If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

GQ's Best Looks of the Day

Comments

  • No rainbow star


     


    And so, on this day, we learned what Charlie Brown now does as a living

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    I got twenty in and just started cracking up.

  • No rainbow star
    ^ I've seen worse
  • I clench my fists and yell "anime" towards an uncaring, absent God, and swear solemnly to press my thumbs into Chocolate America's eyeballs until he is blinded, to directly emasculate sporting figures, to beat the shit out of tumblr users with baseball bats, and to quietly appreciate what Waylon Smithers being gay means to me.

    On the one hand, many of those are fairly normal. On the other,


  • Give us fire! Give us ruin! Give us our glory!


    I thought fur boxing gloves were last season?

  • But you never had any to begin with.

    And so, on this day, we learned what Charlie Brown now does as a living



    We already knew! He's starring in an anime! (No, that isn't a joke.)

  • Has friends besides tanks now

    Suddenly I feel normal again.

  • if u do convins fashist akwaint hiz faec w pavment neway jus 2 b sur

    I have no idea who would even wear this. Of what good are fashion shows if the collection looks so insane that nobody would buy anything?

  • Give us fire! Give us ruin! Give us our glory!

    ^That's not the point of fashion shows. A lot of these clothes aren't meant to be worn on a day to day basis, it's just to show off the designers skill.


    Essentially "high art" but with clothes.

  • Has friends besides tanks now

    And shitty high art, at that.

  • if u do convins fashist akwaint hiz faec w pavment neway jus 2 b sur

    A lot of these clothes aren't meant to be worn on a day to day basis, it's just to show off the designers skill.



    What skill? I ain't seeing it.

  • edited 2012-02-25 12:51:14
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    A lot of these clothes aren't meant to be worn on a day to day basis, it's just to show off the designers skill.



    I get what you mean conceptually, but...I don't get it. So...they possess the ability to design clothes nobody wants to wear, a skill that they have no use for (and whether they even possess that is debatable). So?

  • You can change. You can.

    Basically, understanding of the aesthetical mix of colours with the perception and understanding that the public has of certain clothing.

  • You can change. You can.

    I get what you mean conceptually, but...I don't get it. So...they possess the ability to design clothes nobody wants to wear, a skill that they have no use for (and whether they even possess that is debatable). So?



    Most people don't like how a Picasso painting looks, but it sure as hell is expensive. 

  • edited 2012-02-25 12:56:20
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    ^^But that skill can be shown with clothes that someone would actually wear.


    ^Picasso paintings serve their intended purpose, which is to be looked at. The purpose of clothes, though, is to be worn. Clothes that nobody would wear, to me, are just a lump of fiber.

  • Clothes are meant to be looked at too though.  Particularly when they're the kind of clothes made for a fashion show.

  • You can change. You can.

    ^^But that skill can be shown with clothes that someone would actually wear.



    Yes, but there are certain limitations to it, namely, people's preference and what is expected for a designer to design. You can't simply let your creative designer self loose because you're designing around people's preferences, rather than around your own aesthetical preferences.



    ^Picasso paintings serve their intended purpose, which is to be looked at. The purpose of clothes, though, is to be worn. Clothes that nobody would wear, to me, are just a lump of fiber.



    I'd argue that paintings are supposed to convey a perception of an image, not just to be looked at. 


    That's the same idea behind this design and clothing, which is worn by the models and sold at exhibition pieces of the sort, as well as Fashion Schools of design.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    Clothes are meant to be looked at too though.  Particularly when they're the kind of clothes made for a fashion show.



    Yes, that's true. So these clothes do fulfill half the purpose of clothes.



    I'd argue that paintings are supposed to convey a perception of an image, not just to be looked at. 



    Fair enough, but they convey the perception when people look at them. My point is that you're not expected to be able to wear them or eat them or whatever.



    Yes, but there are certain limitations to it, namely, people's preference and what is expected for a designer to design. You can't simply let your creative designer self loose because you're designing around people's preferences, rather than around your own aesthetical preferences.



    I'm all for letting creative juices flow, but I'm not a fan of losing sight of a medium's purpose.

  • I vaguely remember making a similar post before, but the point of these kind of haute couture clothes is really to make a name for the designer so they can get hired by a big fashion house or commissioned by a retailer to design more regular clothes - and actually make some real money.


    They look weird because fashion people are basically a bunch of nerds who got socially powerful enough that they could impose their weird nerdy standards on everyone (or, at least, enough people to make it self-sustaining).  

  • You can change. You can.

    I'm all for letting creative juices flow, but I'm not a fan of losing sight of a medium's purpose.



    But the medium's purpose is to create an image around a person. Just because you wouldn't like that image on yourself, that doesn't mean that it loses the point?

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    ^^That makes sense, I suppose.


    ^No, this is a medium whose purpose is rooted in functionality. If an architect designs a clever, unorthodox house that I'd be willing to live in, good for him, but if one designs a clever, unorthodox house that doesn't have a bathroom or kitchen, he's an idiot.

  • edited 2012-02-25 13:26:29

    re: Creativity vs. Functionality:


    The creative image the designer is creating here is Charlie Brown on a Seattle campus.

  • edited 2012-02-25 13:32:47
    (void)

    Fallingwater, one of the most heralded pieces of architecture from the 20th century, is unlivable.  It has some pretty nasty mold problems due to humidity issues, and it would have collapsed had some of the overhangs not been strengthened against Frank Lloyd Wright's wishes.

  • edited 2012-02-25 13:32:21
    Give us fire! Give us ruin! Give us our glory!

    ^^^Paintings were once rooted in functionality too.


    Also, that's not a relevant argument anyway. This is high art. High art's purpose is for other artists. To criticize it when none of us know what really goes on in fashion design strikes me as really presumptuous and a little anti-intellectual.

  • edited 2012-02-25 13:46:57
    Loser

    Neo_Crimson,


    To criticize it when none of us know what really goes on in fashion design strikes me as really presumptuous and a little anti-intellectual.



    Maybe, but I think that it is fair for people to say that these designs look kind of silly from their perspectives. I definitely agree that it is going too far to say that fashion design itself is worthless and such though.


    While the anti-intellectualism point you mentioned may be valid, I think the flip-side of that is elitism based on fashion experts' knowledge. In other contexts, I believe that the idea of "fashion elites" dictating how people should dress can be harmful, so it is does not seem like something that should be completely out of the realm of discussion to me.


    I guess what I am trying to say is that fashion design for fashion design's sake (i.e. high art) makes sense, but when people talk about "best looks" it sounds more like "this is what everyone should think is stylish" to me which can have some potentially negative side-effects.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    This is high art. High art's purpose is for other artists



    That is true. I suppose if it got less mainstream attention, I wouldn't consider it a big deal.

  • No rainbow star
    Saig: I know about the anime D:



    INUH: I've seen clothes made of plastic bags. Just be glad these use normal materials
Sign In or Register to comment.