Balmain Mens S/S 11 Paris

[rayoflight]

At least Balmain doesn't have any monograms all over it or any of that crap. That fact alone makes it lightyears better.
Maybe it's more like Hermes for the rock crowd, nothing that special design wise, but decent quality, devoid of logos and looks normal. It's something you can actaully wear and look good, something that I find hard to imagine with those backward Rick Owens boots, beige Givenchy leopard print skirt or the neon eye-r*pe that was Jil Sander.
And besides, I think Balmain is for people who don't care if a coat costs €2000 or €5000, or if jeans cost €400 or €1200, and who happen to like this look, but wouldn't be caught dead buying anything from Zara or wherever. So why complain about their price point? Just don't buy it if it bothers you so much.
And calling someone a fool based on how much they spend on their clothes doesn't help the argument at all. They have the money and the Balmain, you only have your opinion. Balmain wins.

 

[reese06]

once again, i have to stand as the lone defender of balmain, but it's my lot in life i suppose. i just love how so many so-called fashion folk in this forum manage to form an opinion about a collection that hasn't even gotten posted yet. this collection represents the strongest outing for balmain menswear to date reminding me of much of hedi slimane's heyday at dior homme. sure, the stuff isn't the most groundbreaking stuff in the menswear world, but the proposition he's making for silhouette for men aggressively pushes forward a look not many have the gonads to pull off. and this outerwear remains the stuff that fashion dreams are made of....



gq.com

The collection has been posted and can be viewed on various sites. While I agree that this is the strongest outing for Balmain menswear, it's still a weak collection. There is absolutely nothing "forward" about this collection. The styling has been done, done, done. And the only thing different about the denim is the treatments. There is nothing distinctive about this clothing to make me even want to buy it. It's basic.

 

[Uemarasan]

And calling someone a fool based on how much they spend on their clothes doesn't help the argument at all. They have the money and the Balmain, you only have your opinion. Balmain wins.

I don't think you really understood what I said. The point is that people will buy Balmain because some stitching on the back tells them that that article of clothing is somehow superior to all things else and deserves the price they're paying for it. I think people who buy into that are fools because, first of all, there is nothing about this design aesthetic that is remotely fashion forward or special or even well-done. I would rather buy a stratospherically priced Rick Owens piece because I know that a lot of effort and intelligence has gone into the concept and execution. This is just poorly conceived ideas with the least effort at design. These look like basics, styled in the "Balmain fashion". Sure, I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to laugh at the people who do.

Anyway, Balmain wins if the bottom line of your view of design is whether or not it sells. That's just not so where I'm coming from. Anyway, this obsession with "winning" as the pinnacle of achievement belongs more at a high school football game, I think.

It's so easy to dismiss people and say "that's just your opinion" instead of trying to engage in some actual enlightening dialogue, isn't it?

 

[mikeijames]

What refreshing or risky new silhouette is Balmain proposing? People in Japan and Hong Kong have been dressing like this for years and years now. With clothes that cost a tenth of the Balmain prices. I don't see design as much as I see simple styling. Decarnin sells to fools who have no idea how to dress themselves.

When people buy Balmain nowadays, it's for the name and not for the actual design. It's the new Louis Vuitton.

as i said, it's not the most groundbreaking of menswear fashion, but it's definitely a strong vision for how men should dress today. outside of trendy neighborhoods in various metropoles on this planet, most men do not dress this way currently. it's like criticizing phoebe philo because she didn't invent the wide-legged pant or the wedge for celine. lots of women already wore that, but what she gave us is a vision for a new minimalism. in that way, decarnin has given us a new rock chic. i don't care if you are a fashion forward tokyo denizen or someone buying your first fashion piece, that trench is a GREAT fashion find.

and by the way, lots of people buy lots of brands for the name and not the design. there's a troupe of people who will put anything by rick owens or commes des garcons on their backs just because of that name.

 

[mikeijames]

The collection has been posted and can be viewed on various sites. While I agree that this is the strongest outing for Balmain menswear, it's still a weak collection. There is absolutely nothing "forward" about this collection. The styling has been done, done, done. And the only thing different about the denim is the treatments. There is nothing distinctive about this clothing to make me even want to buy it. It's basic.

name three other high-fashion menswear designers who have given us white motorcycle jeggings for men. if it's been done, they should be easy to find, no? if you don't like the styling, then say you don't like the styling. that's fine. everyone's entitled to their opinion. but don't say the piece been "done, done, done," because it really hasn't. if ann demuelemeester, rei kawakubo, or rick owens had trotted these same pants out in their collections, they would receive nothing but praise.

gq.com

 

[rayoflight]

I don't think you really understood what I said. The point is that people will buy Balmain because some stitching on the back tells them that that article of clothing is somehow superior to all things else and deserves the price they're paying for it. I think people who buy into that are fools because, first of all, there is nothing about this design aesthetic that is remotely fashion forward or special or even well-done. I would rather buy a stratospherically priced Rick Owens piece because I know that a lot of effort and intelligence has gone into the concept and execution. This is just poorly conceived ideas with the least effort at design. These look like basics, styled in the "Balmain fashion". Sure, I won't buy it, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to laugh at the people who do.

Anyway, Balmain wins if the bottom line of your view of design is whether or not it sells. That's just not so where I'm coming from. Anyway, this obsession with "winning" as the pinnacle of achievement belongs more at a high school football game, I think.

It's so easy to dismiss people and say "that's just your opinion" instead of trying to engage in some actual enlightening dialogue, isn't it?

Yes, selling an idea is what makes it successful in my option as far fashion goes. Whether it happens by creating something "different" or by elevating price point or in some other way doesn't matter. As long as it happens. If fashion was only about creating something "fashion-forward" and unique then designers like Alessandra Facchinetti, Christian Lacroix, Yohji Yamamoto, late Alexander McQueen and others would be wildly successful. But they are not, despite their obvious talent, ability to create masterpieces and being critics darlings, they have trouble selling their clothes and staying out of red numbers. They make pieces that are beautiful, innovative and so on, everybody is an awe and likes them... But who buys it? Very few people apparently and the designers are forced to water down their concepts and even those don't sell that well.
A good marketing strategy is what makes the difference.
On the other hand designers who make clothes for people who are interested in "some stitching on the back" or the hype surrounding the brand are commercially successful, because they either sell something people want or at least make them think that their creations are better than anything else. Like it is with Hermes, Chanel, Tom Ford, Armani and so many others. They sell not the most innovative or fashion-forward designs, but they sell them. And customer is all over it. And they don't have to change anything, what the customer sees on runway/in presentation they can buy in stores. Thats what people want apparently.
If customers wanted wearable art they'd buy it, I think that is rather obvious - there are people who are willing to pay €15000 for a brocade Balmain dress whis chains then they also just as well could afford an embroidered LaCroix dress for €9000. Why did they go for Balmain?
And I didn't say 'thats your opinion', I said something entirely different. And I still think that laughing at people and calling them fools is rather rude, no matter how sophisticated or avant-garde your fashion choices might be.

 

[Uemarasan]

as i said, it's not the most groundbreaking of menswear fashion, but it's definitely a strong vision for how men should dress today. outside of trendy neighborhoods in various metropoles on this planet, most men do not dress this way currently. it's like criticizing phoebe philo because she didn't invent the wide-legged pant or the wedge for celine. lots of women already wore that, but what she gave us is a vision for a new minimalism. in that way, decarnin has given us a new rock chic. i don't care if you are a fashion forward tokyo denizen or someone buying your first fashion piece, that trench is a GREAT fashion find.

That's the thing, I don't see this as a strong vision for how men should dress today either. I have seen this vision from many lesser known designers, from Antwerp to Stockholm to Tokyo. It might be "impressive" in the limited and rarefied arena of Paris-Milan-New York high fashion (although even then I'm doubtful), but this is old hat for me. Very old hat. Anyway, who else outside of the trendy cosmopolitan centers actually buys Balmain? This collection is redundant and only panders to rich people who need money to buy some semblance of taste.

I can buy a much better version of that trench from John Lawrence Sullivan or United Bamboo

The difference between Phoebe Philo and Decarnin is that Phoebe Philo has a far stronger, more affecting vision. And she hasn't had the same vision for three years running. Yet.

and by the way, lots of people buy lots of brands for the name and not the design. there's a troupe of people who will put anything by rick owens or commes des garcons on their backs just because of that name.

I laugh at those people, too. They are the opposite of label whores. They are called hipsters. They are also fools.

 

[Uemarasan]

Yes, selling an idea is what makes it successful in my option as far fashion goes. Whether it happens by creating something "different" or by elevating price point or in some other way doesn't matter. As long as it happens. If fashion was only about creating something "fashion-forward" and unique then designers like Alessandra Facchinetti, Christian Lacroix, Yohji Yamamoto, late Alexander McQueen and others would be wildly successful. But they are not, despite their obvious talent, ability to create masterpieces and being critics darlings, they have trouble selling their clothes and staying out of red numbers. They make pieces that are beautiful, innovative and so on, everybody is an awe and likes them... But who buys it? Very few people apparently and the designers are forced to water down their concepts and even those don't sell that well.
A good marketing strategy is what makes the difference.
On the other hand designers who make clothes for people who are interested in "some stitching on the back" or the hype surrounding the brand are commercially successful, because they either sell something people want or at least make them think that their creations are better than anything else. Like it is with Hermes, Chanel, Tom Ford, Armani and so many others. They sell not the most innovative or fashion-forward designs, but they sell them. And customer is all over it. And they don't have to change anything, what the customer sees on runway/in presentation they can buy in stores. Thats what people want apparently.
If customers wanted wearable art they'd buy it, I think that is rather obvious - there are people who are willing to pay €15000 for a brocade Balmain dress whis chains then they also just as well could afford an embroidered LaCroix dress for €9000. Why did they go for Balmain?
And I didn't say 'thats your opinion', I said something entirely different. And I still think that laughing at people and calling them fools is rather rude, no matter how sophisticated or avant-garde your fashion choices might be.

Obviously you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Gap is successful. My definition of success has nothing to do with commercial parameters. I find success in any artistic and creative triumph, whether or not it sells is besides the matter. Vermeer died poor. Does that mean his life was a failure? I am not interested in fashion because of its ability to sell. Yes, it is important to make money in such a capitalist, industrialized society. It's the only way to survive. But I am not a financial backer, or a stockist, or an employee of these fashion houses. Instead, as a patron of fashion, I am interested in the vision, talent, and skill of the designers.

Oh well, if being rude means I am allowed to articulate an opinion, then so be it.

 

[rayoflight]

Obviously. I also don't compare fashion to art. Clothing is not art. It's a necessity one wears, not something elevated and holy. Decorative at best. The various definitions of art don't actually include dressmaking/tailoring/costume design as an art form. It's a craft. If one really looks into how fashion is made, behind the glamorous surface, it's eerie reminiscent of an assembly process. From the very idea, till cutting and sewing everything together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Definition_of_the_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts

And by all means, I find your point of view fascinating, it's just insulting people who make different choices than you do makes you look a bit rude and hostile.

 

[Uemarasan]

name three other high-fashion menswear designers who have given us white motorcycle jeggings for men. if it's been done, they should be easy to find, no? if you don't like the styling, then say you don't like the styling. that's fine. everyone's entitled to their opinion. but don't say the piece been "done, done, done," because it really hasn't. if ann demuelemeester, rei kawakubo, or rick owens had trotted these same pants out in their collections, they would receive nothing but praise.

White jeggings are white jeggings. They'll always be hideous to me. The same way that those black Comme des Garcons drop crotch pants have become so tiresome and moronic.

I don't know about "high-fashion menswear designers" since I don't limit my fashion choices to things that are only above a thousand euros, but secondhand stores in Shibuya are replete with the nasty little suckers.

 

[Uemarasan]

Obviously. I also don't compare fashion to art. Clothing is not art. It's a necessity one wears, not something elevated and holy. Decorative at best. The various definitions of art don't actually include dressmaking/tailoring/costume design as an art form. It's a craft. If one really looks into how fashion is made, behind the glamorous surface, it's eerie reminiscent of an assembly process. From the very idea, till cutting and sewing everything together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Definition_of_the_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts

And by all means, I find your point of view fascinating, it's just insulting people who make different choices than you do makes you look a bit rude and hostile.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is much too narrow a resource for my tastes. Any attempt to define what art is will always be incomplete and insufficient, so while I'm not eager to pronounce clothing as irrevocably an art form, that doesn't mean I've closed myself to the possibility to consider it as "art" sometime in the future. Right now my stand on fashion is it is design (like most commercial art), and I'm simply trying to locate and argue what is artistic within that context. At the same time, I'm trying to come to terms with what art actually is and means, especially since I believe that its traditional definition is obsolete in this day and age. So for me, fashion is above all else a creative enterprise rendered commercial by the mechanisms of capitalism. I think I'm aware of the factory process of much of the clothing we wear.

Really, don't take my aggression to heart too much! Unless, of course, you actually buy Balmain. But I really need to call out people for patronizing this ridiculous agenda-setting by the house. The transparency of how they are manipulating their clientele and the fact that people subscribe to this circus offends me deeply. Anyway, I think we're veering a bit off topic, but thank you for the dialogue and discussion. It's been interesting!

 

[mikeijames]

no major fashion house will ever live up to the standards you have put forward as most houses remain in business to make money. these designers do not put out clothes as academic exercises or as performance art. back in the real world, where people wear clothes to express their individual identities while covering themselves up in socially acceptable ways, these clothes remain great finds for the average consumer.

i don't think christopher decarnin -- nor most designers for that matter -- seek to put out the type of stuff for which you're advocating. whether or not they should is an entirely unrelated conversation....perhaps you should bring it up in the "fashion...in depth" forum.

 

[cholo]

It is a marketing gimmick, plain and simple and reminiscent of Lucien Pellat-Finet. Let's take the highest price of a garment and triple the cost and see how many suckers go for it. Even for those who like it, you have to admit the pricing is outrageous. It is 100% intentional on the part of Balmain and also surprising how often it works and how many consumers buy into it. This is short lived however and eventually they will not be able to sell a single pair of those $2,000 jeans.

Anyone buy a Lucien sweater recently?

 

[Street_a_Licious]

ew, Mikeijames

i love you, but jeggings are wrong, on either sex

 

[Uemarasan]

no major fashion house will ever live up to the standards you have put forward as most houses remain in business to make money. these designers do not put out clothes as academic exercises or as performance art. back in the real world, where people wear clothes to express their individual identities while covering themselves up in socially acceptable ways, these clothes remain great finds for the average consumer.

i don't think christopher decarnin -- nor most designers for that matter -- seek to put out the type of stuff for which you're advocating. whether or not they should is an entirely unrelated conversation....perhaps you should bring it up in the "fashion...in depth" forum.

I don't think my standards are that high. And I think you misread what I posted. Like I said, I am not looking for "art", "performance art", "academic exercises", whatever. You're putting words into my mouth. The artistic and the creative is not equivalent to art. I am simply looking for good design, and trying to locate what is artistic or creative in that. Art and design are two completely different things. I can appreciate the design of a commercial product such as the iPod or Isamu Noguchi's furniture or something from IKEA. Isn't that why it's called "fashion design" and not "fashion we-need-to-make-some-coin" in the first place? These clothes will not exist if someone doesn't come up with a design concept in the first place! A material object needs an idea behind it. Anyway, as I've said in my previous posts, I am AWARE of the commercial implications of clothing. I am just not interested in that aspect when I consider whether or not something has good design. In fact, I think it's irrelevant to any aesthetic consideration. I hope that's clear enough. No need to go all anti-intellectual on me.

And I don't know how you speak for all designers, but several come to mind that meet my, as you say, "impossible standards": the Japanese and Belgian avant-garde, Poiret, Vionnet, Schiaparelli, Givenchy, McQueen, Galliano, Alaia, Elbaz, Ghesquiere, Marras, Lacroix, Westwood, a whole lot, really. And these are all mainstream designers, to boot.

It's simply that I don't think Decarnin is a good designer at all.

Also, I don't know how the average consumer will react to a good find that is worth thousands of dollars.

 

[Squizree]

name three other high-fashion menswear designers who have given us white motorcycle jeggings for men. if it's been done, they should be easy to find, no? if you don't like the styling, then say you don't like the styling. that's fine. everyone's entitled to their opinion. but don't say the piece been "done, done, done," because it really hasn't. if ann demuelemeester, rei kawakubo, or rick owens had trotted these same pants out in their collections, they would receive nothing but praise.


gq.com

I'm pretty sure DSquared and Versace have.

 

[Squizree]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is much too narrow a resource for my tastes. Any attempt to define what art is will always be incomplete and insufficient, so while I'm not eager to pronounce clothing as irrevocably an art form, that doesn't mean I've closed myself to the possibility to consider it as "art" sometime in the future. Right now my stand on fashion is it is design (like most commercial art), and I'm simply trying to locate and argue what is artistic within that context. At the same time, I'm trying to come to terms with what art actually is and means, especially since I believe that its traditional definition is obsolete in this day and age. So for me, fashion is above all else a creative enterprise rendered commercial by the mechanisms of capitalism. I think I'm aware of the factory process of much of the clothing we wear.

Really, don't take my aggression to heart too much! Unless, of course, you actually buy Balmain. But I really need to call out people for patronizing this ridiculous agenda-setting by the house. The transparency of how they are manipulating their clientele and the fact that people subscribe to this circus offends me deeply. Anyway, I think we're veering a bit off topic, but thank you for the dialogue and discussion. It's been interesting!

I agree with everything in this post. I'm sick of the "fashion is not art" argument. It's a very silly thing to keep discussing like there's an actual answer to it.
Anyway, it's a bit off topic in this thread. I think Balmain is just doing what works for it. It's become an economic tycoon, it feeds off many people's fashion soft-spots. Good for them I suppose.

 

[ilaughead]

So, I'm going to ignore all of the conversation on pricing here and just focus on the clothes themselves. Yeah, the jeggings are a little hideous, but the whole collection isn't half bad. Yes, it's conservative and nothing especially new is in here, but you can say that about 75% of all the shows this season. My biggest problem here is the striking resemblance to some of the men's Balenciaga collections, specifically fall '06 and spring '07. Some of the pieces look very similar, and the styling is exactly the same...

 

[mikeijames]

I'm pretty sure DSquared and Versace have.

really, when?

 

[mikeijames]

It is a marketing gimmick, plain and simple and reminiscent of Lucien Pellat-Finet. Let's take the highest price of a garment and triple the cost and see how many suckers go for it. Even for those who like it, you have to admit the pricing is outrageous. It is 100% intentional on the part of Balmain and also surprising how often it works and how many consumers buy into it. This is short lived however and eventually they will not be able to sell a single pair of those $2,000 jeans.

Anyone buy a Lucien sweater recently?

it's been almost two straight years running that people have predicted that balmain's just a flash in the pan. yet their influence keeps growing on main street and their sales keep racking up on high street. but i guess only time will tell....

style.com