fashion and fashion is not meta-fashion (we know these boundaries cross, but for the sake of delineating concepts they won't)

When we consider clothing, we characterise it by practical function.
When we consider fashion, we characterise it by aesthetic function.
When we consider meta-fashion, we characterise it by non-function.

1. In the manner of Kantian aesthetics, non-function is art.
2. Obvious examples of meta-fashion are old MMM, CdG, old Chalayan.
3. Meta-fashion is not art per se but it is non-functional like it. Its function is purely conceptual, it is the complete abstraction of fashion design.

This is a super crude way to present an idea, but I hope the point reaches you, let me know where I should elaborate!

That is, I don't see how characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular pair of headphones one chooses to buy is any different than characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular leather jacket one chooses to buy.

let me revise, I missed the crux of the matter! You don't wear your refrigerator or television

[Faust]

^ sz has clearly its own meta-fashion as well ;)



thanks for this post, really interesting thoughts. there's a tricky tension between the bastardization of fashion and the identity that rejects mass-compatibility, and it'd be interesting to think how this tension could be reduced.

Fixed

[Faust]

come on Faust, read it again, you missed my point
If you are calling SZ the last stronghold you are giving your own forum commodity value cause its oooo ~culturally elite~ wow *rarity*

(I mean, it is, but do you get what I mean?)

Sorry, was reading on my phone and missed that big post. What I meant by my comment was that people used to be excited about fashion. Editors constantly lament the good old days where they had to track to some Parisian dungeon half the way across town to witness Margiela's magic, that fashion used to have the capacity to surprise and thrill. And now it's all (in the immortal words of DFW) Managed Fun. What I meant by my SZ comment is that I think there is still a whiff of that excitement here.

And, yes, we are the elite. And I find nothing wrong with that. That the forum gets labels and definitions that fail to catch its essense is out of my control. So is the fact that some people by into its esthetic because they think it's cool.

[Faust]

equality isn't necessarily sameness in the same way accessibility isn't necessarily mass product. There are some commodities which have no effective option than to be mass produced like appliances, electronics etc. and that's okay because nobody identifies their individuality by their refrigerator. Or maybe they do and that's especially rare and tragic.

They do when it's a matter of status, the way fashion is a matter of status. So, now we have to make clear what the reasons are for people buying fashion. Not so sure that it's show off how individual someone is. Not anymore.

[Faust]

This is an interesting thought, though I'm wondering if I could push you to expand on this a bit. Specifically, what exactly is this distinction that you're trying to draw here, and what role does the second claim about clothing and metafashion play in that distinction?

I understand your distinction between organic and artificial developments in fashion to be something like the following: there are some things--say, new and improved designs of zippers--that organically make their way into fashion, and then there are other things--such as exposed seams or "invisible" logos--that artificially make their way into fashion. If my interpretation of your view is correct, then it seems to me that you're really just making a distinction between non-aesthetic and aesthetic--rather than organic and artificial--developments in fashion. That is, improved zippers "organically" make their way into fashion because they improve the non-aesthetic value of a particular garment. Non-aesthetic developments make a particular garment instrumentally better, by making the garment more durable, for example. Exposed seams and "invisible" logos, however, make their way into fashion for very different reasons. There are no instrumental reasons* to add these things to clothing. There are, however, (perhaps very widely construed) aesthetic reasons to do so. But if that's the case, then it seems to me that we're better off just drawing a distinction between clothing and fashion, rather than fashion and metafashion. That is, when you talk about fashion, you're just taking about clothing, and when you talk about metafashion, you're just talking about fashion. Analogously, when you're talking about fashions, you're talking about trends in clothing, and when you talk about metafashions, you're talking about trends in fashion. If we do this, however, I'm not at all sure what to make of your second claim, because it seems to me fundamentally wrong to say that all clothing is now fashion. Is that, in fact, what you want to say, or am I just way off base here?

* This is obviously debatable, but let's just assume that these things started happening for reasons other than just making money, for example.



I'm not sure what this means. In what sense is it the case the clothing we see at work wear stores or athletic stores is seeking to be more fashionable than other clothing, especially the kind of clothing that we associate with fashion?



I certainly think that is is a source of consternation for many, though (as you hint at) I think there are other ways to draw out the offense in light of the distinction above, namely that many take offence with what H&M and MMM are doing precisely because they're taking what many deem as fashion and reducing it to what many deem as mere clothing.



This strikes me as a particularly odd comment. It seems to me that it's very obviously the case that people do characterize their individuality, in part, by which appliances, electronics, and so on they purchase and use, and that there's nothing rare about it--I leave open the question of whether or not this is tragic. That is, I don't see how characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular pair of headphones one chooses to buy is any different than characterizing one's individuality by appealing to which particular leather jacket one chooses to buy. This leads me to believe that I must be missing your point here somehow, so what am I missing?

Bingo, sir, bingo. Hats off. Could not have put it better myself.

[Faust]

aaah I am procrastinating hardcore on my essay, I wish I could conve

But anyway the distinction (hope this doesn't become Barthes-ian levels of signification):

clothing is not fashion and fashion is not meta-fashion (we know these boundaries cross, but for the sake of delineating concepts they won't)

When we consider clothing, we characterise it by practical function.
When we consider fashion, we characterise it by aesthetic function.
When we consider meta-fashion, we characterise it by non-function.

1. In the manner of Kantian aesthetics, non-function is art.
2. Obvious examples of meta-fashion are old MMM, CdG, old Chalayan.
3. Meta-fashion is not art per se but it is non-functional like it. Its function is purely conceptual, it is the complete abstraction of fashion design.

This is a super crude way to present an idea, but I hope the point reaches you, let me know where I should elaborate!



let me revise, I missed the crux of the matter! You don't wear your refrigerator or television

But plenty of people wear Chalayan, Comme, and certainly Margiela. While I can grant you that no one would wear a Chalayan collapsible wooden skirt, I can't think of many Margiela pieces that are not wearable. So, function is there. I think a better definition of meta-fashion (I still don't know if suc thing exists) would be Margiela's artisanal line and the purpose behind his (and only his) deconstruction, to show to the world what the tailors have hidden traditionally. But even that is hardly meta fashion, since it's commenting on clothes and not fashion.

[525252]

hmm apologies, I should have taken more time to think before posting, but bear with me while I rework my argument

When we consider meta-fashion, we characterise it by non-function.

replace "non-function" with "conceptual function"
This is still an abstraction of fashion design so 3. Meta-fashion is not art per se but it is non-functional like it. Its function is purely conceptual, it is the complete abstraction of fashion design. still holds

2. Obvious examples of meta-fashion are old MMM, CdG, old Chalayan.

I should have specified more clearly: eg. the MMM plastic bag tank top, CdG lumps and bumps, Chalayan electronic monstrosity/occupational health and safety liability

It should be clarified that "meta-fashion" is not to be understood in the manner of Postmodern "meta-fiction", intertextuality or self awareness are not necessarily characteristics of meta-fashion. We are describing instead, a fashion within fashion which draws nearer to art because it abstracts design by removing it from its function. We all talk about the aforementioned examples because their conceptual worth is great, nobody thinks of them as clothing really.

It is a fashion within fashion design to be conceptual, rather than aesthetic. This is reflected in art, where its cool to be conceptual even if the concept is anti-conceptual (relational art).

ah I just typed this all up and I'm going to post it, and I'll continue later, I just really gotta go to sleep (getting delerious)

[Ahimsa]

equality isn't necessarily sameness in the same way accessibility isn't necessarily mass product. There are some commodities which have no effective option than to be mass produced like appliances, electronics etc. and that's okay because nobody identifies their individuality by their refrigerator. Or maybe they do and that's especially rare and tragic.

To add-on to what Faust and Anal. Phil. were saying:
Let's take Bose for example. People tend to think Bose has good sound quality because it costs lots of money and it kinda has that status as being good. However, it's very similar to what many people think of a lot of the top fashion brands here; overpriced junk.
To an audiophile, having Bose sound equipment displays your lack of knowledge of quality craftsmanship. This is not to say that Bose is absolutely terrible and you should never buy it under any circumstances, rather that it's very much overpriced and displays a status that exudes money but a lack of understanding to those more informed.

Also, you wouldn't believe the amount of vegans that swear their life on a Vitamix blender.

[the-orb]

Right, weren't de-branding and the idea that the pieces are meant to speak for themselves some of the main concepts in Margiela's work? H&M is the complete opposite, it's focused on branding, re-branding and value adding. Somehow they should have cancelled each other out and yet we are a few weeks away from a full international roll-out.

I don't think HM&MMM colab is deemed as mere clothing, there's clearly some stuff going on there which preserves some aspects of meta-fashion, but the problem is that the entire context within which these clothes are placed is changed, and so the conceptual function has been changed as well (i.e. it's been stripped off its original context which has been replaced by all the shit that go along with h&m).

[Macro]

that shit cray

NYC party is tomorrow night. can't wait. gonna buy the whole collection. fuck the haters. imma ball out on cheap ass mass produced painted boots and faux shearling for the winter. dont worry rilu, no animals were harmed in the making of this collection. sustainability in the name of progress. should provide an obnxious counterbalance in my wardrobe to the many dead animal hides i've collected in the name of the hegemonic superiority that guides our time tested food chain.

http://hypebeast.com/2012/10/maison-martin-margiela-for-hm-2012-fall-winter-collection-preview/