Controversial Opinions on Fashion

[MulletProof]

It was terrible but also so confused! He had 1 good RTW collection and for the rest, everybody was puzzled.
As Isabella Blow famously said, Julien was Karl’s knitwear designer, not a Couturier…

are we talking about Spring 2002 (RTW)? I actually liked that one!. It was in the aftermath of 9/11 when everyone revised their collections and it just seemed far more successful than Gucci (the one that got all the praise) for doing that airy/peaceful/loose thing.

I remember seeing him in interviews with Tim Blanks and he seemed a bit shy and you wanted to feel excited for him, but his work was just so bad.. like somewhere along the line and despite the ideas and resources, he would just drop the ball, and compensate with awkward numbers and combinations that made you wonder if he knew anything about women.. and obviously all of this was magnified in such a large stage like that house.

I agree with time embellishing things.. and it's not always bad, I did start liking late 90s D&G a few years ago when the brand alone was a bit icky for me most of the 00s, and Stella's Chloé was suddenly rediscovered and it looks great now. There's nothing wrong with finding gems in the past, or giving them the appreciation that perhaps they did not get then. It's the argument that they meant something at the time when it's well-documented that they did not or when overlooking context, what enters revisionist territory.

 

[Lola701]

are we talking about Spring 2002 (RTW)? I actually liked that one!. It was in the aftermath of 9/11 when everyone revised their collections and it just seemed far more successful than Gucci (the one that got all the praise) for doing that airy/peaceful/loose thing.

I remember seeing him in interviews with Tim Blanks and he seemed a bit shy and you wanted to feel excited for him, but his work was just so bad.. like somewhere along the line and despite the ideas and resources, he would just drop the ball, and compensate with awkward numbers and combinations that made you wonder if he knew anything about women.. and obviously all of this was magnified in such a large stage like that house.

I agree with time embellishing things.. and it's not always bad, I did start liking late 90s D&G a few years ago when the brand alone was a bit icky for me most of the 00s, and Stella's Chloé was suddenly rediscovered and it looks great now. There's nothing wrong with finding gems in the past, or giving them the appreciation that perhaps they did not get then. It's the argument that they meant something at the time when it's well-documented that they did not or when overlooking context, what enters revisionist territory.

Im going to give it to you because I was thinking about fall 2002. Both collections were great. And the campaigns were great too. Then it went downhill…

if the five or six designers following the departure of the house's founder were all terrible for it, perhaps the problem isn't the designer but the house itself...

The problem is never the designers but the casting of designers.
But the consensus at the time was to believe that a talented designer could embody any aesthetic and had range. I think about Gianfranco Ferre for example who was able to do Dior and have a more forward proposition for his own brand…

I think what separates Riccardo from all his predecessors was that he actually showed interest in the work of Hubert and tried to extract something out of it.

It’s not a secret that Lee didn’t care about Hubert. In a way, we can’t blame them (with Galliano) because as 80’s kids, Givenchy wasn’t necessarily the hottest name in Haute Couture who could have impacted them.

Julien took the opportunity and maybe was feeling a bit himself at some point. I remember his Punk couture disaster. It was pure mimétisme.

But the press was insanely harder on Julien. John and Lee had made them dream of at least have emotions so they got a pass.

Julien was just the knitwear designer from Karl who had an opportunity. I think he never really had the support of the London community either.

But yeah, the problem at Givenchy is the casting. Clare wanted the job, prepared a whole dossier just to fail.

Riccardo was just confident in his aesthetic. Sometimes it’s enough. And the press didn’t liked his work at first.

 

[mellowgloom]

This is not a controversial opinion, this is a vanilla and snowflake opinion on mass market fashion, and if it touches high fashion, then it totally erases the history of what is couture, how it should be presented and why models look like that. I am not sure how MFW, PFW and LFW with all their brands can not be Eurocentric, the idea is ridiculous: they are European brands with European heritage and history, owned by European people, presenting in Europe for European fashion magazines and European fashion journalists, using European casting directors and mostly focusing on European culture and often market.

If you want to see more POC people including of Asian descent, just look at Asian, African or sometimes American brands. I don't see many white faces in African or Asian fashion shows and magazines outside of a rare non-Asian appearance on Vogue Japan and China that used to happen way more often before. And I would focus on more mass or underground fashion for that. Haute couture and luxury brands are supposed to strive for the ideal: which is a skinny, toned, youthful body with appealing features. We may grow old, lose our shape due to diseases or laziness, be unlucky to gave genetics to be short and bulky, but we are not the core audience and we are simply unlucky – that does not make the beauty standard different. Models are called models, because the are supposed to present clothing in the most attractive way possible, they came from the usage of mannequins and designers establishing proportions where their creations look most appealing with regards to shoulders/waist/hips proportions.

One may find various people sexy, attractive, pleasant, and many people do (such as it was in Rubens time, or how now "dad bod" is extremely popular among men standards, while being skinny is actually considered unappealing outside of fashion), but this does not make a fashion standard that is built upon many iterations and historical reason to display couture creations in the best way possible, hence models should ultimately be living versions of mannequins (therefore the model in French language is exactly that: "mannequin").

I acknowledge your points, but still respectfully disagree on the point that European is made for European, but what we are now running into is the unspoken can of worms that I believe Europe has a consistent difficulty in acknowledging, which is how they view “mixed race” (European + Non European) or even second, third generation groups that have been present in Europe and participate in it. There is this persistent sentiment of ‘culture as blood-bound and perceivable by the face you have’, and from there that someone who doesn’t look like a traditional stereotype of how a certain John Doe from that ethnic group is somehow not as attached or ‘belonging’ to that nation’s heritage for the simple fact that they are not ‘purely European’ or ‘purely [European ethnicity]’. A person whose physiognomy reflects mixed-race or a race not originally found in Europe should not be assumed to be any less active or connected to European heritage and culture. France is a good example of this cognitive dissonance in practice, for they move goal posts as to what is considered true Frenchness but will happily accept anyone who hails from a former colony so long as that person diminishes their other homeland’s heritage as something innately out-of-place rather than an equal part of them. Culture and heritage as an on-off switch rather than a unique blend. For countries that built themselves up as metropolitan and international, the argument that they are trying to appeal to a European market feels paradoxical, especially considering how many people not of strictly European heritage exist in places like Germany, UK, Spain, and France, not a small amount. Those people are a part of those nations’ histories—their physical presence being relatively recent does not diminish their own ancestral homelands’ material contributions to the development of haute couture, as well as their geopolitical and economic impact (involuntary contributions as colonies) siphoned and dictated by the governments presiding over the nations that the original early modern fashion designers claimed themselves a citizen of. As such, it feels very much like a blatant erasure of material reality for there not to be more Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani British on the runways, more Algerian and Haitian French, etc. They alongside their categorically “white” ethnically European counterparts were slaving away just as vigorously for the benefit of empires that were so abundant and splendorous that haute couture was even capable of being developed to the extent it has in the first place. The staunch advocates for preserving the status quo of haute couture swallow the same false reality of a purely white, intractable Europe, past and present, that ‘the average mass market’ also continues to desperately cling to. Hiding behind a purposefully exclusionist ‘history’ as the “reason why” is a fallacious appeal to tradition. Certain household fashion names have been guilty of racism and transphobia, should that just be taken as “part of the culture of the fashion industry”? I mean racism and sexism was very much in the air and part of the greater cultural fabric when these houses were founded, beliefs often held by the founders themselves. Coco Chanel was a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator for God’s sake. Dolce & Gabbana spoke out as against gay adoption. And for some peculiar reason, the “black face with big red lips” imagery keeps popping up on runways every few years. Perhaps if more non-European people were allowed to actively participate in the European side of haute couture, these fashion houses would be able to dodge these stupid elementary “mistakes”.

Non-European people have been present in Europe since people had boats. Maybe not to the massive extent as we see now, but what is considered European culture still borrows much from outside its continental borders. The Moorish inspiration in Spain, the Japonisme craze in France, the undeniable blend of Orthodoxy and Islam in the Balkans. It feels like those are hand-waved away, or understated realities. Not to mention the borrowing and theft and commodification of other cultures to be repackaged as something exotic simply because it’s on a white European body, with very little nods or acknowledgment to where they come from, typically those with little influence to intervene and ask that certain symbology not be used.

 

[dontbeadrag]

I will answer trying to keep in mind and not miss any of the points you mentioned, but do forgive if I accidentally omit any. Also, it is going away from fashion and more into sociology, history and cultural politics, where I am no expert no matter how much I read on the subject.

Firstly, however sour and bold this may sound, the Earth has always been the survival of the fittest, and the winners write history, not the losers. We do know about workers, underpaid people, conditions, slavery, and many of these exist even now and are rampant. Nevertheless, does it may every white person responsible? I would say no, the actions of my ancestors are not my own and I had no agency or influence, and it is logical, but then I am white – it is up to the person to take it or not, there have been many scandalous events even on this forum, where a white person cannot have an opinion on this as they are white. Does that change the idea of the fittest? No. Even the first people were not white, many European countries were established by people of colour, especially Eastern Europe by Asians. Does that mean we have to give them all back and repopulate? This logic seems revanchist, but all racial questions can be reduced to the notion of revenge. The history is set and cannot be rewritten, but at the same time Germany cannot be guilty for Hitler forever, and white people (especially in the West) cannot be held accountable for what happened to POCs forever. How does this relate to fashion? We do see the changes and inclusion of more women and POCs as creative directors in 21st century that ever before, but we can't give away places and high professions "just because".

Secondly, coming from the first point, life and politics are unfair. It is up to the government, politicians, statisticians, businessmen and the elite of France, Germany, England or any other country to tell what their culture is and what population the want to be presented as or what their cultural aspects are. Is it unpleasant and annoying? Yes. But this is the reality. At the same time, things like culture are too strong of a force to control by groups of people. People mixed and always will, and it will create new sparks of culture, it always did. One cannot simply tell the world "make culture more latino/black/asian" and everyone will follow.

Now, on the third, due to Europe and the US being most accessible and the loudest due to the languages and that history, I find your point one-sided, (not as because of you, because always had this issue with such points), and let me explain. There are various people in the West as you say, which is true and is a fact. That said, there are white people that live in SA, Asia, some move to Africa too. Do we have to make Japan whiter and its culture too? Do we have to shame their rockabilly culture, because it is appropriation of Elvis? Do we have to make Mexico whiter, because a lot of white Americans move there? If you reverse the argument, and there are white people in other cultures too as we know, it does not hold the same truth. Tell people in China or Brazil to make it whiter as there are white people there too that need to be represented and look what they tell you.

I also try, while not always succeed, to separate the art from the artist. Coco was a collaborator, but that makes her a terrible person, that does not make her work terrible or less groundbreaking. Was the privileged? Yes. But was she an innovator and a hard worker? Yes as well. It does not only take Coco to make Chanel. It takes all her connections, circumstances, luck and chance to happen. It could've been anyone, but it was her and that will never change. Same applies to D&G, and I despise their brand or their social claims, the majority does. The does not make them less of who they are, and if they were smart enough to keep mouths shut until the success became too large - kudos to them and the life is unfair/survival of the fittest point comes back.

That history is exclusionist or written by the privileged elite that came out as winner has never been a secret. We cannot change that. We go to European museums and see hundreds of years of portraits of royalty and high society: from C.Z. Guest to Elizabeth the I, Duchess Olga of Russia and Adele Bloch-Bauer. The traditional clients of European couture have been for decades white rich women. I think trying to disprove this point simply by saying 'no', while looking at all the historical literature and portraiture is ridiculous, if one can excuse me. Therefore I still appeal and cling to my point - clients and key audience of European couture are white women of the elite circle, and have always been, except only some recent times when other races delved deeper into couture houses.

Edison claimed the bulb that he did not create, Steve Jobs claimed something Wozniak created, Richard Prince took other s' Instagram posts and made them 'his art'. Successful stealers succeed, this is also not news of our unfair living. Nonetheless, as I said before, for some reason nobody is angry at Japanese rockabillies or at the 'White Chicks' movie. Whiteface does not exist or is it simply inconvenient to acknowledge it?

Lastly, while I agree that it happened that US/Europe white culture happened to be dominant in these places, these places also have the highest amount of white people in them. Where does the point of balance sit, and who is the judge? When enough models of other colour is enough? Or creative directors, or actors, or even dentists? Who is the judge to that? The protectionist reaction and the resistance/struggle are logical, nobody wants to give a piece of their cake. With all said above, white people constitute only 6.5% of the worldwide population, the smallest amount of any other race (I never understood the choice of the world 'minority' for the others, which is such a false statement), and having that much power over culture and media, certainly nobody would want to give that up.

TL;DR : life is not fair and the world is not too. The conversations always should take place and are food for thought and development, but this is akin to "why some people are famous and rich, but I am not?".

 

[MulletProof]

Also, it is going away from fashion and more into sociology, history and cultural politics, where I am no expert no matter how much I read on the subject.

I did major in sociology but I'm no teacher, not very generous and not the way I make a living, but, this layer of frustration stems from diving into it unarmed (which is what got you scrambling from a multitude of topics throughout your post). Sociology, history and to some degree, cultural studies, are all disciplines with a long-ish history of empirical research that have built a structure not to make them exclusive but to make them easier to approach. You're reading to support and justify ideas acquired through informal/vulgar observations, as opposed to doing it with the intention of scrutinising and subsequently dismantling your own conditioning so you're going to keep walking into a wall and won't understand why it keeps happening despite x amount of reading. You need foundation, methodology (esp. historical materialism), epistemological theory (Chamboredon/Passeron, Lakatos, Parsons, Feyerabend, Marx, etc) to ignite and sharpen critical thinking.

I think mellowgloom perhaps went a little too deep in trying to explain something quite simple: Europe is not the Soviet Union or Cuba, it is neither isolationist nor communist. It's very much capitalist and its most powerful companies practice rampant neoliberalism, and I hope we all know what neoliberalism entails..

 

[dontbeadrag]

his layer of frustration stems from diving into it unarmed

This is exactly why I said I am no expert in sociology or cultural politics, so I do agree. I am an expert in fashion and business though, that is why I did not say anything in my first post, and it seems a lot of people do agree with what I said.