The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Since we are talking about a composition of garments,
an outfit composed by a wearer, an assemblage of
materials, matter, textures, lines, colors, folds, light,
movement, openings, sensations etc., connecting not
only between each other, but also to a body, a surrounding
milieu etc.

Now tell me, if it works or not, where does price come into it?

We are talking about an exchange between matter and sensation,
where the acquired exchange value is of little importance.

[docus]

Since we are talking about a composition of garments,
an outfit composed by a wearer, an assemblage of
materials, matter, textures, lines, colors, folds, light,
movement, openings, sensations etc., connecting not
only between each other, but also to a body, a surrounding
milieu etc.

Now tell me, if it works or not, where does price come into it?

We are talking about an exchange between matter and sensation,
where the acquired exchange value is of little importance.

I like what you wrote, but as well as existing in the context of a bodily and aesthetic relationship with the wearer, clothes also exist in a social and economic context, and prices are inevitably part of that. You mentioned the surrounding milieu - the sphere of human interaction - prices, values and exchange value are (for better or worse) an inescapable part of that milieu.

[jumpoff]

Not related to the discussion, but I went into Vertice in London a couple of days ago. I have no problem understanding that things become more expensive when it is imported, and that the higher VAT in the UK plays a role, but I still have problem understanding how my 17k yen Attachment jeans can be priced at £435. That is some serious mark up.

[docus]

^^^ They will go down to about £150 when they go into the sales. A strange way to do business, but there ya go...

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

If the shoe is not made for a museum, but for a foot, then it needs to find an actual owner first. If it can't find someone who wants to pay for the right to "connect to it", then the shoe fails.

Capital limits(or rights to ownership) only determents if it comes
into play, if it actually works within the different connections that
are created has nothing to do with it.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

I like what you wrote, but as well as existing in the context of a bodily and aesthetic relationship with the wearer, clothes also exist in a social and economic context, and prices are inevitably part of that. You mentioned the surrounding milieu - the sphere of human interaction - prices, values and exchange value are (for better or worse) an inescapable part of that milieu.

It's important to note that we're looking at a photograph of a
wearer. My knowledge of anything outside the photograph is
limited to what he/she has decided to share with me. The
surrounding milieu I'm referring to is that of the photograph.
There's nowhere I'm denying the existent of exchange value,
or for that matter social or economic contexts.

[docus]

You make a very thoughtful and interesting point and I hadn't realised that you meant milieu to refer solely to the milieu depicted in the photograph.

Perhaps I am missing the point, but for me, this is a discussion about ways of seeing. Personally, when I look at a photograph, I cannot disengage the preconceived ideas that I bring from other spheres of my life - social, cultural, political - from my experience of the photo. Therefore, for me, my thoughts about the photo exist in a larger context than just what is depicted within the boundary of the photograph. Perhaps that should not be so, but (unfortunately?) I can't strip away the totality of my experience to see the photo simply for it's 'pure' aesthetic qualities. (Unless I have taken a large dose of LSD, that usually helps clean the lens of my perception...)

[Faust]

Like, I said, it all depends on context. If you are discussing the garment as garment, as designer's work, it's one thing. But once anything related to ownership comes in, that's another thing. And owning something is being related to it - if you don't own, you can only go so far in your relationship to the garment (you can still appreciate the work, but clothes are meant to be worn).

And there are such things as degrees and levels. When shit (in this case, prices) gets out of hand, it becomes harder to ignore. To wit - take the first three sentences of today's Cathy Horyn's article on Milan. You probably would not have seen this ten years ago, but the milieu has changed indeed.

[docus]

^^^ Faust, I'm getting a dead link, any chance of redirecting it?

[Faust]

/\ sorry, i suck at copy/pasting. Fixed now.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Don't worry docus, I don't imagine that we can operate in some sort vacuum. There's multiple additions to the experience.

And no Chilton, the only thing I'm proposing is that the exchange value
of an outfit has no importance to the question: "Does it work?"

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Fine enough, but when you judge whether it works from a picture, there are certain works that are definitely easier to assess.

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar?

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

"Since we are talking about a composition of garments,
an outfit composed by a wearer (...) Now tell me, if it
works or not, where does price come into it?" ...

But Since you persist on discussing something entirely different,
No not really, since Elbaz has mentioned that he can make the
same quality dresses at H&M that he does for Lanvin.

[Faust]

/\ Oh, lord, can we just erase this faux pa from fashion history?

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

I would never quote him on that, or use it as a source, as he obviously failed.

Since it's such a rubbish statement, I was hoping it would be
understood, as It should, as an ironic response to this sudden
urge for fairness towards "Price-capped collections" because
of their lower price points.

As Elbaz, I think I failed.