random fashion thoughts

[Arkady]

I enjoyed your article when it was published Faust, but I had hoped there was perhaps some anecdote that didn't just involve fashion-as-commentary.

[Nickefuge]

The Corner got a nice redesign with the option to display genderless clothes.

[casem]

I think it would only be possible to make an effective statement through the way they structure the business/production. Recycling/using backstock or other methods to reduce their impact on the environment would be a genuine gesture. Having a climate change themed show but continuing to do business as usual would be a rather empty gesture (like Karl's feminist show).

Is there a plausible scenario in which fashion can make any kind of effective statement about climate change? I would like to hear what others might envision for this as I still have a nosebleed from that Givenchy show.

I suppose we would begin by deciding what an effective statement is which is a matter of some debate since top scientists have had an arduous time inciting any policy changes with hard data, much less pants.

[Defender]

Fashion is a political endeavor because it is part of the global marketplace. Where items are produced, the price in various currencies, shipping practices, sourcing of materials, and labor all have very heavy political ties.

I don't think fashion can be divorced from politics for that reason, unless it is a small house using local materials and labor. The designers who remain artisans can remain apolitical, but as soon as they enter these global markets, every choice has the weight of a political decision.

[zamb]

Fashion is a political endeavor because it is part of the global marketplace. Where items are produced, the price in various currencies, shipping practices, sourcing of materials, and labor all have very heavy political ties.

I don't think fashion can be divorced from politics for that reason, unless it is a small house using local materials and labor. The designers who remain artisans can remain apolitical, but as soon as they enter these global markets, every choice has the weight of a political decision.

Im interested in hearing you elaborate a bit further on this.......

[timm3h]

That thing where a label prints words or branding in white sans serif font on jackets or whatever, it's so corny, especially white on black. UC, CdG, Supreme, Raf, please stop.

Curious about this... is it specifically the overdone sans serif font that you dislike, or the "lazy" (arguable but whatever) design tactic of word prints in general? I appreciate a lot of Undercover's graphics from a typography perspective, e.g. the Undercover Maniac prints with the fatface font, and the 'Fuck the past / Fuck the future' print from a while back.

I will agree a lot of Undercover's white-sans serif-text-on-black looks absolutely laughable.

[DudleyGray]

I feel it is a cheap way to convey cool. I'm OK with graphic tees, because graphics on tees are practically invisible unless it's like Juun J, or maybe it's even expected. There might be more pretense in wearing a tee without a graphic today. I'll happily wear UC graphic shirt in any case.

But on jackets, it's gaudy, and taken to the extreme, it ends up in the fuccboi territory. So I guess take the revulsion you might have at seeing Off-White and scale it back until it's down to irritating. And I'm really not annoyed with the fuccboi stuff because who cares about them, that's not my world, but the designers I like don't need to do that. They're better than that, and I don't like the idea of people associating those labels with cheap tactics when they have so much more to offer.

[Defender]

Im interested in hearing you elaborate a bit further on this.......

For example, if a designer designs clothing in New York City, but hires a clothing factory in Bangladesh to produce the items, after which they are sold in America at full American retail, then she is engaging in the political act of outsourcing labor in order to increase profits by subverting the labor laws of her own country.

Alternatively, some people design, produce, and sell their clothing in one country, thereby paying all of the costs associated with maintaining the living and working standards of their countrymen.

The designer's choices involve many political decisions based only on the choice of location of production. The designer's money talks: it says either I am satisfied with local labor laws or I'm not, which is the language of political law-making. Whichever party supports her position on international labor will get her vote.

This applies to almost every decision people who sell a product makes.

[zamb]

For example, if a designer designs clothing in New York City, but hires a clothing factory in Bangladesh to produce the items, after which they are sold in America at full American retail, then she is engaging in the political act of outsourcing labor in order to increase profits by subverting the labor laws of her own country.

Alternatively, some people design, produce, and sell their clothing in one country, thereby paying all of the costs associated with maintaining the living and working standards of their countrymen.

The designer's choices involve many political decisions based only on the choice of location of production. The designer's money talks: it says either I am satisfied with local labor laws or I'm not, which is the language of political law-making. Whichever party supports her position on international labor will get her vote.

This applies to almost every decision people who sell a product makes.

I am not sure I understand your logic, nor would any of the people who have to make these kind of considerations do so with the thought that they are participating in political activism by way of outsourcing their products overseas.

How can we say one in NY or the wider US is subverting labor laws when the labor laws themselves allows for offshore manufacturing
Isn't the very nature and essence of a capitalistic society is to source the cheapest possible means of producing goods and services in order to maximize profits?

I have more to say but want to see your response to this aspect first.

[Faust]

Fashion is a political endeavor because it is part of the global marketplace. Where items are produced, the price in various currencies, shipping practices, sourcing of materials, and labor all have very heavy political ties.

I don't think fashion can be divorced from politics for that reason, unless it is a small house using local materials and labor. The designers who remain artisans can remain apolitical, but as soon as they enter these global markets, every choice has the weight of a political decision.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[Defender]

I agree a lot of people don't realize they are making political decisions with their money. The old cliche is money talks, and it's true.

Where and how people decide to spend their money and make their money is entirely a political/social/cultural decision. Everything is political.

Let's make it more obvious. Target pulled the signs from their aisles marked boy's toys and girl's toys. They thought they were making a progressive move and eliminating gender bias in aisle marking. It had political ramifications because Christian conservative republicans protested. I personally know people who are boycotting target based on that decision.

Fashion is political in the same way when it nudges gender boundaries, and etc. There is no way to divorce a global industry from the political ramifications of every business decision. No, the models don't need to walk the runway with a Sanders in 2016 sign to be political in this day and age when boys and girls toys signs are enough to spark boycots along political lines.

[Faust]

I agree a lot of people don't realize they are making political decisions with their money. The old cliche is money talks, and it's true.

Where and how people decide to spend their money and make their money is entirely a political/social/cultural decision. Everything is political.

Let's make it more obvious. Target pulled the signs from their aisles marked boy's toys and girl's toys. They thought they were making a progressive move and eliminating gender bias in aisle marking. It had political ramifications because Christian conservative republicans protested. I personally know people who are boycotting target based on that decision.

Fashion is political in the same way when it nudges gender boundaries, and etc. There is no way to divorce a global industry from the political ramifications of every business decision. No, the models don't need to walk the runway with a Sanders in 2016 sign to be political in this day and age when boys and girls toys signs are enough to spark boycots along political lines.

Are you tone deaf? I specifically stated "identity politics excepting." And no, not everything is political. It's moralizing busybodies like you who think so that make contemporary life so suffocating.

[Defender]

Just because you were talking about one thing doesn't mean that's all that's going to be discussed.

Also, yes, every big money global market decision is political. Sorry. Welcome to the real world where business decisions are based on the laws of many nations and which can be used/abused for the most profit (see the Rick Owens discussion covering many pages of this forum regarding Italy versus Moldova). Laws are made by our politicians. Every big business decision is therefore political.

That's not moralizing, it's business. It's the opposite of moralizing.

Anyway, get over yourselves. Fashion is a big industry. It has almost nothing to do with the kind of clothes we like, though, as we all know based on the near complete lack of anything decent in all of NYFW. You might think that SZ approved designers aren't engaging in political decisions in the course of their business, but the major labels are, and the effects are felt by the little guys.

In other words, if you're not making the political decisions, the political decisions are being made for you.

[Arkady]

Yeah but this is just the tired liberal arts device of "every decision is inherently political." You're not actually saying anything right now.

[gregor]

you can make anything political if you try hard enough. fashion is not intrinsically political, at least not in the sense you seem to be trying to get at, and trying to link the fact that manufacturing laws influence some aspects of it is quite a reach honestly. politics is so damn broad that every single decision you make is politics of some ilk, but you're getting into semantics and drivel if you try and link that fact to every single discussion and point you make.