It's happening

[Anonymous No.12793753]

Where were you when this so called fashion enthousiast and novelist talking about us and our board /fa/? Can't believe people like him browse our board...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrOqMQ_2Aig

skip to around 6.40 onward for a maximus kek

[Anonymous No.12793757]

>>12793753
>us
>our
he is one of "us" ya dingus
good to know not everyone is absolute retard with nno knowledge of anything on this board really
the real cringe here is you actually think you are somehow better than him
post fit fuccboi

[Anonymous No.12793873]

it's funny he thinks that ROG moved out of some conscientious objection to /pol/ rather than because they were laughed out of here for being poorfag, pale, unattractive teens trying to scrape together rick owens fits with end-of-season bargain pieces supplemented with h&m divided
It's interesting that a coping mechanism has been digested as a mainstream truth

[Anonymous No.12793887]

>>12793873
>laughed out of here
is this one of those male power fantasies they keep talking about?
you do realize the fucking archives exists and anyone who gives a damn can just go and check what happened right?

[Anonymous No.12793910]

fuck his hair, why the fuck you would keep THAT on your head

[Anonymous No.12793915]

>>12793753
it's pronounced 'effay'

[Anonymous No.12793918]

>>12793887
show us what happened
tell the tale of the glorious moral stand the ROG patricians made in the wake of /pol/ tipping the election to the evil Drumpf

[Anonymous No.12793931]

>>12793918
It died a natural death cause the generals developed a community, whole bunch of informational resources and those don't really thrive on anonymous board and since it generated a lot of butthurt among the users here people just figured why not leave /fa/

[Anonymous No.12793948]

>>12793873
>>12793931
not that other anon, but then at least you agree that this was not some grand moral gesture in defiance of some alt-right boogyman

[Anonymous No.12793959]

>>12793757
After you numale

[Anonymous No.12793961]

>>12793948
Anyone who thinks ROG leaving was some political grandstanding is stupid.

[Anonymous No.12793965]

>>12793757
nice try Ned Beauman

[Anonymous No.12793970]

>"the board called "fah"
It's effay god damnit

[Anonymous No.12793978]

How can these people willingly share a board with the same plebs that post terrible fits in WAYWTs?

[Anonymous No.12793979]

>>12793948
never claimed it was because 'nazis' in the first place
>>12793965
who?

[Anonymous No.12794020]

>muh alt-right
>muh nazis

[Anonymous No.12794347]

>>12793753
the /fa/ browsing balding homo has rick key ring, and even has the rick aesthetic in his apartment. he worries about having to mix it with the style of a 'life partner'.

the west is over. london should burn. and all the faggots in the video as well.

[Anonymous No.12794364]

all those other retards acting like they dont know wtf fa is. we a movement out here and shit. ps rickfags kysss

[Anonymous No.12794373]

>>12794347
JUST

[Anonymous No.12794385]

>>12793873
>It's interesting that a coping mechanism has been digested as a mainstream truth
this has been the story of western civilization for like, the past 3 years or so. the guy talking about /fa/ in this video is the ultimate personification of it

[Anonymous No.12794394]

>>12793753

To whoever posted this thread, I posted the other one. Just wanted to say I love you, and glad I wasn't the only one.

[Anonymous No.12794416]

>>12793873
what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.12794417]

>>12794385
dude is a numale. he writes for the guardian. he lives in london. he is balding. has a beard. he is a living meme. the embodiment of the millenial numale...

here is his twitter account. lets say hi.
https://twitter.com/nedbeauman

[Sieg No.12794419]

That college girl talk-laugh is infuriating.


Especially paired with " no, *smile*, I don't know *smile*"

[Anonymous No.12794422]

>>12793753
fucking annoying people

"high fashion" is really retarded hobby

[Sieg No.12794426]

>>12794417
Balding, single, dead end fake news per diem job, lol good luck with life ned

[Anonymous No.12794439]

>>12794417
>https://twitter.com/nedbeauman
hes not worth the time or energy. the scapegoating rickfag that peddles corn syrup opinions on the guardian and his twitter feed deserves to be an afterthought to everyone here

his life and philosophy is worthless so start acting like it. and read the greeks

[Anonymous No.12794446]

>>12794394
I love you too anon :)

[Anonymous No.12794450]

>>12794439
nice try, ned.

[Anonymous No.12794451]

also go to 36:00... of all the things you can come to interpret, she says that? wow man not only is that pretentious how everyone sits around and agrees but it's really fuckin sick too. these people have their minds in the worst gutter imaginable

[Anonymous No.12794454]

>>12793753
Everyone in this video should kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.12794470]

>>12794451
holy shit

[Anonymous No.12794476]

>>12794417
when they discuss ned's potential 'life partner' the person is referred to at times as a girlfriend or genderless 'life partner', i am not sure if this implies he is bi-sexual or if this is due to new (((cosmopolitan))) PC speech codes. But I am going to assume the former.... so he is bisexual/latently gay numale. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse.

all these faggots in the vid are semi-fashion 'journalists', they are all on social media, we could pull late 2015 /pol/ tricks on them and sour their online life. ned deserves it.

[Anonymous No.12794491]

>>12794451
give me a quick rundown i dont feel like watching

[Anonymous No.12794498]

>>12794491
its only a 20 second segment bro

[Anonymous No.12794504]

>>12794498
im in a loud building with no earphones. i need a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.12794507]

>>12793873
Hang on, I haven't been here in a year or so. Why did they go and where did they go to?

[Anonymous No.12794510]

>>12794507
they started a trans lgbqt friendly secret online forum.. invite only

[Anonymous No.12794513]

>>12794504
she said the puffy clothes looked like a corporeal distortion, and cited prolapsed anuses as something they reminded her of. then she said the clothes looked sexual, but not in a romantic way. she is a retard and everyone else just kept saying "yeah" "mmmhm" "yeah" without even thinking about what she was saying

[Anonymous No.12794516]

>>12794510
That sounds like the worst thing ever

[Anonymous No.12794524]

>>12794510
lol.

[Anonymous No.12794546]

>>12794439
>looks 40
>joined twiiter just in 2016

[Anonymous No.12794550]

>>12793918
>>12793931
ROG is still around
we just moved to discord because it makes sense to be less anonymous so you know who you're chatting with
also just keeps the discussion more organized

[Anonymous No.12794572]

>>12794546
virtue signalling while discussing the change in management of a popular restaurant.

these people are parodies of cliches.

[Anonymous No.12794592]

>>12793931
ROG is still alive as ROD and it has a few hundred people in it.

[Anonymous No.12794598]

'faaahh'

[Anonymous No.12794630]

>>12794426
>Sieg talking down another male
that's rich

[Anonymous No.12794633]

lol you are a streetwear board don't act like you talk about fashion

[Sieg No.12794636]

Just because I've been going by the name sieg heil for over a decade, argue that blacks are genticlly inferior due to being closer to primates on the evolutionary scale does not mean I'm a Nazi.

I enjoy watching the lesser evolved people perform in athletic competitions as much as the next American.

The only thing I disagree with these liberals is on guns, healthcare, freedom of speech.

For instance....Bruce Jenner is still Bruce Jenner

HE is suffering from a mental condition that is known as gender dysphoria, rather than playing along with his delusions his life would be better if we helped treat his illness...I don't like seeing fellow human beings openly mocked for illness...why are we exacerbating this man's condition as a society? To point and laugh? To make ourselves feel good? That doesn't help him, you're so narcissistic as a liberal that people don't matter everything about the world is just feeding into your ego....that's not the man I was raised to be.

[Anonymous No.12794646]

>>12794636
instead you're an overweight (and balding) man in your 30s posting on a board for teenagers.

[Anonymous No.12794668]

>>12794636
you really have some nerve calling other people out for mental condition. arr you that dillusional you cannot see how fuck you are

[Sieg No.12794670]

>>12794646
I'm not balding nor am I 30

[Anonymous No.12794693]

>>12794636
>sieg heil
name is just sieg care to explain

[Anonymous No.12794716]

>being this insecure

Why is this thread popular
Why do you care holy shit

[Anonymous No.12794731]

>>12794670
30 =/= 30s
You're delusional based off your face pics, Mr. Norwood 2A

[Sieg No.12794768]

>>12794731
Not in 30s either

[Anonymous No.12794973]

>>12794394
>>12794446
Hey I made a thread too, the one with the pepe. Can I have some love too?

[Anonymous No.12794988]

>alt-right
>nazis

what a fag

[Anonymous No.12795200]

>>12793753
GUYS WE MUST REBEL AGAINST THE NORMIES

EVERYONE DISLIKE THE VIDEO ON MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

GET THE FUCKING DISLIKES IN THE THOUSANDS

GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!


GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!


DON'T MAKE ME POST A THREAD ON /B/ FOR BACKUP

[Anonymous No.12795380]

>>12794598
Jesus...

[Anonymous No.12795381]

>>12793978
what collection is this

[Anonymous No.12795466]

>>12794513
she's pretty much on point
holy fuck I knew /fa/ browswers are dumb as fuck but damn
Rick is basically taking the cdg lumps concept lot further and in his own direction in relation to his concerns of future
maybe start by reading some articles and coverage of the cdg show if you have this much trouble understanding this

[Anonymous No.12795472]

>>12794513
It's pretty ironic you are here criticizing that interpretation when it's exactly this kinda coverage you should be taking seriously to actually understand runway fashion (if you even want that is, it's not for everyone) while I assume you get your 'fashion knowledge' mostly on /fa/
You don't think there is any sexuality in play in here? In relation to Ricks earlier work? And on distorting the female silhouette while still keeping the round feminine shapes but exposing entire legs?
Go watch the SS18 mens show for some contrast to this one, both are very much playing with sexuality and what makes something feminine or masculine

[Anonymous No.12795557]

>>12795466
>>12795472
wtf? looks like the rog zogs are scurrying out of their bug caves to defend anal prolapse fashion HAHAHA pathetic. no wonder you got run outta here

[Anonymous No.12795566]

>>12795557
I have to say the attitude some people here have where they almost aggressively try to avoid not wanting to learn the tiniest thing about fashion is just bit sad.
Is it like a thing where you are more cool if you seem indifferent and try to slam everything?
But yeah, it's high fashion, it's extremely marginal thing to be in to, it's whatever if you don't like it or care for it, most people are like you.

[Anonymous No.12795568]

>>12795557
I think it's worth pursing those kind of conversations but it definitely demands more than... quips.
Fashion doesn't avoid being political- as Rei Kawakuba has made evident.

>>12795466
What is the CDG lumps n bumps collection trying to pursue?
I don't think Rick Owens is approaching design using them same lexicon here.

He's not so much challenging tired tropes in Women's design as much dismissing those kind of tired tropes and putting forward, as he always has been, interpretations of artists he respects.

Although I do agree- I think over the years Rick Owens runways have moved from what I would describe as displays of "things to wear to the supermarket" to more "thematically charged" spectacles (akin to contemporary CDG).
It's intermediate right now I would argue.

>>12795472
Sexuality in play?
What is that describing specifically.
I'm not sure if Rick is so concerned about preserving "feminine silhouettes" through round shapes.
In fact I would argue that that kind of approach, and Rick recognises this, is extremely tired. That battle was lost 20 years ago.
The entire leg thing has some fuel.
Provocative, like Helmut Lang (important point of reference).

I feel here you've misunderstood Rick's approach to designing clothing.

[Anonymous No.12795574]

>>12795566
>not wanting to learn the tiniest thing about fashion is just bit sad.
>But yeah, it's high fashion, it's extremely marginal thing to be in to
pick one you stupid ape

>>12795568
>I think it's worth pursing those kind of conversations but it definitely demands more than... quips.
>Fashion doesn't avoid being political- as Rei Kawakuba has made evident.
what does anal prolapse have to do with politics? the people in the video can't even articulate themselves or challenge their own ideas. and you rog zog brains are having a hard time trying it, too. you're just sitting there and nodding ur head like the people in the video. is the hamster in your brain wheel asleep?

[Anonymous No.12795579]

>>12795574
Politics in the general sense, policies someone might use to profile themselves.

I haven't watched the video- in general I stray away from popular fashion media. Fashion journalism typically sucks dick and Show Studio isn't above that cultural status quo.

You're not articulating either
You're specifically advocating the non-articulation.
As in- you're not just proposing that the discussion shouldn't happen but that attempts to pursue are futile.

I'm curious as to what you're trying to achieve.

My dick is firmly in my hand, if you were curious as to where the wheel was spinning.

I'd like to reiterate- I hate the video.

[Anonymous No.12795581]

>>12795574
>pick one you stupid ape
Why? They aren't contradicting in any way, I'm just saying I get it's marginal interest, but actively shitting on something just because you don't even attempt to understand it is just sad thing to see.
Do you think the people you get inspired to dress some way or you think are good dressers got where they are by actively shutting off any new information and ideas about clothing and being hostile and negative towards them?

[Anonymous No.12795586]

>>12795581
>They aren't contradicting in any way,
yes they are

[Anonymous No.12795591]

>>12795581
>Do you think the people you get inspired to dress some way or you think are good dressers got where they are by actively shutting off any new information and ideas about clothing and being hostile and negative towards them?
the first half of this is like reading a stroke in process and the other half is just a lame platitude. umm bro u need to be open minded to be like one of the greats...

i should be more tolerant to stupid retards like you, maybe you have some good ideas for me. after all, how could i even begin to be as fashionable as you, the rick owens knight in shining armor that cant even speak fuckin english?

[Anonymous No.12795592]

>>12795591
>I'm curious as to what you're trying to achieve
Answer plz

[Anonymous No.12795595]

>>12795579
>You're not articulating either
heres an articulation for you:

what's so new about this line? or rick owen in general? high fashion like this has been going crazy for decades. the runway has been littered with insane silhouettes and impractical concoctions of fashion thought up by mad men.

all of this architectural stuff is like crinolines except there's not any acceptable social context to wear them in without looking like a walking fashion statement sucker who paid money to peddle goods and ruin people's environments by wearing full goomba

[Anonymous No.12795596]

>>12795568
>What is the CDG lumps n bumps collection trying to pursue?
Well I feel like it was sorta deconstruction of female form, women have lumps and bumps on them naturally but the collection distorted that and made the women look like they have tumors and hunchbacks, at the same time, I think big inspiration was backpacks, handbags and totes that lot of women carry around daily that distort the human form if you think about the silhouette but it was integrated to the clothing itself.
Rick has same thing going on with the soft curvy shapes here, while obscuring the natural feminine silhouette, he is keeping the roundness and softness intact and he is distorting it by literally integrating huge pockets and bags to the clothing. Even the display of the clothing follows similar theme, where the CDG collection revealed beautiful, expertly tailored garments when the padding was removed, rick has basically tied the outfits together with tee shirts, if you take that apart you actually have whole bunch of very wearable well produced garments.
>Sexuality in play?
>What is that describing specifically.
Again, the feminine shapes and silhouettes, compare it to the SS18 mens for example where the silhouettes were more aggressive and angular, taking more masculine approach. He had guys walking in tight tiny shorts without shirts on basically highlighting narrow hips and wide shoulders. And while here we had woman looking like Gumby after nuclear holocaust walking on the stage, she had entirely exposed legs which adds odd amount of sexiness to something that is initially very unappealing form.

[Anonymous No.12795601]

>>12795586
>I refuse to acknowledge anything you just wrote
Why bother replying when you don't even want to discuss things?
>i should be more tolerant to stupid retards like you, maybe you have some good ideas for me. after all, how could i even begin to be as fashionable as you, the rick owens knight in shining armor that cant even speak fuckin english?
I'm not trying to lift myself above anyone here or attacking you here personally, try to put your emotional responses aside if you want to actually discuss.

[Anonymous No.12795604]

>>12795595
>what's so new about this line? or rick owen in general? high fashion like this has been going crazy for decades. the runway has been littered with insane silhouettes and impractical concoctions of fashion thought up by mad men.
>I don't actually follow high fashion at all
Tell me again, why should you be taken seriously in this discussion?

[Anonymous No.12795606]

>>12795596
>Again, the feminine shapes and silhouettes, compare it to the SS18 mens for example where the silhouettes were more aggressive and angular, taking more masculine approach. He had guys walking in tight tiny shorts without shirts on basically highlighting narrow hips and wide shoulders. And while here we had woman looking like Gumby after nuclear holocaust walking on the stage, she had entirely exposed legs which adds odd amount of sexiness to something that is initially very unappealing form.
you can say the same thing if she was wearing a tattered up blazer with a skirt, and only 1 legging. you people are so full of shit it's epic.

if you really wanted to compliment the outfit you would say how good it would be to block people's views in movie theaters, or maybe how good it can be for not fitting through doorways. maybe you can put on that outfit and walk around hollywood blvd and shake a cup at people like what those homeless spidermen do

[Anonymous No.12795607]

>>12795591
>u need to be open minded to be like one of the greats...
Oh so you do get it?
Why the attitude then?

[Anonymous No.12795608]

>>12795604
nice argument, if you're so knowledgeable about high fashion scams then why don't you debunk me instead of plugging your ears like the rog zog you are

[Anonymous No.12795609]

>>12795606
>if you really wanted to compliment
man you just keep assuming I have this kinda angle to this, I'm not attempting to compliment it, don't read in to what I'm trying to say, read what I said

[Anonymous No.12795611]

>>12795607
i was making fun of you man. you guys should have just stayed in your affirmation bubble. the discord you all fled to after the /fa/ nazi incursion, forcing you to flee to the promised land

[Anonymous No.12795612]

>>12795608
There is nothing to debunk
Go to nowfashion or vogue and browse the runway archives, there is no such thing as some recent direction towards making unwearable or impractical, such things have always been present to some degree, most runways are all about wearable clothing, you know as the name implies, pret-a-porter, the fashion houses and designers all run businesses they need to sell certain amount of clothing each season to stay afloat and you don't get there if you make nothing but impractical and unwearable conceptual things.

[Anonymous No.12795615]

>>12795595
SS18 do you mean?

Historically people have criticised Rick Owens for doing the same thing over and over again.
I don't think SS18 has been an exception.
I recognise the same kind of sandals he attempted from Island, the same short dress shapes from Scorpio, a familiar, the same kind of draping he's pioneered since Suckerball.

What's different, and what's also kind of new to the Rick Owens runway strategy is the extreme eccentric flourish which kind of started to drain out towards the end of the presentation.
That's name to me, but I think that's the kind of new I was talking about, like CDG.

CDG mainline pushes a novel redirect with successive seasons, it doesn't reproduce old design staples.

Rick does both during his presentation- develops his older core ideas while also imbuing the CDG approach.

I think it's become progressively more crazy.
The CDG crazy we saw in the 90s doesn't compare to the Gareth Pugh or the Craig Green crazy we see today.
But also i'm sure crazy was evaluated differently in those two times, so keeping the context of the period in mind, maybe equal craziness.
Hard to say

But what is interesting to say there is what is driving this kind of new way of presentation (extremely abstracted clothing spectacle, akin to what see Craig Green among others I'm brain farting of)

the abstraction of the wearer and the spectacle of the object.
What's driving that into the clothing commerce sphere?
Why buy clothing if it can't be worn?
Designers compete on the free market, they have a commercial imperative driving them, these endeavors need to justify themselves in terms of capital return, usually.

Well maybe the social context is instagram.
And there I would argue there is.
To cultivate someones brand identity by wearing jarring and shocking objects.
A new breed of market, social capital.
Cryptocurrency is old news.

If it perturbs your environment maybe dismiss it, or attempt ambivalence.

[Anonymous No.12795618]

>>12795611
What makes you think I visit the discord? It seems like you are pretty obsessed about it, maybe you should go vent there, I'm sure you would have interesting discussion if you really believe you have something that is well argumented to say.

[Anonymous No.12795621]

>>12795615
>Craig Green crazy
While I agree with Pugh, Green doesn't exactly do crazy at all, his clothing is very utilitarian inspired and the craziest thing is basically whole bunch of cords and straps hanging from come jackets.
He just uses props for the shows which really lot of shows do.

[Anonymous No.12795623]

>>12795615
>Well maybe the social context is instagram.
yeah so this line is for rich kids to show off on their instagram, trying to "cultivate" some millennial's "brand" by wearing clothes that aren't even designed by them. sounds useless and decadent to me. like somebody stuck a steroid plunger into leisurely activities and turned them into massive hulk monsters that people continue to give the benefit of a doubt to, intellectually speaking, when it's just a boomer style get rich quick scheme

>If it perturbs your environment maybe dismiss it, or attempt ambivalence.
thats good advice for litter too

[Anonymous No.12795624]

>>12795596
Humps and Bumps wasn't a deconstruction I don't think
It was the precise opposite
it was antagonising the construction of female archetypes as displayed by popular fashion.

Like twisting a knife in a wound.
That's a common Kawakuba strategy.

Men have lumps and bumps, this isn't exclusive to women.
Rei traumatised that conception of it being exclusive to women, in the way you described.
It inflamed that condition to such a degree it brought it to its ontological conclusion, a disease.
in the same way t
hose kind of descriptions (women as being typically endowed with bumps n humps) as a plague to women.
It's worth keeping in mind not all women are bumpy n humpy.

The inspiration were not handbags or backpacks.

Men have suitcases and backpacks

I think you've misinterpreted the collection.
It was a critique on how fashion constructed women. agony.

Rick doesn't have the same thing going.
he never has, there's nothing soft and curvy about his rendering of women.

although it is expertly tailored- that's rick.
look at a rick women's leather jacket and tell me what you see.

I think you attempted to compare this rick collection to CDG to fit your narrative.

If more time is spent looking at Rick's work and narrative other things become available.

[Anonymous No.12795628]

>>12795621
I'll stop myself here
I think Craig Green is stupid and I hate his work.
I won't pursue discussing him but also
I'm not that familiar- from what I've seen I dislike.
and it's even more stupid when I've seen it in person.

>>12795623
Maybe that's the diagnosis.

I pick litter up and trash it.

They call me:
Skull fucker.

I'll be real here, I read the first sentence and last line.
Homie you're getting dark super quick

[Anonymous No.12795634]

>>12795628
>Homie you're getting dark super quick
you're the one who told me to be ambivalent instead of negative. nice dystopia world you're putting me in here

[Anonymous No.12795639]

>>12795634
You didn't need me for your dystopia

I also contextualised ambivalence differently to how you've consumed it.

[Anonymous No.12795643]

>>12795624
>Humps and Bumps wasn't a deconstruction I don't think
I think it very much was, I mean that's what CDG really thrives on or at least did back then. And big part of it, I think, was sorta meta commentary on fashion always trying to reinvent the body and the shape of it by using clothes which I think can be argued is deconstruction of that.
>The inspiration were not handbags or backpacks.
I remember reading few articles about the show and they mentioned it and at least I see it, it's hard to say the exact things going on in Reis head since she rarely gives interviews though.
>Men have lumps and bumps, this isn't exclusive to women.
But it was key point "Body Meets Dress, Dress Meets Body" being a womens show and while distorting and hiding the female form, the silhouettes still had very soft and round, feminine quality to them. And that's basically silhouette 101, feminine is round and soft, masculine is angular and sharp.

[Anonymous No.12795650]

>>12795643
You're using the word deconstruction wrong

Technically when something is deconstructed the structure is reduced

It was specifically structured.

I'm not going to dispute this, this is semantics.

CDG never thrived on pure deconstruction, it challenged popular fashion and how it rendered women... and infantilised men.
Although, I wouldn't try bottleneck CDG to just that, we're glossing over 40years of history here.
There's a lot to say.

I'm not sure if metacommentary is the right word but it definitely critiqued fashion perspective, but not through deconstruction.
Although deconstruction has also used to critique fashion, see Margiela, Lang, Poell.

It's not handbags.
The articles you read are stupid.
Really fucking stupid.
They may have had zips and volume to be occupied... maybe speaking of baggage and the weight of trauma. plague of being weighted down.
I'll suffer your desires, pile me up and i'll trod on.
Women as fashions pack horse.

The subject is women, you're right.
It's challenging how women are portrayed in fashion.
It's challenging that if circles are such feminine forms then let's make hunchbacks a women thing, let's make tumours a women thing.
Lets go the full 10miles and see if your assumptions still make sense

Do I still look sexy with a bump on my vagina?
But it's so feminine!

It didn't hide female form, women were explicit- there's no looking past that.
It distorted women form (Explicitly women, that's important)

You're being circular here. and you've also fallen into my argument backwards.

People thought roundness and softness was intrinsically a feminine thing.
CDG challenged that by presenting those two things to the extreme and then asking.
Is this still women?
Would you fuck this?

And your last statement about masculinity has also been lost
See le corbusier, minimalism or industrialisatoin.
general conception tried to push men as been angular and sharp.
Poell fought that battle like CDG did

conclusion: shape=/=gender

[Anonymous No.12795655]

>>12795624
>The inspiration were not handbags or backpacks.
While not necessary inspiration, it was definitely something lot of people noted and draw parallels at the time, most notably Merce Cunningham who did 'Scenario' dance piece that used clothing from the collection
>Choreographer Merce Cunningham, who used the collection in his ‘Scenario’ production, explained the shapes with a more friendly, familiar eye : “the lumps are familiar shapes we can see every day, a bike messenger with a bag over the shoulder, a tourist with fanny pack, a baby on a mother’s arm.
http://blog.momu.be/2016/exhibition/rethinking-the-body-comme-des-garcons-and-georgina-godley/

[Anonymous No.12795658]

>>12793753
Rick is a brand for nu males with nu male lifestyles, attitudes and beliefs. All rickfags must admit. And submit.

[Anonymous No.12795659]

>>12795650
>Technically when something is deconstructed the structure is reduced
I meant more deconstruction of the female form using clothing, it took the familiar shapes of female body and the key elements of female silhouette but instead of articulating them more, they were used to distort the familiar form.

[Anonymous No.12795665]

>>12795659
And in relation to Rick, this collection seemed to have similar thing going on, while hiding and distorting the body, it still had mainly soft and round quality to them.

[Anonymous No.12795690]

>>12795655
Sure, people can note on whatever they want

I think it's lazy to draw that comparison and there's far more depth to what CdG is saying.
I would also suggest that suggesting handbags also undermines the overall critique.
That nothing about that collection is specifically feminine.

Also realise:
> explained the shapes with a more friendly, familiar eye
So perhaps if we might want to be able to more easily digest it we could say handbags

but more accurately baggage, in the way that I described.

>>12795659
She's not talking about the female form.
She's talking about how the female form is structured.
Like women can look like men but still consider themselves women.
Or men like women etc.

She's suggesting, again, that the way fashion and society structured women is bullshit.
She's not talking about women, but how they're structured/produced/consumed/manufactured.

She's not taking female shapes...
She's taking shapes and poking fun at the fact that idiots think these are female shapes.

That's the whole message lump sum.

"You bunch of dawdling fuckwits don't know the first thing about women"

She's not distorting female form.
She's distorting the perception of female form.

>>12795665
We can't even begin to draw comparison to Rick if you don't understand what CdG is saying with your reference.

[Anonymous No.12795704]

>>12793753
>not a single human being in that entire pic lifts

[Anonymous No.12795712]

>>12795704
>doesn't know that the spirit of Rick Owens looms over us all

[Anonymous No.12795717]

>>12795690
>there's far more depth
I don't think drawing that parallel has anything to do with depth nor does it take away from the ideas presented at all.
>She's suggesting, again, that the way fashion and society structured women is bullshit.
I'm just talking about the clothing itself, there are different approaches CDG could have taken with the collection and same theme but there was clearly very intentional, thought out process using the feminine shapes in distorting the figure.
>She's distorting the perception of female form.
I get that, I'm not arguing against it.
>She's taking shapes and poking fun at the fact that idiots think these are female shapes.
I never really meant "female" shapes, I talked about masculine and feminine shapes, very much different things. I mean CDG was in the front lines of having females embracing more masculine clothing and introducing feminine things to male wardrobe in the 80s.
Both of course come mainly from the culture and fashion of the past but CDG hasn't really actively renounced gender or femininity and masculinity in themselves.
Even the 'housewife' gingham check was clearly deliberate exaggeration and poke at the traditional female form and what we associate it with. I really see it more of a celebration of female form than middle finger to the tradition.

[Anonymous No.12795729]

>>12795717
Drawing a parallel doesn't pertain intrinsic depth.
I think recognising that Rei wasn't talking about handbags and the weight which fashion puts on women in society allows for a deeper reading, depth if you will.

But we can disagree there- doesn't concern me.

>I'm just talking about the clothing itself...
I don't understand what you're saying here but I don't think we disagree.

CDG didn't pioneer moving suits or whatever onto women... that was a thing closer to the turn of the century, prominent throughout a lot of Europe.
A good example are zoot suits in the USA following World War Two.
But there are earlier example than that.

Again, not something I would contribute to CdG, that would be being really generous... and grossly short changing important women's rights movements.

I think her entire career throughout the 80s and 90s was infused with challenging how people perceived women and men. By torturing how they were expected to dress and what tropes they were expected to conform to.

>Even the 'housewife' gingham check was clearly deliberate exaggeration ...
I agree

>celebration of female form
???
She can't celebrate a female form if she recognises there isn't a concrete female form.
There is no female form as such, or at least fashion didn't present a compelling model to her.

I'm really not super interested in pursuing this further

you're stumbling over yourself super hard, where now every subsequent sentence seems to be denouncing the last.

[Anonymous No.12795742]

>>12795690
>She's suggesting, again, that the way fashion and society structured women is bullshit.
>She's not talking about women, but how they're structured/produced/consumed/manufactured.
And I don't think this specific show was about this, as it has been one of the key ideas of CDG since the start, people found the brand shocking when it started on Paris precisely because it didn't really conform to the European womenswear standard, instead of articulating the form, it introduced drapey garments that hid the natural body of the wearer and I guess liberating women to some degree from that mold. If anything Body Meets Dress was odd one for CDG show because the garments were lot more clingy and followed the form introduced by the padding and the wearer.
I suppose there could be something to be said about the use of padding like this in context of 80s use of padding on womens clothing and fashion as well, when in the 80s one would use padding to get the aggressive business woman look with more masculine traits, here it's used for lot more feminine shape and to add 'unwanted' shapes to a body. But that's kind of a long shot considering the show was in 1997

[Anonymous No.12795752]

>>12795742
I agree, these kinds of themes (women's suffrage) have been pertinent throughout a lot of CdG's output through the 80s and 90s.

And that Humps + bumps fits that narrative.
I think how I unpacked it described how it fits into that narrative.

CdG did more than just not conform- it challenged the dogma.
It didn't only dismiss protocol but suggested how her colleagues and fashion were shit.

the reason for its clingyness and also bulbousness is again to exemplify how women were constructed.

Some parts slim (consider the waist and neck) but specific regions also bulbous (ass and tits).
it fits the overall parody CdG constructed for that collection.
It fits and makes sense in the argument I've constructed.

There were also other collections which featured clingyness
consider the gloves from AW96

I don't think CdG was concerned about clothing "clingyness" as much as they were about delivering their narrative.

Padding is something typically done on men's business suits to produce a straight "masculine" shape (broad shoulders, straight scapula, sharp drop).
Maybe introducing that aspects into humps n bumps would be interesting but I also feels it's really reaching.

it's not adding ünwanted shape", read above.
Precisely, it's antagonising what people consider feminine shapes by ramping them up into absurdity.

[Anonymous No.12795770]

>>12795729
>She can't celebrate a female form if she recognises there isn't a concrete female form.
See, but that's what I meant with how the clothing could have gone any other way with distorting the body, while she introduced entirely new kind of silhouette on women, the shapes, softness and roundness are still very familiar and feminine Something completely new using traditional approach to feminine form, mimicking very traditional shapes crinolines or corsets would give but without the uncomfortable and restricting aspects of them.
I feel like if there was no aspect of celebrating the feminine qualities there, she would have chosen completely alien shapes instead of pursuing something so traditionally feminine.
I think lot of articles also pointed out the reshaping of maternal figure, she didn't entirely alienate the concept of femininity from female form, but rather used it in empowering way.

[Anonymous No.12795793]

>>12795770
I agree, I think CdG considered how to present that collection very carefully so as to produce a fluid narrative.

CdG didn't introduce a new silhouette
It's the same old fucking silhouette but with the volume pushed to 500%.
CdG exaggerated the same old bullshit tropes and asked "but are your dicks now 500% erect to match?" or "is this shape 500% feminine?"
Softness whatever are the cliche descriptors of feminine shape.
And CdG challenged that by tinkering the function.

CdG produced an alien shape.
a amorphous shape which could only be recognised as a human if it was considered malformed, hunchback as you described.
CdG produced an alien (NON-feminine shape) shape by manipulating feminine shape tropes.
Therefore she showed that shapes are not feminine

Simply put: if i've used all the same ingredients (feminine trope) to make this cake (human-female) but multiplied them by x, then why is it no longer recognisable as a cake?

Maternal figure is a WHOLLLLE different discourse I honestly don't have the energy to expand on.

CdG alienated perceptions of femininity, that was CdG's critique.

[Anonymous No.12795812]

>>12795793
>It's the same old fucking silhouette but with the volume pushed to 500%.
It really isn't though, lot of the bumps and lumps were in places that totally changed the silhouette while others were just exaggeration of traditional ones.
>Therefore she showed that shapes are not feminine
I can't really agree with this at all, while I get the commentary, the silhouettes are still very feminine because of the use of those old tropes, and I think that was very much the intention.
It comes back to the meta part I mentioned, where designers through ages have tried to reinvent the shape of humans with new things, here it was instead the old things used in a way that leaves impression of familiarity while being radically different.

[Anonymous No.12795827]

>>12795812
Your right.

It asked a secondary question
"because you like roundness and circles so much what if added them in different places?"
"what if i had more of them?"
in order to antagonise the same bullshit tropes.

yeah wow damn this fucking feminine block
i just want to spill all my god damn chauvinistic splendor all over those #curves
so #soft and feminine
what a silhouette hell yeah
that's some femininity i'm looking at
what palpable roundness and feminine

it doesn't comeback to the meta part at all
you don't possess the knowledge to recollect clothing throughout the ages
different clothing makers have tried to do different things- not all are interested in reinventing human anatomy.
very few are
most just want to be paid.

do ur homework

[Anonymous No.12795859]

>>12795827
>you don't possess the knowledge to recollect clothing throughout the ages
I'm not saying that, it's just that through the ages people always have wanted to do something new so reinventing things is something that has been present, people want to do new things. Christian Dior mentioned in his memoir that after the world wars, he was tired of the blocky and angular shapes of uniforms so he embraced roundness and flowiness in his designs for example. I didn't mean it in that everyone wanted to reinvent human anatomy, but the way clothing can shape the body, and that's kinda what I feel like was one of the big ideas of "Body Meets Dress", I mean even the name implies that.
And I never implied femininity as something you want to fuck as a man if that's what you are trying to say but more in how that's the tradition of constructing clothing on female and male bodies which stem from the differences between biology, women have roundness and softness to their natural shape in general due to hips, waist and breasts, it's very elementary thing and probably one of the first things you learn if you start making clothing.

[Anonymous No.12795862]

>>12795859
>but the way clothing can shape the body, and that's kinda what I feel like was one of the big ideas of "Body Meets Dress", I mean even the name implies that
And in this case, bit different kind of spin on it by sculpting new kind of body with clothing just so no one misinterprets that.

[Anonymous No.12795880]

Good thread guys ..even though you guys are arguing,i am learning a new thing from you

[Anonymous No.12795903]

>>12795859
>I'm not saying that,
then don't say anything, i'm not interested in your unfounded blanket bullshit.
it's glaringly obvious to me you don't possess the knowledge to make those kind of grandiose statements
just don't

>And I never implied femininity as something you want to fuck as a man
it's the defacto end point and part of CdG's critique into femininity and women's suffrage

The idea of baggage, Freud's Object (a). The women as site of patriarchal fantasy, imbued with all men's fetish desire.

Like how a coke can is marketed as the drink which will quench thirst but actually does the exact opposite.
We endow it with our hopes of quenching thirst, although the reality is it doesn't.
We endow women with these ideas of softness and roundness to satisfy men's romantic and sex desire.
We create object A in women.

Introducing the idea of baggage, as presented by CdG through humps and bumps

You couldn't see that because you don't possess the knowledge.

Femininity has been constructed specifically by patriarchal society to represent a vulnerable and docile site- sinking their Object A desires into.
See CdG aw82, women's suffrage: resistance, and contest.

"Body Meets Dress" is satire- dark humour.

>differences between biology
That's a eurocentric perspective.
Men in different regions possess different shapes.
As do women in different regions
there's little correlation between shape and gender aside from phallus (if you want to talk about biology)

The idea of women being profiled as round and soft is a myth. Your oversight here is telling.

It was debunked over 100 years ago, fashion debunked it 20 years ago, and you've still yet to grasp that.

You're 100 years behind fella.
Dead in the water.

Furthermore what's also insightful,
is your inability to maintain a congruent narrative

[Anonymous No.12795913]

>>12795903
I said Freud but I meant Lacan....

My bad, I was thinking through Zizek and got the two confused.

Lacan, Object (a) or Objet petit a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objet_petit_a

[Anonymous No.12795948]

>>12795903
>unfounded
Well it's not really unfounded it's something that's pretty clear reading about history of fashion, through the times the silhouette and shape of clothing has changed, people yearn for something new and the creators want to try something new.
>it's the defacto end point and part of CdG's critique into femininity and women's suffrage
Absolutely, I was just talking about femininity in clothing in general and what those elements are.
>We endow it with our hopes of quenching thirst, although the reality is it doesn't.
Well it's not just that as it's very basic differences between male and female body like I explained. Of course there are exceptions but again, from perspective of creating clothing those come to play.
>Femininity has been constructed specifically by patriarchal society to represent a vulnerable and docile site
But roundness and softness neither are that in themselves.
How is biology eurocentric perspective? I get that as far as fashion goes that kinda outlook on creating clothing to females and males very much is but again, CDG from the start broke the European 'rules' of dressing women, in that way Body Meets Dress was not really groundbreaking.
>The idea of women being profiled as round and soft is a myth. Your oversight here is telling.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by profiling and in what context but it's one of the building blocks of making clothing. That's why I've mentioned the meta part too, I'm sure Rei is aware of these things.
>The idea of women being profiled as round and soft is a myth. Your oversight here is telling.

>It was debunked over 100 years ago, fashion debunked it 20 years ago, and you've still yet to grasp that.
Again, I'm not sure 'profiled' in what context but fashion very much to this day embraces femininity and masculinity in clothing. Hell, Rick, where this discussion started constantly plays around with both the key elements that make something feminine or masculine.

[Anonymous No.12795968]

>>12795948
>roundness
culturally connected to fertility
>softness
vulnerability

dispute that if you want but like most things you've said, it's obvious to me it's not coming from an informed standpoint.

>biology eurocentric
you're wrongly paraphrasing me here, not interested.
to cut it short, a women from africa is shaped dramatically different from a women in asia
human beings, in spite of gender, possess a huge variety of shapes.
a man from Denmark is shaped like idk, like a women in Australia or something.

>building blocks of making clothing
if you say so

>meta
don't think you know what you're talk about.

>I'm sure Rei is aware of these things
I'm sure you're close friends with Rei Kawakuba.

google what profiled means.
maybe look into synonyms if you're having trouble

don't try drag Rick into this, you can barely grasp english language, let alone this other shit you think you're clued up on.

[Anonymous No.12795990]

>>12795968
>>roundness
>culturally connected to fertility
>>softness
>vulnerability
Well aren't both exactly the kinda cultural constructions? They aren't inherently those things as much as people associate those qualities to them, however both are present in female body and something you have to take to account when making clothing, whether you think the qualities you mentioned are present. Women tend to have butts, hips, waists and boobs to a lot greater degree than men do, something I'm personally very familiar with tailoring clothing to people in all shapes and sizes.
>to cut it short, a women from africa is shaped dramatically different from a women in asia
>human beings, in spite of gender, possess a huge variety of shapes.
>a man from Denmark is shaped like idk, like a women in Australia or something.
Absolutely, but women still tend to have more of those round shapes in to them compared to men which has reflected and still reflects the way clothing are made for them.
>I'm sure you're close friends with Rei Kawakuba.
What I'm saying is, as someone who has made clothes a lot, Rei is probably well aware of the key things you have to know and consider making clothing.
>google what profiled means.
>maybe look into synonyms if you're having trouble
I meant the context of what, like you mentioned eurocentrism in relation to my comment about differences between biology, so did you mean profiled in western society maybe? In fashion?

If Rei wanted to completely denounce what constitutes a female silhouette, I don't think she would have chosen to make the bumps and lumps to have the round and soft quality to them, as the context is clothing and fashion and those are the the key elements to femininity in that context.

[Anonymous No.12796031]

>>12795990
yup
but they're as much linked to a female as they are to a male
which is to say there is nothing intrinsically female about it.

Oh i'm aware you're designing around fertility and vulnerability when producing women's clothing.
You've made that very clear.

>Women tend to have butts, hips, waists and boobs to a lot greater degree than men do, something I'm personally very familiar with tailoring clothing to people in all shapes and sizes.
Men don't have: butts, hips, waists, breasts that can be larger than a woman's.
Of course, I'm sure you've made plenty of clothing and have a flourishing career in... clothing making or whatever.

>but women still tend to have more of those round shapes in to them compared to men which has reflected and still reflects the way clothing are made for them.
Perhaps where you live.

It's incredible to me that you don't understand the critique and why CdG pursued...
You know, because CdG is treated as Outsider fashion, perhaps she's acutely aware of issues which concern marginalised communities?
obviously that's lost on you.

I really hope i'm looking at a specific section of the normal dist. curve for clothing makers today
this has been BLEAK.

[Anonymous No.12796169]

>>12794646
kek'd, thats the savior of civilization youre talking to

[Anonymous No.12796283]

>>12796031
>Oh i'm aware you're designing around fertility and vulnerability when producing women's clothing.
I'm not, I'm saying that's one of the first things taught because you have to know these sorta things when you make a skirt for example.
>Men don't have: butts, hips, waists, breasts that can be larger than a woman's.
I didn't say that at all, what I said was that they are more pronounced and present commonly on women and I think it's clear in the CDG collection those are some of the things Rei obscured and distorted because they are so detrimental to female form.
>Perhaps where you live.
I mean absolutely, traditional Japanese clothing is good example where it hasn't been such big factor, the kimonos or yukatas have lot of volume and drape and they are very anonymous in that they hide the natural body of the wearer but I'm talking about the context of pret-a-porter in which the Body Meets Dress was introduced, there are mens and womens shows to this day. And even actually womens kimonos are made bit different than mens from construction stand point.
> I'm sure you've made plenty of clothing
Not that much unfortunately, I'm still studying so I don't have massive amounts of experience yet at least.
>It's incredible to me that you don't understand the critique and why CdG pursued...
I think I do, I just disagree with some things with you.

[Anonymous No.12796334]

I like how they quickly switch subject when he mentions used clothes resell. Everyone suddenly feels so awkward because they all wear used clothes they can't afford kek

[Anonymous No.12796345]

>>12796334
brutal reality. they are journo's, students and aspiring creatives that spend their entire paycheck just to live in london. they aint pennies to their name.

[Anonymous No.12796349]

>>12793753
What the fuck? Is it what "intelligent" discussion by "people of industry" looks like? I always thought fashion is a good industry to work in, now I see people you work with and I think it's a time to reconsider.

[Anonymous No.12796566]

>>12796349
such odd LARPing

[Anonymous No.12796906]

>alt-right started on 4chan

[Anonymous No.12797147]

>>12795381
https://allqudesigns.com/

[Anonymous No.12797344]

>>12795596
>>12795568
>>12795624

Good back-and-forth guys. How does one develop the ability to analyze runway shoes?

[Anonymous No.12797401]

>>12794636
childhood was thinking sieg was a dumbass
adulthood was realizing sieg was right all along

[Anonymous No.12797402]

>>12794668
>dillusional
read a book bro

[Anonymous No.12797460]

>>12793753
I try not to be too much of a redditshit /pol/ack but he just moves so fucking effeminately it's disturbing.

[Anonymous No.12797494]

Guarantee that balding fag is a jew

[Anonymous No.12797515]

>>12797494
Surprise surprise

[Anonymous No.12798561]

>>12793873
they moved to Discord because they were sick of being asked the same questions over and over again.

[Anonymous No.12798931]

>>12796906
spencer ruined the alt right.

before trump election: a broad vibrant coalition of young internet conservatives with a strong nationalist orientation and generally right of center however not like the GOP - that needed a name: term alt right floats in the ether. And it was adopted.

Spencer is a media creation and re-approriated a label he stole from paul gottfried to begin with. NPI was a fringe group and rarely discussed.

Now alt right is basically an internet neo-nazi movement.

Sad.

[Anonymous No.12798964]

>>12798931
this. I used to think that alt right was the good parts of libertarianism with an eye to social cohesion and a vague awareness that there are more important things than the next quarterly earnings.
It could have been a legitimate third party platform combining social and economic populism with national pride.
whatever it was or could have been, it's just a bad joke now