Saint Laurent Paris FW13

[tricotineacetat]

You will know it when you see it.

Why, tricot, are you diving headfirst into SL?

I was probably intrigued more about the question itself rather than the topic of Saint Laurent specifically... though to be perfectly honest, I do not find much of what is happening in fashion to be particularly discussion worthy, anyway... It's a business-as-usual time for anyone in the trade and I don't think I've seen anything majorly exciting happening in a long time.

My personal view on the essence of clothing with a soul/attitude is more of a garment that eventually takes on a life of it's own from consistent, repeated wearing, of cherished memories attached or whatever gives a garment a personal personal attachment. As such, I don't really buy into the romantic thought of a designer giving birth to a creation that already inhabits a soul, so to speak... You can say that the more particular clothes are being designed, the more they demand to be filled not only with a certain physique but also an attitude that makes the wearer wear the garment and not the other way around.

[Bson]

Tricot, it goes both ways. A poem doesn't exist without the reader, music without the listener... There are definitely clothes with soul, but hopefully, like all great things, they change when they are passed on.

[Faust]

I was probably intrigued more about the question itself rather than the topic of Saint Laurent specifically... though to be perfectly honest, I do not find much of what is happening in fashion to be particularly discussion worthy, anyway... It's a business-as-usual time for anyone in the trade and I don't think I've seen anything majorly exciting happening in a long time.

My personal view on the essence of clothing with a soul/attitude is more of a garment that eventually takes on a life of it's own from consistent, repeated wearing, of cherished memories attached or whatever gives a garment a personal personal attachment. As such, I don't really buy into the romantic thought of a designer giving birth to a creation that already inhabits a soul, so to speak... You can say that the more particular clothes are being designed, the more they demand to be filled not only with a certain physique but also an attitude that makes the wearer wear the garment and not the other way around.

No one is selling it. And if you don't see it, it's your loss. But tell that to Ann or Yohji...

Wim Wenders on a shirt and a jacket by Yamamoto:

"I felt protected like a knight in his armor -- by what, a shirt and a jacket? This jacket reminded me of my childhood and my father as if the essence of this memory were tailored into it... What did Yamamoto know about me -- about everybody?"

[Faust]

Commercial for me really just means mass market (at any price). The luxury brands have all become more commercial in the past decade to please shoppers, who by and large are not into fashion. They just want to own a black sweater with a label in it. Nothing wrong with commercial, it's just not what I am (and most people on this forum) are into.

Hedi Slimane was a visionary in a different time and maybe that time has passed. He's certainly moved on.

But how mass-market is a $1,000 sweater though? Seems like the price precludes the mass-market definition.

[tricotineacetat]

No one is selling it. And if you don't see it, it's your loss. But tell that to Ann or Yohji...

Wim Wenders on a shirt and a jacket by Yamamoto:

"I felt protected like a knight in his armor -- by what, a shirt and a jacket? This jacket reminded me of my childhood and my father as if the essence of this memory were tailored into it... What did Yamamoto know about me -- about everybody?"

It would be hypocritical to say that one thing does not possess a soul by the standard of it not clicking with you. It's a very personal thing with clothing. Whatever relation Mr. Wenders has with his Yohji shirts that he chose to buy is his' alone, and I'm sure somebody else who may have bought the same shirt (this being ready to wear) may just as well feel of it to be 'just' a good white shirt that happened to fit and appeal because of some details in cut and fabrication.

That's all fine in it's own right, and if somebody chose to feel that way about a creation by Hedi Slimane for Saint Laurent, that would be just as valid. I don't see a reason to dive all too deep into the whole surrounding of it all and to try and to put every stich, choice of button or whatever aspect of the design in relation to that.

[Faust]

The whole point is exactly that it's not just the wearer that imbues a garment with a soul. It's the creator doing that and the wearer seeing that and relating to it (which Wim Wender does and you don't). It's not something easily defined or explained because reason alone is inadequate in grasping it. Like I said, you either see it or you don't, but it exists. If you want a philosophical framework around it, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which explains metaphysics of quality.

[tricotineacetat]

"I felt protected like a knight in his armor -- by what, a shirt and a jacket? This jacket reminded me of my childhood and my father as if the essence of this memory were tailored into it... What did Yamamoto know about me -- about everybody?"

My most favourite suit happens to be one designed by Hedi Slimane during his tenureship at Dior. it's made of dark grey melange heavy weighted wool with a fresco weave not much different from a suit my grandfather wore in the 1960ies and that he always looked very handsome in with his fedora and Chelsea boots (that again, looked very much like those Hedi Slimane favors), if I look at old pictures of my grandparents. There is a flair of casual elegance to wearing this kind of day suit that I admire a lot, and I am reminded of it when I put on my own, which as well gives me the feeling of being protected in an armor, of feeling just a little more confident than if I had just put on anything else... Now, how would my relationship to this very suit be of any less depth than what Wenders just said about his Yohji clothes?

[Fuuma]

Once that produce clothing that are easy to wear (toned down, simple, easily blent in) and also interchangeable (Jil Sander, Margiela, Prada, etc.).

1) Carpe Diem, MA+, LUC, Lumen&Umbra are as much interchangeable as MMM and Prada

2) JS or whatever offer basic pieces (say a grey sweater) and wilder ones (say an electric blue overcoat with square lapels). Same as Rick I guess. It's just that they target an older market who wants suiting or dressed up influences and not streetwear influences like RO, or luxury bobo pot smoker goth like Carpe. I don't see how it makes them more "commercial".

3) It is pretty useless to say brands fall into "commercial" and "non-commercial" binary oppositions. I'd rather see how singular cases/products are positioned in relation to market imperatives than to say "MMM is commercial", "LUC is not commercial".

4) Some brands are more commercially successful (say Rick or even Prada) than others (say Carpe or BBS) so is it a matter of turnover? What if the design output remains constant in its will to challenge design orthodoxy (Comme des garçons)? What if the design output stays in the same vein but it is the market that adopts it en-masse (Rick Owens)? Who is being commercial?

[Faust]

My most favourite suit happens to be one designed by Hedi Slimane during his tenureship at Dior. it's made of dark grey melange heavy weighted wool with a fresco weave not much different from a suit my grandfather wore in the 1960ies and that he always looked very handsome in with his fedora and Chelsea boots (that again, looked very much like those Hedi Slimane favors), if I look at old pictures of my grandparents. There is a flair of casual elegance to wearing this kind of day suit that I admire a lot, and I am reminded of it when I put on my own, which as well gives me the feeling of being protected in an armor, of feeling just a little more confident than if I had just put on anything else... Now, how would my relationship to this very suit be of any less depth than what Wenders just said about his Yohji clothes?

Sounds like you are talking more about nostalgia rather than connection with the creator. They are different things.

[Faust]

1) Carpe Diem, MA+, LUC, Lumen&Umbra are as much interchangeable as MMM and Prada

Interchangeable with each other, but not with Theory or any other mass-market brand nor with any over conventional brand, which is what I meant.

2) JS or whatever offer basic pieces (say a grey sweater) and wilder ones (say an electric blue overcoat with square lapels). Same as Rick I guess. It's just that they target an older market who wants suiting or dressed up influences and not streetwear influences like RO, or luxury bobo pot smoker goth like Carpe. I don't see how it makes them more "commercial".

JS may offer it on the runway, but the JS customer will go for the gray sweater. Same with Margiela. Again, the look is totally different from say a Rick boot-jean-tee-leather jacket uniform. Say what you will about one's motivation, there is a huge difference in the look. You would not show up to a fancy dinner in a Rick outfit, but you could easily dress head-to-toe in Margiela and your neighbor in a Kiton suit or a pair of Dockers and a Brooks Brothers shirt wouldn't bat an eyelash.

3) It is pretty useless to say brands fall into "commercial" and "non-commercial" binary oppositions. I'd rather see how singular cases/products are positioned in relation to market imperatives than to say "MMM is commercial", "LUC is not commercial".

Useless how?

4) Some brands are more commercially successful (say Rick or even Prada) than others (say Carpe or BBS) so is it a matter of turnover? What if the design output remains constant in its will to challenge design orthodoxy (Comme des garçons)? What if the design output stays in the same vein but it is the market that adopts it en-masse (Rick Owens)? Who is being commercial?

[/quote]

To challenge the design orthodoxy was the very raison d'etre for Carpe Diem - this has been thoroughly established.

I don't think "commercial" is a matter of turnover (though even if we talk about the most successful brand discussed here, Rick Owens, it is still light years away from Prada and well behind Jil Sander). It's a matter of what I said before - making easy clothes that don't stand out and are easily interchangeable with other brands. But if you show me an adequate difference between a Jil Sander v-neck sweater and a Prada v-neck sweater, I am all ears.

[tricotineacetat]

Sounds like you are talking more about nostalgia rather than connection with the creator. They are different things.

Did you mind to ask Mr.Wenders further in depth about what he feels about his Yohji garments? What he had to say doesn't sound all too different from my own associations at all.

[MJRH]

My most favourite suit ... Now, how would my relationship to this very suit be of any less depth than what Wenders just said about his Yohji clothes?

that was a beautiful post, by the way.

though i follow the debate with interest, the point is moot, for me: there are people in design who are more likely than other people in design to inspire passion in me, the same passion wonderfully detailed by tric above. whether they are commercial or not, is of no matter, that's why i agree with fuuma that that dichotomy seems a bit silly. so i'm fine wearing prada (oh dear!) but it's not exactly likely.

[Faust]

Did you mind to ask Mr.Wenders further in depth about what he feels about his Yohji garments? What he had to say doesn't sound all too different from my own associations at all.

I will when I get the chance.

[Faust]

that was a beautiful post, by the way.

though i follow the debate with interest, the point is moot, for me: there are people in design who are more likely than other people in design to inspire passion in me, the same passion wonderfully detailed by tric above. whether they are commercial or not, is of no matter, that's why i agree with fuuma that that dichotomy seems a bit silly. so i'm fine wearing prada (oh dear!) but it's not exactly likely.

I don't think anyone was making the non/commercial distinction to parallel wether something had soul or not. At some point the discussion veered off and we were trying to simply get a definition of what "commercial" is. At least that's what I thought.

[MJRH]

ah! i just got lost, then. i'm so used to the auth***** debate rearing up that i read too much into it all...