WTF

[the breaks]

You're talking about the designer who makes clothes that are extremely uncomfortable and/or impossible to wear and are sold at exorbitant prices? That CCP?

[Law]

You're talking about the designer who makes clothes that are extremely uncomfortable and/or impossible to wear and are sold at exorbitant prices? That CCP?

No, I'm talking about the Austrian one.

[Faust]

No, I'm talking about the Austrian one.

CCP is Austrian.

[Law]

CCP is Austrian.

Naturally, I was joking.

[Faust]

Ah, excuse me!

[1994]

in huge, gaudy lettering on every piece. i don't think anyone gives kanye credit for subtlety or nuance. the whole line is arguably just an expensive, disgusting fit of egomania and famous people having too much money and too little sense. i can't really think of any celebrity clothing line that is any semblance of nice or interesting.

i think it's yet another testament to the lunacy of it. something as simplistic and boring of a name as yeezy is only befitting of the absolute banality that is the line.

Playing devil's advocate - What is subtle or less egomaniac about someone's name on any clothing brand tag?

Are garments with large typeface brand names by defacto egomaniac and gaudy?

I'm not championing for the Yeezy line. Was feeling these pieces at Kith and the sweats were lower quality than my Champion pullovers. Just genuinely curious what fonts, texts, and graphic styles we're comfortable with while still defining them as authentically "designed."

[Faust]

As one famous fashion journalist said, referring to Saint-Laurent, but easily applied here, "They are dumb clothes for the world full of dumb people."

[gregor]

Playing devil's advocate - What is subtle or less egomaniac about someone's name on any clothing brand tag?

Are garments with large typeface brand names by defacto egomaniac and gaudy?

I'm not championing for the Yeezy line. Was feeling these pieces at Kith and the sweats were lower quality than my Champion pullovers. Just genuinely curious what fonts, texts, and graphic styles we're comfortable with while still defining them as authentically "designed."

i suppose that's true, but only to an extent. stylizing and generally minimal branding are a testament to subtlety. luc is a great example, as well as nuanced labels that present a sort of image similar to the aesthetic of the brand. it just feels like a huge slap in the face to have giant, aggressive text effectively yelling yeezy.

it's somewhat the same regardless of the actual brand or font, but i feel it's just one of the facets that add to the gaudiness of the clothes.

[Law]

$470 dollar boxer shorts anybody?

[Defender]

I prefer branding through doing something so well people can only know the designer by the quality.

Examples for women are a Chanel tweed suit or an Hermes silk scarf.

That's proper branding.

The same thing happens for sz labels, but they're probably too new to have a real iconic piece that is recognizable by the public at large (or maybe I'm being silly thinking that the public at large is even savvy enough to recognize a Chanel tweed suit).

edit: I mention that specifically because a Chanel tweed suit on a woman, to me, is as recognizable branding as it would be if she were wearing a shirt with CHANEL written on it in massive letters front and back.

[newp]

I prefer branding through doing something so well people can only know the designer by the quality.

Examples for women are a Chanel tweed suit or an Hermes silk scarf.

That's proper branding.

The same thing happens for sz labels, but they're probably too new to have a real iconic piece that is recognizable by the public at large (or maybe I'm being silly thinking that the public at large is even savvy enough to recognize a Chanel tweed suit).

edit: I mention that specifically because a Chanel tweed suit on a woman, to me, is as recognizable branding as it would be if she were wearing a shirt with CHANEL written on it in massive letters front and back.

Most brands discussed here have signature pieces/aesthetic.

[Defender]

Most brands discussed here have signature pieces/aesthetic.

Yeah I was trying to point out that while that is true, it might not be to the level of being iconic such that it's as good as all caps graphic branding to wear a signature piece, and that's why some brands are resorting to graphic branding to skip the step of becoming iconic. Maybe I just can't explain what I'm trying to say

[Arkady]

Well, I certainly couldn't tell you when a woman is specifically wearing a Chanel tweed suit but it's hard to disagree with your point about using iconography vs becoming iconic.

Then again I am not so sure Chanel knew the tweed suit would become iconic just as Rick probably didn't set out to make something specifically iconic when he designed the Intarsia. Iconography and iconicism are separate processes that occasionally intersect in branding, is how I'd put it.

[Faust]

Most brands discussed here have signature pieces/aesthetic.

Discernible only to a certain niche group of connoisseurs. A BBS string is not a Burberry plaid, not even Margiela's four stitches. Completely different things.

[Arkady]

Yeah as you've mentioned before I can't say I even see Rick out in the wild more than a few times a year in downtown Manhattan.