Margiela x H&M ???

[BSR]

I can see the profound respect you hold for propositional logic...

honestly, life would be sweet is more people (on SZ for instance) mastered it.

[Faust]

yeah the collab should have NOTHING to do with it other than possibly timing. he's just saying fuck off to those who exploit graffiti. not everyone cares about fashion, faust.

You surely jest. It's plain as daylight that it's because of H&M. You really think someone like that would know who Margiela is if not for the collaboration marketing blitz? Reread your own last sentence.

[Shucks]

You surely jest. It's plain as daylight that it's because of H&M. You really think someone like that would know who Margiela is if not for the collaboration marketing blitz? Reread your own last sentence.

someone like that? do you even know any graff writers or anything about the culture?

[lowrey]

Well I don't doubt he wouldn't know Margiela, given that the label is pretty mainstreat at the moment and that he has been targeting fashion houses/stores before... but I also agree with Faust that surely at least the timing of it is because of H&M, whatever the "message" might be.

[zamb]

I wouldn't exactly be surprised if all of this was staged in order to raise the profile of this stupid collab!

and all of this ridiculous intellectual justification that i have nether the time or place for is ridiculous.

[Faust]

someone like that? do you even know any graff writers or anything about the culture?

please, cut the shit.

[Shucks]

please, cut the shit.

that's a no then. no surprise there.

[Faust]

that's a no then. no surprise there.

Go do a graffiti artist survey about their knowledge of fashion and then tell me I'm wrong.

[Faust]

I rest my case re: H&M is for poor people and fashion is for rich snobs.

"I've never heard of him [Margiela] but I just always buy things from the H&M designer ranges," said Lisa Hyatt, from Notting Hill, who had bought £900 worth of womenswear, including a coat made from a duvet.

Bella Ting, 25, spent £1,612.77, but also claimed not to really know anything about the high-end fashion label. "My sister is a fan," she said. "It's quite odd. It's a bit like the sort of thing you might see people wearing on Brick Lane isn't it?"

[zamb]

Margiela talked me through a short black-and-white silent film of eight women wearing his clothes, introducing the people and the garments. 'That's Sophie, she's an architect. She wasn't interested in fashion; she still isn't. She's wearing a dress made from four black flea market dresses sewn together . . . That's Jennifer, an American photographer, playing on her bed in a lambswool dress . . . That's Christine, our in-house model, in a floral dress with mohair sleeves.' You get the idea. He wants to make clothes for real people, for individuals, rather than fashion victims.


from an old article in the independent

will post the article link in the morning

[525252]

rilu, thanks for always taking the time to reply to my horrendously articulated ideas, I'll try to explain further and more clearly.

Firstly, the dichotomy here is not between laypersons and experts, there should not be an assumption that one "knows" and the other doesn't. I am attempting to describe a mode of logic which forms meaning through irrational processes. This is not about the writer's logic, but the reader's.

Given that the writer's statement is true, e.g. "Margiela is good", the reader may understand that:

1. The quality of goodness is being applied to "Margiela"
AND/OR
2. Margiela is an example of "good"

note that neither is apparently more or less correct.
(Also must emphasise! categorical syllogisms, semiotics and word games are not relevant to this idea.)

The first assumes that Margiela has the quality goodness, but not all good things are necessarily Margiela. As follows:
(warning!: possible misuse of symbols in formal logic, but please bear with me)

"A is B" ≠ "B is A"

The reasoning for this is fairly obvious. "A is B" cannot equal "B is A" for it would better be "A is A" or "B is B".
"Margiela is good" ≠ "Good is Margiela"
The latter makes no sense.


The second reading also assumes that Margiela has the quality of goodness, however it is possible that "Margiela" is an attribute of "good"

thus "A is B" = "B is A"

Again, there are no word games or literal misunderstandings. This is not a categorical syllogism because there are no supporting statements from which the reader draws a conclusion.
The statement "Margiela is Good" is given as truth. Either reading does not question the truth of the statement, neither is more or less correct, in fact both readings are understood as true.

As the statement "Margiela is Good" is not a self evident claim, the reader does not necessarily understand the quality of goodness in Margiela. Aspects of of Margiela such as the four white stitches, mysterious branding, conceptual design etc. are disparate and do not overtly relate to the attribute "good".
The terms "Margiela" and "Good" are connected by categorising "Margiela" as an example of "Good". An irrational logic understands with a double negation: "Margiela is not not good."
That is, Margiela is not a thing which is not good. Margiela is being considered as a whole, as being good, rather than as a thing which has good attributes. Margiela becomes an attribute of good rather than the other way round. Do you see the difference? And how MMM becomes very easy to sell if you don't consider the aspects of Margiela which are good, but consider Margiela as "good" in whole.

It is the same for statements like "Margiela is art" or "Margiela is creative". MMM becomes an example, an icon even, of art and creativity. Irrational logic then understands that art and creativity is Margiela.
This kind of irrational logic where "A is B" = "B is A" is not a bad thing per se. It is a necessary mode of logic, we could not learn languages or have any kind of categorical systems in place without it. This mode of logic tends to help the phenomena of fashion rather than question it.

SO. when we see in an article:

For years Margiela was a designer’s designer, an intelligent creator and a pioneer of deconstruction who refused to talk to the media, letting his work speak for itself. The tags on his garments did not carry his name, but were pure white. He was a tinkerer, a sartorial engineer whose clothes often concealed their complexity.

It does not necessarily encourage readers to question what makes a designer's designer or an intelligent creator, rather it says "MARGIELA IS THIS. THIS IS MARGIELA."

Faust, I wonder if you missed my last post, but I very much would like to know your thoughts.

[christianef]

I wouldn't exactly be surprised if all of this was staged in order to raise the profile of this stupid collab!

and all of this ridiculous intellectual justification that i have nether the time or place for is ridiculous.

word. if the graffiti is completely unrelated to the collab what's the use posting it here. it's not even good. i dont follow graffiti - i knew a few writer's they were like losers who listen to deep puddle dynamics and wear new balance YAWN- but homeboy seems as gimmicky as the ish he's calling out. kid probably saw the white high-tops and flipped out booohoohoo my precious street culture, GET REAL! (that's wut he should have wrote - get real.)

[BSR]

I rest my case re: H&M is for poor people and fashion is for rich snobs.

"I've never heard of him [Margiela] but I just always buy things from the H&M designer ranges," said Lisa Hyatt, from Notting Hill, who had bought £900 worth of womenswear, including a coat made from a duvet.

Bella Ting, 25, spent £1,612.77, but also claimed not to really know anything about the high-end fashion label. "My sister is a fan," she said. "It's quite odd. It's a bit like the sort of thing you might see people wearing on Brick Lane isn't it?"

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)?

[Faust]

Margiela talked me through a short black-and-white silent film of eight women wearing his clothes, introducing the people and the garments. 'That's Sophie, she's an architect. She wasn't interested in fashion; she still isn't. She's wearing a dress made from four black flea market dresses sewn together . . . That's Jennifer, an American photographer, playing on her bed in a lambswool dress . . . That's Christine, our in-house model, in a floral dress with mohair sleeves.' You get the idea. He wants to make clothes for real people, for individuals, rather than fashion victims.


from an old article in the independent

will post the article link in the morning

I wouldn't be surprised if he's referring to our editorial photographer, Jennifer Tzar. They used to be friends. I'll ask her.

[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)?

The Guardian

This would be a fantastic survey you propose.