Can Trickle Down Design and Copying Be a Good Thing?

[Faust]

I was going to open up this discussion in the interior design thread, but I know it'd be buried there and it's too important to ignore and we can easily extrapolate it to fashion.

In the last years I have been watching mass market in interior design products go from shit to good. CB2, an offshoot of Crate & Barrell has been particularly good at it in my opinion. There was a time that I would not be caught dead in a place like that, not because it was bad quality stuff, but because their product design was horrendous, stuck in that preppy white Americana style that made my hairs stand on end. This has all drastically changed. The reason is pretty obvious - these stores actively watch the true trail blazers of interior design and then not exactly copy what they do (they can't), but produce something that is close in aesthetic terms.

I think in general this is a good thing and the true meaning of democratization of design. I would never confuse the marble products at CB2 with, say, Michael Verheyden - it's pretty obvious that his marble is of higher quality and he has a great eye for choosing the slabs. And yet, now I would not be ashamed to put something in my house from a mass market maker (very selectively, obviously).

The same kind of thinking can be extrapolated into fashion. I am not talking H&M and Zara KNOCK-OFFS, but about a general aesthetic direction that trickles down from designers into consumer grade realm. For example, I have increasingly warmed up to Rag & Bone - it provides a fairly accessible product of good quality at prices that are not extreme. It's not something I'd wear personally, but I no longer hesitate to recommend it to my female friends who are not hardcore into fashion.

Again, I am not advocating direct copying, but a general aesthetic direction that leads to quality results in a more accessible segment of the market.

What do you think?

[julian_doe]

I was going to open up this discussion in the interior design thread, but I know it'd be buried there and it's too important to ignore and we can easily extrapolate it to fashion.

In the last years I have been watching mass market in interior design products go from shit to good. CB2, an offshoot of Crate & Barrell has been particularly good at it in my opinion. There was a time that I would not be caught dead in a place like that, not because it was bad quality stuff, but because their product design was horrendous, stuck in that preppy white Americana style that made my hairs stand on end. This has all drastically changed. The reason is pretty obvious - these stores actively watch the true trail blazers of interior design and then not exactly copy what they do (they can't), but produce something that is close in aesthetic terms.

I think in general this is a good thing and the true meaning of democratization of design. I would never confuse the marble products at CB2 with, say, Michael Verheyden - it's pretty obvious that his marble is of higher quality and he has a great eye for choosing the slabs. And yet, now I would not be ashamed to put something in my house from a mass market maker (very selectively, obviously).

The same kind of thinking can be extrapolated into fashion. I am not talking H&M and Zara KNOCK-OFFS, but about a general aesthetic direction that trickles down from designers into consumer grade realm. For example, I have increasingly warmed up to Rag & Bone - it provides a fairly accessible product of good quality at prices that are not extreme. It's not something I'd wear personally, but I no longer hesitate to recommend it to my female friends who are not hardcore into fashion.

Again, I am not advocating direct copying, but a general aesthetic direction that leads to quality results in a more accessible segment of the market.

What do you think?

This is a great topic! (As most topics you propose, haha)

I am not sure about Rag & Bone, as the few pieces I have ever purchased by them were of pretty terrible quality. For example, some of the jeans fell apart after 2 or 3 wears, and they were not worn during strenuous situations.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that accessibility is mostly achieved by lowering quality and manufacture standards when products are designed and manufactured by a company of the size of Rag & Bone. Of course, there are many other examples like T by A. Wang, Cheap Monday, etc. There are smaller companies, however, that definitely offer attainable garments that are well made by a work force that is not abused. An example of this is VoidtheBrand. The clothes are made in San Francisco by a small team, they are made of great quality, and they go very well with garments by other designers within this realm of style. Some of the t-shirt patters are inspired by M.A +, and although they are not made of the same luxurious materials, they are a great casual alternative to the original which is hundreds of dollars more expensive.

I think these small companies have a harder time expanding and growing, because they focus more on a quality product rather than advertisement and promotion...so fewer people know about them. But isn't that part of the reason why we love the artisan brands discussed in SZ? I personally feel privileged to be a part of this forum, and that I am able to learn so much about these exclusive products that exist. Not because they are exclusive, but because their business practices are more humane, and because each garment is a piece...rather than another printed tee I will have to replace in 3 months. I am glad that there are cheaper alternatives because I can't afford a $470 LS3 by BBS for each day of the week, but I certainly want a product that was made with passion and that fits the aesthetic I love.

[Ahimsa]

In the last years I have been watching mass market in interior design products go from shit to good. CB2, an offshoot of Crate & Barrell has been particularly good at it in my opinion. There was a time that I would not be caught dead in a place like that, not because it was bad quality stuff, but because their product design was horrendous, stuck in that preppy white Americana style that made my hairs stand on end. This has all drastically changed. The reason is pretty obvious - these stores actively watch the true trail blazers of interior design and then not exactly copy what they do (they can't), but produce something that is close in aesthetic terms.
For example, I have increasingly warmed up to Rag & Bone - it provides a fairly accessible product of good quality at prices that are not extreme. It's not something I'd wear personally, but I no longer hesitate to recommend it to my female friends who are not hardcore into fashion.

Again, I am not advocating direct copying, but a general aesthetic direction that leads to quality results in a more accessible segment of the market.

What do you think?

I agree with CB2. I have had to assemble many pieces from them in the last year, and can say they are fairly good quality and aesthetic for what they are. They use real glass and strong metals, which I would not expect from said kits.

Same with Rag&Bone. The company is very focused on the design aspect and try to get a good product out there for more affordability. They use RiRi zippers for all of their main line, and even some for non-mainline. Some of their pieces are also produced in the USA because they want to keep the most manufacturing as possible at that grand a scale locally. They have a huge archive of old Margiela on their servers for their designer's inspiration.
They look to many of the brands that we appreciate for inspiration - Julius, Yohji, etc.
(they also treat their employees very well - which I can't always say for the smaller houses)

[PurpleJesuss]

I for one can say my experience with Voidthebrand has been less than stellar. The garments are more of a budget Rick nature than anything related to ma+ cuts.(i get where you are coming from though. i suppose you were referring to the seams).

In terms of the whole Premium market, i think many brands offer a very decent price to quality ratio. The product doesn't need to be uninspired either, since these brands have the possibility to truly shape their own identity(in contrast to the fast-fashion nonsense).

It does sadden me however when the brand is highly derivative. I could do without all of these mid-priced SLP "inspired" brands that regurgitate the already boring work being put out. If the interpretation is too literal it becomes knockoff territory, if it's vague the brand feels weak and lifeless.

On the other hand i think derivation can help consumers graduate as their tastes evolve. I know a few members here that were buying AS before letting it go for the real thing.In this sense, it's purpose as a stepping stone is good but having a wardrobe filled with it is unimaginable.

As a whole, I think these brands offer sometimes some of the best quality to price ratio you can find. The issue is they are "good and correct clothes" ,nothing more.....I wish many of these brands would stop borrowing from everywhere and establish a clear direction but i must admit they serve a role and can sometimes encourage people to move on, for better or worse......

[Faust]

Thank you for your responses. It's understandable that quality probably will be inferior on that level. I am more interested and excited about the improvement in the overall aesthetic direction that makes mass products good.

One of my first realizations about design as a teenager was that cheap cars always looked much worse than expensive cars. Now I don't mean quality of construction and engineering but simply looks. And today we have cars like Kia Optima that looks fantastic. Slap a Mercedes badge on it and no one would blink an eye.

[aussy]

I'm all for the democratization of design, but it does little for those without a sense of style. I can appreciate an 'inspired by' piece alone for its smart design and resulting price point. But these benefits are left hanging if the consumer wears/places it in an incongruous context. I've seen far too many turn of the century houses in Philly done up in an indiscriminate amount of low tier, Ikea furniture with no bridge point between the two aesthetics. How many CB2 pieces are sold to suburbanites trying out a modern style in their beige carpeted house? (granted, the ability to try something out without committing too heavily financially or stylistically is an advantage as mentioned by PurpleJesus).

Appreciation for good design is increasing though, and having been raised in the time of the internet and design focused entertainment (HGTV, Project Runway, etc.), I can say that most of my generation is at least aware of what good design is. Though, most of them wont take advantage of these new options and will instead settle for function, comfort and societal norms.

Again, I do appreciate and take advantage of good, mass market design. Sometimes the pressure we as nerdy internet consumers put on ourselves to find something we perceive as genuine and 'the best' can be paralyzing. Sometimes I want a nightstand or black basic that just looks good and doesn't need a story and most times I can't afford one that does anyway. Its nice that good design is no longer exclusively to luxury and wealth.

A bit all over the place and contradictory, so I'll stop there.

[delayedReaction]

You could draw a lot of parallels to the food scene.

Consider a few decades ago there was one lousy ethnic food aside in the supermarket. Now, with the rise of celebrity chefs, Whole Foods and ethnic food chains, we have a much more educated palette.

Setting aside the deeper cultural arguments about labels and so on for the purposes of this discussion, the "food is fuel" contingent will always be around, but generally we're in the era where on the high end we've got Bayless championing Mexican and Samuelsohn with Ethiopian, while Roy Choi ignited serious food trucks for the masses.

And then there's Chipotle.

Even with Chipotle's poisoning dozens (hundreds?) of people with the norovirus, consider that it is roughly the equivalent that we're talking about here for CB2. No one is going to confuse Chipotle with Bayless's Topolo. But Chipotle elevated America's palette, and a whole generation now demands better food. See also: the sales decline in traditional fast food chains like McDonalds.

The problem is, of course, there's no guarantee that the high end who are trail blazing will be able to keep the lights on long term, which will eventually lead to overall stagnation. But that's the same problem that design-lead industries face in general: if the high end isn't able to build a viable business and inspire the whole segment, then everyone eventually engages in a race to the bottom.

Switching back into the clothing realm, the problem then becomes how do you reach and educate your potential consumers with such a fragmented audience? Plus you have the added complication of Zara with its faux artisanal line (Dark or Black or whatever it's called), ready to rip off whatever's selling well.

[gregor]

i think it's a double edged sword, with one end becoming increasingly sharper.

i think the argument of increasingly lesser validity is that it dilutes and derides the design that is being trickled down from. by creating less demand and value for the real product, you diminish it's value both artistically by flooding the market with similar aesthetic pieces (you could argue this does the opposite but the general public doesn't care all that much about the artistic integrity of clothing), and making the product those imitations are derived from less exclusive, sought after, and valuable. people care less and less about the original product because most people are just fine to settle for some, but less.

however, this argument is less valid now because, as is mentioned in this thread, this is actually elevating people's tastes and is starting somewhat of a consumer renaissance. people are now buying more luxury goods than ever before. this is partially due to an increasing selection in the luxury goods industries, but of the 11 largest luxury goods markets on earth, only 3 saw any downturn, and only 1, russia (for obvious reasons), saw a major downturn. even the most established markets like france and the uk continue to see growth, and not necessarily because of a growing market for them in terms of populace, but because more people are willing to spend more to get a better product. you will always have the knockoffs that diminish the value of what they're knocking off, but at the same time, there are increasingly more people growing tired of these knockoffs and wanting the real, or a realer thing.

trickle down design is unlike trickle down economics because it's real

[Faust]

/\ exactly.

Also - love Chipotle :-) Though I think food is a bit different - there is no design there, so to speak :-)

[round]

On a fashion level I am completely opposed to trickle down design/copying, however, I recognize the prevalence of it, and to some point, understand the reason for this prevalence. Furniture and other design however, as a whole, is completely foreign to me, my house, as of now, is furnished with old wooden tables and nooks from craigslist or the trash, our lamps are capo-di-monte esque, not fitting at all with the overall aesthetic of the house. Mostly everything we own is second hand, and it has held up very well, on the flip side, the few newer pieces that we do own are from mass market department stores, and I can attest to the fact that the quality is much less than their more expensive, more original counterparts.

tl;dr: I know nothing, but I understand why people buy mass market furniture, it is cheaper and more accessible to many of us. However, the idea of stealing others designs, making them with lower quality material, and selling them for cheaper irks me greatly. I will have to do some more research on this and come back to post again, this question never occurred to me, thank you for proposing it.

[PUCK]

Great posts so far, and many things have been said that cover the many aspects of this discussion.

What I see personally is from my own viewpoint and life experience, but the interesting thing about all of this is how everything, design, art, etc. just moves through its cycles.

When I was young, we listened to punk and rap, wore mostly black clothes, and associated with goth or punk, skated, got drunk, did graffiti etc, but never used the terms, and most of that stuff wasn't cool when I was young (ahem, in the late eighties)

Joy Division, or even the more popular at the time, Type O Negative, were more or less for what seemed like small groups of people who "got it", same goes for the underground dance scene, or the heavy metal scene (IMHO these communities formed part of the backbone of what I see as the aesthetic we are talking about)

Fast forward about 20 some odd years, and things rise through whatever channels (mainly the web), and then you have Kanye designing a fashion line, talking about black work tattoos etc. essentially co-opting a culture but in such a way that I believe isn't based in concept, but rather the simple fact that many artistically created brands and objects are expensive, and therefore in street culture, desirable. That's what kills it for me, with the trickling effect, as the work is "trickled" its also stripped of the conceptual or ideological source.

Now maybe that's a huge leap(?) But it seems like things just ebb and flow, in and out, and really what's happening is just the usual appropriation of some under exposed culture, in this context it's artisinal furniture and home wares, or its clothing, music, style itself, 6 or 1 they're all the same to the thieves.

For me, from a very personal point of view, it would be great if more people opened up to the concepts behind many of these design movements, or the artists that create and endeavor to grow them, but really everyone here knows that for pop culture, or major store chains, or celebrities, its just the "look" that's being copied, or maybe they have a smart stylist, and that there's no teaching the ethos that comes with it, as many have said.

It immediately reminds me of the new Zam video, he mentions something along these lines...

Again that's my personal opinion from my experience with many fields, architecture, vehicle design, fine art, what have you.

The pop vultures will have their day with these things we love and leave them behind, and this isn't always bad, I've been able to pickup really cheap second hand things I love, from yuppies who decided it wasn't "their thing" after (fill in the blank) celebrity stops wearing it or riding it etc...

I think there could be a real bright side though, a big plus here is that if the amazing people (for me it would be people like Zam and his crew, for example) who struggle to make the amazing work they make get press, more clients, and open these ideas to people who will get it, then the benefits can far outweigh the damages, and potentially grow the culture and sustain it further.

Sorry if that's a rambler, but I also think about this quite a bit. The source and the concepts are as important to me as the work itself, I quoted Faust the other day in a post where he says the same thing, somewhere along the lines of even if he saw the most amazing thing ever, if the source wasn't right, he wouldn't pick it up.

TL;DR;DC

It's more about whether or not your is in it.

[PUCK]

i think it's a double edged sword, with one end becoming increasingly sharper.

i think the argument of increasingly lesser validity is that it dilutes and derides the design that is being trickled down from. by creating less demand and value for the real product, you diminish it's value both artistically by flooding the market with similar aesthetic pieces (you could argue this does the opposite but the general public doesn't care all that much about the artistic integrity of clothing), and making the product those imitations are derived from less exclusive, sought after, and valuable. people care less and less about the original product because most people are just fine to settle for some, but less.

however, this argument is less valid now because, as is mentioned in ...

trickle down design is unlike trickle down economics because it's real

I don't think I can wrap my mind around this no matter how much I research it myself.

It just seems like the people who buy the knockoff stuff don't get why the real stuff costs what it costs, and in terms of the majority of society, I can't imagine the lady who buys a $20 Louie Viton would ever consider saving for a real one. Let alone a 17 year old kid who sees Rick gear in a rap video and buys knockoff Geo's from the webs.

Honestly sorry for my ignorance, I just don't see that happening.

[PUCK]

Again, I am not advocating direct copying, but a general aesthetic direction that leads to quality results in a more accessible segment of the market.

What do you think?

Faust just wanted to point this part out because I think most importantly, this is the part that doesn't seem to happen. I could be totally off base, but it seems like the accessibility, almost always comes with a down grade. Though you are right that the general aesthetic can improve.

The funny thing is, if anything opens accessibility, and it does even for me and I love this stuff, its the second hand market.

For Rag and Bones new prices, you could almost grab a second hand CCP piece, or ZB, BBS, Etc.

[gregor]

I don't think I can wrap my mind around this no matter how much I research it myself.

It just seems like the people who buy the knockoff stuff don't get why the real stuff costs what it costs, and in terms of the majority of society, I can't imagine the lady who buys a $20 Louie Viton would ever consider saving for a real one. Let alone a 17 year old kid who sees Rick gear in a rap video and buys knockoff Geo's from the webs.

Honestly sorry for my ignorance, I just don't see that happening.

that's true of the lady, but not true of the 17 year old. two completely different people with similar, but not completely alike methodology behind said purchases.

[PUCK]

Gregor hit me with it because I'd like to know where you're coming from.

The reason I used the two in the same breath was just to emphasize the concept of someone wanting something only for the look, in which case I couldn't see the difference between the two.

In terms of how it affects the market or values, I can see there would be differences down the line.