Your recent purchases

[lowrey]

CCP isn't Carpe or whatever, nothing is accidental, even the drip sneakers have to be made a certain way or they are judged a failure. In fact CCP is the reverse of a brand seeking imperfection; from deeply thought out concept to detailed planning and precise execution it is about perfect results. In fact CCP is so into perfection and uniformity in results that he wants to negate your body to obtain the same silhouette on EVERYONE wearing it, including females.

I'm just picking up on the discussion, but I think you are speaking of entirely different meanings of "imperfection". the concept isn't of course being poorly executed, but quite the opposite. Imperfection in CCP's work, I think, would mean something being intentionally flawed; scars, rust, stains, irregularities...

[Chant]

But when CCP cuts and assembles a jacket, he chooses the exact place where the scars that are in the hide will take place in the final garment. Hence you shouldn't have a local point of view but a global one, where "imperfections" make sens and can hardly be called like this. Or it is a myopic perspective, focusing on a detail and forgetting the whole pattern.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

I don't understand your Rick Owens comment but then I usually have no idea what you are talking about.

The sentence you responded to about the beauty in imperfection is
what Rick Owens is typical feeding us with, beautiful ruins etc etc.

[kunk75]

picked up my s4 today, pics to come. No clothes for the time being....

[incognito]

But when CCP cuts and assembles a jacket, he chooses the exact place where the scars that are in the hide will take place in the final garment. Hence you shouldn't have a local point of view but a global one, where "imperfections" make sens and can hardly be called like this. Or it is a myopic perspective, focusing on a detail and forgetting the whole pattern.

how should one collectively refer to these details then? the rust, the stains, the scars....
obviously within the context of a CCP piece they are not actual imperfections but colloquially, they are. referring to those embellishments as "perfections" or "purities" (as opposed to imperfections or impurities) seems a bit odd. do we need a context-specific language?

anyways, i didn't expect my one sentence to spawn a full page of argument. i simply meant to say: the rust, the stains, the scars, etc are one of the reasons why CCP appeals to me.

[Faust]

how should one collectively refer to these details then? the rust, the stains, the scars....
obviously within the context of a CCP piece they are not actual imperfections but colloquially, they are. referring to those embellishments as "perfections" or "purities" (as opposed to imperfections or impurities) seems a bit odd. do we need a context-specific language?

anyways, i didn't expect my one sentence to spawn a full page of argument. i simply meant to say: the rust, the stains, the scars, etc are one of the reasons why CCP appeals to me.

That's a good thing!

[theconsumer]

Yohji's lemma: perfection is ugly
CCP is perfect
--
CCP is ugly.

QED.

[Chant]

how should one collectively refer to these details then? the rust, the stains, the scars...

Noone should refer collectively to specifities that are completely different and have a different meaning.

Why is CCP using hides with scars, that a regular designer would reject ? Because they will remind the wearer that the leather fabric is made out of a hide - that he's wearing the skin of a dead animal. An animal that lived, fought and suffered (he once said that kangaroo's skins are the most scarred since they are quite agressive animals) and died.

Rust are the traces that the garment has been object-dyed, they come from the contact between the metallic parts with the garments. Once someone said, and it was very well put that CCP's garments always keep the traces of the different stages of their construction. The garment as palimpsestic memory of its own history.

"Stains" are almost a nonsense. There are no stains on CCP's garments, there are shades of colours, that are part of the design. "Stained", "dirty" refer again to a conservative definition of what it "nice", not to say "beautiful".

[lowrey]

"Stains" are almost a nonsense. There are no stains on CCP's garments, there are shades of colours, that are part of the design. "Stained", "dirty" refer again to a conservative definition of what it "nice", not to say "beautiful".

come on, stains are stains. whether they are part of the design is irrelevant, you can still call them stains.









we can nitpick over vocabular choices but they are details that in any conventional case would be considered flaws, hence why I consider using the word imperfection just fine even if its absolutely intentional

[Czx]

Jumping in all of a sudden but I agree with Lowrey here. Intentional imperfection is still an imperfection even if it is made in process of designing "perfection". This word does label it as something bad but isn't it meant to be that way? Something that by a standard of majority would be a flaw but by those with knowledge and sense for it is a part of design and becomes something beautiful. It's a flaw created with intention of evocating that feeling and therefore it isn't bad and is a part of a design but it is a flaw by definition.
Imperfection can easily be a part of perfection, it's not necessary to label it as something different in such case.
If we'll nitpick over choosing a word to describe every detail of this kind we will soon run out of them and will be forced to create a vocabulary of our own.

Giving an example of my own field - I love Burial and his work, propably more than any other electronic artist and most of others from other genres. He often uses certain effects to put static or dirt on a track. And his work is close to perfection for me, I would not speak a bad word about anything he produced. But those thing used to give that feeling to a track are still imperfections and nothing else. Imperfections used to achieve a certain goal are still imperfections. And I'm pretty sure most artists (whatever kind of them) using them in this process would not run away from that word, hardly so.

TLDR; Imperfection in context of intentional use is not the same as imperfection without context and therefore is a perfectly applicable word in this kind of situation.

[fireflygrave]

Imperfection can easily be a part of perfection, it's not necessary to label it as something different in such case.
If we'll nitpick over choosing a word to describe every detail of this kind we will soon run out of them and will be forced to create a vocabulary of our own.

Giving an example of my own field - I love Burial and his work, propably more than any other electronic artist and most of others from other genres. He often uses certain effects to put static or dirt on a track. And his work is close to perfection for me, I would not speak a bad word about anything he produced. But those thing used to give that feeling to a track are still imperfections and nothing else. Imperfections used to achieve a certain goal are still imperfections. And I'm pretty sure most artists (whatever kind of them) using them in this process would not run away from that word, hardly so.

Wanted to jump in and agree. Imperfection is just another tool in an artist's toolbox (sculptor, musician, designer, whatever) used to evoke a feeling or a mood. I probably know less than most people on here about fashion designers and the differences in their goals for their clothes, but I do spend a lot of time thinking about making art and talking about artmaking. Imperfection for me is often what draws the viewer in, especially if it is intentional! It for me provokes a "why" response that invites a viewer to spend time exploring the piece and discovering the little nuances and the reasons/effects of the 'flaws'... I think this can be the same for clothes, or in music as you explained :)

[crouka]

carol is trying to combine the predictable with the unpredictable, just like the ancients tried to express the synthesis in labyrinth. it might be what once was called coincidentia oppositorum, egoisme a deux, hellish paradise, celestial hell.

[Jin]

i'll clear that up finally. jin and i were involved in a trade. 3 julius shirts for 1 size small ekam leather. i received his item before i sent mine out just to be safe because i've traded, bought, sold to a lot of sz members and he was brand new. upon receiving the leather there were a few major problems. first it was a size medium and not a small which was clearly marked on the tag. second he said it was a $1500 leather that he bought for $400 and he gave a link to the ekam leather on ink which was the more expensive version. turns out it was the $200 version that was made out of "Recycled leather" made of small strips of left over leather and was readily available on ebay. so he sold me the cheap reproduction leather as the normal mainline version. he argued that my julius shirts were used and crap anyways, 2 being bnwt twisting shirts from goth_ik and one being an unworn khaki shredded hem tee from midsummer 2010, so i should just keep the jacket and send them even thought the jacket wasnt worth even half of one of the t-shirts and he said he'd just destroy them with wear anyway and encouraged me to do the same with the cheap jacket. so i held the shirts and sent the jacket back and i dont know what happened. i know people get burned on trading quite often but i feel listening a $200 reproduced leather as a $1500 leather in the wrong size is dishonest. i havent brought this up in public to save the trouble of having to explain and jin is a pretty good poster but it was just an awful trade.
i have traded with plenty of sz members and have always fulfilled my end.
so that's why i am a scumbag.

Oh, B, cmon, I'd think that we over it in May. I'd listed my own photos of this shitty leather and all measurements.) and why you scummed me with all this "I sent my tees and sent your jacket back too, but I lost parcel receipts" shit?)) you could tell me all this facts in May and anyway we'd work something through it.) well, if you really sent jacket back, I want to know damned USPS track number. And after it I promise I'll make up all your shipping payments.

[BSR]

just a reminder: perfect literally means "being complete, being thoroughly made" (see the etymology if you don't believe me). i think most of the posts above confuse this notion with a different notion, which is aesthetic (something like classic beauty, or cleanness). CCP's work in fuuma and Christian's sense of 'perfection' (which is the original one, not the colloquial one indeed) is indeed quite perfect (= complete, designed and executed to its very end).

[Chant]

come on, stains are stains.