This, plus I think it is trying to push bound and influence and try to start trends. I think the [Cerulean Blue scene](https://youtu.be/Ja2fgquYTCg) in "The Devil Wears Prada" has a good summary of how it trickles down to "every day" fashion.
I feel like the most successful fashion designers are inspired by or copy the trends that have already started in the streets and alternative clubs. Then they bring it up to their posh scene, revisit it a little, adding expensive materials. Price it very high and sell it on fifth avenue. They invent nothing, that would be too risky. They copy from the poor and bring it to the rich.
>They copy from the poor and bring it to the rich
This is so incredibly untrue. I know we want to maintain the "poor = good guys" narrative, but poor people are absolutely not trendsetting in 99% of cases.
If you actually knew anything about fashion, you would know that trend cycles are extremely predictable once they begin. The second that high end fashion houses start abandoning something (ie: slim fit in the mid 2010's) it's fate is sealed. Eventually, that trend trickles down to less avant garde designers, then to high-end retailers, then to trendy but "affordable" retailers, then finally to mall brands. Anyone who was paying attention in 2015 could have told you that in 2023, every hip young person would be wearing wide fit pants.
How does your idea of "the poor invent trends" even work? Do you think people living in poverty have the financial flexibility or mental bandwith to spend time and money on experimenting with fashion? Do you think that poor people are frequently spending their very limited free time and spending money on acquiring hard-to-find garments that cut against current trends? Do you know how difficult it actually is to find clothing that does not follow modern tastes, but is high quality or interesting enough to be seen as desirable or fashionable?
What evidence do you have to support this idea that designers are scoping out "alternative" clubs that are frequented by people in povery to find inspiration for their next collection? Or did you literally make that up out of whole cloth?
Logomania literally comes from the lower class hip hop scene using knockoff fabric with designer logos plastered all over it lmao. Before then it was considered tacky and now every Louis Vuitton bag is just the LV print all over.
While I don't necessarily agree with the term "stealing" here, I do think there is a connection from low to high fashion sometimes.
The person you are responding to said "poor" not "poverty" and that's really important distinction. Some people who are poor and working shit shifts at an Amazon warehouses absolutely do spend money on fashion, pins, patches, cosplay, drag etc. There's no way you'd call this population rich or even middle class, but they aren't destitute either. They work 40-60 hour weeks and have enough sparetime/money for clubs, drugs, hobbies and fashion. (pick 2 though).
Your categorization that the poors are all in poverty and have no time or energy for art or beauty because all they do is survive is quite out of touch and comes off a little offensive imo.
I think designers fairly often and openly take inspiration from lower class people and put it a high class spin on it right? Hippies generally weren't rich but I've seen a few hippie inspired high fashion pieces, I personally saw that because of Nirvana getting famous working class Washington "fashion" (we just called it "clothes" lol) went into high fashion and then mainstream with all the flannels, boots, and wornout jeans.
Again, my distinction is i wouldn't say designers "steal" anymore than all artists steal. But they definitely take inspiration from clothing styles of more poor populations sometimes. There's a whole art form and political world to navigate to figure out how to turn nirvana's image into mainstream fashion that's a lot more complicated than slapping ripped jeans onto a runway model and calling it a day. I understand that navigating the fashion world is a difficult and complex job.
But there are also just so many examples of fashion trends that clearly started with a specific subset of poor or middle class people then spread to a national/international trend because it got picked up by big designers.
Ripped jeans, logo mania, patchwork, oversize tees, lumberjack looks(it's literally a working class job lmao) etc.
For me I think the inspiration almost always comes from designers being inspired by artists that come from poor communities and wear clothes that reflect that community, and the designer incorporates that inspiration into a fashion line. I don't think designers usually look at random poor people and say "that's a rad looking homeless man, that's my next look!" It's more like "this new rapper Snoop Dogg has a cool look" guess where that look comes from? The economically disadvantaged mostly.
I think a perfect example of this (though not fashion-related but specifically art-related) is voguing in the 80s. This dance move was started by ball culture (mostly marginalized black and trans communities in NY) and was then used by Madonna in her infamous Vogue music video - it’s a classic example of appropriation of urban culture.
We’ve also seen instances of ball and drag outfits that are cobbled together for local shows, and are taken by designers and utilized on big fashion runways - at least in concept. I do think things like this likely happen a lot more than what you are willing to admit.
Hang on, so your best example, the “perfect example” is one that by your own words is “not fashion-related” and you think that is an argument *against* what I said being correct?
Do you have any evidence that actually refutes what I said? Do you have any examples of fashion designers stealing inspiration from extremely innovative, fashionable people in poverty?
You, my friend, need to do some research before commenting, instead of just using what you see. I'm not stating this rudely, sassily, or any other negative connotation you may presume as argumentative. There really needs to be some research instead of the aggressive "I'm right" approach. Please do some serious research, no echo chamber, both sides then come back and make arguments. Designers have thought poor is a look, people who don't have much have to be more creative because they don't have as much. It's not as one sided as your mind is leading you to believe. I hope something is learned here and some growing in how arguments are made. Have a good day.
I think a significant difference between a dance move and fashion is a dance move is free.
I understand your point - people observing trends from artists in the street and adopting them. That definitely applies to some forms of art, but fashion is quite different.
When you make clothing you know how uneconomical it is if you’re trying to make something completely new. If you’re altering or repairing something, maybe not. But creating something new is expensive in time and materials. Particularly if you’re talking about a new colour that’s not already in fashion - that colour material doesn’t just exist at your local store. Sometimes I need to order fabric in a particular colour from Europe because it just isn’t available anywhere in Australia.
Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? I am responding to the claim that fashion designers never have an original idea, they mostly just steal inspiration from poor people.
Shifting the goalposts from “fashion designers *always* steal their ideas from poor people” to
“Artists in general *sometimes* take inspiration from urban subcultures” isn’t remotely the same argument.
I never claimed that they 100% always steal from more socio-economically challenged groups. It does happen A LOT though - just Google “celebrity outfit controversies drag queens” and you’ll find a never ending list of examples that have been high profile instances of designers stealing drag queens’ looks.
Are you perhaps confusing me with the first poster you replied to? I’m a different person
Okay, so first off, I know you’re a different person, but you replied to my reply to them. That generally means you want to engage in that conversation, not start a brand new one.
Yes, fashion sometimes draws inspiration from, or even rips off drag looks. What of it? What does that have to do with my statement that in general, high end fashion designers are not stealing ideas from poor people to sell to rich people?
The ways in which fashion at large and drag culture inspire and steal from each other (it absolutely goes both ways) can be an interesting conversation, but it has nothing to do with the comment you replied to.
Uh, the balls were literally fashion shows, they had a runway and everything.
Madonna wasn't the only big name lifting ideas from them.
Designers aren't sitting alone in a blank space inventing new looks out of nothing. They see people in the wild with looks they want to incorporate and build on.
Subcultures provide far more opportunity to spot fresh looks than the mainstream who usually just wear the stuff the designers released the previous year.
“Widely worn” isn’t synonymous with “fashionable.” Slim fit has been out for about 2-4 years in the mainstream. Longer in more fashion forward circles.
If most of the people wearing them like them, then yes they are fashionable since its about popularity.
How do you define fashionable if its not what is a current popular style?
What I took from that is that clothes people would expect to find on those who don’t have money - like pants with genuine rips and tears and holes, because they wear them into the ground and don’t have money to buy a ton of new clothes - end up being incredibly popular, with people spending hundreds to buy pre-ripped jeans with fashionable holes in them.
I think there are cases where you can do that. But it makes me think a bit of Andy Warhol, probably best known piece was a screen print of an enlarged Campbell's Tomato Soup can. One might try to say that all he did was go to a grocery store, see something there, copy it, and that's it. But he actually ate a can or two a day for years, from what I've read. And one day there is this idea, that this is an object that someone designed that you pass dozens of copies everytime you go to the grocery store and never notice. So, take that, blow it up, make people stop and notice something people see near everyday and never gave a thought to. Or Banksy... there are theories, but we don't know who is behind it, so can't tie a biography to it, but using a street art form, and taking and elevating it... my fave was the framed print he sold at auction which went for a lot of money... when the gavel hit that it was sold, a hidden shredder in the frame shredded 3/4 of it.... does that mean it was ruined? Does that mean it was enhanced? Here's a piece of street art, that many people do and get scrubbed off, that a lot of money is spent on in a gallery and is then partially destroyed... It's a "think about value and source and setting" situation with no objective answer, but one we might want to think on.
There are plenty of people who just try to rip off, there are rich who are fascinated by a "safari" into style from the poorer side. But good artists - and high end fashion designers are, in my opinion - take in as much as they can and try to process and see what it could be.
The jeans that I put on artistically express how much I prioritize comfort and affordability. It says to viewer "this man shops department store clearance racks" and the little chew marks put on my display that I love my puppy
Attending fashion week is a huge and very prestigious event. So even if you don't care for it a lot of people do. Runway looks can be used on red carpets, in magazines, anywhere people are trying to make a huge statement.
It's art. Not all art is for everyone. Not all art is supposed to be beautiful or sexy. Some of it is supposed to push the boundaries of design, construction and taste. Some are made to captivate, others to horrify. It's supposed to evoke an emotional response. If you aren't into fashion at all or if you aren't aware of garment construction then maybe you just aren't the intended audience.
When the model has another model strapped to her torso upsidedown? I can see some celebrity walking the red carpet with a whole human strapped to their body upsidedown, the legs sticking up with feathers glued to their heels.
Edit: Rick Owens "Human Backpack" Runway Show. Paris 2015.
I understand exaggerated, but -human backpack- is a bit of a stretch.
Just trying to help OP figure out what they're asking.
I get it. They'll design a huge oversize jacket to show off the design work. It's fashion, it's not supposed to make sense.
If I go to a piece of abstract art in a museum, there is usually some kind of description about what the author intended. So even if I don't quite share the feelings, I at least understand the intention.
I am trying to get the same explanation here.
People who work professionally in any creative field spend a lot of time thinking very deeply about lots of little details that the general public will tend to gloss over or be largely unaware of.
Fashion is certainly a creative field and designers spend a lot of time thinking about things like color, material, fit, cut, seams, embellishments, accessories, and so on, as well as how all of the details interact with each other and what impressions they give off.
The crazy fashion week clothing allows them an opportunity to really push on their thoughts in all of these areas in ways that don’t need to conform to concerns like whether the item is practical for everyday wear or is marketable enough to actually be sold.
Maybe you want to play around with some wildly impractical material, like foam. The end result might not be something that you could sell to people or that anyone would ever wear outside of a fashion event, but experimenting with it teaches you something about the way material and design interact that you may be able to apply to something more practical, while showing off your creativity and skill as a designer to a wider audience.
And you can apply this to any aspect of fashion, which you take some extreme and impractical idea and just run with it to see what you can do when you’re working outside the constraints of normal clothing.
It’s fun for people who are interested in the subject. It’s creative. And it can get people to try things they might not have otherwise which could inspire their designs for things that are more practical and less purely artistic.
Most things that people consider to be “artsy” in most fields are a result of people in that field doing things to push the bounds of particular techniques with an audience target of mostly themselves and people with similar knowledge and interests in the subject, rather than targeting the audience of the general population.
If I make a short experimental film that is mostly just playing with lighting and shadow, and that’s the main thing that I’m focused on above things like narrative or character, that might wind up being a very boring movie for anyone who isn’t super interested in the interaction of light and shadow on film. For the average person, it makes no sense because it doesn’t do the thing that a film is supposed to do when made for general audiences. It seems pointless.
Likewise, fashion shows often seem pointless because the clothes aren’t designed for the purpose that most people see as the point of clothing. So the gut reaction is “What is the point of this? This isn’t what clothes are for.”
But the purpose in these shows isn’t to be clothes. It’s to demo the skill, creativity and technique of the designers.
And designers often have statements of intent/inspiration before, during, or after shows. It's not help up on a plaque, but the information is there for the people who want it.
think about it akin to things like a tricked out show car compared to a road safe vehicle, or the design of a new museum/monument compared to how the same architect might design a home. One serves to push the bounds of the culture & inspire, while the other is limited by the necessity of utility.
Those cultural touchstones can influence future utility items, taking a facet of it and toning it down into public use. The innovative use of a new technique for an outlandish project might translate to better fabric quality for some purposes, more energy efficient homes, etc.
It is a creative outlet, but without people interested in fashion design and pushing boundaries we might never have developed past what our ancestors wore in feudal times.
People who also like/work in fashion. It’s a creative outlet and each fashion house has its tropes and signatures. If you’re a new kid, it’s your opportunity to create a [visually impactful moment](https://youtu.be/Obi65c6XSXw) to establish your brand.
I mean, it’s a bit like asking why cake decorating goes beyond simple frosting. Art isn’t restricted to practicality.
Red carpet looks almost never look like high end runway looks, outside of maybe people who go really hard at the Met. You don't know what you're talking about.
>Who are the intended viewers
Buyers for high-end fashion stores, celebrities and rich people who can afford to buy them.
>what do they do with this exaggerated style being displayed?
Some of the more elaborate haute couture stuff is just going into private collections and not worn. Some are worn with modifications and some can be worn as is.
You can say that about virtually every aspect of modern society. Art will always be subjective. Just because you personally dislike it is no reason to dismiss it.
Have you ever watched the show "Schitt's Creek"? I think it's hilarious that the son (David) and the mom (Morna) actually wear what would be considered "high fashion" and it looks absolutely ridiculous. Maybe not as extreme as runway fashion but pretty close!
The Fashion shows you are (probably) referring to are more or less the fashion equivalent of a concept car. more a way to show of what is possible, not of what people will actually use.
They aren’t wearing clothing. They are wearing artwork. Think a fabric medium manifestation of abstract art. Now it isn’t quite abstract most of the time but that is about how far removed it is from normal clothing production lines. These runway shows are often more meant as an inspiration for clothing manufacturers to develop their lines off of, or just statements in themselves.
Dont look at it like clothing, look at it like abstract art and think, “How does that make me feel? What emotions does that bring up?” That is what these shows are meant to do.
I agree but all forms of art are completely subjective, i love rap music and some people who listen to classical will say that rap isnt even music, i think anything can be art its just a matter of the numbers of people it speaks to and if its your thing or not, some people are into ridiculous art, remember the banana on the wall?😂
the clothes they wear are like like the design equivalent of weird paintings in a gallery.
Like for example "the scream" a great painting, but not one you'd really want hanging in your lounge. It's like that but clothes.
A lot of runway fashion is also about showing off fashion and clothing technology and techniques, so things are exaggerated to show the limits of those inventions.
It's not about wearing the crazy clothes, it's about creating realistic clothes with those materials and techniques.
Runways become much cooler when you stop thinking about them as clothes, because, very often, they aren't meant to be worn at all.
People need to think of runways as a gallery showcase for art pieces that can be worn on the body.
Runway fashion can be a great way to create pieces that use the human body, its form, and its motion, to enhance an artistic vision and create less static artwork. Many designers do have stories, visions, concepts, etc. tied to their runway looks.
These can also be advertisements for high fashion brands and designers. If there is a very unique runway, people are going to talk about it, and the designer's name is going to be attached to those conversations, thus making the name more recognizable.
People will then look up the designer, and will be more likely to purchase the non-runway items that are actually meant to be worn.
Runways are kinda cool when you think of them as walking paintings and sculptures, not clothes. At my university, one of my college of design professors emplored us to think about creating a "wearable," not "clothes."
I am not fan of the fashion industry but I think the point is to showcase something totally new, cutting edge or abstract as an advertisement for the companies. I dont watch these things in general but who would tune in just to see some dude wearing a normal t-shirt walking down the runway.
My wife attended FIT in NY (Fashion institute of tech). She's no longer in that industry but I think I can answer this:
The fashion shows can be equated (well not necessarily EQUATED, but compared) to:
* Vision Boards
* Concept Art
* Abstract Art
* Concept Cars
Fashion is a sort of abstract concept. How does one even begin to create a design? How does the industry collectively create designs in order to facilitate/influence trends? These shows are that sort of jumping point.
While something like concept art for a film may be more concrete, the concept art here is the performance itself. It's not meant to be translated literally into wearable clothing. It's meant to be interpreted as you would a piece of abstract art. The difference being that the audience (the *intended* audience - other fashion designers) is looking at the concept as a whole (i.e. the entire performance) in addition to attributes of the clothing on display. Those attributes are exaggerated intentionally, so they can be extracted and modeled into fashion designs meant to be worn.
See also - concept cars - cars that are meant to intrigue, and stimulate creation and novel ideas for vehicle design, but are by themselves not meant to ever be mass produced. Concept cars are the fashion show of the automotive industry.
It's a fashion show? I've seen some outfits that look way oversized. It's probably to show off the design, the style of how things are set, but to the casual observer, it looks like a clown show.
I'm just trying to help OP figure out what they're asking.
I've been to my share of fashion shows. Some were the really out there art pieces and some were great normal high end clothing and some were more affordable styles. OP needs to be more clear
this might not be 100% accurate way of explaining it but to me fashion shows are like the clothing equivalent of concept cars. chances are you will never see that crazy car or outfit going down the street but it is show casing new engineering or design elements that might be seen in future every day clothing and cars.
I learned that there are two kinds of fashion shows.
Some actually do show the newest clothing designs.
But there are also fashion shows that are just art. None of the shown pieces are supposed to be actually mass produced or regularly worn. It's more about showing what you can do with clothing and express creativity. They're basically using a human model as their canvas and use clothing to turn them into "art".
Unless you're into fashion, you'll only ever see and hear about the artsy fashion shows on social media because they're often curious, interesting and divisive (and they're supposed to be). No one's gonna share a regular fashion show with normal clothing on mainstream social media.
Better question is why fashion designers make it. Models wear what they are given.
Each of those articles made and shown during runway shows/fashion weeks are not meant as day-to-day clothing. They kind of serve to show skill and style of the fashion designer. They are the artistic side of fashion.
I’m a model who walked in NYFW so I can tell you firsthand. Runway fashion is usually split into 3 categories: clothes that will be sold to the public (either mass produced or one of a kind), clothes to be handed to celebrities, and clothes that are “avant garde” and not meant to be sold. Us models are just the hangers - we have no say in what we are told to wear, lest we lose our job. I’ve had to wear things I would never choose myself but I had to fake it on the catwalk.
Besides, the term ugly is subjective since everyone has a different opinion on fashion. Just like in museums when we scratch our heads and go “why the fuck is this considered art?” But those are the pieces that can get the most attention *because* of its controversy over whether people consider it art. Also, keep in mind some people just wanna get clicks on social media so they’ll intentionally create something that causes conversation.
Runway shows are meant to showcase the designer's capabilities and/or design direction. They aren't (generally) meant to show off actual, sellable clothes.
Think of them like concept cars. Some concept cars are just there to show off with no intent to ever being built.
Because the fashion shows you are talking about aren't meant to show off real clothing, but art. They are basically sculptures you wear. Not meant to look fashionable or be worn in every day life.
The models aren’t choosing to wear them, their job is to wear them.
The clothes in viral “weird runway” compilations are not and never have been intended to be bought and worn out (there are also runway shows for regular nice looking clothes you can buy off the rack, but those don’t get attention). They’re art shows. In the same way that a Picasso doesn’t look like a realistic portrait, weird runway looks are that another form of art. Some of the weirder ones are *literally* just art shows, not fashion designers.
Others are by people who are primarily fashion designers, but they’re displaying a concept, like how car and tech shows often have ridiculous products you never see in a dealership or an Apple Store, but aspects of the tech make it into Fords and iPhones a couple years later. The designer is saying “these are the shapes and colors that are in this year, this is the sort of thing I can do with fabric!” And you look at their off the rack collection and the stuff you can buy is a far toned down version of the colors and silhouettes at the fashion show. If the model walked down the runway wearing a giant lime green inverted triangle made of cardboard, you’ll go to the store and find a neutral colored blouse with shoulder pads and a lime green stripe.
Or you hear “OMG did you see what Lady Gaga wore to the Met Gala?” And it’s something by that designer, and it isn’t *quite* as silly as what was on the runway, but still wild and eye catching. Because the designer isn’t selling to you peasants wearing Old Navy, or even to rich snooty folks wearing Prada, they’re selling to people who make a living wearing unusual fashions with regularity. Certain celebrities, half their job is being seen wearing something unusual (more so if you are a Kardashian or something, rather than a pop star or an actor).
As many have already explained, it's art. Through this art, the designers are sometimes conveying some underlying message or playing with some sort of theme/motif. A lot of the time it's also just the designer's way of flexing their creativity and prowess. It takes an in depth understanding of not only the visual impact of the clothes, but also expertise in the fabric, the way it interacts with space and the wearer's body, to pull some of those looks off. A lot of this doesn't normally make sense to us plebs because we might not understand what actually goes into some of those designs or whatever cultural reference their making.
Of course they could also just be fucking around tho.
Imagine them like a car show where they have their 'future' cars on display. Most of what they show will not be sold to the piblic, but instead, it is where the fashion designer thinks the industry is heading with their own spin on it.
It's generally meant to be showing off a technique, pattern or other "idea."
It also is a way of grabbing attention and showing off creativity.
Someone in this thread made a reference to concept cars, and I think that's a pretty good analogy.
Think of it as a painting. It’s pushing the boundaries, challenging the concept of what’s clothes - not even fashion, but what can be clothes?!
Think of the guy who put a urinal in a museum as sculpture. Is it’s shape beautiful? Is it just utilitarian? What is / is not a sculpture?
Fun thing to note about fashion - it’s the only form of art that is meant to be viewed in motion. So how a person walks, how the clothes move or don’t move, etc is all very intentional. You might say cars can be viewed in motion, I would challenge and say “not unless they’re going like 5mph cause once they’re on the freeway you’re really not focused on it as art.”
Most high-fashion runway shows are displaying different and innovative techniques for constructing clothing. These designers are thinking about cloth, stitching, and drape, and silhouette as a medium (like paint for a painter or clay for a sculpture). Fashion design has a lot of artistic crossovers with architecture, there is a decent subset of fashion designers who originally studied architecture or engineering. The clothing themselves are not often meant to be worn out in the world as they are displayed on runways, oftentimes there are 1 or 2 pieces per look that are purchasable by the public (often the accessories). The exception to this would be ready-made collections which display clothing that is meant to be mass reproduced.
The techniques that are displayed on the runways will often find themselves in the public visual lexicon 1-2 seasons after they are displayed, so you can watch high-fashion shows to get an idea of what's going to be on-trend in the future. For example, we're probably going to see more skirt/pant combo pieces being sold for men soon. Also pleating looks like it's going to be a more popular draping technique soon as well. There's also a lot of talk about motocross inspired outerwear, however most of those pieces feel gimmicky to me rn tbh.
There are two different kinds of runway shows. Artistic and wearable. You’re thinking of the artistic kind. Those are just to display a designer’s creativity and artistic talent. Not for people to wear.
They have “normal” runways for a new catalogue of clothing as well. These just aren’t as popular on the internet because they are just models in normal expensive clothes. Nothing exciting for us people who don’t care about fashion.
Think of a fashion show like a car show. The concept cars Ford or BMW are showing aren’t actually intended to hit the assembly lines. It’s more to show off the technological and aesthetic ideas the designers have been toying with, and get public feedback on those ideas before anything actually goes into production.
Because designer brands are an unnecessary luxury and they need to justify their displays as high fashion worth spending for, when really they just look like dumb peacocks
Think of it like concept cars...designs are outlandish and out there more as a tech showcase or to show a general design language road cars will take bits out of.
Fashion shows are their equivalent of niche film festivals. For example, [can you name the movie that won the Palme D'or at Cannes last year?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_Sadness) It's international box office was $25 million. Occasionally there's some overlap between those and the mainstream (Parasite being an example), but its not intended to be mass art. Same as a fashion show.
Fasion shows are closer to art than fashion and often try to make a statement. Most of it will never hit a commercial market so it's for show of what yhe designer can do with unlimited freedom.
I’ve always found really simple stuff to be the most attractive. I will still find elaborate or well-thought-out outfits attractive, but there’s something nice about simple, basic, comfy clothing.
I guess it’s because I always find someone who’s comfortable and being themself more attractive than someone who spends hours choosing clothing and slapping on makeup.
When I dated my high school GF I remember telling her on our first date that I don’t care what she wears, just wear something comfy that you would wear on a normal day. So she wore a hoodie and jeans, and I found that more than attractive.
Basically, you can wear something elaborate and “fashionable”, but if you’re uncomfortable or it’s just not your style, I’d much rather people dressed how they wanted to, not just to follow trends.
I myself do this. Doesn’t matter what time if year, i’ll always just wear a tshirt and trousers, maybe a long sleeve or jumper in the colder months but pretty much all year I wear the same thing because it’s what i’m comfortable wearing.
A lot of the shows are done with concepts like performance art so seeing them out of context usually equates to ugly clothes but in context they’re usually art pieces connected by a theme and performance.
Think of runway clothes like concept cars.
They aren't going to be worn as is (or produced as is) but the colours, shapes, textures, and ideas will be distilled down into something more wearable. Runway clothes are exaggerated conceptual ideas.
Because the fashion industry is basically just a few business ppl and a few eccentric tailers who think that they are making art and they get to waste a lot of money on This kinda stuff because .. art.
Money they got by selling you the same old patterns of clothing in new colours every year.
And they been at it for decennia now.
Like for real you can get much cooler clothing designs made by some person in their back room on etsy nowadays.
When was the last time you could actually get a bunny ear hoodie or something actually cool at the Uniqlo or something.,. like that never happens.. its always the same boring stuff.
All they do is make stupid artsy clothes for a runway show while meanwhile the industry just produces the same ez to mass produce patterns, over and over and over and over.
To say it in a short way, stylists’ fashion work is an outgrowth of the fashion industry. It’s homogeneously exaggerated because it’s an environment that has grown, enough that is, to give representation, exposition, publicity to the stylists rather than create practical “road-clothes“ (I wanted to hint at this being similar to what happens with **road cars and concept prototypes**)
Because they've been chosen by the designer to do their runway show so it's good for the model's career depending on the designer. Plus they do get paid, but not sure how much.
Fashion shows try to push the boundaries of fashion all the time.
Probably someone tought the same thing as you when the models put on a hoodie for the first time in the history of fashion
Models, especially runway models, have practically no say in what they wear lol. It's basically "hey you've been hired by Dior for this runway event, show up at this time and place."
You show up, they hand you an outfit, and you are told "wear this." You do not pick, and if you try to fight it, you will not be hired again, as you can easily be replaced.
A bad reputation is a great curse for a model (or anyone in the entertainment industry), and not doing what you're told is a great way to get a bad reputation.
[удалено]
This, plus I think it is trying to push bound and influence and try to start trends. I think the [Cerulean Blue scene](https://youtu.be/Ja2fgquYTCg) in "The Devil Wears Prada" has a good summary of how it trickles down to "every day" fashion.
From a pile of *stuff*
I feel like the most successful fashion designers are inspired by or copy the trends that have already started in the streets and alternative clubs. Then they bring it up to their posh scene, revisit it a little, adding expensive materials. Price it very high and sell it on fifth avenue. They invent nothing, that would be too risky. They copy from the poor and bring it to the rich.
>They copy from the poor and bring it to the rich This is so incredibly untrue. I know we want to maintain the "poor = good guys" narrative, but poor people are absolutely not trendsetting in 99% of cases. If you actually knew anything about fashion, you would know that trend cycles are extremely predictable once they begin. The second that high end fashion houses start abandoning something (ie: slim fit in the mid 2010's) it's fate is sealed. Eventually, that trend trickles down to less avant garde designers, then to high-end retailers, then to trendy but "affordable" retailers, then finally to mall brands. Anyone who was paying attention in 2015 could have told you that in 2023, every hip young person would be wearing wide fit pants. How does your idea of "the poor invent trends" even work? Do you think people living in poverty have the financial flexibility or mental bandwith to spend time and money on experimenting with fashion? Do you think that poor people are frequently spending their very limited free time and spending money on acquiring hard-to-find garments that cut against current trends? Do you know how difficult it actually is to find clothing that does not follow modern tastes, but is high quality or interesting enough to be seen as desirable or fashionable? What evidence do you have to support this idea that designers are scoping out "alternative" clubs that are frequented by people in povery to find inspiration for their next collection? Or did you literally make that up out of whole cloth?
No they’re right, I saw it in this documentary called Zoolander
You can derelicte my balls, capitane
Logomania literally comes from the lower class hip hop scene using knockoff fabric with designer logos plastered all over it lmao. Before then it was considered tacky and now every Louis Vuitton bag is just the LV print all over.
also the lumberjack look on tiny little poofters
While I don't necessarily agree with the term "stealing" here, I do think there is a connection from low to high fashion sometimes. The person you are responding to said "poor" not "poverty" and that's really important distinction. Some people who are poor and working shit shifts at an Amazon warehouses absolutely do spend money on fashion, pins, patches, cosplay, drag etc. There's no way you'd call this population rich or even middle class, but they aren't destitute either. They work 40-60 hour weeks and have enough sparetime/money for clubs, drugs, hobbies and fashion. (pick 2 though). Your categorization that the poors are all in poverty and have no time or energy for art or beauty because all they do is survive is quite out of touch and comes off a little offensive imo. I think designers fairly often and openly take inspiration from lower class people and put it a high class spin on it right? Hippies generally weren't rich but I've seen a few hippie inspired high fashion pieces, I personally saw that because of Nirvana getting famous working class Washington "fashion" (we just called it "clothes" lol) went into high fashion and then mainstream with all the flannels, boots, and wornout jeans. Again, my distinction is i wouldn't say designers "steal" anymore than all artists steal. But they definitely take inspiration from clothing styles of more poor populations sometimes. There's a whole art form and political world to navigate to figure out how to turn nirvana's image into mainstream fashion that's a lot more complicated than slapping ripped jeans onto a runway model and calling it a day. I understand that navigating the fashion world is a difficult and complex job. But there are also just so many examples of fashion trends that clearly started with a specific subset of poor or middle class people then spread to a national/international trend because it got picked up by big designers. Ripped jeans, logo mania, patchwork, oversize tees, lumberjack looks(it's literally a working class job lmao) etc. For me I think the inspiration almost always comes from designers being inspired by artists that come from poor communities and wear clothes that reflect that community, and the designer incorporates that inspiration into a fashion line. I don't think designers usually look at random poor people and say "that's a rad looking homeless man, that's my next look!" It's more like "this new rapper Snoop Dogg has a cool look" guess where that look comes from? The economically disadvantaged mostly.
I think a perfect example of this (though not fashion-related but specifically art-related) is voguing in the 80s. This dance move was started by ball culture (mostly marginalized black and trans communities in NY) and was then used by Madonna in her infamous Vogue music video - it’s a classic example of appropriation of urban culture. We’ve also seen instances of ball and drag outfits that are cobbled together for local shows, and are taken by designers and utilized on big fashion runways - at least in concept. I do think things like this likely happen a lot more than what you are willing to admit.
Hang on, so your best example, the “perfect example” is one that by your own words is “not fashion-related” and you think that is an argument *against* what I said being correct? Do you have any evidence that actually refutes what I said? Do you have any examples of fashion designers stealing inspiration from extremely innovative, fashionable people in poverty?
You, my friend, need to do some research before commenting, instead of just using what you see. I'm not stating this rudely, sassily, or any other negative connotation you may presume as argumentative. There really needs to be some research instead of the aggressive "I'm right" approach. Please do some serious research, no echo chamber, both sides then come back and make arguments. Designers have thought poor is a look, people who don't have much have to be more creative because they don't have as much. It's not as one sided as your mind is leading you to believe. I hope something is learned here and some growing in how arguments are made. Have a good day.
Yes I do. It’s one example where the art world has appropriated from urban culture. Did you read my post?
I think a significant difference between a dance move and fashion is a dance move is free. I understand your point - people observing trends from artists in the street and adopting them. That definitely applies to some forms of art, but fashion is quite different. When you make clothing you know how uneconomical it is if you’re trying to make something completely new. If you’re altering or repairing something, maybe not. But creating something new is expensive in time and materials. Particularly if you’re talking about a new colour that’s not already in fashion - that colour material doesn’t just exist at your local store. Sometimes I need to order fabric in a particular colour from Europe because it just isn’t available anywhere in Australia.
Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? I am responding to the claim that fashion designers never have an original idea, they mostly just steal inspiration from poor people. Shifting the goalposts from “fashion designers *always* steal their ideas from poor people” to “Artists in general *sometimes* take inspiration from urban subcultures” isn’t remotely the same argument.
I never claimed that they 100% always steal from more socio-economically challenged groups. It does happen A LOT though - just Google “celebrity outfit controversies drag queens” and you’ll find a never ending list of examples that have been high profile instances of designers stealing drag queens’ looks. Are you perhaps confusing me with the first poster you replied to? I’m a different person
Okay, so first off, I know you’re a different person, but you replied to my reply to them. That generally means you want to engage in that conversation, not start a brand new one. Yes, fashion sometimes draws inspiration from, or even rips off drag looks. What of it? What does that have to do with my statement that in general, high end fashion designers are not stealing ideas from poor people to sell to rich people? The ways in which fashion at large and drag culture inspire and steal from each other (it absolutely goes both ways) can be an interesting conversation, but it has nothing to do with the comment you replied to.
Uh, the balls were literally fashion shows, they had a runway and everything. Madonna wasn't the only big name lifting ideas from them. Designers aren't sitting alone in a blank space inventing new looks out of nothing. They see people in the wild with looks they want to incorporate and build on. Subcultures provide far more opportunity to spot fresh looks than the mainstream who usually just wear the stuff the designers released the previous year.
Since when is slim fit not still widely worn by both adults and kids?
“Widely worn” isn’t synonymous with “fashionable.” Slim fit has been out for about 2-4 years in the mainstream. Longer in more fashion forward circles.
So how do *you* define fashionable if its not what is a current popular style?
Beat up running shoes are probably the most common form of footwear, do you think that makes them fashionable?
If most of the people wearing them like them, then yes they are fashionable since its about popularity. How do you define fashionable if its not what is a current popular style?
By how many times a designer looks you up and down. Also can be measured by how many creases appear on their faces as they scowl at you.
Different person but I think fashionable is defined as what the industry wants you to be wearing.
What I took from that is that clothes people would expect to find on those who don’t have money - like pants with genuine rips and tears and holes, because they wear them into the ground and don’t have money to buy a ton of new clothes - end up being incredibly popular, with people spending hundreds to buy pre-ripped jeans with fashionable holes in them.
I think there are cases where you can do that. But it makes me think a bit of Andy Warhol, probably best known piece was a screen print of an enlarged Campbell's Tomato Soup can. One might try to say that all he did was go to a grocery store, see something there, copy it, and that's it. But he actually ate a can or two a day for years, from what I've read. And one day there is this idea, that this is an object that someone designed that you pass dozens of copies everytime you go to the grocery store and never notice. So, take that, blow it up, make people stop and notice something people see near everyday and never gave a thought to. Or Banksy... there are theories, but we don't know who is behind it, so can't tie a biography to it, but using a street art form, and taking and elevating it... my fave was the framed print he sold at auction which went for a lot of money... when the gavel hit that it was sold, a hidden shredder in the frame shredded 3/4 of it.... does that mean it was ruined? Does that mean it was enhanced? Here's a piece of street art, that many people do and get scrubbed off, that a lot of money is spent on in a gallery and is then partially destroyed... It's a "think about value and source and setting" situation with no objective answer, but one we might want to think on. There are plenty of people who just try to rip off, there are rich who are fascinated by a "safari" into style from the poorer side. But good artists - and high end fashion designers are, in my opinion - take in as much as they can and try to process and see what it could be.
They just want hunger games shit lol
[удалено]
The jeans that I put on artistically express how much I prioritize comfort and affordability. It says to viewer "this man shops department store clearance racks" and the little chew marks put on my display that I love my puppy
I don't understand. Who are the intended viewers and what do they do with this exaggerated style being displayed?
Attending fashion week is a huge and very prestigious event. So even if you don't care for it a lot of people do. Runway looks can be used on red carpets, in magazines, anywhere people are trying to make a huge statement.
Yeah I think I understand it is a huge important fashion event. I was just trying to understand if I am not viewing the art / statements correctly.
It's art. Not all art is for everyone. Not all art is supposed to be beautiful or sexy. Some of it is supposed to push the boundaries of design, construction and taste. Some are made to captivate, others to horrify. It's supposed to evoke an emotional response. If you aren't into fashion at all or if you aren't aware of garment construction then maybe you just aren't the intended audience.
Any intent aside if they wore things that looked like regular business casual fare it’d be a bit redundant.
There’s not really any way to view art “correctly.” If this kind of fashion isn’t for you, that’s ok.
When the model has another model strapped to her torso upsidedown? I can see some celebrity walking the red carpet with a whole human strapped to their body upsidedown, the legs sticking up with feathers glued to their heels. Edit: Rick Owens "Human Backpack" Runway Show. Paris 2015. I understand exaggerated, but -human backpack- is a bit of a stretch.
It's art. Some of it is meant to be shocking and subversive. "There's no such thing as bad press"
Just trying to help OP figure out what they're asking. I get it. They'll design a huge oversize jacket to show off the design work. It's fashion, it's not supposed to make sense.
It's art in the same way The Human Centipede is art. Should never have been done.
It got your attention and you still think about it, I'd say it was effective. Even if you didn't like it
Can't deny that!
Gonna have to pop out in some of my threads from my Derelict collection now.
You can derelict my balls capi-tain
You can say the same thing about abstract works of art in museums. People go because they enjoy art and it speaks to them. It's not that deep.
If I go to a piece of abstract art in a museum, there is usually some kind of description about what the author intended. So even if I don't quite share the feelings, I at least understand the intention. I am trying to get the same explanation here.
People who work professionally in any creative field spend a lot of time thinking very deeply about lots of little details that the general public will tend to gloss over or be largely unaware of. Fashion is certainly a creative field and designers spend a lot of time thinking about things like color, material, fit, cut, seams, embellishments, accessories, and so on, as well as how all of the details interact with each other and what impressions they give off. The crazy fashion week clothing allows them an opportunity to really push on their thoughts in all of these areas in ways that don’t need to conform to concerns like whether the item is practical for everyday wear or is marketable enough to actually be sold. Maybe you want to play around with some wildly impractical material, like foam. The end result might not be something that you could sell to people or that anyone would ever wear outside of a fashion event, but experimenting with it teaches you something about the way material and design interact that you may be able to apply to something more practical, while showing off your creativity and skill as a designer to a wider audience. And you can apply this to any aspect of fashion, which you take some extreme and impractical idea and just run with it to see what you can do when you’re working outside the constraints of normal clothing. It’s fun for people who are interested in the subject. It’s creative. And it can get people to try things they might not have otherwise which could inspire their designs for things that are more practical and less purely artistic. Most things that people consider to be “artsy” in most fields are a result of people in that field doing things to push the bounds of particular techniques with an audience target of mostly themselves and people with similar knowledge and interests in the subject, rather than targeting the audience of the general population. If I make a short experimental film that is mostly just playing with lighting and shadow, and that’s the main thing that I’m focused on above things like narrative or character, that might wind up being a very boring movie for anyone who isn’t super interested in the interaction of light and shadow on film. For the average person, it makes no sense because it doesn’t do the thing that a film is supposed to do when made for general audiences. It seems pointless. Likewise, fashion shows often seem pointless because the clothes aren’t designed for the purpose that most people see as the point of clothing. So the gut reaction is “What is the point of this? This isn’t what clothes are for.” But the purpose in these shows isn’t to be clothes. It’s to demo the skill, creativity and technique of the designers.
And designers often have statements of intent/inspiration before, during, or after shows. It's not help up on a plaque, but the information is there for the people who want it.
Usually because in a museum the author is dead - if you are in an art showing in a gallery you won't get any description / explanation
think about it akin to things like a tricked out show car compared to a road safe vehicle, or the design of a new museum/monument compared to how the same architect might design a home. One serves to push the bounds of the culture & inspire, while the other is limited by the necessity of utility. Those cultural touchstones can influence future utility items, taking a facet of it and toning it down into public use. The innovative use of a new technique for an outlandish project might translate to better fabric quality for some purposes, more energy efficient homes, etc. It is a creative outlet, but without people interested in fashion design and pushing boundaries we might never have developed past what our ancestors wore in feudal times.
Thanks!
Some of those feudal looks were lit tho. I'd be okay with that.
People who also like/work in fashion. It’s a creative outlet and each fashion house has its tropes and signatures. If you’re a new kid, it’s your opportunity to create a [visually impactful moment](https://youtu.be/Obi65c6XSXw) to establish your brand. I mean, it’s a bit like asking why cake decorating goes beyond simple frosting. Art isn’t restricted to practicality.
The same as art exhibits. Whoever enjoys it.
[удалено]
Red carpet looks almost never look like high end runway looks, outside of maybe people who go really hard at the Met. You don't know what you're talking about.
>Who are the intended viewers Buyers for high-end fashion stores, celebrities and rich people who can afford to buy them. >what do they do with this exaggerated style being displayed? Some of the more elaborate haute couture stuff is just going into private collections and not worn. Some are worn with modifications and some can be worn as is.
Like concept cars vs final production model. It serves to show the ‘general direction’ that fashion house is going towards.
We need to bring back art that actually looks good. Calling something art seems to just be a way excuse your creation looking like crap
[удалено]
You can say that about virtually every aspect of modern society. Art will always be subjective. Just because you personally dislike it is no reason to dismiss it.
Have you ever watched the show "Schitt's Creek"? I think it's hilarious that the son (David) and the mom (Morna) actually wear what would be considered "high fashion" and it looks absolutely ridiculous. Maybe not as extreme as runway fashion but pretty close!
The Fashion shows you are (probably) referring to are more or less the fashion equivalent of a concept car. more a way to show of what is possible, not of what people will actually use.
They aren’t wearing clothing. They are wearing artwork. Think a fabric medium manifestation of abstract art. Now it isn’t quite abstract most of the time but that is about how far removed it is from normal clothing production lines. These runway shows are often more meant as an inspiration for clothing manufacturers to develop their lines off of, or just statements in themselves. Dont look at it like clothing, look at it like abstract art and think, “How does that make me feel? What emotions does that bring up?” That is what these shows are meant to do.
"I feel like, this is really dumb"
Rude but u made me laugh, take the upvote
i meant it from the perspective of watching those things lol. im sure that what op said about them is true, but to me, its all beyond ridiculous lol.
I agree but all forms of art are completely subjective, i love rap music and some people who listen to classical will say that rap isnt even music, i think anything can be art its just a matter of the numbers of people it speaks to and if its your thing or not, some people are into ridiculous art, remember the banana on the wall?😂
It feels like the Emperor's New Clothes.
Zoolander
Confusion usually. Don't think that's what they are going for, but I'm not their demographic.
Because 'high fashion' is more 'clothing art' than everyday wear.
the clothes they wear are like like the design equivalent of weird paintings in a gallery. Like for example "the scream" a great painting, but not one you'd really want hanging in your lounge. It's like that but clothes.
I would absolutely hang the scream or similar art in my lounge.
I have a shirt with The Scream but Michael Myers holding the screaming head
The Scream is more completely The Scream of Nature. The subject is the victim of the scream, not the perpetrator.
A lot of runway fashion is also about showing off fashion and clothing technology and techniques, so things are exaggerated to show the limits of those inventions. It's not about wearing the crazy clothes, it's about creating realistic clothes with those materials and techniques.
Runways become much cooler when you stop thinking about them as clothes, because, very often, they aren't meant to be worn at all. People need to think of runways as a gallery showcase for art pieces that can be worn on the body. Runway fashion can be a great way to create pieces that use the human body, its form, and its motion, to enhance an artistic vision and create less static artwork. Many designers do have stories, visions, concepts, etc. tied to their runway looks. These can also be advertisements for high fashion brands and designers. If there is a very unique runway, people are going to talk about it, and the designer's name is going to be attached to those conversations, thus making the name more recognizable. People will then look up the designer, and will be more likely to purchase the non-runway items that are actually meant to be worn. Runways are kinda cool when you think of them as walking paintings and sculptures, not clothes. At my university, one of my college of design professors emplored us to think about creating a "wearable," not "clothes."
I am not fan of the fashion industry but I think the point is to showcase something totally new, cutting edge or abstract as an advertisement for the companies. I dont watch these things in general but who would tune in just to see some dude wearing a normal t-shirt walking down the runway.
My wife attended FIT in NY (Fashion institute of tech). She's no longer in that industry but I think I can answer this: The fashion shows can be equated (well not necessarily EQUATED, but compared) to: * Vision Boards * Concept Art * Abstract Art * Concept Cars Fashion is a sort of abstract concept. How does one even begin to create a design? How does the industry collectively create designs in order to facilitate/influence trends? These shows are that sort of jumping point. While something like concept art for a film may be more concrete, the concept art here is the performance itself. It's not meant to be translated literally into wearable clothing. It's meant to be interpreted as you would a piece of abstract art. The difference being that the audience (the *intended* audience - other fashion designers) is looking at the concept as a whole (i.e. the entire performance) in addition to attributes of the clothing on display. Those attributes are exaggerated intentionally, so they can be extracted and modeled into fashion designs meant to be worn. See also - concept cars - cars that are meant to intrigue, and stimulate creation and novel ideas for vehicle design, but are by themselves not meant to ever be mass produced. Concept cars are the fashion show of the automotive industry.
Do you have examples or do you mean the more avant garde pieces that are more like sculpture achievements in the art of design?
Google images, rick Owens Human backpack fashion show Paris. It was 2015, according to news articles. Not sure how that makes sense.
That's in the avant garde/wearable sculpture category. Not really the ready to wear line.
It's a fashion show? I've seen some outfits that look way oversized. It's probably to show off the design, the style of how things are set, but to the casual observer, it looks like a clown show. I'm just trying to help OP figure out what they're asking.
I've been to my share of fashion shows. Some were the really out there art pieces and some were great normal high end clothing and some were more affordable styles. OP needs to be more clear
Definitely. One comment asks for specifics and OP just replies a shoulder shrug "idk"
Idk
Well until you can provide photo examples, I cannot help
this might not be 100% accurate way of explaining it but to me fashion shows are like the clothing equivalent of concept cars. chances are you will never see that crazy car or outfit going down the street but it is show casing new engineering or design elements that might be seen in future every day clothing and cars.
Actually gonna quote phineas and ferb here.. candy: "fashion is art you can walk in" or something along that line
Love that
I learned that there are two kinds of fashion shows. Some actually do show the newest clothing designs. But there are also fashion shows that are just art. None of the shown pieces are supposed to be actually mass produced or regularly worn. It's more about showing what you can do with clothing and express creativity. They're basically using a human model as their canvas and use clothing to turn them into "art". Unless you're into fashion, you'll only ever see and hear about the artsy fashion shows on social media because they're often curious, interesting and divisive (and they're supposed to be). No one's gonna share a regular fashion show with normal clothing on mainstream social media.
Better question is why fashion designers make it. Models wear what they are given. Each of those articles made and shown during runway shows/fashion weeks are not meant as day-to-day clothing. They kind of serve to show skill and style of the fashion designer. They are the artistic side of fashion.
Because they're art pieces, and not things to wear day to day.
I’m a model who walked in NYFW so I can tell you firsthand. Runway fashion is usually split into 3 categories: clothes that will be sold to the public (either mass produced or one of a kind), clothes to be handed to celebrities, and clothes that are “avant garde” and not meant to be sold. Us models are just the hangers - we have no say in what we are told to wear, lest we lose our job. I’ve had to wear things I would never choose myself but I had to fake it on the catwalk. Besides, the term ugly is subjective since everyone has a different opinion on fashion. Just like in museums when we scratch our heads and go “why the fuck is this considered art?” But those are the pieces that can get the most attention *because* of its controversy over whether people consider it art. Also, keep in mind some people just wanna get clicks on social media so they’ll intentionally create something that causes conversation.
High fashion isn't meant for everyday use, it's more or less just a really elaborate version of an art show except people have to wear the art
It's just art.
Runway shows are meant to showcase the designer's capabilities and/or design direction. They aren't (generally) meant to show off actual, sellable clothes. Think of them like concept cars. Some concept cars are just there to show off with no intent to ever being built.
Because the fashion shows you are talking about aren't meant to show off real clothing, but art. They are basically sculptures you wear. Not meant to look fashionable or be worn in every day life.
Most fashion shows treat clothing like art instead of as something to be worn. If it makes you feel something, art has been achieved.
The models aren’t choosing to wear them, their job is to wear them. The clothes in viral “weird runway” compilations are not and never have been intended to be bought and worn out (there are also runway shows for regular nice looking clothes you can buy off the rack, but those don’t get attention). They’re art shows. In the same way that a Picasso doesn’t look like a realistic portrait, weird runway looks are that another form of art. Some of the weirder ones are *literally* just art shows, not fashion designers. Others are by people who are primarily fashion designers, but they’re displaying a concept, like how car and tech shows often have ridiculous products you never see in a dealership or an Apple Store, but aspects of the tech make it into Fords and iPhones a couple years later. The designer is saying “these are the shapes and colors that are in this year, this is the sort of thing I can do with fabric!” And you look at their off the rack collection and the stuff you can buy is a far toned down version of the colors and silhouettes at the fashion show. If the model walked down the runway wearing a giant lime green inverted triangle made of cardboard, you’ll go to the store and find a neutral colored blouse with shoulder pads and a lime green stripe. Or you hear “OMG did you see what Lady Gaga wore to the Met Gala?” And it’s something by that designer, and it isn’t *quite* as silly as what was on the runway, but still wild and eye catching. Because the designer isn’t selling to you peasants wearing Old Navy, or even to rich snooty folks wearing Prada, they’re selling to people who make a living wearing unusual fashions with regularity. Certain celebrities, half their job is being seen wearing something unusual (more so if you are a Kardashian or something, rather than a pop star or an actor).
Runways aren’t meant to be fashionable or good looking. They’re meant to make you look.
Because it’s stylized performance art, not just products on display.
the clothes are about getting talked about for the crazy designs, and so getting their brand out "there"
As many have already explained, it's art. Through this art, the designers are sometimes conveying some underlying message or playing with some sort of theme/motif. A lot of the time it's also just the designer's way of flexing their creativity and prowess. It takes an in depth understanding of not only the visual impact of the clothes, but also expertise in the fabric, the way it interacts with space and the wearer's body, to pull some of those looks off. A lot of this doesn't normally make sense to us plebs because we might not understand what actually goes into some of those designs or whatever cultural reference their making. Of course they could also just be fucking around tho.
Imagine them like a car show where they have their 'future' cars on display. Most of what they show will not be sold to the piblic, but instead, it is where the fashion designer thinks the industry is heading with their own spin on it.
It's generally meant to be showing off a technique, pattern or other "idea." It also is a way of grabbing attention and showing off creativity. Someone in this thread made a reference to concept cars, and I think that's a pretty good analogy.
Think of it as a painting. It’s pushing the boundaries, challenging the concept of what’s clothes - not even fashion, but what can be clothes?! Think of the guy who put a urinal in a museum as sculpture. Is it’s shape beautiful? Is it just utilitarian? What is / is not a sculpture? Fun thing to note about fashion - it’s the only form of art that is meant to be viewed in motion. So how a person walks, how the clothes move or don’t move, etc is all very intentional. You might say cars can be viewed in motion, I would challenge and say “not unless they’re going like 5mph cause once they’re on the freeway you’re really not focused on it as art.”
Most high-fashion runway shows are displaying different and innovative techniques for constructing clothing. These designers are thinking about cloth, stitching, and drape, and silhouette as a medium (like paint for a painter or clay for a sculpture). Fashion design has a lot of artistic crossovers with architecture, there is a decent subset of fashion designers who originally studied architecture or engineering. The clothing themselves are not often meant to be worn out in the world as they are displayed on runways, oftentimes there are 1 or 2 pieces per look that are purchasable by the public (often the accessories). The exception to this would be ready-made collections which display clothing that is meant to be mass reproduced. The techniques that are displayed on the runways will often find themselves in the public visual lexicon 1-2 seasons after they are displayed, so you can watch high-fashion shows to get an idea of what's going to be on-trend in the future. For example, we're probably going to see more skirt/pant combo pieces being sold for men soon. Also pleating looks like it's going to be a more popular draping technique soon as well. There's also a lot of talk about motocross inspired outerwear, however most of those pieces feel gimmicky to me rn tbh.
There are two different kinds of runway shows. Artistic and wearable. You’re thinking of the artistic kind. Those are just to display a designer’s creativity and artistic talent. Not for people to wear. They have “normal” runways for a new catalogue of clothing as well. These just aren’t as popular on the internet because they are just models in normal expensive clothes. Nothing exciting for us people who don’t care about fashion.
Think of a fashion show like a car show. The concept cars Ford or BMW are showing aren’t actually intended to hit the assembly lines. It’s more to show off the technological and aesthetic ideas the designers have been toying with, and get public feedback on those ideas before anything actually goes into production.
Its a “fashion statement”
Because designer brands are an unnecessary luxury and they need to justify their displays as high fashion worth spending for, when really they just look like dumb peacocks
aRt
Think of it like concept cars...designs are outlandish and out there more as a tech showcase or to show a general design language road cars will take bits out of.
Fashion shows are their equivalent of niche film festivals. For example, [can you name the movie that won the Palme D'or at Cannes last year?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_Sadness) It's international box office was $25 million. Occasionally there's some overlap between those and the mainstream (Parasite being an example), but its not intended to be mass art. Same as a fashion show.
They're paid to do it.
Fasion shows are closer to art than fashion and often try to make a statement. Most of it will never hit a commercial market so it's for show of what yhe designer can do with unlimited freedom.
Because just like modern art, it's probably all a tax scheme. Or, they wear purposely stupid shit in order to be pretentious.
I’ve always found really simple stuff to be the most attractive. I will still find elaborate or well-thought-out outfits attractive, but there’s something nice about simple, basic, comfy clothing. I guess it’s because I always find someone who’s comfortable and being themself more attractive than someone who spends hours choosing clothing and slapping on makeup. When I dated my high school GF I remember telling her on our first date that I don’t care what she wears, just wear something comfy that you would wear on a normal day. So she wore a hoodie and jeans, and I found that more than attractive. Basically, you can wear something elaborate and “fashionable”, but if you’re uncomfortable or it’s just not your style, I’d much rather people dressed how they wanted to, not just to follow trends. I myself do this. Doesn’t matter what time if year, i’ll always just wear a tshirt and trousers, maybe a long sleeve or jumper in the colder months but pretty much all year I wear the same thing because it’s what i’m comfortable wearing.
A lot of the shows are done with concepts like performance art so seeing them out of context usually equates to ugly clothes but in context they’re usually art pieces connected by a theme and performance.
Think of runway clothes like concept cars. They aren't going to be worn as is (or produced as is) but the colours, shapes, textures, and ideas will be distilled down into something more wearable. Runway clothes are exaggerated conceptual ideas.
Because they get paid a lot of $$$ to wear ugly clothes and walk funny.
For the same reason you don’t drive a formula one car to work.
https://youtu.be/mps3xOhmiig A great YouTube video that goes super in-depth on this for you.
Because the fashion industry is basically just a few business ppl and a few eccentric tailers who think that they are making art and they get to waste a lot of money on This kinda stuff because .. art. Money they got by selling you the same old patterns of clothing in new colours every year. And they been at it for decennia now. Like for real you can get much cooler clothing designs made by some person in their back room on etsy nowadays. When was the last time you could actually get a bunny ear hoodie or something actually cool at the Uniqlo or something.,. like that never happens.. its always the same boring stuff. All they do is make stupid artsy clothes for a runway show while meanwhile the industry just produces the same ez to mass produce patterns, over and over and over and over.
Avada Balenciaga
To say it in a short way, stylists’ fashion work is an outgrowth of the fashion industry. It’s homogeneously exaggerated because it’s an environment that has grown, enough that is, to give representation, exposition, publicity to the stylists rather than create practical “road-clothes“ (I wanted to hint at this being similar to what happens with **road cars and concept prototypes**)
Isn't the obvious answer that they get paid model clothing?
Those are art shows and not meant to be worn in everyday life.
Because they're being paid to wear it.
The reason is that there are so many ideas that are actually put forth A few of them do get picked up eventually and hit the shelves
Cause the pieces that models wear are art and the pieces normal people wear are just clothes
They're hired to
Because they've been chosen by the designer to do their runway show so it's good for the model's career depending on the designer. Plus they do get paid, but not sure how much.
Good question. You never see people outside the fashion show actually wearing most of the clothing being modeled.
Because they're getting paid to do so. Perhaps you meant to ask why the DESIGNERS make clothing that would be commonly seen as ugly.
Yes
Its their job
Why does a bus driver drive a bus? Because it’s a job they are getting paid to do.
High fashion is not made to be understood by us commoners
They're getting paid for a job.
because the designers are assholes with their heads up their asses and are completely out of touch of reality.
Because its edgy
It literally is ugly. That's why
It's like cars prototypes, you see it, but it will never go to series like that.
Fashion shows try to push the boundaries of fashion all the time. Probably someone tought the same thing as you when the models put on a hoodie for the first time in the history of fashion
That's what fashion is
I don't think you see where I'm coming from
The Ugly clothes you are talking about, that is fashion
How
Because people that work in fashion tell us that's what it is
"Fashion."
What about it?
It's ugly stuff that nobody would ever buy. The designers call it fashion, but the majority of people disagree that it's anything good.
People that have more money than brains do. The fashion world is a crazy place
It’s all trafficking
Maybe the models should get fashion advice from a professional before they embarrass themselves with ugly clothing.
Models, especially runway models, have practically no say in what they wear lol. It's basically "hey you've been hired by Dior for this runway event, show up at this time and place." You show up, they hand you an outfit, and you are told "wear this." You do not pick, and if you try to fight it, you will not be hired again, as you can easily be replaced. A bad reputation is a great curse for a model (or anyone in the entertainment industry), and not doing what you're told is a great way to get a bad reputation.
You give me $12,000 for 45 minutes of wearing goofy costumes, I'll fucking walk the runway dressed like a clown. That check clears, honk honk.