Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
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
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
And so, on this day, we learned what Charlie Brown now does as a living
I got twenty in and just started cracking up.
On the one hand, many of those are fairly normal. On the other,
I thought fur boxing gloves were last season?
We already knew! He's starring in an anime! (No, that isn't a joke.)
Suddenly I feel normal again.
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?
^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.
And shitty high art, at that.
What skill? I ain't seeing it.
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?
Basically, understanding of the aesthetical mix of colours with the perception and understanding that the public has of certain clothing.
Most people don't like how a Picasso painting looks, but it sure as hell is expensive.
^^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.
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'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.
Yes, that's true. So these clothes do fulfill half the purpose of clothes.
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.
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).
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?
^^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.
re: Creativity vs. Functionality:
The creative image the designer is creating here is Charlie Brown on a Seattle campus.
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.
^^^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.
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.
That is true. I suppose if it got less mainstream attention, I wouldn't consider it a big deal.
INUH: I've seen clothes made of plastic bags. Just be glad these use normal materials