It is not enough to make stuff, especially nowadays. You must also promote yourself and your stuff.
A designer must also be a marketer, or a marketing expert or whatever you call it. The cost (or lack thereof, really) means that there are so many other people on the Internet, so you have to do something big to stand out. Many fish in the pond, so to speak.
"A designer must be a pimp as well as a ho."
I have a love-hate relationship with knit fabric. I love the way it drapes and clings to a form and how it can be so forgiving of potential fit problems. But, I hate cutting and sewing it. Pinning not so much, but sewing it sucks. Wonder if knit fabric fits into my tailored/orderly design aesthetic, or if it’s not rigid/orderly enough…hmmm...
Wasn’t surprised by the winners in “Seamless”. The thing is as much about recognizing up and coming businessmen as it is about recognizing up and coming designers.
It astounds me how much writing there is about the social aspects of fashion, yet there is virtually nothing about the social aspects of costuming, particularly convention costuming. Some authors address costuming in terms of fetish or whatever, but I’m not interested in that. What about the reasons behind people traipsing about convention hotels as Superman, people getting laced up into tight bodices to spend a day at the Renaissance Faire, or people crafting elaborate personas to take part in the SCA?
What fabrics make me think of affluence and prestige? Is it fiber-specific, or related to the construction of the fabric itself?
This has changed over the centuries. Linen used to be the fiber of common garments, while cotton was more expensive. Thanks to the cotton gin that’s been reversed. Man-made fibers, polyester being probably the most obvious example, started out by being desirable, space age-type stuff. Then people realized they weren't that awesome because they didn’t breathe as well and were uncomfortable to wear , even if they were easier to care for than natural fibers.
“There will, however, never be a human world without fantasy, which expresses the unconscious unfillable.”
“Attire that reflects the “I” may also be worn in response to a special place, situation, or event.”
I think there is definitely a power component to uniforms. I’ll ignore the whole fetish thing for now—that’s a can of worms that I don’t really feel like opening.
Uniforms…actual uniforms that is, connote some sort of authority, official whatever, and therefore power. But that’s not what shows up most often in fashion. Fashion that’s based off uniforms also connotes some level of power too. Less than actual uniforms? More than actual uniforms? Dunno.
Logos are a funny thing.
A logo must be memorable, otherwise the consumer will not remember it (duh) and the company behind it, and will be less likely to go back to the company for future purchases.
Is it woman's duty to be beautiful?
Evolutionarily speaking? Possibly. But...there are so many other species out there where the male is the showier of the pair, and it's his duty to attract a mate. For humans, is it the opposite? Maybe a century ago it was man's duty to be the provider and show he was able to provide for a family, and it was woman's duty to look beautiful to show that she was put together and worthy of being courted.
futurism-- what's next? Fashion is ephemeral and always changing. Lagerfeld is addicted to change.
On the one hand this is frustrating-- everything always changing, never able to sit back and rest for even a moment because things are always up in the air and always changing. On the other hand it's exciting-- change is good and can be stimulating.