What not to wear..l.

arthwollipot said:
I just had to go through the lot and rate every single one as "hideous". And amusingly enough, between 75% and 99% of people have rated every one of the 16 outfits as hideous.

Maybe that'll send a message to the designer.
Click to expand...

It may well delight him. Someone who designs this sort of stuff probably despises the general public: just a load of petty-minded morons who understand nothing about real style. There might even be competition amongst the designers to see who can get the most "hideous" votes.
 
marksman said:
Is it wrong that I sort of like the overcoat on this one?
[qimg]http://nymag.com/fashion/fashionshows/2007/spring/main/newyork/menrunway/thombrowne/images/13.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Considering that there are sleeves garters on a *coat* that's already too short for him, yeah.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
What is it with the fashion industry? 90% of the so called "Top fashions" that I see them touting at fashion shows on T.V. are totally ridiculous. Most of the stuff I've never even seen anyone wear. It's a big joke. How does this "industry" sustain itself? Who pays these 'designers'? How can they continue to produce crap that no one wears? I don't get it. It's probably some conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Have you (or no one else, save perhaps Dr Adequate) read my earlier post?
 
No, I hadn't.

Regnad Kcin said:
The point is not to design clothes for mass-consumption. The idea of high-end couture is artistic whimsy.
Click to expand...
To what end?

Once on a tour of an art museum in Los Angeles my group came across a toilet mounted on a wall with the plaque "toilet". Now the artist didn't make the toilet and there was nothing exceptional about it and it is unlikely that the artist even hung it on the wall but I would guess that it never failed to get people to think about what is and isn't art. In that sense the toilet had artistic merit.

Philosophy is critisized for being naval gazing. I like it so even when it does veer into the realm of naval gazing I tend to see it as having merit.

Perhaps in a similar vain haute couture also has merit and I simply don't understand it. Perhaps it inspires clothing designers to push the boundries and explore new paradigms. Perhaps.

I'm leaning to this all being BS and serving no purpose whatsover except to give rich people something to spend money on and a purpose to get together and have wine, crackers and cheese. It's the rich person's version of hog calling I supose.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Psst. I think those are supposed to be sleeve garters. Of course, sleeve garters were worn because men's shirt weren't often coustom cut to length, so there's no need for him to wear them anyway.
Click to expand...


. . . stupid me, I thought it was electrical tape. ;)
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I read it. Are they only advertising to eccentric movie stars or famous musicians?
Click to expand...
No.

It's a way of getting their name in the papers and fashion magazines accompanied by the words "fashion designer". After a number of years, that becomes "famous fashion designer". Then they license their name to a perfume manufacturer and buy a small island.

I may have skipped some of the details, but that's more or less how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom