I see that there’s been yet another Paris fashion show, with very skinny models and outlandish, impractical costumes. What’s the point of these shows? I’ve never seen anything that’s actually wearable in public displayed at one of them, so what’s their purpose? Why are designers spending so much time and money on them?
The point of fashion shows is to introduce the next season’s new collections. The clothes being modeled are sometimes embellished to make statements or to be seen as art, not necessarily to be worn like that. It’s not everyone’s piece of cake, but there are whole industries that revolve around high fashion, and I’m sure there always will be. Meh- to each their own.
Fashion shows are poetry. What people actually end up wearing is the prose version.
They’re the equivalent of concept cars.
Some seem crazy in their own right, some of them only seem crazy with the make up and hair (horns?) but would be OK toned down, and these seem fine on their to me, YMMV
http://imgs.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2010/07/05/lifestyle/l154810D63.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F07%2F06%2Fba-France_Fashio_0501933177.jpg
When you see the high-end catwalk shows on the news, you are not seeing clothes that anyone seriously thinks millions of women will buy on the high street.
You are seeing designers saying (a) look at me, I have great, creative ideas about clothing, and (b) I have great practical skill in designing and actually creating these pieces of clothing, and © my collection embodies a number of key themes, to do with style and palette and so on, that I think should and could enjoy a lot of popularity over the forthcoming season, when translated into what women actually buy on the high street.
Just as a chef can’t really show you how good he is by cooking an omelette, a designer can’t really show what he or she is capable of by creating something rather simple and ordinary. He or she wants a chance to show that they can design or work with new fabrics; devise and pull off new techniques for cutting or stitching or putting fabrics together; come up with new ideas to do with colour, palette, pattern, style or cut; think of interesting combinations that offer a new ‘look’; catch something of the zeitgeist and understand what the mass market wants or will want over the next season or two.
It is understood by all concerned that these ideas and themes will eventually need to be simplified and translated into items that can be mass-produced, at a reasonable price, for the high street.
The buyers who work for the big retail chains have to make important, difficult and very expensive decisions about which orders they place, with whom, and for what. If they get it right, they stock their stores with items that prove popular, and they can make a lot of money. If they get it wrong, they are left with tons of unsold stock nobody wants. These fashion shows are one way for designers to get noticed and to say, ‘I know what people (mainly women) will want and I can deliver goods that will sell this season’.
You seem to be something of an apologist for the industry.
It’s not news to any of us that a lot of industries run on bullshit and probably couldn’t sell ice in hell without it, but why defend it as so natural and appropriate?
A fashion show is like a NASCAR race. The stuff that models wear is related to real clothes in the way a NASCAR is related to regular car. If you hate fashion shows, you hate NASCAR. And if you hate NASCAR, you hate America. Why do you hate America?
The fashion industry pretends it is about art but I don’t believe a word of it. There wouldn’t be much margin in selling finely tailored clothes. There is massive margin in selling a bag or t-shirt that is not really much different to a plain bag or t-shirt but which can be sold for triple the price because it has a recognisable name on it.
Those names become recognisable because of publicity, and the publicity is gained by putting on a flamboyant show that will be televised as “news”.
And (d) I am a colourblind gay man with more money than sense.
I’ve heard (but can’t find a cite) that many of the fashion houses actually make the bulk of their money on perfumes - which unlike the clothes are mass-produced and priced at the average consumer. The high-end fashion shows are basically elaborate exercises in brand-building - if you can convince the consumer that Brand X is what the rich/stylish/beautiful/hip/whatever people wear, Brand X will fly off the shelves while Brand Y sits there.
As Tapioca Dextrin says, it’s very like car companies putting money into high-profile motorsports that have minimal direct connection to what comes off the assembly line.
Yeah, minus the Infinity Gauntlet, those seem like wearable outfits.
Looked like an explanation to me, not an apology, and your attack is pretty much out of nowhere. If it so terrible, why not start a pit thread?
There is a scene in The Devil Wears Prada, in which Anne Hathaway’s character, taking notes at an informal meeting to look at new collections, expresses disbelief that anyone really cares about “this stuff” (i.e., fashion). Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly has a great comeback for that:
The pieces you see on the runway are not the pieces that are going to end up on the racks. But the elements that make up the runway pieces will eventually make their way down to the retail level. Nobody expects women to start running around in lizardskin sheaths with appliqued rhino horns. But you can bet that (faux) lizardskin will start showing up in belts and boots and bags and those appliqued rhino horns will become retail rack motifs for a while at least.
Actually it’s not that great of a comeback unless you are as caught up in fashion as Priestly is. She is so caught up in her world that she confuses her control over fashion with whether her control, and indeed fashion itself, is important. I find it sort of comical that she fails to see that if de la Renta and herself had chosen lapis instead of cerulean, then people would have worn lapis instead of cerulean, but this matters not a whit. Priestly’s comeback is a non sequitur. She thinks she’s important and that what she does is important because she has unimportant influence over something shallow and unimportant.
Sure but this doesn’t answer the OP. It may be that things on the catwalk influence what people wear, but this isn’t why catwalk shows are what they are.
Lizardskin sheaths with appliqued rhino horns aside, did anyone else click the link and totally miss the outfit because of the THREE LEGGED GIRL SITTING RIGHT THERE! :eek:
IMHO, catwalk shows are what they are because some people think fashion is important and others realize that there’s money to be made. And those groups aren’t mutually exclusive.
Haute couture fashion design is not for making clothes that any significant number of people will ever wear. It’s a world unto itself. You can start by looking at the body forms that fashion designers use to sketch their concepts. They’re long, stretched out approximations of the human body – the actual human body is not even part of the consideration from the beginning.
[moderating]
This isn’t really a GQ-kinda thread (and there are definitely some non-GQ responses), so I’m moving the thread over to Cafe Society.
[/moderating]
I don’t see her. Where is she in the photo?
And I swear to GOD (although no one is going to believe me) that I hadn’t followed the link in the OP yet when I posted the “lizardskin sheath with appliqued rhino horns” thing, so hadn’t seen that outfit before I, apparently, described it. Honest!