WTF

[i-d-g]

^ I think the interesting thing about Poell in particular is that he forces you to dissect his work. You can't directly see what he's referencing as you can with other brands because (this has been said before) his work doesn't consist of a narrative, but is more of a sartorial experiment.

But who's to say that one can't construct their own elaborate ideas about a piece? Also, maybe the designer wants the wearer to create their own individual ideas about clothing?

[MJRH]

right, exactly, i-d-g. this recalls the apocryphal story of the author who attended a dissection of his work by a prominent literary critic. at the end of the reading, the author stood up and proclaimed smugly, "i am the author of that work, and i didn't know i meant a single one of those things when i wrote it." to which the critic blandly returned, "does that mean none of them are true?"

on the other hand, for those who disagree, and as crouka said in the second post i linked to, '[poell's] work stands on its own without conceptual explanation.' i guess we can all just look at the pretty pictures. but that's nowhere near nerdy enough for myself, at least.

[eat me]

he doesn't force me to do anything :). Scarcity of information relating to Poell directly contributes to intellectual masturbation surrounding his label (see: Hardnen). If he would be holding semi-annual presentations in a public forum and had countless bloggers follow him around, like you see happen with other designers, there would be a lot less mystery to the chain stitch. And there absolutely is a narrative to what he does, like there is a narrative to any body of continuous work, albeit a much less obvious one ("hey, this season - flowers!").

That's not to take any credibility from his work. It's just discussions around CCP often tend to become either an overwrought guesswork or misinformed admiration (see all the "Carol did it first"'s flying around).

[MJRH]

eat me, i can perfectly understand that viewpoint, and of course agree with it somewhat. but, just to play devil's advocate, many would agree on the merits of opacity of intent on the designer's part leading to greater freedom of interpretation on the customer's, any dangers of excessive self-abuse notwithstanding...

[eat me]

^ agree.

[interest1]

oh, well, that's a bit unfair of you, to count all those inquiries about fabric codes

you gotta remember that for a while, the discussion generated by poell's work was really a magnetic force for many of us lurking here, whatever your own opinions of the fella; much of it just happens to be somewhat buried

You do realize, MJRH, that wading through those 500 pages to locate said buried posts to help underscore one's point merits its very own place in WTF history, no?

But, you are one of my very favorite posters and, for all intents and purposes, I just don't have the heart to bring one of my animated gif happy meals to this very special potluck feast. I really am a softie (just don't tell anyone).

[MJRH]

but i love those happy meals! junk food culture at its best: please, reconsider

now, as for my magic ability to scan 500 pages in such short order, i know how very much you love ccp, so—here ya go!

[galia]

Fertility fashion at its finest

[Uncontrol]

Don't think that's gonna help anyone get pregnant.

[mrbeuys]

Really depends on the wearer...

[Shucks]

and even more on the preferences of the other party, no?

[Faust]

^ I wonder if sometimes people tend to overthink the work of someone they admire into elaborate projections of their own ideas of it.

you bet

[interest1]

Fertility fashion at its finest

good god, at first glance thought it was a hideously bearded face.

No more mojitos for me.
.

[interest1]

sparkling on the 4th

friends in low places, holiday edition

[Shucks]

this is actually a double wtf - it came up when i searched on yoox for 'comme des garcons' on my cellphone...