Actually ftom my perspective what it looks like is that the fashion industry limits dveryone’s choices. My wife and I constantly face the irritating problem of never bring able to find what ad want because every damn producer follows the sane stupid trends instead of offering real options. A truly competitive market would give us the option of opting out of the trend.
I have lots of shallow and unimportant interests. If someone asks me why I should care about them I’d tell them they probably shouldn’t. I certainly wouldn’t give them some grandious speech about how my shallow and unimportant interests are important because they have a distinct but unimportant effect on something that my querist doesn’t care about.
If one of my employees asked why they should care about some aspect of my business I’d tell them that (a) they should care because it’s relevant to the business which is their meal ticket and their profession and (b) if they don’t care then that’s fine but maybe they are in the wrong profession. What I wouldn’t do is give them some grandious speech about how etc…
I hate to disagree with you while you are agreeing with me but I don’t think that the Priestly character’s actions affect huge number of jobs. Those jobs would be the same whether the new fashion was lapis or cerulean.
There are two things I dislike about Priestly’s speech. The first is as I’ve stated: it’s a non sequitur. The second is that it is either (a) dishonest or (b) naive as a consequence of Priestly having drunk far too much of the fashionable cerulean kool-aid.
Her speech would be honest and knowing if she’d said that Hathaway’s character should care because, as the cute cerulean sweater anecdote shows, by making annual choices of style and colour the fashion industry creates churn which allows a lot of people to earn a living.
What, she gets to choose whether the blue item of clothing that I buy while assiduously not giving a damn whether it is lapis or cerulean, is either lapis or cerulean? Wow.
And what I have not done lately is convince myself that I am important because I have had an unimportant effect on people who don’t care.
What BS. The fashion industry creates the market for a particular shade of blue. It sells because it’s fashionable, not because people naturally like cerulean rather than lapis. If you doubt for one moment the truth of that, how come both lapis and cerulean have been fashionable at different times? Did the fundamental nature of people’s attitude towards the different colours change? Of course not.
There is no conflict between the statements that (a) fashion is or may be art and (b) the point of fashion shows is to generate publicity to increase brand awareness and shift product. The latter point is however relevant to the OP while the former is only marginally so.
not create, select for the season.
You totally miss **ascenray’s **point. There will be sweaters. They will be a colour. Whether Priestly exists or not. There is no such thing as a colourless sweater. She selects the colour but if she doesn’t there will still be a colour of sweater in stores. This is the crux of why her speech misses its mark.
Nah, the point is that if she doesn’t select it someone else will. The color and style of tshirt on the racks at Target has been selected for us by her or someone like her.
Just like someone decided that action movies open in the summer and the cool cell phones have internet and boy bands are over.
The Priestly character does says exactly that in her speech. To wit:
“However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.”
But I guess you were so eager to heap scorn on an industry you care nothing for that you missed it?
Whether or not you like the idea, someone has to make those choices. Cerulean sweaters don’t magically appear on shelves.
Why don’t you go rise to the top of a multi-billion dollar industry, have millions of dollars and jobs relying on the decisions you make and get back to us on how easy it is?
And you’re in this thread, why? The OP asked what haute couture shows were for. Rather than give a straight forward answer, you and others chose instead to froth at the mouth over an industry you keep swearing isn’t important to your daily life. You protest too much.
Yeah, you’re not getting it. **ascenray’s **point is that it is not necessary to make some cerebral decision about colour in order to make a sweater. Consequently, that decision is only important if one cares about precisely what colour the sweater may be.
No, she isn’t honest or self-knowing enough to mention the concept of annual churn. And the sentence you quote simply doesn’t make any frickin’ sense. Heaps of people’s jobs depend on churn created by fashion made for people who will buy the latest colours, of which Hathaway’s character is not one, since she just buys whatever is in the bargain bin. Therefore her purchase of a sweater out of a bargain bin without caring about the derivation of the colour supports Priestly’s argument how exactly? It’s at best a Wookie defence.
You don’t get it. It’s not about whether there are sweaters. It’s about why Hathaway’s character’s purchase of (specifically) a cerulean sweater supports an argument that her character should care about whether it is cerulean or lapis. Until you grasp this simple point, you aren’t going to get anywhere.
I don’t accept that the money and jobs depend upon the cerulean and lapis decisions. They depend upon the decisions made about what clever marketing techniques are used to convince people they need to churn their wardrobes over annually. And I wouldn’t tell you that was easy.
Are we reading the same thread? I gave a straightforward answer at post #9. The lame attempt to explain why fashion shows exist by reference to the importance of whether people who don’t care about the colour of their sweater are nonetheless presented with certain colours of sweater in the shops was started by jayjay.
Fashion shows are like jazz.
If you have to ask, you’ll never understand.
I just want to express my support for Princhester’s argument. Priestly’s rant is like some wanker who creates doormat designs claiming that your choice to buy a “Welcome” mat instead of a “Home Sweet Home” mat proves his work is of importance to your life.
Once again, relative to what? Is one hue inherently superior to another, a particular fashion fad superior to another? Are fashion shows necessary to create pleasure, or do they simply dictate the choice between two equally hedonic alternatives?
I submit that the excesses of haute couture are not needed to prevent ugly depressing clothes from being made…or at least clothes more ugly than the selection produced by todays fashion elite.
Let’s look at architecture.
Few of us live in actual Frank Lloyd Wright houses. Most of us have no intention of ever living in one. For one, they are really expensive. And there is a good chance that the big concepts he worked with are not actually suitable for day-to-day living.
Many of us, however, live in houses that are deeply influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright. All of us go into public buildings that show his mark.
Some of us don’t care about architecture. I’m looking for a room to rent now, and as long as it has four walls, a door, and rent under $800 I’m fine with it. Some of us care a little bit- we have a sense that we want to live in a “nice place” and choose places that feel right to us. Some of us care a bit more and read architecture magazines. Some of us care a lot and learn the history and vocabulary of architecture and can look at a building and have a deep appreciation for it.
Sure, it doesn’t really matter. If Frank Lloyd Wright never existed, all those Frank Lloyd Wright influenced buildings would have just been influenced by someone else. But he did exist and he did leave a mark and some people find that bring some richness to their lives.
Same thing with fashion. The big designers come up with basic ideas- color, texture, basic form, basic moods, historical and cultural nods. They express these things in caricature in fashion shows. A handful of people are into it enough and rich enough that they buy the real thing despite the impracticalities- these are the equivalent to those who buy the actual Frank Lloyd Wright house.
Few of us buy actual high-fashion clothes. Many of us buy clothes that are deeply influenced by high fashion. All of us see clothes influenced by high fashion in public.
Some of us don’t care and just buy cheap practical things with no attention to fashion. Some of us care a little bit and try to buy stuff that “looks nice.” Some us care enough to read fashion magazines. Some of us care a lot and have the vocabulary and knowledge to talk about specific designers and really appreciate their work.
It doesn’t really matter. But it does add value to some people’s lives.
Of course things evolve from prototypes to final products, which exist on a sliding scale from utilitarian to baroque. Forget arty stuff; even things as unsexy as computer design and dishwasher manufacturing. But there is such a thing as a matter of degree, and the products of fashion shows have much less to do with the final product, and matter much less. Screwing up a motherboard design will seriously screw up the resulting computer, while a poof of fabric here rather than there won’t make for ugly real-world clothes.
I gather you have never gone out in search of a “final item” for an outfit in, say, navy blue and found nothing but black or azure, uh? I have and let me tell you, the Knights of the Round Table had no idea what an actual quest entails. I understand that Zara’s “consumer-driven” concept stems precisely from that kind of frustration.
Oh, but it will. Ask anyone who spent the whole of last summer looking for a cute shirt that didn’t have a smocked elastic band around the bottom.
ascenray insists that the industry has no significant influence over “real clothes”, but also says that it limits his options, making it difficult if not impossible to find clothes that don’t follow current trends. I submit that only one of these things can be true, and it’s clearly the latter.
The shows are done for entertainment, for press, and as others have said, to enhance the branding of each fashion house. Depending on the designer, they can be wildly creative or whimsical - a way of saying ‘this is what I am really capable of’. They don’t sell a lot of the over the top stuff, but there is still a market for haute couture amongst the world’s very rich and celebrities.
A good show means lots of mag and news coverage, which in turn helps to sell the lower tier pret-a-porter collections, and for those that can’t afford that but want a whiff of glamour, the perfumes, bags and cosmetics.
A good stylist can find ways to down-play the fantasy of some of the outfits - check out Claire Danes in Armani.
Waitaminit, this isn’t about me. I have nothing against fashion shows and I find the occasional glimpses I get as an outsider entertaining. My sole problem is with the Priestly quote as a defense for it.
Have you ever actually MADE a sweater?
Seriously - have you ever crafted a sweater, either knit it or crochet or spun it or whatever?
'Cus I have, and even though I’m a very fast knitter, and can probably finish one top to bottom in a day or two, I DO make a cerebral decision about what colour it should be.
Obviously, I do things on a much smaller scale than Oscar de la Renta; however, I’m willing to bet about $87 that when he’s designing a sweater for an upcoming season, HE makes a cerebral decision about it.
And the shlub who looks at Oscar’s sweater when designing a knock-off for Forever 21 makes a cerebral decision.
And guess what - when you wander into the clearance bin of Forever 21 and choose the azure sweater instead of the crimson sweater, YOU just made a cerebral decision.
Honestly, you’re arguing about something that you appear to have no knowledge about, whatsoever, and it’s kinda making you look dumb. If that was your intent - well played. If your intent was to prove to all of us fashion lovers that we’re wasting our time, and that the fashion industry has no influence on anyone…well, yah. Dumb.
Hmm… looks like some fashion models come in vacuum-fresh pouches.
Indeed. I personally have no reason to doubt the wonder of the Three Wolf Moon shirt. I clearly recall the day I happened to be wearing mine while flipping idly through a Victoria’s Secret catalog during a commercial break in a Babylon Five marathon and the pictured models came to life and began making love to me. Tragically, they retained their catalog two-dimensional properties and when I awoke from my an hour later, I and the shirt were covered in paper-cuts.
The shirt went immediately into my closet, where it remains. I fear its power. And I missed that episode where Sheridan’s long-lost wife shows up.