Fashion

xouper · Post by **xouper** » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:23 pm

Speaking of who wore it better:

xouper · Post by **xouper** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:59 pm

More "Who Wore It Better" (4:27)

Some are better than others, obviously. I would have left half of them out.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:16 am

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:05 am

https://pjmedia.com/trending/chanel-deb ... p-for-men/

"Boy de Chanel" is a new makeup line from Chanel. It includes tinted moisturizer, moisturizing lip balm, and an eyebrow pencil. Oh, and it’s exclusively for men. “Beauty is about style,” the press release reads. “It knows no gender.” This is excellent news for Chanel — and any other companies marketing makeup to men — because now they can make even more money. Less good news for men, since now they, too, must apparently spend hours in front of the mirror getting ready in the morning.

All of this is great for feminists, who’ve been arguing for a while now that there is no such thing as gender. Lisa Wade, a sociology professor at Occidental College, says, “Gender is all about maintaining the idea that men and women are different. Anything that we do that undermines distinction (sic) is a real threat to male superiority.” So men wearing makeup would be good for feminism because it would undermine “male superiority” — presumably by making men look ridiculous, which would cause people to laugh at them, which would make them feel inferior, and... death to the patriarchy.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:25 pm

The image says Getty Images, which means it's a stock photo. Probably not an actual image that Chanel is using to market makeup to men.

ETA:
https://www.chanel.com/us/makeup/makeup-for-men/

It says they are introducing it in South Korea first.

https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-sc ... 202775531/

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:03 am

Here's one article about the trend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4552761

ETA: Although I'm not a fan of makeup for men, I just wanted to point out that the stock image used in that PJ Media article isn't really an accurate reflection of what "makeup for men" is supposed to look like. Even if a woman wore makeup like that, I think most people would say she is overdoing it. On a man it looks even more ridiculous (unless he's a drag queen). Although it's a silly trend, I think they deliberately chose that image to make it look even sillier.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:58 am

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:35 am

Nothing like classic businesswear:

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:11 am

↑ You prefer the modern version?

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:41 am

Photo by Niny Leen.

xouper · Post by **xouper** » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:47 am

Under the ever popular heading of "Who Wore it Better":

Yes, that's the official twitter account for Bed Bath and Beyond.

(I assume it goes without saying who the guy is?)

Spoiler:

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:06 am

At least she won't slap anybody.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:57 am

$5000 and it doesn't even have sleeves?

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:06 am

Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:57 am $5000 and it doesn't even have sleeves?

You want to corrupt that awesome purity of this design with mundane sleeves?!? Retrograde!

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:02 am

Latest London Fashion Week ("Spring 2020"):

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:26 am

Could also go in the "Now they're just fucking with us thread" although I think that "high fashion" has been trolling us for a long time already.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:32 am

↑ Indeed, but what do they get out of it? Fame?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:38 am

The lulz?

Also, like trolling, it seems you have to do or say something outrageous to even be noticed these days. That may be why some people troll. Because nobody notices or cares if you just say something reasonable and non-controversial. There's probably something similar in fashion.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:06 pm

What's the disconnect? Just like any other form of art, sometimes fashion is intended to shock us or tweak our noses. You could call it "trolling" but isn't that like complaining that a fish is wet?

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:24 pm

Let's hear it from the NYT: Why We Cover High Fashion.

The technicalities:

Quick crib sheet: haute couture (or let’s just call it “couture” for simplicity’s sake) is a twice-yearly five-day show fiesta in Paris where a select handful of brands produce hand-made-to-order garments that cost approximately $10,000 to $100,000 a piece. Yes, you read that right.

To qualify as a couture house, which is an official designation like champagne, a brand must maintain an atelier of a certain number of artisans full time and produce a specific number of garments twice a year for a show. There are only a very few that can fulfill the requirements, including Chanel, Dior and Valentino. A lot have dropped out over the years (Balmain, Versace, Saint Laurent), and the governing organization that adjudicates this has relaxed some of its rules to admit younger, less resourced or guest designers, like Iris van Herpen and Guo Pei, who made Rihanna’s Met Gala sunny-side-up egg cape.

And the Higher Reasons^©:

It’s about using this particular craft form as a wormhole into what’s going on in the world. The gowns themselves may not seem that relevant (especially when they reimagine a woman as, say, a lavender bush). But the issues they raise are.

Like, for example, the fact that to a certain extent any women’s wear collection, at any level, should be a treatise on female identity at that particular moment in time. At least if it’s any good. That’s why Karl Lagerfeld made his Chanel bride wear the pants last January, not the corseted meringue; why at Dior, Maria Grazia Chiuri paid homage to Leonor Fini, an early 20th century Surrealist (I don’t think anyone would dispute the surreal nature of our current era); why at Givenchy, Clare Waight Keller protected gowns dripping in silver fringe with military greatcoats.

Like the fact that the mostly French gatekeepers of couture, the most rigid of fashion sectors, have increasingly lowered barriers to entry to woo and admit designers from China, Lebanon and Russia. Fashion is acknowledging the value of porous borders, even as its Western European home grows more skittish about them.

Like the fact that this is as good a way as any to talk about the current tension between the handmade and human (and historical) and the technological. It’s the fashion equivalent of reading books versus watching YouTube.

And you better believe it.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:46 am

World of WearableArt 2019

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:02 pm

A little street fashion

I like it. A bit cheeky. A bit outrageous. Makes you think.

ed · Post by ed » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:29 pm

I really enjoy fachion, we are rewatching all 17 seasons of project runway. Funny thing is that I cannot tell who is strog and who is lousey. I think I have the fashon analog of tone deafness (which I am too)

Meanwhile ... check out Galliano

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:13 am

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:22 am

Junk porn.

Wherein no actual fucking takes place.

Fid · Post by **Fid** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:52 am

She's doing the mating display of a male ostrich.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:06 am

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:26 pm

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:27 pm

Would be better if they were wearing stiletto heels.

shemp · Post by **shemp** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:03 pm

They could borrow some from ed.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:50 pm

No socks make a bold fashion statement that will get stronger every day.

shemp · Post by **shemp** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:21 pm

They just plain hate everybody. They never design anything that real people would wear.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:45 pm

shemp wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:21 pm They just plain hate everybody. They never design anything that real people would wear.

It's not made to be worn, just shown once.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:27 pm

↑ Hadn't thought of the humiliation aspect, but yes: young beautiful people in ridiculous garbs having to ritually parade in front of rich old hags and their courts (press included).

But I think there are two types of clothes designers. A handful of famous ones who sell to the happy few (and not what they design for the shows), and basic grunts working for the usual shops/brands/chains who have to keep an eye on materials, availability and costs.

The whole process from design to display racks has its mysteries. A girl I know who has a small clothes shop near a ski station told me she has to make her choices with sales representatives a year or even a year and a half before the actual season, so the cut/model/style choices have already been made. Factor in that somebody somewhere has to buy the cloth at best price, have it dyed in the soon to be fashionable colors, then cut, sewn, packaged, distributed, advertised, &c.

Makes for a very skeptical look on the spontaneity and freedom – dare i say empowerment – of "street fashion", no?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:24 am

The £7,500 dress that does not exist

Earlier this year Richard Ma, the chief executive of San Francisco-based security company Quantstamp, spent $9,500 (£7,500) on a dress for his wife.

That is a lot of money for a dress, particularly when it does not exist, at least not in a physical form.

Instead it was a digital dress, designed by fashion house The Fabricant, rendered on to an image of Richard's wife, Mary Ren, which can then be used on social media.

"It's definitely very expensive, but it's also like an investment," Mr Ma says.

He explains that he and his wife don't usually buy expensive clothing, but he wanted this piece because he thinks it has long-term value.

"In 10 years time everybody will be 'wearing' digital fashion. It's a unique memento. It's a sign of the times."

Ms Ren has shared the image on her personal Facebook page, and via WeChat, but opted not to post it on a more public platform.

Digital collection

Another fashion house designing for the digital space is Carlings. The Scandinavian company released a digital street wear collection, starting at around £9 ($11), last October.

It "sold out" within a month.

"It sounds kinda stupid to say we 'sold out', which is theoretically impossible when you work with a digital collection because you can create as many as you want," explains Ronny Mikalsen, Carlings' brand director.

"We had set a limit on the amount of products we were going to produce to make it a bit more special.

Being digital-only allows designers to create items that can push boundaries of extravagance or possibilities.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:41 pm

Yeah: they have more money.

Giz · Post by **Giz** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:39 pm

Witness wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:45 pm
shemp wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:21 pm They just plain hate everybody. They never design anything that real people would wear.
It's not made to be worn, just shown once.

I wanted an outfit that would express who I really am. I chose ‘doormat’.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:15 am

Fid · Post by **Fid** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:35 am

Well he seems delighted for this opportunity to display the hours spent in the gym sculpting all those god like boy parts.

Giz · Post by **Giz** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:05 am

I’m thinking clown, Eskimo, bankrobber: now make me an outfit!