Actually, Priestly’s real-life counterpart has a great deal of (important) influence in a multi-billion dollar industry. What have you done lately other than confuse your disdain for the fashion industry for a meaningful opinion on how the world works?
Just click the OP’s link (it goes directly to one of several photos) and give a quick glance to the lower right. Not a penetrating, find the hidden item from *Highlight’s *stare, just a nonchalant ho-hum, la la hey-WTF?
Ha! That’s hilarious. Of course, that’s just an artifact of the framing.
As Princhester notes, most of these answers are only explaining *how *the process works, not why.
If the point is that buyers are making difficult, expensive decisions trying to identify trends that can then be translated into successful boutique and (later) mass-market fashions, then the question becomes: why don’t these buyers demand to reduce the expense and uncertainty of the process by having shows of the clothing they are actually likely to be selling to the public, rather than just the concepts? And indeed, I would guess that a lot of clothing is bought this way, without having been inspired by a conceptual runway show to begin with.
This doesn’t mean that the high end of the fashion industry isn’t important or influential, though, it just means that the runway shows and concepts are art for art’s sake in many ways. Fine art is likewise a big business, and its influences similarly filter down to ordinary home design. Priestley’s retort does miss the mark in some respects. The money would still be spent, and the jobs would still be there, whether the choice was cerulean or lapis, and most of the process she describes, ending up in Casual Corner, would still be there whether de la Renta and Saint Laurent had held runway shows or not. The point is more simple: art is its own purpose.
Yeah, and like much fashion you can’t look too close or else the illusion is lost.
Not meaning to take this too far into debate territory, I’ll say this concern over what’s “shallow and unimportant” seems a little misplaced. I think most people have at least a few interests that are similarly “shallow and unimportant.” Every industry involves marketing of this sort, that’s really nothing new. The entire history of art, of which fashion is certainly one component, involves more challenging/avant-garde/ambitious concepts filtering down into other aspects of mass culture. In that sense, there’s nothing “shallow” or “unimportant” about it, especially given that fashion can be a key to enhancing people’s self-image and self-esteem.
Haute couture, as it exists now, is a publicity/marketing and branding tool.
It’s not so terrible. It’s just not worthy of so much reverence just because it’s a place where money and creativity come together. And I do feel ianzin was speaking with reverence.
That’s true. Being so unquestioning about something that really does make a lot of us go “WTF?” really is a kind of reverence, and as I said, I don’t feel it’s warranted.
Thank you.
Fashion is a multi-billion dollar industry that millions of people worldwide are interested in. Just because you, personally, do not care for it does not make it shallow or stupid.*
- Or at least, it’s not any more shallow and stupid than, say, being really interested in cars, sports, etc.
Guys, this is the message board where a majority of the members are likely- at this very moment- wearing a Three Wolf Moon or Firefly shirt and thinking they look good.
Just like I don’t “get” modern art that is just a bunch of splatters, a line, or a soup can- you don’t get this. It’s ok. But like zweisamkeit said, just because you don’t "get’ it, doesn’t make it instantly bad.
Personally? I think that picture in the OP has some really cool elements that I can’t wait to see in “regular” clothes- the color is neat, the textures, the mixing of different elements, the natural influence. It’s all cool stuff that I will be purchasing once it hits my local Forever 21 for $12 
A-fucking-men. And the reviews for the wolf shirt are hysterical.
aaaah, the Wookie defense!
I was never that much of a fan of the show (else I could search for a clip), but I think there was a pretty funny exchange between Ross and Rachel on Friends. She said something something fashion important something and he said something something no one pays fifty million dollars to make a movie about a giant dress. Or something.
Yeah, maybe I should just ask if anyone knows what I’m talking about and can help find a link.
Not denying that her character’s actions affect huge numbers of jobs, but my opinion is the same as Princhester’s. That comeback has always annoyed me. To the person getting their clothes out of the bargain bin at Marshall’s it makes not one bit of difference what was sold on the runway – there are only so many colors, and the fact that cerulean made a bigger splash than, say, azure this year certainly affected whether the clothing picked out was one shade or the other, but probably didn’t noticeably affect whether they bought it. So Priestley’s point – that her decisions shape what the lowly plebes wear – might have some basis, but is actually pretty meaningless since the wearer doesn’t really care. If it had been azure they’d probably still have bought it, if it fit. But they might have as easily bought a maroon one that was colored that way for a reason unconnected to last year’s fashion show.
I was recently reading the Economic Naturalist and it asked the question about why economics papers are rife with mathematical symbolism and professional papers in the Humanities are so filled with rather obfuscated text. It goes on to explain that there is a sort of arms race to get noticed (and get tenure), so each subsequent paper has to seem more “smart” than previous papers (or at least professors, on average, feel pressure to do so). So it is with horns in the animal kingdom. The animals with the biggest horns can win more battles and get more females and reproduce more (there is also a counter influence - bigger horns make it harder to get away from predators so this “arms race” is self-limiting).
Actually, I think that’s her point. It doesn’t matter if the lowly plebe cares or not - the garment that they are wearing right now is on their body because of decisions made by the fashion industry. A multi-billion dollar industry that supplies an awful lot of jobs to an awful lot of people.
It’s very easy to dismiss fashion as being shallow, vain and unimportant until you remember a) it helps drive the economy, b) many people actually kind of dig it and spend $$ - also driving the economy and c) no one in the fashion industry has received a bail-out of any kind and more money is spent on fashion in the US than cars by a factor of 10 (once you include all of the spin off items such as fragrance, make up ($8 billion/year on just this one), etc.
Also, you must know that even the most outrageous of the outfits in a fashion show will wind up being worn by SOMEONE to some event where she will no doubt look absurd, but still be thrilled to bits with her item.
Not at all. Her point is that the color Hathaway wears was made because some designed chose to use it in the past. If de la Renta had chosen lapis, then Hathaway would have been wearing lapis. But it was de la Renta’s choice that led to the garment being made in that color and available for Hathaway to buy. And if de la Renta had chosen a color that people didn’t like and weren’t willing to buy, then thousands of pieces of clothing would have been made for a nonexistent market.
It’s not a monumental decision, of course, but the choices of high end fashion do trickle down to everything. And that’s important because if clothes manufacturer’s make choices that don’t click with the public, then they lose money and, as Priestly points out, people’s jobs are at stake.
I’ve never been a fashion buff, and think it’s all arbitrary and pointless, but Priestly’s speech shows that, even if that’s so, the decisions still affects things other than vanity.
Of course, the difference is that when people see a concept car or something fairly complex made by a chef, they go, “Ooh! I want that!”
But it was a shade of blue. Varying shades of blue is such a fashion staple that saying someone “influenced” it or “decided on that color” is ludicrous. Clothes will always be made with a blue option, even if its not exactly blue, but lapis (what color is this?) or azure or cerulean.
Eekers.
Blame it on the do-gooders who banned the circus side show.
I can’t even say out loud the thoughts I had viewing that photo.