Why Is The Fashion Industry In The State That It's In Today?

[MyNameIs]

I too think democratization is at least in part to blame, the driving force of which has been social media. Even 10-15 years ago, fashion was about the fantasy, exclusivity, aspiration, escapism. Nowadays, everyone is a model, designer, fashion "icon", influencer, etc. There are are no standards for anything. Instead of selling an image that the masses can aspire to, fashion keeps selling an image that the masses can relate to. That's why every magazine issue must have 20 different covers, every campaign must feature 50 models. Because you have to feature someone of every body shape, color, gender, and whatever else so nobody is feeling "left out".

Fashion has been pushed out of fashion in favor of politics. Instead of promoting fashion, they promote the latest hip social causes. People behind fashion are ashamed of fashion. They continue to dilute and erase it lest they be accused of "losing touch" or being "tone deaf". There are no independent ideas because everything that strays from the pre-approved script is either "cultural appropriation" or the "male gaze" or "colonialism legacy" or whatever other flavor of the month accusation. Women can't simply like beautiful gowns, that's sexist. And forget about sex appeal. How patriarchic. And that's why we get covers like the US Vogue February 2021.

 

[LoveFashion25]

I too think democratization is at least in part to blame, the driving force of which has been social media. Even 10-15 years ago, fashion was about the fantasy, exclusivity, aspiration, escapism. Nowadays, everyone is a model, designer, fashion "icon", influencer, etc. There are are no standards for anything. Instead of selling an image that the masses can aspire to, fashion keeps selling an image that the masses can relate to. That's why every magazine issue must have 20 different covers, every campaign must feature 50 models. Because you have to feature someone of every body shape, color, gender, and whatever else so nobody is feeling "left out".

Fashion has been pushed out of fashion in favor of politics. Instead of promoting fashion, they promote the latest hip social causes. People behind fashion are ashamed of fashion. They continue to dilute and erase it lest they be accused of "losing touch" or being "tone deaf". There are no independent ideas because everything that strays from the pre-approved script is either "cultural appropriation" or the "male gaze" or "colonialism legacy" or whatever other flavor of the month accusation. Women can't simply like beautiful gowns, that's sexist. And forget about sex appeal. How patriarchic. And that's why we get covers like the US Vogue February 2021.

This right here is it! You explained why the industry is the way it is. I don't want fashion to be political. I look to fashion for the dream, fantasy, escapism and yes the industry SHOULD be more diverse and inclusive.

You did point out the people behind fashion are ashamed of fashion and that stuck out to me because its true. Its as if they are forgetting what industry they are in.

 

[Lola701]

To have a fashion brand at the level of the Big players has more to do with foundation than innovation or vision. Dior in 10 years created the foundation of his house: fashion, fragrances, accessories. He established staples in daywear and eveningwear.
- Are you saying that a small brand in order for them to become legacy fashion houses shouldn't rely on a big corporation? So basically being independent? how can that happen when you pointed out designers of today are very mediocre at best?
It kind of reminds me of Givenchy and Audrey. Givenchy made beautiful creations but Audrey propelled it to new heights. Sadly Givenchy is a mask of its former self.

The mediocrity of designers is my opinion, a judgement but the beauty of fashion is that it’s sometimes an unknown game. But the reality is that a lot of younger designers won’t be able to create heritage brands.

If I say to you « OFF White », you’ll think about quotations and not about a design. People are still buying products and have an emotional connection to those products.

But yes, in order to be an heritage brand, you have to be independent...Even if after a couple of years, once established, you decide to sell.

I feel like the trajectory of Alaia, Dries or even Versace are interesting. Here are 3 houses that mostly sells clothes but who managed to survive. Independence allowed for them to create their own path, to established their codes and build the foundation. Alaia today exists with the archives, they have a beauty business and an accessories business that is identifiable. The conglomerate came to solidify the business.


But overall, we are entering an interesting phase of the industry. Each beginning of decade has been quite eventful for the fashion industry...

I just want fashion to be able to own it frivolity again. People needs to have some distance with it. Fashion is supposed to be uplifting or to make us think and I feel like those past few years, we have lost that.

Creatives needs to remember that the power is in their hands. Creativity is the most important value of fashion.

 

[Phuel]

Yes, historically change came from smaller brands but it came from designers who had convictions, a real POV but now, young talents don’t have that anymore.

I’m thinking about the young talents today. Apart from serving us an updated version of Expected and overdone references, I don’t see anything.

Take the example of Demna. Vetements was a come up for Balenciaga. Today, young talents wants to be a part of that club. When Nicolas took over Balenciaga, he started from scratch and his work established the house to the top.

About Chanel, there’s a reason why people expect someone like Phoebe Philo or even Haider Ackermann. Because it will change the status-quo. Executives will notice...

Alexandre Arnault is someone who has kind of destroyed a certain profile for a fashion designer. He is talented but he only sees Fashion from a cultural POV and look at the designers they are choosing now.

Commercialism is so present in designer’s minds that I wonder how someone can have a small brand, a strong POV and keep it in that environment.

For me overall, there’s too much mediocrity in new talents. It’s about visuals and not so much depth in terms of designs, construction and techniques.

It will absolutely be a new lead at Chanel who’s unafraid to challenge the status quo, and someone like Phoebe does fit that profile— or even Nicolas switching things up at Vuitton because he does possess that pull and the talent, that will be the catalyst for change.

And it won’t be just one designer, rather— a group of them (Phoebe/ Ghesquiere/Haider) working symbiotically in a sense:… And the likes of Lemaire/Simone Rocha/Alber Elbaz are not the candidates to kickstart an era. The new smaller brands are either-- as you’ve mentioned, too indoctrinated by and dependant on the culture of SM popularity and dressing celebs to care for or even capable of design innovation— or they’re just too small and limited in both resources and skills to afford the platform to instigate such change (and I don’t detect the brand of talent of the level of Gaultier/McQueen/Ghesquiere lurking around somewhere from this era’s crop of designers…). And it’s these fabled brands that still have the most skilled ateliers, from Chanel, to YSL to Comme, that has the access to the most innovative fabrications. No matter how skilled, practiced, even devoted to the craft a smaller brand may be, with the support of a house like Chanel's or YSL’s atelier, that’s where the final alchemy of creative vision and masterful craftsmanship become high fashion. (But of course all of these ateliers are wasted when we’re in the era of oversized hoodies and overwrought orthopaedic sneakers.)

 

[LoveFashion25]

The mediocrity of designers is my opinion, a judgement but the beauty of fashion is that it’s sometimes an unknown game. But the reality is that a lot of younger designers won’t be able to create heritage brands.

If I say to you « OFF White », you’ll think about quotations and not about a design. People are still buying products and have an emotional connection to those products.

But yes, in order to be an heritage brand, you have to be independent...Even if after a couple of years, once established, you decide to sell.

I feel like the trajectory of Alaia, Dries or even Versace are interesting. Here are 3 houses that mostly sells clothes but who managed to survive. Independence allowed for them to create their own path, to established their codes and build the foundation. Alaia today exists with the archives, they have a beauty business and an accessories business that is identifiable. The conglomerate came to solidify the business.


But overall, we are entering an interesting phase of the industry. Each beginning of decade has been quite eventful for the fashion industry...

I just want fashion to be able to own it frivolity again. People needs to have some distance with it. Fashion is supposed to be uplifting or to make us think and I feel like those past few years, we have lost that.

Creatives needs to remember that the power is in their hands. Creativity is the most important value of fashion.

I just want fashion to be able to own it frivolity again. People needs to have some distance with it. Fashion is supposed to be uplifting or to make us think and I feel like those past few years, we have lost that.

Creatives needs to remember that the power is in their hands. Creativity is the most important value of fashion.
- This is very encouraging words. Creatives need to remember that the power really is in their hands. Without creativity there is no fashion imo.

I do hope the 2020s will see the biggest changes in the industry.

But yes, in order to be an heritage brand, you have to be independent...Even if after a couple of years, once established, you decide to sell.
- Also be something that is uniquely you so people won't say you are a copy of Dior or Prada ect...

 

[LoveFashion25]

It will absolutely be a new lead at Chanel who’s unafraid to challenge the status quo, and someone like Phoebe does fit that profile— or even Nicolas switching things up at Vuitton because he does possess that pull and the talent, that will be the catalyst for change.

And it won’t be just one designer, rather— a group of them (Phoebe/ Ghesquiere/Haider) working symbiotically in a sense:… And the likes of Lemaire/Simone Rocha/Alber Elbaz are not the candidates to kickstart an era. The new smaller brands are either-- as you’ve mentioned, too indoctrinated by and dependant on the culture of SM popularity and dressing celebs to care for or even capable of design innovation— or they’re just too small and limited in both resources and skills to afford the platform to instigate such change (and I don’t detect the brand of talent of the level of Gaultier/McQueen/Ghesquiere lurking around somewhere from this era’s crop of designers…). And it’s these fabled brands that still have the most skilled ateliers, from Chanel, to YSL to Comme, that has the access to the most innovative fabrications. No matter how skilled, practiced, even devoted to the craft a smaller brand may be, with the support of a house like Chanel's or YSL’s atelier, that’s where the final alchemy of creative vision and masterful craftsmanship become high fashion. (But of course all of these ateliers are wasted when we’re in the era of oversized hoodies and overwrought orthopaedic sneakers.)

So are you saying these smaller brands has to team up with Chanel in order to see the change and innovation?

The new smaller brands are either-- as you’ve mentioned, too indoctrinated by and dependant on the culture of SM popularity and dressing celebs to care for or even capable of design innovation— or they’re just too small and limited in both resources and skills to afford the platform to instigate such change (and I don’t detect the brand of talent of the level of Gaultier/McQueen/Ghesquiere lurking around somewhere from this era’s crop of designers…).
- This is true.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I don’t mean it has to be Chanel that will be the harbinger of change: Just that Chanel is in such a unique position than any other behemoth conglomerate, to strike that risk since they seem to operate independently from outside influences, even immune to any worldwide financial crisis. (Or look at Dior menswear before Hedi made it what it was for nearly a decade. Before him, the name Dior [for men] was synonymous with budget licensing for shirt/tie combo gift sets LOL)

Lola may have already mentioned this; a designer’s vision— be it one of a new or a veteran of the industry, will always be elevated to the highest standard, when they are supported by a venerable house’s masterful atelier: Chanel’s atelier is but just an example used for this discussion. I get people wish to disarm the longstanding houses for many reasons, the main one being to deconstruct the system and eliminate the status quo of bourgeoisie trappings. I get that ideology. But I also fondly appreciate that Tom gave his best work when he was with Gucci; Olivier Theyskens was at his most splendidly romantic when he was with Rocha and Nina Ricci; Galliano at his most untoppable with Dior. Aligning with a venerable house isn’t pure evil.

Look at Virgil’s output for his Off-White label and compare it to his output for Louis Vuitton. The quality of construction, fabrication and overall presentation is glaringly on different levels— even if the design aesthetic may be similar. A designer is at a huge advantage in terms of their exposure/access to the finest craftsmanship when aligning with a venerable house’s atelier.

Once again, I’m referring to the ateriler— not the CEOs’ greed of churning out a dozen collections a year scheduling. I’ll agree that the reckless, runaway greed of the fashion system will likely destroy or at the least severely compromise the creative vision and standard of someone like Olivier Theyskens in 2021 (…once again, this era needs to run its course before we all happily throw the baby out with the bathwater). And that’s likely a reality rather than the more romantic ideal of him revitalizing any of the aggressively, commercialized brands that many still hope he’ll helm. But it’s that romanticized ideal that many are holding onto since it was an achievable reality decades ago with the likes of Tom at Gucci/YSL; Gaultier with his own brand and for Hermes; Galliano with his one brand and at Dior etc. And even at a compromise, it still would be something worthwhile to see Olivier at Dior rather than Maria Grazia at Dior; he’s been able to work for other brands, even a rather commercial one like Theory, and still maintain his creative standards and sanity (but of course that was all of another decade and not in this cutthroat one).

 

[LoveFashion25]

^^^ I don’t mean it has to be Chanel that will be the harbinger of change: Just that Chanel is in such a unique position than any other behemoth conglomerate, to strike that risk since they seem to operate independently from outside influences, even immune to any worldwide financial crisis. (Or look at Dior menswear before Hedi made it what it was for nearly a decade. Before him, the name Dior [for men] was synonymous with budget licensing for shirt/tie combo gift sets LOL)

Lola may have already mentioned this; a designer’s vision— be it one of a new or a veteran of the industry, will always be elevated to the highest standard, when they are supported by a venerable house’s masterful atelier: Chanel’s atelier is but just an example used for this discussion. I get people wish to disarm the longstanding houses for many reasons, the main one being to deconstruct the system and eliminate the status quo of bourgeoisie trappings. I get that ideology. But I also fondly appreciate that Tom gave his best work when he was with Gucci; Olivier Theyskens was at his most splendidly romantic when he was with Rocha and Nina Ricci; Galliano at his most untoppable with Dior. Aligning with a venerable house isn’t pure evil.

Look at Virgil’s output for his Off-White label and compare it to his output for Louis Vuitton. The quality of construction, fabrication and overall presentation is glaringly on different levels— even if the design aesthetic may be similar. A designer is at a huge advantage in terms of their exposure/access to the finest craftsmanship when aligning with a venerable house’s atelier.

Once again, I’m referring to the ateriler— not the CEOs’ greed of churning out a dozen collections a year scheduling. I’ll agree that the reckless, runaway greed of the fashion system will likely destroy or at the least severely compromise the creative vision and standard of someone like Olivier Theyskens in 2021 (…once again, this era needs to run its course before we all happily throw the baby out with the bathwater). And that’s likely a reality rather than the more romantic ideal of him revitalizing any of the aggressively, commercialized brands that many still hope he’ll helm. But it’s that romanticized ideal that many are holding onto since it was an achievable reality decades ago with the likes of Tom at Gucci/YSL; Gaultier with his own brand and for Hermes; Galliano with his one brand and at Dior etc. And even at a compromise, it still would be something worthwhile to see Olivier at Dior rather than Maria Grazia at Dior; he’s been able to work for other brands, even a rather commercial one like Theory, and still maintain his creative standards and sanity (but of course that was all of another decade and not in this cutthroat one).

I 100% agree with what you say. It would be easier to partner up with a legacy brand to make that change but for me I am one for a creative individual who built its brand from the ground up. Its possible because it has happened before. Chanel, Hermes, Dior, Celine, Givenchy, ect... were all independent houses and yes they were exceptional designers and visionary. It can take just one person to achieve that and create their own legacy fashion houses that will be on par with Chanel or Hermes. Just that the world we are living in thrives on mediocrity but I do believe and optimistic that things will change esp with the pushback on fast fashion killing innovation.

 

[LoveFashion25]

agreed!!

I'm more shocked with how Chanel is going. my fav fashion brand and its not looking good.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I'm just echoing what everyone else here is saying but the problem is capitalism’s mix with social media and the way young people are adhering to this new definition of fashion being created. Just plotting pseudo graphs in your head of fashion and social media vs. time will show you. The line of social media ramping up directly correlates to fashion becoming insufferable.

Something I think needs to be pulled is fashion’s root in capitalism. These Neo-liberal people who are dominating the industry created a philosophy coded into people’s brains about branding. Every one of these corporations propose the true essence of fashion as a "brand". It doesn’t even have to be a physical logo. For the plebs, any sort of fashion “creativity” needs to be part of a recognizable entity that can be branded to elevate status. Where we are right now, most people are unhappy with their status, whether it be social status, economic status, whatever. People are not content. Corporations prey on these insecurities because it’s the EASIEST way to make money. And a tool they can use to prey on people with is fashion and “luxury”. Any “creatives” appointed to be designers for these corporations have one purpose, and that is to create spectacles to elevate status, not to create “creations”.

This idea of capitalistic fashion can now be disseminated GLOBALLY like a disease at a lightning speed thru social media. Everyone’s insecurities are now amplified giving them the desire to be liked by others. And while being liked is something most people want, the real hardcore drug is being envied. When a brand has a high and well established status, putting it on your body and posting it online for everyone to see will give you the biggest rush knowing everyone is jealous and wants what you have. You now have this social currency giving you the potential to have the ultimate status being perceived as someone who is on top in our society.

Corporations being blessed with this wonderful tool results in the writing of a newer definition of fashion, causing the inhibition of creation with the purpose of proposing new ideas. No one creates to truly be creative. People now even aspire to be designers themselves just to create spectacles to feed the need for stimulation and to elevate status. Garments are redundantly made to be “luxurious” or “artsy” with thousands of hours of embroidery, pretentious techniques, wonky cuts, and/or the use of over-intellectualized explanations to make the atmosphere around a brand feel special. Everyone is now looking to have a “moment”. People care about the scene, the model fiercely walking down the runway, picking out clips in fashion show videos to comment stuff like “me arriving 45 minutes late to the funeral of my 90 year old husband that secretly I killed”. Consumers love the stimulation and will then buy an outrageous garment because it had that moment in that show, or they might buy a plain “entry-level” garment because it was made under that designer working for that brand. Then they can post their new purchase on instagram to have their followers gawk at it. And if the garment isn’t really recognizable, people will be more interested in “who did that” rather than “what is that”.

I really think the people that have potential to be "good" new fashion designers do not desire to be in the current fashion industry. They have no interest in being an egotistical idiot. They are interested in their own hobby focusing on craft, history, science, whatever. I seriously am reaching a limit here with this “fashion”. This social media crap almost makes me wanna move to a commune and never see any of this garbage they are trying to ram down my throat ever again.

 

[Urban Stylin]

I too think democratization is at least in part to blame, the driving force of which has been social media. Even 10-15 years ago, fashion was about the fantasy, exclusivity, aspiration, escapism. Nowadays, everyone is a model, designer, fashion "icon", influencer, etc. There are are no standards for anything. Instead of selling an image that the masses can aspire to, fashion keeps selling an image that the masses can relate to. That's why every magazine issue must have 20 different covers, every campaign must feature 50 models. Because you have to feature someone of every body shape, color, gender, and whatever else so nobody is feeling "left out".

Fashion has been pushed out of fashion in favor of politics. Instead of promoting fashion, they promote the latest hip social causes. People behind fashion are ashamed of fashion. They continue to dilute and erase it lest they be accused of "losing touch" or being "tone deaf". There are no independent ideas because everything that strays from the pre-approved script is either "cultural appropriation" or the "male gaze" or "colonialism legacy" or whatever other flavor of the month accusation. Women can't simply like beautiful gowns, that's sexist. And forget about sex appeal. How patriarchic. And that's why we get covers like the US Vogue February 2021.

Imo fashion can be more aware about certain elements in the industry that are no longer acceptable in the world while also being fresh, edgy, creative etc. The people at the top are simply clueless about the social change as well as the influx of social media that they are a deer in headlights in their approach.

 

[LoveFashion25]

I'm just echoing what everyone else here is saying but the problem is capitalism’s mix with social media and the way young people are adhering to this new definition of fashion being created. Just plotting pseudo graphs in your head of fashion and social media vs. time will show you. The line of social media ramping up directly correlates to fashion becoming insufferable.

Something I think needs to be pulled is fashion’s root in capitalism. These Neo-liberal people who are dominating the industry created a philosophy coded into people’s brains about branding. Every one of these corporations propose the true essence of fashion as a "brand". It doesn’t even have to be a physical logo. For the plebs, any sort of fashion “creativity” needs to be part of a recognizable entity that can be branded to elevate status. Where we are right now, most people are unhappy with their status, whether it be social status, economic status, whatever. People are not content. Corporations prey on these insecurities because it’s the EASIEST way to make money. And a tool they can use to prey on people with is fashion and “luxury”. Any “creatives” appointed to be designers for these corporations have one purpose, and that is to create spectacles to elevate status, not to create “creations”.

This idea of capitalistic fashion can now be disseminated GLOBALLY like a disease at a lightning speed thru social media. Everyone’s insecurities are now amplified giving them the desire to be liked by others. And while being liked is something most people want, the real hardcore drug is being envied. When a brand has a high and well established status, putting it on your body and posting it online for everyone to see will give you the biggest rush knowing everyone is jealous and wants what you have. You now have this social currency giving you the potential to have the ultimate status being perceived as someone who is on top in our society.

Corporations being blessed with this wonderful tool results in the writing of a newer definition of fashion, causing the inhibition of creation with the purpose of proposing new ideas. No one creates to truly be creative. People now even aspire to be designers themselves just to create spectacles to feed the need for stimulation and to elevate status. Garments are redundantly made to be “luxurious” or “artsy” with thousands of hours of embroidery, pretentious techniques, wonky cuts, and/or the use of over-intellectualized explanations to make the atmosphere around a brand feel special. Everyone is now looking to have a “moment”. People care about the scene, the model fiercely walking down the runway, picking out clips in fashion show videos to comment stuff like “me arriving 45 minutes late to the funeral of my 90 year old husband that secretly I killed”. Consumers love the stimulation and will then buy an outrageous garment because it had that moment in that show, or they might buy a plain “entry-level” garment because it was made under that designer working for that brand. Then they can post their new purchase on instagram to have their followers gawk at it. And if the garment isn’t really recognizable, people will be more interested in “who did that” rather than “what is that”.

I really think the people that have potential to be "good" new fashion designers do not desire to be in the current fashion industry. They have no interest in being an egotistical idiot. They are interested in their own hobby focusing on craft, history, science, whatever. I seriously am reaching a limit here with this “fashion”. This social media crap almost makes me wanna move to a commune and never see any of this garbage they are trying to ram down my throat ever again.

Amazing! But whats the difference between then and now? Weren't the brands such as Chanel, Hermes, Dior, Givenchy, YSL weren't they all for the elites or those of higher class? Wasn't it created for them as well as royalty?

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Amazing! But whats the difference between then and now? Weren't the brands such as Chanel, Hermes, Dior, Givenchy, YSL weren't they all for the elites or those of higher class? Wasn't it created for them as well as royalty?

I think because they only catered to the elites. Their customer base was much smaller. Only certain people could buy Chanel clothes and see their new collections every season. Now with social media, everyone can watch their collection presentations. Everyone can have a peek at what it’s like to be elite. Brands can cast a wide net over everyone, hawking tshirts and bags under their name to make you feel like you’re in the club. Those designers were def not on the same level of globalization as they are now

 

[LoveFashion25]

I think because they only catered to the elites. Their customer base was much smaller. Only certain people could buy Chanel clothes and see their new collections every season. Now with social media, everyone can watch their collection presentations. Everyone can have a peek at what it’s like to be elite. Brands can cast a wide net over everyone, hawking tshirts and bags under their name to make you feel like you’re in the club. Those designers were def not on the same level of globalization as they are now

But don't you think its great that everyone gets to join on luxury with those same elites or do you prefer when Chanel or Givenchy catered to those elites with their clothes, handbags, shoes and even fragrance?

 

[susseinmcswanny]

But don't you think its great that everyone gets to join on luxury with those same elites or do you prefer when Chanel or Givenchy catered to those elites with their clothes, handbags, shoes and even fragrance?

I don't really think it's that great. Most of these brands have just become a guise to make you think you are buying into something. I don't care if I have access to buy stuff under the same name some rich lady buys her 5 figure jackets from. The focus has shifted from making authentically creative and interesting clothes to making people want to join the club. The club that likely none of us will EVER be a part of

 

[LoveFashion25]

I don't really think it's that great. Most of these brands have just become a guise to make you think you are buying into something. I don't care if I have access to buy stuff under the same name some rich lady buys her 5 figure jackets from. The focus has shifted from making authentically creative and interesting clothes to making people want to join the club. The club that likely none of us will EVER be a part of

This I 100% agree with. Its no longer about creativity and craftmanship or innovation but its all about the dollar and the brand name. In an idyllic world what would you like to happen? I mean is it even possible for new designers to get as big and create a legacy brands like those big names?

 

[Luz]

At this point, I just browse stores and buy whatever catches my attention. Branded, high street or not. But at the same time, I wanna get more and more Vivienne Westwood, go figure.

Fashion needs a revamp which doesn't scream money, but creativity and I miss the days when clothes were art.

 

[LoveFashion25]

At this point, I just browse stores and buy whatever catches my attention. Branded, high street or not. But at the same time, I wanna get more and more Vivienne Westwood, go figure.

Fashion needs a revamp which doesn't scream money, but creativity and I miss the days when clothes were art.

Amen to that!!

 

[XavierRaphael]

I too think democratization is at least in part to blame, the driving force of which has been social media. Even 10-15 years ago, fashion was about the fantasy, exclusivity, aspiration, escapism. Nowadays, everyone is a model, designer, fashion "icon", influencer, etc. There are are no standards for anything. Instead of selling an image that the masses can aspire to, fashion keeps selling an image that the masses can relate to. That's why every magazine issue must have 20 different covers, every campaign must feature 50 models. Because you have to feature someone of every body shape, color, gender, and whatever else so nobody is feeling "left out".

Fashion has been pushed out of fashion in favor of politics. Instead of promoting fashion, they promote the latest hip social causes. People behind fashion are ashamed of fashion. They continue to dilute and erase it lest they be accused of "losing touch" or being "tone deaf". There are no independent ideas because everything that strays from the pre-approved script is either "cultural appropriation" or the "male gaze" or "colonialism legacy" or whatever other flavor of the month accusation. Women can't simply like beautiful gowns, that's sexist. And forget about sex appeal. How patriarchic. And that's why we get covers like the US Vogue February 2021.

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to want to include all shapes, colours, genders and whatever else, I think what's truly lacking in the industry is the lack of imagination. I agree that we've lost the fantasy and that sense of escapism. It seems like it's all just about accessibility, money, popularity and what trends to tap into. Instead the industry should be the ones creating the trends, not looking for trends that already exist to exploit. I also agree things have become so political but I find it interesting how it really wasn't that way when most of the industry was dominated by white execs, editors, models, designers blah blah. It's only become political now that it's become more diverse which is something we should really pay attention to I feel. However, I do miss the whimsy and sex appeal of the 90's. I miss when we had collections that SPOKE to us because the designer had a message they wanted to speak on, that was the only hint of politics back then, i'm thinking of collections like McQueens "Highland r*pe". Gone are the days when designers had a narrative, despite the controversy, I miss discussing collections on a deeper level.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Fashion is dead. As is almost every cultural industry - movies, music, art, architecture, etc.

Everything has been co-opted by a particular ideology. Everything now must conform. Everything now must adhere. There is absolutely no veering from the script now. Everyone must parrot the same talking points. Everything looks the same, everything feels the same, everything is the same...and we're gaslighted the entire time by being told enthusiastically how INDIVIDUALITY and UNIQUENESS and SELF EXPRESSION and PERSONAL IDENTITY is celebrated. It's insufferable. Anyone who believes that any of this is grassroots or genuine is beyond naive. These are mega-corporations and conglomerates. Anyone who thinks, at this point in time, that any big company - whether its Dior or Coca Cola - cares about YOU is deeply deceived. No matter the slogan on the t-shirt or on the commercial. The extent to which they care about you is simply how much money they can get from you. That's it. Period.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an anti-capitalist. But, I do believe in regulating it, to a certain degree.

But more than official, governmental regulations, per se, the deeper root of the problem, for me, is the indecency of most individuals now. Our society has devolved so much that it's no wonder capitalism in its current state is so rotten and so is our culture. No one has manners anymore. No one is modest anymore. No one is considerate anymore. Not one is polite anymore. No one is classy anymore. No one gives anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore. No one can set themselves aside anymore. No one respects standards anymore. All of that has been blown to pieces because it's "oppressive." Everyone is trashy now. Everyone is loud and rude and obnoxious and uncouth. Everyone vomits their personal problems as if it's interesting and brave to be "unfiltered." Everyone is filthy and sl*tty and vulgar. Everyone is cheap. And, again, we're gaslit that this is "progress" and "liberation."

You don't get a decent culture and society without decent people making up that society. This is a self regulating principle. We all get what we deserve.

I encounter this in my everyday life...people just suck now. Everything follows from there.

Call me a pessimist. I don't care. The truth is ugly sometimes.