The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[eat me]

And, no truly great artist has died; From lack of luxuries.

Modigliani.

As for the rest of your post, not everyone who buys obscure and lesser-known brands is in the "anti-fashion" camp. In fact, you'll find a lot of members here having respect for some more mainstream designers/labels as well, it's just that the majority of sz'ers are very selective in what they like.

[Faust]

My tone is, off the devil's advocate; But, that is not my purpose. Unfortunately, this has been my: Personal, perpetual dilemma...

1.Excuse me, but how is the "Balmian" ripped t-shirt design ANY different from the Ann Demeulemeester 'Sid' t-shirt on the Darkland.com website, right now? The tattered Julius tank top, was acclaimed by a serious number of members too; If, I remember correctly.

Why is Rick Owens ' or CCP' revolutionary-derelict aesthetic, embraced then?

2.The only thread I may have hung by (pun intended) was the artistic value; But, now members are arguing the clothes have no artistic intentions either?

3.All that effort, just to be the: Somber, intellectually realized outsider; via garments. The paradox of the anti-fashion - 'Fashionista.' Who hates capitalism so much; Ironically, spends as much cash as the faux fashion victim.

Any way,

4. Modern artists, do not eat beans off a tin can, homeless; On principal alone. That is an exaggerated, romantic notion. Artists have and do get by, with reasonable donations for their efforts.

Great masterpieces from the: Medieval to modern era were commissioned within reasonable funds. And, no truly great artist has died; From lack of luxuries.

The exploitation of the artist, is the problem. Via compromising artistic integrity for commercial success; Or hijacking, humble and reasonable expectations by a third party.

The composer, Paul Hindemith dominantly questioned artists responsibilities to popular culture; Detached from artistic egotism or elitism. We should educate the oblivious, as oppose to oppress or blame uncontrollable factors...

1. Balmain is $1,000, Ann is $300. Both overpriced, one much more extremely. As Pumpfish rightly notes, it is a market issue. Unless you are talking about design - neither shirt has much merit at this point.

2. No one said fashion has no artistic value - the question whether fashion is art is still open (although, after seeing McQueen's exhibition, the question can be closed with a resounding yes). And, design has value too - design is also a creative discipline. So, fashion absolutely has creative value.

3. Hating capitalism does not necessarily mean living outside of society, nor does it preclude one from appreciating quality and creativity. A poor proletariat with a stone in his hand making revolution - talk about a romantic notion.

4. Obviously

[Classique]

Agree with the general outline of both replies; An, excellent response. But... :)

Eat_Me; I admit, I googled Modigliani. But, read he "Died of the then-incurable disease tubercular meningitis." My statement was rather literal; Luxuries, as acquisitions beyond basic living expenses.

Faust; 'Hating capitalism does not necessarily mean living outside of society, nor does it preclude one from appreciating quality and creativity.'

That statement may serve as a basic sentiment, for anyone involved in fashion or art. Although, that may require an examination of an individuals living conditions and personal philosophy. Within the context of this thread and detached from any bias... Ultimately, how important is fashion?

For example, is an individuals primordial preoccupation, being; A philanthropist? A cerebral intellectual?

As opposed to being conceited enough, to warrant the purchase of an exuberant garment; That may be admired by a cult of fashionistas.

Some cliques are dominated by vanity and no sense of 'creativity or design' but we live by fashion circles.

SZ may have the most significant philosophy, with variations of impracticability.

Personally, I generally love the SZ aesthetic represented, by our revered designers every season, so much; Honestly, I am content, merely looking at it. Within the fault, I may not impress anyone here with my the majority of my wardrobe; Or, have no credibility because stylistically, I compromise personal artistic expression for worldly utilitarianism.

'A poor proletariat with a stone in his hand making revolution - talk about a romantic notion.'

Juxtaposed by another: Amateur, variable romantic notion :)

I hope the artist is earnestly creative beyond any (x) number of factors.

But, to contradict that same statement; A revolutionary figure in music... (Claude Debussy) ... Openly admited he was driven by aristocratic reveries. A fact that will never detract off his importance. Should a respected SZ designer ever make that comment.... Remains, an answerless speculation.

I may stray off-topic; Many revolutionary or seminal artists created the masterpieces within less than stellar, technical-production, conditions. Such a cliche' I will just list a few...

Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'

Messiaen's 'Quartet for the End of Time'

Jean-Luc Godard's 'Breathless'

Da Vinci's [Anatomical Studies]

'Haute Fashion' or 'Art World' blasphemy - Mass production may not be all that bad; Afterall, for now... I do not need to spend thousands of dollars to buy a quality: Book, art-print, film or composition.

Which may, arguably be more important for my mortality.

P.S. I loathe how pompous and pretentious, I sound.

[eat me]

Many revolutionary or seminal artists created the masterpieces within less than stellar, technical-production, conditions.

The works you've listed mainly do not require more than ink or paint in terms of material (even though paint is stupidly expensive nowadays). To produce fashion-art on par with, say, creations by McQueen's team you need a lot of monetary commitment.

PS - it seems to me that your train of thought is going off rails throughout your posts, may I kindly advise to concentrate just on one message you're trying to get across at a time.

[Classique]

Would you believe, I was trying to only get two points across...

Actually, quality instruments, for a classical musical quartet = Another victim of false capitalist assumptions... A good quality instrument is difficult to obtain at a reasonable price.

And filming materials are... Just ask any filmmaker. I remember Woody Allen said in an interview, when he met Ingmar Bergman their conversation was mainly; Studios lack of commitment and funds for independent or 'Arthouse' cinema.

And thanks to Fausts' link to "The Mona Lisa" curse; I don't think the SZ designers would be interested on receiving private grants.

P.S - I try to be coherent. Mission, unaccomplished... :)

[Faust]

Faust; 'Hating capitalism does not necessarily mean living outside of society, nor does it preclude one from appreciating quality and creativity.'

That statement may serve as a basic sentiment, for anyone involved in fashion or art. Although, that may require an examination of an individuals living conditions and personal philosophy. Within the context of this thread and detached from any bias... Ultimately, how important is fashion?

Ultimately, not very important. But the thing is, I don't think we are living in the "ultimate" conditions. First world has a different set of preoccupations, so we are allowed to love fashion. When we begin starving and looking for shelter, that will be another story. (Disclaimer - I am well aware that there are many hungry and homeless in first world, but I am talking about now vs. say 100 years ago).

For example, is an individuals primordial preoccupation, being; A philanthropist? A cerebral intellectual?

See above. I think today we are allowed to preoccupy ourselves with things that are not very serious. But it doesn't mean that they are not interesting. This is the crux of SZ - it looks at fashion as not a serious, but an interesting phenomenon. Or at least that's what I'd like our view to be like.

As opposed to being conceited enough, to warrant the purchase of an exuberant garment; That may be admired by a cult of fashionistas.

Some cliques are dominated by vanity and no sense of 'creativity or design' but we live by fashion circles.

SZ may have the most significant philosophy, with variations of impracticability.

Personally, I generally love the SZ aesthetic represented, by our revered designers every season, so much; Honestly, I am content, merely looking at it. Within the fault, I may not impress anyone here with my the majority of my wardrobe; Or, have no credibility because stylistically, I compromise personal artistic expression for worldly utilitarianism.

As long as you keep writing interesting thoughts like these (maybe a bit less meandering) I, personally couldn't give two shits if your closet is full of Ann or H&M.

'A poor proletariat with a stone in his hand making revolution - talk about a romantic notion.'

Juxtaposed by another: Amateur, variable romantic notion :)

I hope the artist is earnestly creative beyond any (x) number of factors.

But, to contradict that same statement; A revolutionary figure in music... (Claude Debussy) ... Openly admited he was driven by aristocratic reveries. A fact that will never detract off his importance. Should a respected SZ designer ever make that comment.... Remains, an answerless speculation.

I don't put too much stock in artists' lives. Their work is more important. The fact that the below-mentioned Dostoyevskiy was a rabid anti-semite does not stop me from reading Brothers Karamazov, even though the "filthy kike" moments make me squirm. The fact that Ezra Pound was a Nazi collaborator does not preclude me from enjoying the Cantos. And the fact that Nine Inch Nails have become a popular band, does not make me value its music any less, no matter how many times upsilonking twists his panties in a bunch and tells me that Trent Reznor works out before shows (the horror!) and that they are the Gap of music (I was shooting for the Rick Owens of music, but, oh well).

I may stray off-topic; Many revolutionary or seminal artists created the masterpieces within less than stellar, technical-production, conditions. Such a cliche' I will just list a few...

Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'
Messiaen's 'Quartet for the End of Time'
Jean-Luc Godard's 'Breathless'
Da Vinci's [Anatomical Studies]

'Haute Fashion' or 'Art World' blasphemy - Mass production may not be all that bad; Afterall, for now... I do not need to spend thousands of dollars to buy a quality: Book, art-print, film or composition.

Which may, arguably be more important for my mortality.

P.S. I loathe how pompous and pretentious, I sound.

I often go to stores to just look. I cannot afford much of it, but I go the same way others go to galleries. Of course, clothes are meant to be worn, so in that way they differ from art. And that is the rub. The body is the canvas, in a way.

Mass production of clothing is more complicated than you think, because we can easily get into ecological and exploitation issues. And thus we come full circle to morality...

[kunk75]

i wish this thread would die. pricing is whatever the market dictates based upon supply and demand. CCP is worth whatever someone will pay for it given the perceived exclusivity and relatively small runs though the numbering system is gimmicky IMO and reminds me of baseball card collections or the franklin mint. Rick and Raf Simons are priced in the same stratosphere and RO NYC has little left come sales time and yoox offers essentially raf's whole collections-it's worth what someone is willing to pay.
APC jeans never go on sale because they don't have to, they sell briskly at a set point that is probably 2.5x what it costs to make them if not market them.

[endorphinz]

^A FUCKIN' MEN I wanted to post this but then I realized I did.... 20 pages ago

[Faust]

i wish this thread would die. pricing is whatever the market dictates based upon supply and demand. CCP is worth whatever someone will pay for it given the perceived exclusivity and relatively small runs though the numbering system is gimmicky IMO and reminds me of baseball card collections or the franklin mint. Rick and Raf Simons are priced in the same stratosphere and RO NYC has little left come sales time and yoox offers essentially raf's whole collections-it's worth what someone is willing to pay.
APC jeans never go on sale because they don't have to, they sell briskly at a set point that is probably 10.5x what it costs to make them if not market them.

Fixed

[kunk75]

haha, yes, but denim is sort of expensive. I had a friend with a successful line and the costs on good denim (not that APC uses any amazing denim) is more than I would have thought

[Classique]

Faust, you should know I read and appreciate your response... :)

But, our conversation should end, so the thread may be used the way it was originally intended ?

[eat me]

^ I don't think many people would object if instead of original meaning the thread would be derailed into an interesting discussion.

[Faust]

But they do adopt the same approach.

[Faust]

I think people talk about designer clothing prices because the prices are mental - that's all. Sticker shock causes discussions :-)

About music, DVD, etc. sales - the pricing is determined by a formula that weights the number of units sold vs. the price (that formula is taught in any business statistics course), because manufacture of additional units costs a few pennies. Price too high and you sell fewer units and make actually less money due to number of units sold vs. higher profit margin. This is why you often see blockbusters prices actually lower than indie movies - because infinitely more people buy them. It really is the same supply/demand principle.

[Dane]

I'm sure this thing is mad pretty, but almost $10K??