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.
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.
Comment