I have in the past been chastised by readers for using the fashion subsection of TYWKIWDBI to make fun of modern trends in designer clothing, revealing my apparently unimaginative "retro" frame of mind. To keep myself and readers here up-to-date on style, I will continue to post selected images, but rather than offer any personal commentary, I'll just let the ipsa loquitur for the res. Via.
But I can't help pointing out that none of the viewers along the catwalk are smiling at this design. They are taking it all quite seriously. Perhaps the model has just arrived after attending a hockey game.
That model looks like a hockey player. I don't see the point of that outfit nobody would buy. It's just to generate buzz I guess, get the name on peoples lips.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the attendance was at that teddy toss game?
xoxoxoBruce
High fashion is the vanity of pompous men intersecting with the gullibility of insecure people. At least some of the time.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same principle that chefs use. That is, they make some crazy dish (goat eyeball boiled in Fiji water with Himalayan salt and organic herbs, along with coriander, etc.). That is, the weirder it is, the better other chefs think of it.
Why Because to some extent it is empty creativity that few would tend to want to mimic.
Yes, wearable art and edible art. And art is always a bit hit-and-miss
ReplyDeleteI say 'wearable art', but clearly at the extremes it's only just wearable. I wonder how much of this stuff is only ever worn by the model displaying it. Imagine the hilarity of an ordinary guy or gal (or even someone just conventionally attractive like an actor or actress) wearing this stuff anywhere other than a catwalk :-)
ReplyDeletei mean, it would be fulfilling its purpose if a creation made for the runway was only ever worn there. after all, these shows aren’t exact equivalents of the sort of advertisement material you get for a mass-market boutique’s upcoming seasonal garments. they are merely analogues.
Deletethe h&m leaflet will have to show you the exact garments you will be able to buy off the rack next month. the fashion show exists to sell the vibe of what the most highly exclusive fashion houses will sell, on a one-to-one, custom-fitted basis, to prospective customers in the coming season.
that is, the potential buyers are more interested in riding ahead of the trends that will eventually seep down into mass market fashion, and more able to pay for it, than us average folks. speaking to that audience, in that context, in a way that is less literal, more exaggerated, isn’t exactly nonsensical. even though it makes for a very curious spectacle.
Fashion is all about selling people things they don't need by making them feel bad about themselves.
ReplyDeleteThese absurd creations are not about clothing. It's designers showing off their chops to other designers.
ReplyDeleteI've thought of an interesting overlap with a drastically different industry - concept cars. They're often nonsense too, but a different type of nonsense. And again I think everyone knows there's a lot of malarkey going on, but there's an unwritten rule that no-one ever admits it.
ReplyDeleteAwaiting a response from Just A Car Guy...
DeleteThe major car makers have tons of designers looking at different pieces. Some do overall body shape and some do door handles or taillights. When they put together concept cars for the show circuit each year, they use the recent interesting designs. These cars are very rarely put into production, half don’t even have engines. But you will see in subsequent years many of the bits like the door handles or taillights from those cars appear on production cars. Most every bumper, grille, or steering wheel you see has been at least approximated on a concept car.
DeletexoxoxoBruce
Actually the model either looks constipated or like he's mad they made him run through a doll parts factory with a sticky coat on, take your pic.
ReplyDeleteThere's a long line of "teddy bear coats" that this is nodding toward (including an awesome one used in the movie 'Prêt à Porter,' which itself was probably referencing one made by Jean-Charles de Castelbajac in the 1980s). The ipsa loquitur is great! But the res is still clear here. It's fine to dislike things, but it's weird to dislike them while pretending not to dislike them. I think it's *hilarious* when designers pair funny designs with dead serious framing. I feel like it's inviting eye-rolls from people uninterested in the work, which is maybe self-evident in how much of the popularizing force of trends has been driven by one group macking what another group thinks is stylish. As a tee and jeans dude through and through, still really enjoy how reliably this kind of thing irritates people enough to express their irritation!
ReplyDeleteThere's a fine teddy bear hoodie in Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Deletehttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/EEAAO_07902-EMBED-2022.jpg?w=1000
I will wear that as I slip into my Lamborghini to roar into the sunset.
ReplyDeleteThat outfit has little bear-ing on fashion.
ReplyDeleteAnd any darker and it would be panda-ing to the ridiculous, truly bamboozling.
ReplyDelete... and he looks like a Teddy Boy from the British 60s.
ReplyDeleteNot cool. Polar bear cub clubbing, especially hundreds, for one coat? All for a rag to wear clubbing? Time to arm bears.
ReplyDeleteHe looks very unhappy considering how many stuffies he has! My kids would be beaming ear-to-ear in that outfit, lol. They basically do the same thing every time we go to IKEA.
ReplyDeleteHigh fashion brands buy (and then sell, as a product) attention. It's quite valuable. Call it a form of cultural currency. So, not res ipsa loquitor. Res clamat, in fact, and in more ways than one. I mean, you posted this photo for a reason. It's arresting. It is interesting in some way to you.
ReplyDeletehad to look it up...
DeleteMaxims. (1) "Res clamat domino." The right of the owner follows the thing wherever it may go. By common law he may recover his property even from a bona-fide purchaser wherever it may be found (Blackst.)
I'm not sure if mehughes124 specifically meant that usage. Rather, I think they went for a play on loquitur (= speaks) by replacing it with clamat (= shouts).
DeleteYou're probably right. My Latin classes were almost 60 years ago, so I'm a bit rusty. Mea culpa.
DeleteHa, yes, it was a bad play on loquitor.
ReplyDelete