Ann D, Cloak, Raf Simons ... I just don't get it

[whacked]

Originally Posted by blank

Hell if I know of a functional use to it, but this outfit sure looks amazing.

 

[blank]

Originally Posted by minya

You don't need to "agree" or "disagree" with my aesthetic preferences and choices. They're mine and mine alone. I'm hoping they give blank a better idea of why some people like the clothing he's asking about, or at least where I'm coming from.

It absolutely did. That was some killer insight. And for reference, and this isn't because we're chatting here, but Minya I always think your fits are legit. Maybe it's looking at some of these dedicated pictures that makes my brow quiver, but I can see what you're saying -- when I look at the second and third pictures, there are some cool accessories that I wouldn't wear, but someone could pull off.

Good thread

 

[Dormouse]

Originally Posted by whacked

Hell if I know of a functional use to it, but this outfit sure looks amazing.

I think it requires a lightsaber for a more polished appearance.

 

[Brian SD]

The problem is that clothing is something that's supposed to portray something. I judge people based off of clothing they wear. Sorry, but I do. I'm sure most of you guys do too. I dress not only to satisfy myself, but to look presentable to others and portray part of my personality. I have a pretty open view of what 'presentable' is, and sometimes I like to purposefully break away from presentability. I hope that my personal style comes off as creative yet somewhat sensible to those I meet. After all, like I said, dressing too weirdly inhibits social interaction. I'd much rather have people comfortable talking to me so I could make more friends and have a good time than have them refrain from approaching me because I look like I'm going to rip their spine out and use it to **** their children.

When I see a greasy-faced kid with long hair in a Naruto shirt, sweat pants and nike running shoes, I pass a certain judgment in my head. Not sure if that's wrong or not, but I do.

When I see a clean cut guy wearing a v-neck sweater, meticulously trimmed hair, pressed trousers, polished shoes and thin-rimmed glasses, that's a different judgment.

When I see a girl in vintage clothing matched perfectly with good heels and subtle make up, that's a different judgment.

When I see a girl in a beat up denim skirt cut too short and a beer belly flopping over the fly, I pass a different judgment.

When I see a guy in a business suit, a white shirt and a maroon tie with no pocket square, all front buttons done up, sleeves too long and square-toed shoes, that's another judgment.

WHen I see a guy in a well-fitting suit, fitted but no wrinkles around the shoulders, slight pulling in the waist, a little cuff showing, a nicely patterned tie and antiqued quality shoes, that's another judgment.

Okay, that said, when I see this:

I don't really pass a judgment, I just get a chuckle. Now I'm not sure if the designer really planned on this being a humour label or not. Hell, anyone who actually calls their label "Macabre" can't possibly take themselves seriously. I'm usually very lenient when it comes to crazy runways - I don't take them seriously and I even enjoy the humour in it, which is usually intended. But this is one of those times when I have to look at this and think that if people seriously are into this clothing, I must be the only one here taking crazy pills.

 

[ratboycom]

I looked at the picture and thought of "Thief"that game from years ago, the main character was dressed like that

 

[jet]

I'm with Brian on this one. Though I do like some pieces here and there I'd rather dress like a pimp than a vampire.

 

[LabelKing]

Alexander McQueen is another one. Indeed, or their F/W 07 collection, they had Siouxsie and the Banshees's "Spellbound" playing. It was a very nice fit.

 

[wEstSidE]

McQueen puts out a lot of very wearable pieces, albeit pricey. I really want the cardigan with houndstooth trim, but it's like 1k.

 

[jean_connoisseur23]

these designers cater to a wide variety of culture, aesthetic and fashion sense. it just appears that these designers, make clothes that are wearble in my standards. designers such as the mentioned ones make dark, rock-inspired outfits mixed with modern touches of the best fabric and detailing. while some pieces are outrageous, they are intentionally put to add more vibe and complexity to the collection

 

[Fuuma]

It's a given that people dress, in a way, for other people. At some point in your development you might get away from that and say you dress for yourself but that's a naïve way to put it as it leaves the rest of humanity out of the equation (i.e. you don't dress up to stay home and watch TV, do you?). So where do you go once you get out of that, IMHO essential, "NO" phase.

What's important to understand, if you want to be satisfied with how you dress, is that dressing for the gaze of others, so to speak, does not equate dressing to meet the expectations of other people. It means understanding that garments are signifiers, due to their charged background and history. Leather jackets aren't just dead cow hide; they're Brando in the Wild one who's rebelling against whatever you got or Joey Ramones rocking at CBGB. In fact, leather jackets are such a great example because they became a metonymy, at least in French, where hooligans and various kind of youth movements of the 60s used to be called "blousons noirs" (black jackets) the garment becoming synonymous with the person, even eclipsing the individual, turning him into the archetype of rebellious youth. Garments, by virtue of their history and depending on the way you combine them with other garments, are also polysemous; they can mean different things depending on the context and what they're paired with.

Now you might wonder where I am going with all that, so here it is:

1.\tWe do dress for the gaze of others, to communicate something to them, to express ourselves.
2.\tClothes are very charged items; they have meaning, even more meaning than the wearer as they imbue him with archetypical characteristics.
3.\tKnowing all this does not mean that we have to meet the expectations of others, just that they're here.
4.\tConsequently there is no optimal way to dress, as only simpletons and economists believe there are universal, optimal settings. It's all about what you want to convey, to whom and in what way. I guess we could go on a tangent on subcultures Vs "mainstream" culture here, discuss if you feel like it.
5.\tThat being said I do strongly believe that there are better and worse garments, combinations and dressers, I just don't believe there are better type of dressers
6.\tSo I would say there are good goth-ninjas (i.e. Darkanimal) and total failures (hot-topic goth types). Blank does not like that style, no biggie, I'm not interested in everything, it's important to be able to filter or the amount of information out there is overwhelming. However that means that if you don't care about them you don't try to discuss them in an off-hand manner, if that's not the case then you have to approach it with an open mind and ask yourself essential questions such as:
a.\tWhat is that person/designer telling me about herself/himself
b.\tWhat are his/her influences?
c.\tAre they pulling it off, what could they change, to do so?
d.\tDo technique, styling and materials come together to become more than the sum of their parts or is it, ultimately, an empty exercise?
e.\tEtc, you get the idea

 

[Analog]

...

 

[macuser3of5]

I'm still trying to figure out why you lumped Raf into this goth look...

 

[minya]

Originally Posted by macuser3of5

I'm still trying to figure out why you lumped Raf into this goth look...
Raf is clearly influenced by goth, industrial, and punk music. Take a look at Trent Reznor circa Lollapalooza '91 and you pretty much have a huge part of Raf's aesthetic right there. Obviously there's a lot more to it -- lots of Raf's stuff is very futuristic and "areferential" like Fuuma said -- but saying he has nothing to do with goth/industrial/punk is just plain wrong. Someone like Martin Margiela, on the other hand, clearly takes little influence from music subculture in his fashion designs, but is tangentially, spiritually, and stylistically related -- in terms of postmodern approach, deconstruction, recontextualization, etc.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

It's a given that people dress, in a way, for other people. At some point in your development you might get away from that and say you dress for yourself but that's a naïve way to put it as it leaves the rest of humanity out of the equation (i.e. you don't dress up to stay home and watch TV, do you?). So where do you go once you get out of that, IMHO essential, "NO" phase.

What's important to understand, if you want to be satisfied with how you dress, is that dressing for the gaze of others, so to speak, does not equate dressing to meet the expectations of other people. It means understanding that garments are signifiers, due to their charged background and history. Leather jackets aren't just dead cow hide; they're Brando in the Wild one who's rebelling against whatever you got or Joey Ramones rocking at CBGB. In fact, leather jackets are such a great example because they became a metonymy, at least in French, where hooligans and various kind of youth movements of the 60s used to be called "blousons noirs" (black jackets) the garment becoming synonymous with the person, even eclipsing the individual, turning him into the archetype of rebellious youth. Garments, by virtue of their history and depending on the way you combine them with other garments, are also polysemous; they can mean different things depending on the context and what they're paired with.

Now you might wonder where I am going with all that, so here it is:

1.\tWe do dress for the gaze of others, to communicate something to them, to express ourselves.
2.\tClothes are very charged items; they have meaning, even more meaning than the wearer as they imbue him with archetypical characteristics.
3.\tKnowing all this does not mean that we have to meet the expectations of others, just that they're here.
4.\tConsequently there is no optimal way to dress, as only simpletons and economists believe there are universal, optimal settings. It's all about what you want to convey, to whom and in what way. I guess we could go on a tangent on subcultures Vs "mainstream" culture here, discuss if you feel like it.
5.\tThat being said I do strongly believe that there are better and worse garments, combinations and dressers, I just don't believe there are better type of dressers
6.\tSo I would say there are good goth-ninjas (i.e. Darkanimal) and total failures (hot-topic goth types). Blank does not like that style, no biggie, I'm not interested in everything, it's important to be able to filter or the amount of information out there is overwhelming. However that means that if you don't care about them you don't try to discuss them in an off-hand manner, if that's not the case then you have to approach it with an open mind and ask yourself essential questions such as:
a.\tWhat is that person/designer telling me about herself/himself
b.\tWhat are his/her influences?
c.\tAre they pulling it off, what could they change, to do so?
d.\tDo technique, styling and materials come together to become more than the sum of their parts or is it, ultimately, an empty exercise?
e.\tEtc, you get the idea
A British gentleman would.

 

[macuser3of5]

Originally Posted by minya

Raf is clearly influenced by goth, industrial, and punk music. Take a look at Trent Reznor circa Lollapalooza '91 and you pretty much have a huge part of Raf's aesthetic right there. Obviously there's a lot more to it -- lots of Raf's stuff is very futuristic and "areferential" like Fuuma said -- but saying he has nothing to do with goth/industrial/punk is just plain wrong.
I would say he owes more to Kraftwerk, Gary Numan and something like the Bauhaus (not the band) than anything NiN or a truly goth/industrial influence, like Ann or Rick. The punk portion of Raf's work was small compared to his more 'futuristic' oriented work. That said, of Ann D, Cloak, Rick Owens and Raf, one (probably even Cloak, overall) of these does not belong aesthetically.