couture, opinions?
ASchwan525
Dear Irena:
This is a great new thread/question that probably requires the kind of
thoughtful and considered response that I, for one, can't give at this
moment. For starters, however, let me offer that "couture" in its
exclusivity has always existed (for as long as clothes and embellishments
have been documented in history); it has always been created to serve
directly a tiny audience and indirectly, by means of influence, a much
larger public via those who interpret it. It's probably easiest to
"approve" of couture and the extraordinarily expensive fruits of its
practicioners, if one sees it as an enterprise that is truly separate
from, but related to, fashion in general. Couture and the culture around
it nourish the larger field.
This is just my opinion. But, why in the world shouldn't there be $30,000
apparel if there also is someone willing to commission it and own it, much
less wear it! Noboby forces us to accept it for ourselves; and ultimately
a great deal of what the couturiers do trickles down through filters of
reason, talent, logic and market saavy to a consumer level that can
benefit a vast number of people. Couturiers are the innovators, the
windmill tilters, the improbable people who say and do improbable things
-- publicly -- and invite both the praise and the scorn that go with
experimenting out in the open. It's a hell of a lot easier, from a formal
point of view, to be Victor Costa than Yves Saint Laurent!
I say Long Live Couture! (And, BTW, the Westwoods and McQueens and
Geoffrey Beenes of the world do also receive a great deal of influence
coming from the other direction -- from film [esp. for Beene] and
television, from pop culture and high art, and from what is quaintly and
somewhat wishfully called "the street," as if most of what's out there
really is "the street." )
Couture and general fashion/style have a symbiotic relationship. But IMO
there's no point to the "hate" portion of the love-hate equation. It
exists, it doesn't hurt anyone (unless they're unfairly employed by a
couturier, but that happens in every walk of business and life), and it
surely provides something, including, sometimes, something glorious and
lasting that reflects and communicates aspects of culture at large. Think
of Elsa Schiaparelli, Woth, Cristobal Belenciaga, even Halston.
An interesting book that is (indirectly) related to this topic is Richard
Martin's marvelous "Fashion and Surrealism," published by Rizzoli (1987).
Best,
A
ahmward
Irena wrote:
(snip)
>But this is not just about McQueen, what are your opinions on 30 000
>dolars and rising dresses? Would you wear it? If you were millionairs,
>would you buy couture? Do you think couture collections should exist at
>all? Couture is about dreams, but only rich can afford this kind of
>clothes, is this unjust? Spending 100 000 dolars on your wedding dress
>when there are so many homeless people in the world?
Coutoure should , of course, exist as long as there are buyers and the
designers can afford to continue its creation. You can apply the
existence of couture to that of any material creation....a Rolls Royce
or custom car, a rare wine, a manor house, castle or other expensive
property. There is obviously a mrket for these items. I read about
them with interest but do not envy those who can afford.
>
>I adore beautiful clothes and cretivity and work that goes into making
>each couture gown, but I can't help feeling upset about people who
>actualy spend so much money on clothes. Wouldn't it be better if instead
>of clothes they spent money on less fortunate? It's a love and hate
>relationship for me, what do you think?
Quite often those who spend such money also are very philanthropic,
donate huge sums of money to those who are needy and do so very much
to help their community and cuntry. You can't assume that the very
rich (which I guess we coud call the purchasers of couture) do not
help those in need.
audrey
-
Irena Pogarcic
Fellow enthusiasts,
I was reading articles about couture collections in British Vogue last
night, and this got me thinking. For a magazine like Vogue, these
articles are pretty frank, they don't just praise, but also talk about
difficulties, how hard couture sells, how many people are involved in
making of a dress and stuff like that. There was an interview with
A.McQueen about his first couture collection for Givanchy, which has
been heavily criticised in Paris, his comment was: "What's missing in
French fashion is French chic. That means sexuality, allure, femininity,
alloffness and seductiveness, mon cherie. It's a nice curvy arse, a nice
round bosom. And if you don't have any bosoms I'll put 'em there." I
can't help agreeing with him.
But this is not just about McQueen, what are your opinions on 30 000
dolars and rising dresses? Would you wear it? If you were millionairs,
would you buy couture? Do you think couture collections should exist at
all? Couture is about dreams, but only rich can afford this kind of
clothes, is this unjust? Spending 100 000 dolars on your wedding dress
when there are so many homeless people in the world?
I adore beautiful clothes and cretivity and work that goes into making
each couture gown, but I can't help feeling upset about people who
actualy spend so much money on clothes. Wouldn't it be better if instead
of clothes they spent money on less fortunate? It's a love and hate
relationship for me, what do you think?
--
Irena Pogarcic
Primanata Tjandra
Wouldn't it be better if instead
> of clothes they spent money on less fortunate? It's a love and hate
> relationship for me, what do you think?
Hi,
First of all, thanks to Irena for bringing up such nice discussion topics!
I have read somewhere that Pierre Cardin have been posed the same question
before. His reply was: "Do you know how many people do my enterprise
employ?" And in a recent interview, Japanese billionaire Konosuke
Matsushita said that the sin that an enterprise could commit is to lose
money.
So I guess what I am trying to say is, the part that should make the heart
bleed is not the fact that there are people spending excess money on
seemingly trivial and frivolous overpriced stuffs, but rather, the amount
of wasted resources that a business system incurs, like the clothes that
don't get sold and ended up in the incinerator! I guess, if I want to
sound technical, it is the efficiency of the system that matters.
We have been nurtured with the idea that excess, frivolity and indulgence
in the luxurious is bad. Nevertheless, it is this desire that help to
drive the economy around. And for comparison sake, do you see any
difference between Microsoft (or the software industry in general) and the
fashion industry? Microsoft seems to be making a product of necessity.
But doesn't Microsoft make you go through updates after another? Doesn't
the patent it hold help it to command higher profit margin? And in the
software industry, the cost of making the software does not go up linearly
with the number of software sold. Theoretically, the additional cost of
making the next copy of software is zero. But the next haute couture
piece calls for the same amount of resources to create it. So then, why
is a haute couture dress considered more outrageously priced that a piece
of generic softwre ? And if we look from the "use" point of view, how
many people can claim that they really need all those RAMS and hard drives
and computing speed? 200 MHz, my God. I stall much longer than that just
to think of the next sentence to write! How would the saving in processing
help a common user of computer like me? Multimedia games. That's what
computers are mostly bought for in the household. Is that trivial and
frivolus?
I should think so! :)
The criticism that I have with the haute couture and fashion industry
then, is not so much in its purpose of existence, but rather the
inefficiency in its operation. All those clothes that got burned in the
incinerator, all those money spent in lavish show, not that it is wrong,
but which does notget translated into profit! Look at Broadway shows,
look at Music concerts. They make moeny. So the amount of money spent is
justified.
The argument for the sustainance of haute couture is that it provides the hype
needed to keep the fashion world interesting, and inadvertently, to make
the lesser priced clothes sell. Sounds like a good idea. But in reality,
how many rtw buyers follow the haute couture scene? Furthermore, they are
justifiedly non-chalant, looking at the level of creativity in the haute
couture scene. Isn't it ironic, that haute couture is supposedly the
venue of ultimate creativity for designers. Yet I found that ready to
wears tend to showcase more innovative styling and sillhouettes than the
haute couture dresses. That's just the opposite of the auto industry.
The prototype cars push the envelope of aesthetic creativity and
technology. The embellishment and toning down and the use of luxurious
material only happen as the cars are translated into the realm of
reality. You might notice that the comparison is unjust, cuz haute
couture dresses have to sell and be worn, and yet must reflect the highest
creativity ever. But that's exactly my point! The tension between the
two trade offs are just too great for the designers!
If haute couture has indeed lost its function in hyping up the industry,
if it doesn't have enough clients to sustain it, then I would say "Just
Scrap It". Maybe we should have a new category called "Prototype
Couture", where there is no pretense that the clothes should sell. So
designers need not get trapped in the vicious dichotomy of being creative
and selleable at the same time! They can stage a World Tour and let
performing artists and singers use their clothes. Which means that
singers and entertainers should help by not wearing street dresses on
stage. The Japanese in the 80's used to have extravagant concerts and
musicals rooted in their traditional Kabuki. The costumes are lavish, and
could very well be designed by the upper echelon designers. But we see
less and less of those even in Japan, as every pop singers try to emulate
the street look. If MTV touted the marriage of music and designer fashion
as the perfect symbiosis, pop music and haute couture would really bring
the symbiosis to the next level. Imagine Celine Dion in a Givenchy
Couture! I would watch MTV more often! And all those Oscar goers: I
think those jewelry befits couture gown more than just a simple gown or
slip dress, don't you think? Couturier, don't be such a miser! Give/lend
those starts your ultimate creations!
Prima
J K Rigney
ahmward wrote:
>
> Quite often those who spend such money also are very philanthropic,
> donate huge sums of money to those who are needy and do so very much
> to help their community and cuntry. You can't assume that the very
> rich (which I guess we coud call the purchasers of couture) do not
> help those in need.
>
Perhaps the giving habits of the very rich are like their spending
habits. That $30,000 frock just isn't as expensive to them as ordinary
clothing is to ordinary mortals. If Mme. Eisner or Mme. Gates were to so
indulge herself, she would be spending less than .01% of the family
annual income. OTOH, if Mme. Nobody buys a new coat for $300, she may be
spending as much, or more than, 1% of the family's annual income.
Generosity can be measured in the same way. A recent study of charitable
contributions and income revealed that the very rich are poor givers,
indeed, compared to the lower middle class, who are much more generous
in terms of prcentage of income.
Are you really impressed when Bill Gates gives away $5,000,000? That's
pocket change to him. How about that rather large group of the working
poor who actually tithe--give 10% of their income, usually to their
churches? And they don't do it for show or to have their names on a
building, either. The very rich often give for the same reasons that
they spend, to gain attention or notoriety.
Mind you, if you're on the receiving end of the donations of the rich,
the money spends quite well. It's just that I'm not all that impressed
by people who are most generous when they die, or or are in fear of
imminent death.
Cheers,
--
JKR
For e-mail, please remove the "nospam" in the return address.
A gentleman is a man who can play the accordion, but doesn't.
Bari B. Brandes
I missed the begining of the conversation, so I am sorry if this is old,
but I just love couture. For the designers, it is perhaps the truest
expression of their art. It's when they really get to go nuts and design
their dreams. They generally have to work on a much lower level; use the
same basic materials, designs which are both "in style," and built to hold
up. Basically, the purchasing public is the lower common denominator that
the designers have to cater to.
Couture is perhaps a purer form of design; it is much closer to an art form.
In fact, it is often thought of as art in the traditional way (for example,
shows by the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art). They get to
create wild designs which are not dictated by current trands, and use unique
materials (including metals and gemstones). That someone would pay for these
items is the icing on their cake (and perhaps makes the other items more
affordable for you and me).
I think I'll reserve comment about those who want to buy the couture,
except to add that if they have the desire and the means to buy the items,
they should do whatever they want. It is not for me to tell others what to
do with their money, and being rich does not necessary mean being smart,
stupid, generous, stingy, good or evil.
--Bari
: > Quite often those who spend such money also are very philanthropic,
: