You people are fucking delusional.

[ddohnggo]

which designer made socio-political statements in their collection?

[Guest Airjamie]

Id have to go back and read through superfashion. Although i was mainly commenting on the irresponsible combination of freassociation and simple, stupid, gullibility with which the majority of Raf Simons work is recieved.

[goldengloves]

This is absolutely wrong. I post just as much positive as i do negative. When people are talking out their ass, I'm going to shut them up, or atleast attempt to. I enjoy this forum as much as anyone, and the people on is surprisingly. My recent Tirades have simply been pointing out the bitch made backlash against another members style, not based on his style, but on his views of others. This is not sharing and taking knowledge, this is simply pussy hurt feelings coming to a head. If you want to bitch me out for my defense of jmatsu, do it in chat edition where you can avoid making such an ass of yourself.

As I said, I view it otherwise. No one on this forum rants as much as you, atleast that's my take.

I could care less about your defense of Jmatsu, in fact I never mentioned that. So looking like an ass is not something I am particularly worried about, but I appreciate the sentiment.

[Guest Airjamie]

As I said, I view it otherwise. No one on this forum rants as much as you, atleast that's my take.

I could care less about your defense of Jmatsu, in fact I never mentioned that. So looking like an ass is not something I am particularly worried about, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Go fight me in another thread, we were actually making some sort of progress here. That is, if you are actually concerned with the integrity of this forum.

[ddohnggo]

haha, i'm so confused where this thread is going now.

[keagan]

[goldengloves]

So what was the terms of this topic? I thought you were trying to some how spread the gospel of how people who enjoy designer fashion are completely "fucking delusional?"

I am not trying to fight anyone though, just simply stating my opinion as you are.

[Servo2000]

Id have to go back and read through superfashion. Although i was mainly commenting on the irresponsible combination of freassociation and simple, stupid, gullibility with which the majority of Raf Simons work is recieved.

Some people like their SUPREME, some people like their Raf. Me? I like my Raf, so I'm definitely willing to accept that I would be easily suckered into thinking that there's more to his work than their really is.

I've said it myself that I think the idea that he's creating clothing "For youth" is definitely damaged by the prices of his work. However, if you look at his past few seasons, it's not really quite as relevant since he's moved away from examining subculture and seems to just be making (what I consider) fairly unique futuristic clothing.

I think what I find more interesting these days about his work is looking at his inspirations and heroes and seeing how it translates into his collections, since I personally think that he's got a fascinating "take" on his references.

I may very well be contradicting something I've said before about Raf, but I don't think his work goes as deep as you seem to be implying we do. I'm personally still not convinced that fashion is even able to carry these sort of "big ideas" that I think you're talking about.

I guess I find it interesting that Raf is at least sort-of trying. I'd rather try to read socio-political implications in work to promote discussion, even if it ends with, "you're a fucking retard there's nothing there," than just assume that there's no merit along those lines to any of it.

[andewhall]

Please don't fight...I dig both you cats. Maybe you could go halfies in a Raf hoody and have a month about?

[Guest Airjamie]

Well put servo. Although i dont know if that last part was in any way an attempt at a slight towards me but i am not really concerned. The only part i think your off on is that this thread was not aimed to infer that "all superfuturians concept of fashion is delusional". I was simply trying to state that "those i the fashion industry make attempts to impart certain societal values into the job that they do where there clearly are none, or where said values are incorrect". This is not to say fashion and style have not inherent value, to the contrary they have an exceeding amount, however i think to assign a status of cultural revolutionary or prophet to designers as the fashion media is so fond of doing is ill concieved and irresponsible. Perhaps those people that start different fashion trends by adopting certain fit standards or clothing types, such as the punks, pachucos, or thugs in the 80s, are really the ones that are the revolutionaries, as their adaptation of style really is a statement and does have a great deal of cultural value attached.

[goldengloves]

I think any progression wanted by this thread was thoroughly negated by the witty thread title.

Myself, I enjoy the fact that some of these designers are saying something with thier clothing/designs/shows. It gives a story, a meaning if you will to the pieces we buy. Each designer out there is selling an image, like it or not. But who are you to tell someone they are idiotic for agreeing with the designer's viewpoint?

[Guest Airjamie]

I am me, and as such that is all the credibility I need. If you think theres validity inherent in my logic, then great. If you dont, then great aswell. However you seem to be really resistant to serious discussion because its ME who said it first. If you dislike me great, im genuinely thrilled with that, however if youre going to try and form an argument, try and come up with something a little less fallacious.

[Servo2000]

Well put servo. Although i dont know if that last part was in any way an attempt at a slight towards me but i am not really concerned. The only part i think your off on is that this thread was not aimed to infer that "all superfuturians concept of fashion is delusional". I was simply trying to state that "those i the fashion industry make attempts to impart certain societal values into the job that they do where there clearly are none, or where said values are incorrect". This is not to say fashion and style have not inherent value, to the contrary they have an exceeding amount, however i think to assign a status of cultural revolutionary or prophet to designers as the fashion media is so fond of doing is ill concieved and irresponsible. Perhaps those people that start different fashion trends by adopting certain fit standards or clothing types, such as the punks, pachucos, or thugs in the 80s, are really the ones that are the revolutionaries, as their adaptation of style really is a statement and does have a great deal of cultural value attached.

No, the last part was actually a slight on me. I don't really want to argue since you're definitely cool with me, but I think this is an interesting discussion.

I think that you've certainly got a point (in bold there). But wouldn't you agree that, to a certain extent, fashion designers of the time may have affected these movements construction of their identities? If they didn't necessarily then, I still believe that they might be able to now. While they may not be buying Raf Simons, per say, they might still "buy" his imagery and proportions by adopting his unsual silhouettes for instance.

It seems to me that those movements were largely an attempt to seperate themselves from the norm, so perhaps you could even examine what parts of fashion they were trying to reject. Not all effects are positive, obviously. It just seems to me that fashion, while definitely not as influential as, say, "music" upon most movements, may and probably did still have some effect.

Does that make it important? I'm not sure.

[goldengloves]

It's not that I dislike you or think your view point is invalid, it's that I don't take this discussion or your first post seriously.

If a serious, intelligent conversation is what you were looking for, then why not put this in Superfashion and disregard the "fuck this, that," "you're all delusional for buying into Raf Simons when you know all you want is to look cool," etc.

[Guest Airjamie]

No, the last part was actually a slight on me. I don't really want to argue since you're definitely cool with me, but I think this is an interesting discussion.

I think that you've certainly got a point (in bold there). But wouldn't you agree that, to a certain extent, fashion designers of the time may have affected these movements construction of their identities? If they didn't necessarily then, I still believe that they might be able to now. While they may not be buying Raf Simons, per say, they might still "buy" his imagery and proportions by adopting his unsual silhouettes for instance.

It seems to me that those movements were largely an attempt to seperate themselves from the norm, so perhaps you could even examine what parts of fashion they were trying to reject. Not all effects are positive, obviously. It just seems to me that fashion, while definitely not as influential as, say, "music" upon most movements, may and probably did still have some effect.

Does that make it important? I'm not sure.

That very well may be, however In my eyes the designers usually came along post-identification. For instance, with punk the seditionaries brand came along far after the identity and ethos had been established, they most certainly did not invent the leather jacket or tight pants? This pattern can be seen in most ever cultural movement of the like. The designers, usually from and of that scene, start brands in an attempt to provide scene-specific uniform (for us by us?) however eventually they are seen to define said scene. My argument is that these designers, as important and helpful as they may be, tend to deny or elevate their function. The designers provide slates upon which others impart their own statements and their own values, as such the notion that any particular designer or collection speaks any indicidual message is (in my eyes) ludicrous and counterproductive. Much in the same way that a guitar has a function: to make music. However, the music that is made with it is, in the end, the message, but we do not say fender is responsible for nirvana, or that they intended rape me when they designed the mustang.

[Guest Airjamie]

It's not that I dislike you or think your view point is invalid, it's that I don't take this discussion or your first post seriously.

If a serious, intelligent conversation is what you were looking for, then why not put this in Superfashion and disregard the "fuck this, that," "you're all delusional for buying into Raf Simons when you know all you want is to look cool," etc.

Because intelligent people also say fuck. If all you see is the bad words in my posts then perhaps you need to brush up on your reading skills? Or perhaps the bad words themselves get to you? Do you not like the word fuck?

[goldengloves]

Obviously your view of an intelligent conversation differs from mine. But when having a conversation with some importance with someone, yes, I would refrain from the word 'fuck.'

This, however, wasn't my only reason for not seeing the need for an intellectual conversation with your initial post.

[Servo2000]

That very well may be, however In my eyes the designers usually came along post-identification. For instance, with punk the seditionaries brand came along far after the identity and ethos had been established, they most certainly did not invent the leather jacket or tight pants? This pattern can be seen in most ever cultural movement of the like. The designers, usually from and of that scene, start brands in an attempt to provide scene-specific uniform (for us by us?) however eventually they are seen to define said scene. My argument is that these designers, as important and helpful as they may be, tend to deny or elevate their function. The designers provide slates upon which others impart their own statements and their own values, as such the notion that any particular designer or collection speaks any indicidual message is (in my eyes) ludicrous and counterproductive. Much in the same way that a guitar has a function: to make music. However, the music that is made with it is, in the end, the message, but we do not say fender is responsible for nirvana, or that they intended rape me when they designed the mustang.

Definitely agree on the first point (designers coming afterwards), I was simply playing devils advocate that fashion, as culture, may have played into that original creation in some role.

I think that your quote in bold is interesting, but I don't know that I agree with it, or perhaps I am simply misunderstanding. I'll have to consider.

I think one argument against it is if you consider the runway seperate from the pieces released on the street. I tend to approach a designers show as if it were in a vacuum at first. When presented, I think that a Watanabe or a Simons or a CdG show say a lot about the designers and the clothes presented say a lot about their views and that the clothes, as a consequence, must have some sort of individual message, but only in the context of the presentation, perhaps? Still thinking about it.

However, I would agree that once you examine it in the context of clothing for wear, that fashion is chosen by the wearer because it appeals or expresses their sensibilities rather than solely the designers. Whether someone wears Yohji skin-tight or as he "presented" it, either way, I agree that what they are doing is saying something about themselves with their constructions. The guitar analogy is perfect.

edit: so I guess my question is, "do you see any message in their work when you examine it without the pricing, without the stores, without the wearing on the street? Examining it solely as design and presentation?

I know that to a certain extent that's impossible and perhaps even ignorant, but I'm all about playing around with different ways of looking at fashion.

[Guest Airjamie]

edit: so I guess my question is, "do you see any message in their work when you examine it without the pricing, without the stores, without the wearing on the street? Examining it solely as design and presentation?

I know that to a certain extent that's impossible and perhaps even ignorant, but I'm all about playing around with different ways of looking at fashion.

Over all, i dont really know, i suppose youre talking about runway shows? If that then yes some margin of the designers personality is present and displayed and they may even theme it but no id have to say i do not see a message in runway shows. This extends to what actually makes it to retail aswell, perhaps i am not suspending my disbelief, but i do not think that the way a garment is constructed can send a message independent of the person who will wear it. I agree that presentation is very important to the meaning a piece will eventually take on, however this presentation aspect is, in my mind, never acchieved until it is worn by its final owner. Clothing is way to personal in my eyes to be evaluated in terms of a runway show. I suppose what im trying to say is that, for something to actually have a message, have some symbolism, it must be public, it must be interacted with, only then can it take on any societal worth. To me a hoodie or a jacket is way too personal unless the style of it becomes so universal that it can be adopted by many, such as the biker jacket.

[Servo2000]

Clothing is way to personal in my eyes to be evaluated in terms of a runway show. I suppose what im trying to say is that, for something to actually have a message, have some symbolism, it must be public, it must be interacted with, only then can it take on any societal worth. To me a hoodie or a jacket is way too personal unless the style of it becomes so universal that it can be adopted by many, such as the biker jacket.

We appear to have a dichotomy of opinion on the first point (I think clothing can be impersonal and still relevant) which I don't think can be reconciled through discussion. I definitely see where you're coming from, though, and it's a consideration I very much am still coming to terms with. My opinions are by no means set in stone.

Now, for the latter part, you mention that something must be "universal." Personally, I would prefer to wear items that only appeal to a select few who "get it," rather than appeal to a "universality." So, in my view, if my 'peers' gets it, then I would consider that the garment has suceeded in expressing a message that would not have been possible without the designers input. Indeed, I would argue that the designers input might even be affecting others perceptions in ways I don't even understand or notice, so one could unconciously perpetuate their "meanings" or what have you.

Does the scale of interaction: universal vs. a smaller level, effect the ability of a piece of clothing to express something?

I would argue no, but that's just my view. This is an issue where I think comprehensive arguments could be made for both sides, so I'm mostly just trying to understand where your argument is coming from at this point.

[englandmj7]

At this very moment I am furiously stroking my genitals. What say you to THAT??!?!?

.............where is your fucking God now.

[Servo2000]

I say I'm fucking going to bed. I doubt any of my posts were even remotely coherent and Airjamie's just been humouring me since I'm sort of high-fashion obsessed retard.

He's a good guy, that Airjamie. Makes me feel better while I'm making an ass of myself by making legitimate responses.

[Guest Airjamie]

At this very moment I am furiously stroking my genitals. What say you to THAT??!?!?

.............where is your fucking God now.

This is the england i missed.

[Guest Airjamie]

I say I'm fucking going to bed. I doubt any of my posts were even remotely coherent and Airjamie's just been humouring me since I'm sort of high-fashion obsessed retard.

He's a good guy, that Airjamie. Makes me feel better while I'm making an ass of myself by making legitimate responses.

Dude you didnt make an ass out of yourself at all, I enjoyed the conv. Lets fuck.

[Servo2000]

Dude you didnt make an ass out of yourself at all, I enjoyed the conv. Lets fuck.

My place or yours?

[Tiranis]

Ahhh, a classic supertrash ending. A+ for the thread. I won't bother posting more, since I'm pretty much behind servo on all he's said.

I don't have illusions (ala stylezeitgeist, at times) about high-fashion, but I'm still obsessed with it...

[NESK]

servo: if there is a discussion worht ahving here, i think your approaching it from the wrong angle. your taking the side of the consumer (and thats understandable because you buy clothes). But i dont think AJ is talking about buying clothes, hes talking about absorbing the message that comes with the clothes, which is a matter of cultural production.

to think that high fashion could have a link to social issues is very contrived. the excess that someone like raf simmons represents negates any social commentary the clothes might attempt to make because they are out of reach to the people they claim to represent. this means hes appropriating the aesthetics of a group for a richer market, and although there may be claims of authenticity, they are obviously false if the people he appropriates from cannot affrd to wear the culture theyve had hijacked from them.

im speculating here because i know very little about raf, but in AJs post, he used supreme as a comparison. and supreme is definately guilty of the things i just said. i would say most high end skate lines or streetwear companies are guilty of this. its absurd to claim street authenticity if street people cant afford your shit. putting raekwon on a t shirt doesnt make you hood. haivng people on welfare wear your stuff does. but that would kill the appeal of super limited whateverness that supreme has and then suburban thugs who got into skating through the x games wouldnt spend three months allowance on a mike tyson shirt.

ive never had to encounter this type of shit with designer fashion cause i think designer fashion is rediculous. but streetwear is definately guilty of it and its gotten to teh point where kids are wearing 'never not working' shirts while simultaneously talking about not living in cetain neighborhoods because theres to many crackheads. or kids wearing brass knucle imagery who wont fight because they dont want to get blood on their expensive t shirt.

this scenario creates a huge gap between the culture that is approriated and the people who actually live inside that culture. kids are paying good money to feel like they apart of somethign real but that money is what keeps them outside. and any commentary made form that distance is simply NOT VALID.

and AJs right to tell people that they are delusional for trying to look cool. i think at least. why even pretend your making a sociopolitcal statemnt if its costs that much. it betrays any effect you mgith have because youve paid top dollar for an expression that should be free. poor youth dont have to pay to express themselves. they find ways to subvert the system and be heard. rich youth then take those codes and turn them into expensiv product that gives them some removed association with someone elses struggle. thats cheesy.

[sybaritical]

I missed this and I don't have time to backtrack.

High fashion can be accessible and more importantly, socially valid. It just depends on the motives and morality of whoever designed it. I'm thinking of Lucy Orta, Vexed Generation or to a lesser extent people like Kosuke Tsumura who produces Final Home. Independent creative designers who are working functionally and artistically to fulfil their creative potential rather than produce a lucrative collection.

[alterion]

wow shit you just worked this out- I thought this was bleedingly obvious????

[Analog]

"those i the fashion industry make attempts to impart certain societal values into the job that they do where there clearly are none, or where said values are incorrect".

Who in the fashion industry?

What are these societal values they're trying to impart?

In what ways are these values incorrect?

Over all, i dont really know, i suppose youre talking about runway shows? If that then yes some margin of the designers personality is present and displayed and they may even theme it but no id have to say i do not see a message in runway shows. This extends to what actually makes it to retail aswell, perhaps i am not suspending my disbelief, but i do not think that the way a garment is constructed can send a message independent of the person who will wear it. I agree that presentation is very important to the meaning a piece will eventually take on, however this presentation aspect is, in my mind, never acchieved until it is worn by its final owner. Clothing is way to personal in my eyes to be evaluated in terms of a runway show. I suppose what im trying to say is that, for something to actually have a message, have some symbolism, it must be public, it must be interacted with, only then can it take on any societal worth. To me a hoodie or a jacket is way too personal unless the style of it becomes so universal that it can be adopted by many, such as the biker jacket.

Your view seems to be that clothing is an empty vessel, devoid of consequence, free of all signifiers.

In the case of Fashion design, the clothing is the message. It is an artifact -- an object -- in and of itself, and can be judged/critiqued/evaluated as such. Its meaning comes before the wearer places his/her imprint upon it, and its conception was in turn preceded by meaning.

Also, the individual begins to impart his/her own meaning(s) upon the artifact even before coming into direct physical contact with it.