The consequences of affordable collections

[Mutterlein]

you're fine.

 

[zamb]

Post 176:



Post 166:



First you complain that "few can understand me", then you claim that you understand me perfectly.

lol! Which is it now?

If you read closely, at no point did i say that i did not understand you, the comment said "few people", also it was actually a response to a comment you made that seemed to suggest that we are not smart enough to comprehend at your level, therefore i ask the question. " what does it profit you to post if you know that the readers to which your comments are addressed cannot understand what you are saying?.


Anyway Mr.Popper My purpose here is not to be in a verbal fisticuffs (wooopiee!!!!!! i get to use a fancy word) with you. I would like to think that my purpose here is to share the views of an independent designer running a small company, in order to give the readers (including you) a better understanding of such a perspective.
I look forward to seeing more of your posts, as i do (as i have said before) enjoy your post....... I am just a bit offended when you take swipes at other TFS members.
Hopefully we can all grow out of that........)

 

[Karl.Popper]

I do understand your point, but I think you misinterpreted mine. I'm not saying exspensive designer clothing is the only way to obtain and enjoy true fashion.

Alright. But you can hardly blame me for interpreting it that way when you said:

'But unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying "fashion", you're buying something that is marketed to you as "fashion"'.

If we ignore this, then yes, I don't disagree with you.

 

[JJohnson]

I know. I'm saying that's a part of why so many do not discern quality on their own and thus rely on names, This makes it harder for new designers to establish themselves.

oh ok

 

[zamb]

Alright friends and loved ones, Gotta go, Its off to Barneys , and then home to make pants patterns for fall 2007, i will see you all tonite before i go to bed........... God Willing................

 

[Karl.Popper]

If you read closely, at no point did i say that i did not understand you, the comment said "few people", also it was actually a response to a comment you made that seemed to suggest that we are not smart enough to comprehend at your level, therefore i ask the question. " what does it profit you to post if you know that the readers to which your comments are addressed cannot understand what you are saying?.)

Where did I suggest that you are not smart enough to understand me?

Quote me?

And if I didn't suggest this, why do you assume that no one but yourself and a "few people" can understand me? I think most people understand me quite well, thank you.

Note that I've attacked arguments or points of view only. Just because I express my objections in a robust manner doesn't mean it's a personal attack on you. Characterizing an argument or point of view as "ridiculous" shouldn't offend anyone, unless you are easily offended.

So, less baseless accusations thank you very much.

 

[Mutterlein]

Alright. But you can hardly blame me for interpreting it that way when you said:

'But unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying "fashion", you're buying something that is marketed to you as "fashion"'.

If we ignore this, then yes, I don't disagree with you.

I still stand by that.

Fashion is a luxury, anything offered to you that suggests otherwise should be taken with that caveat.

 

[Karl.Popper]

But we're not talking about the poor are we? We're talking about anybody who's "not wealthy" enough for expensive clothing - i.e. people in the middle or lower middle class.

On the one hand you claim that "I'm not saying exspensive designer clothing is the only way to obtain and enjoy true fashion".

On the other hand you state that "unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying 'fashion'".

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

edit: haha you edited the line about the poor just in case you came across as un-PC. No matter. The rebuttal still stands.

 

[reese06]

Can someone explain what "true fashion" is?

 

[Mutterlein]

But we're not talking about the poor are we? We're talking about anybody who's "not wealthy" enough for expensive clothing - i.e. people in the middle or lower middle class.

On the one hand you claim that "I'm not saying exspensive designer clothing is the only way to obtain and enjoy true fashion".

On the other hand you state that "unless you are quite wealthy you aren't actually buying 'fashion'".

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

edit: haha you edited the line about the poor just in case you came across as un-PC. No matter. The rebuttal still stands.

Fair enough. I'll just state what I mean clearly for the record.

Fashion is a luxury, i.e. it's not something you're going to prioritize over say...food or education even. To enjoy it you do have to be wealthy OR wealthy enough to afford this particular luxury. So you don't have to buy 1k+ garments in order to be fashionable but if you are buying a perfectly a new coat simply because your old one doesn't looks as good, even if it is from H&M, it means you have the luxury to engage in fashion over economy. Compared to the majority of the world's population you are quite wealthy.

I don't really care about being PC, that's not why I edited it. But to be quite frank, poor people don't really have the time or money to care about how they look in comparison to the current zeitgeist and the hip and progressive idea of what "well dressed" means. That's my working definition of "true fashion".

You have large companies who sell apparel and try to market it as fashion in order to secure sales and promote their own brand. That's what I mean when I typed "fashion". Look at any Old Navy campaign and you can see for yourself the marketing devices they use to convince people how fashionable and well dressed they could be in their clothes. Are they? It's all marketing.

anyways, thanks for not allowing me to rest on blanket statments and a lazy use of words. I always welcome astute challengers.

 

[softgrey]

if one is familiar with what has been going on in europe...
they have had affordable stylish clothing for quite some years now...
lots of 'high street' stores and designers doing topshop and la redoute etc...

and imo..
that is a big reason why the europeans have always dressed better than americans...
because they could get stylish clothing at affordable prices...

now that the US has jumped opn the band wagon with target go international,etc and a lot of lower priced foreign chains have broken into the US market...
i think that the consequence of affordable fashion can be seen on the streets....

ie- the streets of New York are looking more and more like the streets of Paris every day now!...

which is pretty great imo...
i'd rather look at stylish people than frumpy or tacky people any day of the week..

..

 

[FashionJunkie]

About the whole "education argument" ( off-topic, but still...), don't forget that america isn't the only country in the world. In Greece universities are 100% free, it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, or anything, the only thing that matters is how high your grades are (that's why it's very difficult to get in). I do not think, even for a minute that nowadays rich people are "luckier" in any way. They are rich people who can afford the best of the best, quality wise, and they still manage to look cheap or they can afford the best universities (in America that is) and they still are uneducated airheads.
Bottom line: Money can't buy education, knowledge and manners and of course they can't buy style.

 

[softgrey]

'it is not money that makes you well dressed, it is understanding'


Christian Dior...



* doesn't that pretty much say it all...?

 

[style_expert]

^ I second that

 

[Karl.Popper]

thanks for not allowing me to rest on blanket statments and a lazy use of words.

And I thank you for putting up with my somewhat argumentative posts.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

I still stand by that.

Fashion is a luxury, anything offered to you that suggests otherwise should be taken with that caveat.

i stand by this too.
let me clarify my princeton education post, btw: what i meant is that my friend was cheated out of an education he deserved. yes, other colleges provide education, but how many can equal that of princeton or an ivy? berkeley is a cheaper option, but it's hardly the same. with princeton, you pay $40,000 a year, twice that of berkeley, but you get classes with 12 students to a teacher instead of 300 students to a teacher. you still get an education at berkeley, but it's hardly the same experience.

with fashion, it's much the same. walking down the street, you might come across some garment that is highly well designed yet very affordable. you can argue that this should qualify with high fashion, although it is cheap. BUT if it is cheap, there are certain things that will inevitably be different. For instance, for some high fashion collections, most prominently Rochas cry: ) and for this season, Burberry, the material used was specifically designed for Theyskens or Bailey. because of this, the clothing needs to cost more. production cost is a huge factor. you can take a dior couture dress pattern, and make the same dress in muslin. that way, the design is just as fashionable, and the dress is much cheaper, but the two versions are hardly the same.

 

[Karl.Popper]

Ah, you change your tune. Nobody was objecting to the idea that one gets a better educational experience at an Ivy.

But that's not what you were saying. You were saying that anything else but an Ivy education isn't really education - not "true education" - in your words. Which is patent nonsense.

It is one thing to say that the quality of education is higher at some places, and quite another to say that anything but that quality of education is not education altogether. One is a difference of degree, the other a difference in kind.

Nothing better illustrates the absurdity than the following.

A one to one student-to-tutor ratio at Oxford is both qualitatively and quantitatively better than anything an Ivy can offer. Following your demented logic one could say that anything non-Oxbridge isn't really education - and that includes Princeton with its pathetic 12:1 class size.

Preposterous! I hear you shout.

Precisely so.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ i'm not changing my tone, i'm defining what "true education" means to me
let me make myself clear: to me, true education means the education to match someone's potential
to me, being forced to attend CSU Longbeach (a california state school) rather than princeton because of financial problems is very much being cheated. it's like forcing alaia to design for JCPenney. one can argue that JCPenney is still fashion, and it is, but it's very much not the same

 

[JJohnson]

Ooooh Alaia at JcPenny would be quite interesting...I wonder if we can arrange this? yay

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^haha
actually, that would be very interesting...