What's the Matter With Gucci

[lowrey]

I've filed Gucci under "words I scroll past in online shops," and since I'm not forced to be confronted with it, it's never entered my mind until WAYWT. From what was presented in WAYWT, it looks nice and hip, and there seems to be a cohesive aesthetic being sold judging from the campaign videos. I'd never wear it for the obvious reasons, but also because it seems youthful while I am not. So overall, it's as little to do with me as any other major fashion label.

But considering that it is well-made, I don't understand why it's much different from this:

https://www.brownsfashion.com/shopping/embroidered-bomber-jacket-11675000?gclid=CLP7_P3G2NICFUlXDQodCFoDKQ&size=

Except that Dries is cool and time-tested, while Michele is hip but possibly short-lived or superficial? Is that what distinguishes what is considered acceptable taste, awareness of and maybe adherence to names that are current vs classic? Hopefully, I'm missing something, as I'd prefer judgment to be more content-focused and less reactive to the taste of others, be it mass or elite.

I think context matters here. Dries certainly has his misses, but if you look at his runway shows (whether it's an individual collection or the past x years), at least personally I find a lot more coherence and certainly a ton of more class in them than in recent gucci collections. This might not be relevant to everyone and of course you can consider the clothing just as individual products in which case sure, Gucci might make some decent looking things (I personally haven't come across anything that isn't gimmicky or ugly yet)

[SafetyKat]

Current Gucci reminds me of what Neil Postman said in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" where, in the new culture creatives will act in a similar manner to that of a DJ, mixing a myriad of preexisting trends in order to create a mix/mashup designed for the most ephemeral sense of pleasure and feeling. I think this is damn close to the ultimate form of high fashion democratization, a huge barrage of choice without a substantial narrative as to not hinder the consumer's fantasy in any way. Postman was talking specifically about Americans in the book, but I think the trend is pretty universal at this point.

"Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities, and commercials."


I'm so happy someone used the word "derpy" to describe clothing. Derpy is my cat's unofficial name XD.

[DudleyGray]

ive been a secret dries fan for a while

Shh, not so loud! People might suspect that you have taste!

I think context matters here. Dries certainly has his misses, but if you look at his runway shows (whether it's an individual collection or the past x years), at least personally I find a lot more coherence and certainly a ton of more class in them than in recent gucci collections. This might not be relevant to everyone and of course you can consider the clothing just as individual products in which case sure, Gucci might make some decent looking things (I personally haven't come across anything that isn't gimmicky or ugly yet)

I went back and looked at Michele's runway presentations after this convo, and I have to retract a bit. Gucci does have that awkward, stilted quality to it that jogu mentioned, whereas Dries is more lavish and refined, and it's only from comparing individual pieces that could betray otherwise. Admittedly, I don't pay close attention to fashion either, and I wonder whether I actually care about fashion at all or just one designer.

I do think Michele has been internally consistent enough over the past couple years, though, and if it weren't for the high turnover rate that is common with designers at big houses and the general goldfish attention span of current fashion, his Gucci could have a chance.

[jap808]

Don't know if this deserve a new thread, so I'll post here: feel free to move... or delete...

The Fashion Outlaw Dapper Dan
Twenty-five years after luxury labels sued his Harlem boutique out of existence, Gucci looks to him for inspiration.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/0...lem-gucci.html

Reminds me of my Follow-the-Leader days :*-)



More here >
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/f...an-jacket.html

[mamooon]

Gucci x Dover Street Market exclusive pre-fall special pieces

http://shop.doverstreetmarket.com/gucci-x-dsm

:-)

Erm, also, errrrm, very.... colorful? ;)

[Faust]

Gucci x Dover Street Market exclusive pre-fall special pieces

http://shop.doverstreetmarket.com/gucci-x-dsm

:-)

Erm, also, errrrm, very.... colorful? ;)

Dumb clothes for dumb people.

[jap808]

Gucci x Dover Street Market exclusive pre-fall special pieces

http://shop.doverstreetmarket.com/gucci-x-dsm

:-)

Erm, also, errrrm, very.... colorful? ;)

Chipie x Chevignon x Best Company x El Charro x 80's Paninari

Habominious

[Fuuma]

Woah, Gucci became Kenzo pretty fast.

[negroygris]

Kenzo then it will evolve to Ed Hardy, then Christian Audigier.

Woah, Gucci became Kenzo pretty fast.

[Pumpfish]

Why Gucci?

Michele's referencing is so saturated and vivid, it comes across as original, not camp or pastiche.

The clothes have a real element of surprize, and by this I mean, the front doesn't tell you what might be happening on the back. An instantaneous and fleeting thrill perhaps, but there aren't many of those left.

Lot's of the thinking has gone into brilliant merchandising, but not all of it.

[gilles]

Gucci is necessary. We note the cyclicality of fashion, and the self-reactionary nature of trends. Gaud ('Maximalism') begets a rejection of gaud, this rejection ('Minimalism') begets a rejection of itself, and a return to form. As Baudrillard notes; "There is no continual progress in these fields: fashion is arbitrary, transient, cyclical, and adds nothing to the intrinsic qualities of the individual." Hence why an observation of it from the point of view most common in a forum such as this is most likely to take on such forms of critique. Gucci is fashion, Stylezeitgeist is antifashion. I tend to abhor the term, as it is bandied about in my experience, however, when I refer to Stylezeitgeist as antifashion, this is to say that it is opposed to the cyclicality and nature of trend and of transience, which are the hallmarks of fashion. Thus, when fashion is at such a point where it is not agreeable aesthetically to antifashion (An entirely different beast, the only similarity being that they are both rooted in clothes), of course there will be the need for such articles. Indeed, I detest Gucci, though this is mostly because I detest gaud (Hence why I am here), especially for it's own sake, which is what Gucci seems to be to me. However, I recognize that the very graphic and showy nature of Gucci has been manifesting in it's own ways for some time, and was necessary as a reaction to austerity and minimalist tendencies of the era preceding it - Sander, Karan, Klein, so on and so on. Gucci merely presents the most extreme aesthetic reaction to such trends, and as such, it may be used to critique the tendencies of this current era and mentality, hence the opening of the article noting the infantilism of Gucci: perfect for the age of infantilism in politics, art, etc.

[byhand]

There must be something wrong with you if you can't enjoy a green tartan backpack with assorted imagery including a UFO, rainbow laser beams and embroidered flowers. It's like grandma meets conspiracy theorist meets Bill Nye the Science Guy. It's everything and nothing, philosophy 101 without the reading. Michele even looks like Descartes.

I like looking at the new Gucci, especially actually on a person who has gone whole hog. It's fun and funny. A relief from a sea of black. I can't wear it myself. I've tried. My life doesn't really allow for people laughing at me, but every court needs a jester. If I had a kid in his teens or twenties I'd encourage him to wear it largely because I get a kick out of it. A ring on every finger and every color in the spectrum accounted for. It's ridiculous and beautiful, and I can always use a bit more of both in my world.

I think it was Faust (above) who mentioned that the clothes are for dumb people. I think the clothes are for people who can enjoy a good laugh, even if the laugh is at their expense.

[jogu]

^ hah this is how i feel about the clothes as well. its quirky , super luxe and detailed. one really has to see the clothes at the store and its like ohhh cool. its detailing over detailing in excess. however ill admit im starting to not have as much fun w it anymore. ive begun seeing quite a few kids here wearing clothes that look similar, like w all the weird appliques but not goochi, and its beginning to turn me off. i was walking around and had someone say like "dam your style is fresh kid". i mean ive had compliments in rick, etc but it wasnt quite like that and not by 19 yr olds. i kinda didnt like it. plus the old goth in me is still there and im tired of paying over 2k for tiger tshirts with jewels and studs as cute as they are. i wear it when im looking for sex , jk lol

[Nickefuge]

I think the clothes are for people who can enjoy a good laugh, even if the laugh is at their expense.

Humor and the ability to laugh at oneself are too rare in a scene where we buy diaper shorts for several hundred moneys.

[byhand]

C'mon, this is golden. The world doesn't need another black leather backpack. There is room for levity in fashion. Some of it is gloriously beautiful. A handful of the ornate women's long coats are stunning. Yes, a huge percentage of it is drivel, but there are plenty of hits amid the misses.