Jump to content

Deep Philosophical Repro Conundrum


jubei

Recommended Posts

A lot of repro defenders on the board have said that although repros can be seen as "counterfeits", repros are more like romantic, nostalgic reproductions of the original jeans. Companies like Sugarcane make jeans that, some argue, are "more authentic" than Levi's own reproductions.

A friend sent this to me and I immediately thought of repros.

http://kk.org/ct2/2007/12/original-hyper-fake-reproducti.php

What would be the difference between owning one of these paintings and owning a pair of repros, I wonder? Share your thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems to me that there's something very different here. Levi's, as they were (not as they are), no longer exist in that state. NOS jeans are basically gone, and the ones that can be found also suffer from degradation. Old art has, of course, degraded a little, but is largely extant and viewable at museums.

More importantly, though, repros are very much doing Levi's how they Levi's "Should" have been, using the highest quality of everything to make the perfect jean of that type. They are, perhaps, more levi's than levi's. A hand-painted replica of a painting viewable at a museum or as a poster is interesting, different certainly, but certainly not more Van Gogh than Van Gogh or anything like that.

Of course, this may be only in my head, but while I'm totally unbothered by the villages, it doesn't seem like they're attaining some higher standard than the original masters in the way it seems the japanese repros are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think japanese repros wouldnt be counted as "counterfeit" because it's not like they're making their denim under the levis name. they try to make the same quality as it was back when denim was first invented. if you think bout it, there could have been more denim brand back in the late 1800s if people wanted to start one. so what difference would it make to have repros? it's just the samething except 100years later lol. catch my drift?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting conundrum. My initial reaction when reading this a few hours ago is that these paintings are borderline wrong- depending on if they are marketed as reproductions of the originals or 'reinterpretations' inspired by the original artist- while the jeans comanies such as Sugar Cane and Samurai (among many others) make are totally right.

After thinking about it I realize my feelings come from how I view the ultimate goal/ideal the painters and denim companies are pursuing. I interpret work by many Japanese denim companies not merley as attempting to recreate the exact pair of Levi's, but to create a product sharing the same final goal as Levi's did in 19XX. Sugar Cane and Levi's both want ultimate quailty and durability.

The painters however, are not setting their goals as high I feel. I interpret Van Gough or whomever as attempting to create in this physical world some higher order feeling or concept he experienced whereas these painters are setting their goal one step lower on Van Gough's physical manifestation of his emotions. Almost like a photocopy of a photocopy or something.

This all comes from my feelings about good intention and how I interpret the actions of these individual's and companies so I am likely making some incorrect assumptions. Regardless, I buy Flat Head before LVC and museum store posters before hand painted 'recreations.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liken it to kit cars.

some people hate them and feel only authentic parts will suffice as they feel the magic comes from everything being original.

while others rebuild "counterfeit" classics tweaking them to their taste, using technology, and making, in their opinion, a better car as an homage to the original. Also it allows for a more "usable" item to enjoy...would you wear some classic stf's you won on ebay or found in a yardsale?

If the repros are couterfeit, then so is any other pair of jeans, or for that matter any other item of clothing that a designer didn't invent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of people are influenced by the legal definitions of what is a counterfeit and what isn't. For example, in fashion: a person can deconstruct a garment, copy the pattern, mass produce it and sell it without being called a "counterfeit". But the second he slaps on some sort of branding on there, it is.

Now, that's sort of an oversimplification, especially since the fabric and construction figures just as much as the pattern does into a garment's uniqueness.

What makes it "okay" to own a print or a poster of a painting and not a reproduction that A) you know is not an original and B) is not being marketed as an original?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe that the authentic vs. repro's discussion is really just "imitation being the sincerest form of flattery." i would like to think they aren't doing this for the money but the love of american history and jeans. counterfeit is usually regarded with greed. repro's to me is totally different from counterfeit. so selling fake art is basically for the money. jeans, totally different. and there is my three cents.

edit.

owning a fake is up to the person whether they care about authenticity or just the design, because with jeans u might as well buy thai fakes and not spend the bills for japanese denim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while there is an "original" Starry Night by Van Gogh, the term doesn't quite apply to a mass-produced product like a pair of Levi's. what is THE original pair of levi's?

Indeed. If there was a such a pair, the singular "original" pair of Levis, then every other pair of Levis would be a counterfeit in the same manner as reproductions are.

Many would say that there is a radical difference between a piece of mass produced (in relative terms, this includes even the most limited runs) clothing and a piece of original art. What is more similar to those paintings are the attempts to pre-distress jeans to match a "holy grail" pair. While they might end up looking almost identical, the artificially distressed jeans aren't the same as the worn pair for a lot of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no conundrums to be found here, just a lot of sloppy thinking--as we can see if we define some terms more precisely.

counterfeit: an item made relatively cheaply and sold as an expensive original, designed to make a profit. (e.g. some thai fakes, fake paintings that claim to be genuine)

knock-off: a cheap item sold cheaply, but designed to fool others into thinking it's real. (e.g. fake rolex, some thai fakes)

replica: a (relatively) cheap item sold (relatively) cheaply, and known by all to be an imitation. designed to allow more people to own a copy of a rare or unobtainable item, e.g. fake paintings, posters, canvas transfers, Levi's Nevada 1880s)

repro jeans: an expensive high quality item sold expensively. known by all to be an imitation or 'homage' yet surpassing the quality of the original in many respects (which is the key point, imo). designed to recapture a bygone era that the original manufacturer has forgotten, ignored or otherwise lost.

which one of these you buy into is up to you, but none of them are equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel strongly that when the original company makes the vintage jeans, they can certainly be considered reissues.

In the case of Levi's, Wrangler and Lee, it seems clear that their vintage line is truly a reissue, as they were the original company manufacturing them in the first place. Reissues are when a said company decides to release a particular item once again.

Reproductions are just that; a copy, usually made by an entity other than the originator.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone saying thyere is nothing wrong with Japanese brands trying to make their jeans look and feel like old levis using modern methods.

I don't find it similar to copying paintings at all.

However, I DO think that japanese brands often cross a line in terms of details and branding. It really is pretty silly that all of them have to have logos and tags that are virtually identical to Levi's. Why do you have to have a levi's tag but with one letter changed or the levi's pocket stiching with some minor change? It may not be counterfitting, but it is definitly lame.

It would be one thing if one company was doing it, but when you have like a half-dozen all doing it... meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while there is an "original" Starry Night by Van Gogh, the term doesn't quite apply to a mass-produced product like a pair of Levi's. what is THE original pair of levi's?

Well, fashon is not art. And if you wanted it to be like art, you'd probably have to compare it to books, not paintings.

What is the "original" Pale Fire? Surely Nabokov had thousands of copies printed in the first run, none is more "original" than another. But the work as a whole is the original and another book that ripped too much of its style, ideas and form off would be a rip-off.

For jeans, the original design concept for the Levi's is the "original" thing, not any individual pair of physical jeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...