sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 11:52 AM
Quote:
we seem to be getting closer and closer to asking that unaskable question "what is art" which i love. its probablly one of the oldest conversations and is still being reworked and revised today. here's a question for any of you that would like to take a bite. i don't know the answer, but someone asked me this once and ever since i've never been able to think of art the same.
...a painter paints the most beautiful painting ever in the history of paint....he doesn't show anyone the peice....instead he takes the painting and buries it deep in the desert. he then returns to civilization and begins telling everyone of the painting, how spectacular it flawless it is, how it answers all the questions art has ever posed, and before long the entire world knows of the painting. so, is this art? if it is art, which part? the painting itself, the knowledge that it exists? the act of the painter painting a "mental" picture to the world explaining what it looks like?
i don't know if this will hit home with anyone else, but i find it very interesting, and also applicable to how we categorize fashion as either revolutionary or reactionary...
What is art is one of my favorite questions, too, which is why I can't seem to log off and concentrate on work...bah, it's Friday, and this is way more interesting.
It's a fun debate, but it can be dangerous, too. It always seems to lead to "Who get's to decide what is art?", at least in my group of friends. Tricky questions.
That's an interesting scenario and set of questions, one I'm going to have to discuss tomorrow when I see my fellow group of artists (we're geeks, too...we're playing RISK all day!). There's something about the idea of it that I find beautiful, and artistic, but I don't know what in it I would call "art". Not the painting, not the knowledge that it exists...maybe the idea of each person in the world having their own image of what would be the most beautiful painting ever? Maybe the painter's performance as storyteller?
Very interesting....
maruchan
February 18, 2005 - 11:54 AM
could'nt have put it any better, what an intelligent post. It's sad but in this world of fashion if your'e not connected your dead in the water. Art has become the same way. There are so many gifted artists that will never be seen because the art world is so political. If Chanel were starting today she would never be noticed. Very sad. Galliano,Vercace(sp?)are in my opinion costume designers,i see their designs and am amazed how ugly they make women look. I hope for the best for these young designers and pray they sleep with the right power brokers.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 12:02 PM
Quote:
Not to rain on anyones parade, but in the real world of fashion, it matters very little who actually "wins" this competition (if it can truly be called one). The prize money in terms of what it takes to start up a fashion house, is not nearly enough capital to do the job. Plus, without a distribution deal with at least one if not several major Department Stores (to carry and sell the line)thier dreams will die a quick and cold death. No such distribution contract is included with winning Project Runway. Despite some misinformation to the contrary, the winner will not be designing for BR. The winner will only get "helpful" consultations with BR. Without having a distribution deal, or the business acumen to attain one, none of these designers will go anywhere in the Fashion Biz. That is not to say that one of the designers from the show won't be able to use the media attention to further thier career, because one or several just might. But to do that, they need a partner who knows the business. Time will tell if any are intelligent enough, or lucky enough to find one. That is reality. Ask anyone who works on fashion ave. in NY and they will tell you much the same (as a matter of fact, someone who has worked in the fashion biz in NY for over a decade; just did.)
I agree that it's no guarantee that they'll be able to succeed in the industry, but considering that several of the designers were managing to survive in a very small way already I think this can only help get them further in their goal.
Is having a fashion house the same thing as having a line of clothing? I don't work in fashion, but I see those ideas as being different, for some reason. Like, I thought I read somewhere that Jay has already sold clothing to boutiques, so I would say that he has already begun to develop a clothing line, even if he's no where near having his own fashion house. Alexandra is in the same boat, as are others, I believe.
Namely, most of the contestants have already begun to work in the business side of the industry. While the $100k certainly wouldn't help them any if they had no idea to do what to do with it, I think that many of them do know what to do, business wise, and just lacked the money to go out and do it.
I think the combination of $100k, which will be free and clear, no partner's say in how it's spent, plus the remarkable publicity they've gotten through the show will make a huge difference in the winner's career. I understand that you're trying to be realistic, but I think you're underestimating the impact that winning will have on the winner.
RGRRGR
February 18, 2005 - 12:06 PM
Quote:
could'nt have put it any better, what an intelligent post. It's sad but in this world of fashion if your'e not connected your dead in the water. Art has become the same way. There are so many gifted artists that will never be seen because the art world is so political. If Chanel were starting today she would never be noticed. Very sad. Galliano,Vercace(sp?)are in my opinion costume designers,i see their designs and am amazed how ugly they make women look. I hope for the best for these young designers and pray they sleep with the right power brokers.
Sounds like I wound up on the Sister Wendy Message Board!!
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 12:06 PM
that's an interesting take on it, and i tend to agree. i also agree that this conversation is always doomed to arrive at the "who gets decide what is art" question. no way to get around that i suppose. i'm gonna incubate on it for a while and get back to you. friday and sunny, you're right, i'm procrastinating with the best of them. but i must do some work i suppose.
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 12:19 PM
I guess I am coming off as a bit of the "I know more than you know" type, and I don't mean to. But I do work in the NY fashion industry (thank god, I'm a fashion stylist, and not a designer, for one I could'nt take the critics, and two, Im a much better stylist, than I would ever be as a designer). But I stand by my earlier thread. Winning this competition in no way guarantees or even comes close to a guarantee of success, let alone financial viability. 100 grand may cover the cost to design a line, but it will not cover mass manufacturing costs of that line, and if you dont have a distribution deal, you won't be able to sell what you produce to a mass market. The designers will have to have business partners to head up that side of the business. That is just the way it works, period. Now, you are correct that some of the designers had begun to work within the industry on a small scale, but selling a few designs in some corner boutique, does not translate into successful mass market sales. To answer your last question: The difference between a fashion line and a fashion house is this: A designer creates a line (a group of similiar or themed fashions)which they hope will be a popular and financial success. A designer who consistently year after year, creates a successful fashion line, is considered to have a "Fashion House" (you will sometimes hear of Channel being referred to as the "House of Channel" and the like). Hoped that helped, and wasn't too preachy.
ericats
February 18, 2005 - 12:24 PM
Quote:
The prize money in terms of what it takes to start up a fashion house, is not nearly enough capital to do the job.
Not only that but the prize money is subject to a prize tax which may be about 50% so they may only end up with 50K.
Chinchilla3
February 18, 2005 - 12:36 PM
Quote:
I guess I am coming off as a bit of the "I know more than you know" type, and I don't mean to. But I do work in the NY fashion industry (thank god, I'm a fashion stylist, and not a designer, for one I could'nt take the critics, and two, Im a much better stylist, than I would ever be as a designer). But I stand by my earlier thread. Winning this competition in no way guarantees or even comes close to a guarantee of success, let alone financial viability. 100 grand may cover the cost to design a line, but it will not cover mass manufacturing costs of that line, and if you dont have a distribution deal, you won't be able to sell what you produce to a mass market. The designers will have to have business partners to head up that side of the business. That is just the way it works, period. Now, you are correct that some of the designers had begun to work within the industry on a small scale, but selling a few designs in some corner boutique, does not translate into successful mass market sales. To answer your last question: The difference between a fashion line and a fashion house is this: A designer creates a line (a group of similiar or themed fashions)which they hope will be a popular and financial success. A designer who consistently year after year, creates a successful fashion line, is considered to have a "Fashion House" (you will sometimes hear of Channel being referred to as the "House of Channel" and the like). Hoped that helped, and wasn't too preachy.
As a fashion stylist, how would you pair up the different types of clothes shown by the four designers at Fashion Week with other clothes to make outfits and what stars or famous people do you think would look best in whose clothes? Feel free to refer to specific pieces!
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 12:39 PM
Quote:
I guess I am coming off as a bit of the "I know more than you know" type, and I don't mean to. But I do work in the NY fashion industry (thank god, I'm a fashion stylist, and not a designer, for one I could'nt take the critics, and two, Im a much better stylist, than I would ever be as a designer). But I stand by my earlier thread. Winning this competition in no way guarantees or even comes close to a guarantee of success, let alone financial viability. 100 grand may cover the cost to design a line, but it will not cover mass manufacturing costs of that line, and if you dont have a distribution deal, you won't be able to sell what you produce to a mass market. The designers will have to have business partners to head up that side of the business. That is just the way it works, period. Now, you are correct that some of the designers had begun to work within the industry on a small scale, but selling a few designs in some corner boutique, does not translate into successful mass market sales. To answer your last question: The difference between a fashion line and a fashion house is this: A designer creates a line (a group of similiar or themed fashions)which they hope will be a popular and financial success. A designer who consistently year after year, creates a successful fashion line, is considered to have a "Fashion House" (you will sometimes hear of Channel being referred to as the "House of Channel" and the like). Hoped that helped, and wasn't too preachy.
I don't think you're coming off as preachy as far as the information you provide, but maybe in what the end goal of the show is? I'm thankful that you're bringing up this type of discussion, I think it's a good one to have, and maybe your original post was direct more at the people who think we're going to be seeing the Jay McCarrol line in a department store near you. (Hey, I'm hopeful, I'm gonna say Jay's gonna win, darn it) I never thought that would be the case.
I agree that winning doesn't mean instant success if your definition of success is mass-producing/selling. But I think that winning does mean a lot if you're goal is to get one or two steps above selling your clothes in a very small scale at the boutique level.
I saw/still see the goal of winning is to be able to create a line of clothing. The money will give you the ability to produce it (at a greater scale than they would be able to do on their own), the publicity of FW and the show in general will make it easier for you to find distributors. It's giving them the opportunity to *begin* a successful line, not instantly have one.
Your explination regarding the difference between a line and a house is good, but I still feel like it's lacking something. Like, the "House of Dior" makes sense...but isn't part of having a "house" having the prestige, the image? Doesn't the house live on after the designer is gone? Like YSL for the House of Dior? The reason I ask is because I think the expectation that anyone who wins PR would be able to start their own *house* is silly, and I don't think many people thought that would be the result of winning.
lafcadio
February 18, 2005 - 12:40 PM
I happen to agree with Sarah Catherine. There is a difference between fashion "design" and fine "art." It's the old function criteria that separates these forms of expression. No matter how artful a dress may be it still needs to serve a function and can not exist purely on an aesthetic standpoint. The more talent and genius a designer have the closer an article of clothing can approach art. This is not saying a painting or sculpture is a higher form of art than a Givenchy gown, and in fact good design is in many cases harder to achieve since it needs to be aesthically pleasing or emotive, as well as serve a function. Design can be purely unitarian (i.e. AAA rain cape) or a project tenement buliding and the closer it gets to art it evokes powerful emotions like a Frank Lloyd Wright house.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 12:44 PM
This is a complete tanget, but since I can't send you a private message...did you get your name from "Lafcadio, the Lion Who Shot Back"?
Back on track...maybe this is why we call them fashion designers and not fashion artists? Do people here see a distinct difference between a designer and an artist?
I guess I do, but it's weird, because I think "fashion" is an art, just like "theater" is, but both of them are produced mainly by designers, not artists. Oh the fun of blurry language.
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 12:48 PM
Hi Chinchilla3,
I guess before I give my opinions, I'd preface it by stating, that fashion preferences are just that, preferences. You get into dangerous ground, I think, when people start to say "This designer is better than That Designer". Everyone has thier own favorites, and they should, because fashion is individually subjective. As to my preferences, I loved Austin's work. I would love to see him do a gown for Angelina Jolie, and I still think the dress he designed for the Grammy challenge would have adorned Beyounce or Kylie Minogue beautifully. Jay as well as Kara, could be quite successful dressing many in the Music biz. Austin's designs captivate my inner sense of fantasy and glamour, and I love that. But Jay and Kara have a "gritty" urban tough side to them, that is very powerful, and quite marketable.
Gherk
February 18, 2005 - 12:48 PM
Quote:
I guess I am coming off as a bit of the "I know more than you know" type, and I don't mean to. But I do work in the NY fashion industry (thank god, I'm a fashion stylist, and not a designer, for one I could'nt take the critics, and two, Im a much better stylist, than I would ever be as a designer). But I stand by my earlier thread. Winning this competition in no way guarantees or even comes close to a guarantee of success, let alone financial viability. 100 grand may cover the cost to design a line, but it will not cover mass manufacturing costs of that line, and if you dont have a distribution deal, you won't be able to sell what you produce to a mass market. The designers will have to have business partners to head up that side of the business. That is just the way it works, period. Now, you are correct that some of the designers had begun to work within the industry on a small scale, but selling a few designs in some corner boutique, does not translate into successful mass market sales. To answer your last question: The difference between a fashion line and a fashion house is this: A designer creates a line (a group of similiar or themed fashions)which they hope will be a popular and financial success. A designer who consistently year after year, creates a successful fashion line, is considered to have a "Fashion House" (you will sometimes hear of Channel being referred to as the "House of Channel" and the like). Hoped that helped, and wasn't too preachy.
I always enjoy hearing from people with actual experience; thanks for your posts. I wanted to comment on some of what you said -
I agree that there are no guarantees here for even the winner, but aren't you ignoring some of the things that may have come out of this for some of the designers already? Name and face recognition. Contacts through each other and all of the people they met at fashion week. Exposure, exposure, exposure. You have to agree that they have a much greater chance (the winner or the final three, whatever) than anyone else who is trying to break into this business. There are investors watching this, for sure - and none of us know what kind of offers the winner will get, or what kind of contacts they are making or already have made. I mean, what if Jay meets Paris Hilton and she adores him, decides to back him? He also does beautiful home decor and accessories - his versatility is limitless, and I believe someone will recognize that. Besides, he already knows much of what you say, as I'm sure Kara does. She has been doing this successfully for a while (seems people in America confuse fame and success quite frequently). You just don't know all of the variables - but I realize you are being as realistic as you can be as someone who has experience. I guess I feel that Jay is unstoppable at this point (I've known that ever since I met him - love you Jay, you rock); I feel he will win, as he's gotten praise from most if not all of the press on NY fashion week.
By the way, could you tell us what a "fashion stylist" does, as opposed to a designer?
M. McGherkin
Chinchilla3
February 18, 2005 - 12:52 PM
Quote:
Hi Chinchilla3,
I guess before I give my opinions, I'd preface it by stating, that fashion preferences are just that, preferences. You get into dangerous ground, I think, when people start to say "This designer is better than That Designer". Everyone has thier own favorites, and they should, because fashion is individually subjective. As to my preferences, I loved Austin's work. I would love to see him do a gown for Angelina Jolie, and I still think the dress he designed for the Grammy challenge would have adorned Beyounce or Kylie Minogue beautifully. Jay as well as Kara, could be quite successful dressing many in the Music biz. Austin's designs captivate my inner sense of fantasy and glamour, and I love that. But Jay and Kara have a "gritty" urban tough side to them, that is very powerful, and quite marketable.
lol I know I'm playing with fire here, but what about Wendy? Could you see her designing for any partciular celebrities or finding a niche?
iowahousewife
February 18, 2005 - 12:54 PM
Wayne - so intrigued after your informative posts. Are you a stylist for a magazine, or for a fashion house, designer, what? Do you do the runway shows? I am interested to find out how you fit into the bigger fashion picture. I loved the book "The Devil Wears Prada" and am addicted to "What Not To Wear" so I am imagining a Carson Kressley, Clinton Kelly type fashionista wheeling racks of couture and accessories to photo shoots or shows. Close ......... or no cigar???
BTW - how does one become a stylist? Fabulous!
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 12:55 PM
Quote:
Nancy O'Dell picked my design to wear to the Grammy's and I was thrilled beyond belief. It was a shock to my fellow competitors, whom I'm sure never in a million years expected me to proceed this far in the competition. That day, however, they were not in control of my fate - and I am proud of my participation in this program from the day I arrived to the moment I stepped into the elevator to return to me family and said "see you at fashion week".
This is a snippet from Wendy's website, and I just...I don't know, it bugs me, the bit about the other designers not being in control of her fate on that day. Were they ever in control of her fate? She says herself on the reunion show that it was up to the judges and what they saw on the runway that kept her there, not any of the strategy she played out the rest of the time. So if it's up to the judges in order to get her off the hook for playing this like it was Survivor, why is she still thinking that the other designers had any chance to influence her fate?
She just seems to have a double standard for behaviour, I think that's what bothers me most about what she's done.
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 12:55 PM
Quote:
we seem to be getting closer and closer to asking that unaskable question "what is art" which i love. its probablly one of the oldest conversations and is still being reworked and revised today. here's a question for any of you that would like to take a bite. i don't know the answer, but someone asked me this once and ever since i've never been able to think of art the same.
...a painter paints the most beautiful painting ever in the history of paint....he doesn't show anyone the peice....instead he takes the painting and buries it deep in the desert. he then returns to civilization and begins telling everyone of the painting, how spectacular it flawless it is, how it answers all the questions art has ever posed, and before long the entire world knows of the painting. so, is this art? if it is art, which part? the painting itself, the knowledge that it exists? the act of the painter painting a "mental" picture to the world explaining what it looks like?
i don't know if this will hit home with anyone else, but i find it very interesting, and also applicable to how we categorize fashion as either revolutionary or reactionary...
Aside from calling it hype lol, which I wouldn't even think of other than so many artists engage in it, or guerilla marketing ...if the artists intent was the process and not the outcome of generating interest in the painting itself or him/herself, perhaps maybe you could call it conceptual art.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 12:59 PM
Quote:
Aside from calling it hype lol, which I wouldn't even think of other than so many artists engage in it, or guerilla marketing ...if the artists intent was the process and not the outcome of generating interest in the painting itself or him/herself, perhaps maybe you could call it conceptual art.
Or maybe it was performance art! He never painted a painting, he just went out to the desert and came back with a story to enact.
Better than the performance art I've seen before...the city near my school seemed to draw people who thought glueing popcorn to themselves and laying out on the boardwalk for the seagulls to feast on was great art. Or was the art the process of getting people to talk about it? <fake artistic "hmmmm" nodding of the head while stroking the chin move>
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 01:00 PM
Hi Gherk,
Well to give the honest answer, Fashion Stylist's are the [expletive deleted] of the industry. (Being only slightly humorous there) Basically We go to the shows, find out (sometimes marginally we influence) what is hot, and "push it". Fashion stylist can vary in thier job functions. Certain stylists work directly for a client and perform a combination of personnal shopper/dresser. Where as other stylists work for fashion Media,(W Magazine, Vogue, and the like) we basically "style" the photo shoots, by selecting or procurring the fasion to be worn by the models, and then last but not least, other stylists work directly for the designers and serve a type of "Tweaking" function. Basically giving style options or accessories to help make a line more "trendy" or unique. ( Anyother stylist out there who I didn't include a job function for, please feel free to add on to this post.)
Ciao for now
desperatewannabe
February 18, 2005 - 01:02 PM
Great minds and all. Plus, of course he's in the drinking water, "orwell."
desperatewannabe
February 18, 2005 - 01:07 PM
Fair point. How about "all art is fashion, but not all fashion is art"?
lafcadio
February 18, 2005 - 01:15 PM
Hi Sarah Catherine, my name comes from one of my favorite novel "Lafcadio's Adventures" by Andre Gide.
As to the distinction between designer and artist, I think a lot of people are put off by this feeling there is a negative connotation of a designer not being a true artist.
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 01:21 PM
Hi Iowahousewife and Chinchilla3
Thought Id try and reply to both of you at once, cuz Im not used to typing so much. 1st off, Chinchilla3, though Wendy was not my favorite, and Im sure there are more than a few that will love to post a nasty repudiation of this, I have to say, judging at least from her line at fashion week, that she could find at least nomimal to even marginal success in mass market. (and Im really not being mean, but I just honestly felt Jay, Austin, and Kara are better suited for success). But I would never count any designer with desire out. 2nd, Iowahousewife, I would love to say I became a Fashion Stylist because I was, and am, just too fashion fantastic to be anything else. But the truth is that when I was very young, I had the incredible fortune to fall in love with my life partner, who at the time was an Editor at Town & County Magazine and later worked for W Magazine, I started by just going on shoots with him, and being the "Hey grab that, and bring it over here" guy, and slowly learned the business, and through my boyfriend was fortunate enough to be introduced to several Photograhers and designers, who I ended up working for. I also worked for several years in Fashion Display for Bloomingdales. I still continue to do stylist work, but I now work my in Event Display (Media parties, Charity Events, etc. and I help to style the decor or theme of the events. Hope that wasn't too long winded. And now I have to take a typing break, Ill check in on the posts later tonight, till then, have a good one.
Ciao for now
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 01:23 PM
Oh, I thought the story was that he had actually painted the painting and buried it. So it could be performance art too. Actually, pretty much either way. And lol @ the fake chin stroking. Naughty, naughty!
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 01:40 PM
Quote:
Oh, I thought the story was that he had actually painted the painting and buried it. So it could be performance art too. Actually, pretty much either way. And lol @ the fake chin stroking. Naughty, naughty!
Oh, that was the story, but if he doesn't have it to show people, does it matter if he actually painted it or not? What I think is interesting about the story is that if he had painted it and showed it to the world, there would be many who said "Yes, that is the most beautiful painting in the world, look at that technique, look at those colors!" but there would be just as many people who would say "No, that is no where near the best painting in the world. The colors are wrong, the technique is flawed." and it would just fall apart.
But...in telling everyone "I painted the most beautiful painting...the colors were perfect, the technique superb, you would weep with joy upon seeing this painting" but never actually showing them what the painting looked like...everyone gets to have their own mental image of what the most beautiful painting is, and none of them can be called wrong, because to them that *is* the most beautiful painting, sight unseen.
Wow, when did this turn into philosophy class instead of Art 101? Though I remember using that chin stroking a lot in philosophy, too. I find it's best not to take these things *too* seriously.
ericats
February 18, 2005 - 01:47 PM
Quote:
Wow, when did this turn into philosophy class instead of Art 101? Though I remember using that chin stroking a lot in philosophy, too. I find it's best not to take these things *too* seriously.
It's been enjoyable to read. A nice respite from reading posts about Wendy.
Speaking of which, have you all voted in the poll listed under Episode 10? It asks who you think drew on Wendy's picture. So far Wendy is ahead at 30%. I voted for the crew member.
Veronique
February 18, 2005 - 01:53 PM
"There is a difference between fashion "design" and fine "art." It's the old function criteria that separates these forms of expression."
Lafcadio (and everyone else) what do you think of the bauhaus movement then? I always found it quite interesting and apt for this discussion.
Bauhaus blurs the line between utilitarian and art.
Hannah_Lorrae
February 18, 2005 - 02:01 PM
Not to beat a dead horse...I think it's unjust that Austin didn't make it into the final three. I think the judges took two things into consideration. First of all, he's going to be fabulously successful with or without a win at Project Runway. Secondly, Wendy adds drama and controversy, so they had to think about maintaining blockbuster ratings. I just would love to see more of Austin. Perhaps they can give him his own show...I was surprised to see how bitter Vanessa was. I think Jay was a little hard on her. She wanted to have her fashion line shown on national television so badly; that was a crushing blow for her. I just hopes she remembers that the show gave her a few million dollars worth of free advertising, and she should make the most of that. Advertising is SO expensive, and most can never afford the jumpstart this show gave them. Even Starr may have some orders from her appearance. And I would have loved to see more of Daniel. He seems very talented and didn't get the opportunity to show much of it. It will be a close call between Kara Saun and Jay. I love them both; I love their work. I would wear their clothing for sure! I wonder if Project Runway would consider a rematch? Bring back all of them and throw more outrageous assignments at them. It would be interesting to see how they perform with the wisdom they gained from the first experience.
GuensMom
February 18, 2005 - 02:02 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Nancy O'Dell picked my design to wear to the Grammy's and I was thrilled beyond belief. It was a shock to my fellow competitors, whom I'm sure never in a million years expected me to proceed this far in the competition. That day, however, they were not in control of my fate - and I am proud of my participation in this program from the day I arrived to the moment I stepped into the elevator to return to me family and said "see you at fashion week".
This is a snippet from Wendy's website, and I just...I don't know, it bugs me, the bit about the other designers not being in control of her fate on that day. Were they ever in control of her fate? She says herself on the reunion show that it was up to the judges and what they saw on the runway that kept her there, not any of the strategy she played out the rest of the time. So if it's up to the judges in order to get her off the hook for playing this like it was Survivor, why is she still thinking that the other designers had any chance to influence her fate?
She just seems to have a double standard for behaviour, I think that's what bothers me most about what she's done.
The designers did have the chance to mess with each others' heads quite a lot (witness the Nora "where did that pattern piece go" drama, not to mention the saboteur who drew on Wendy's daughter's picture, and the "advice" that they sometimes gave each other, sometimes didn't). And then there were the sideways digs they had the opportunity to make on the runway when talking to the judges. Did the other designers "control" her fate? No, but they did have plenty of opportunities to discuss how they would - as a group - deal with her. She was smart enough to know that she was facing pack mentality - and to appreciate how dangerous it can be, professionally and personally.
Hannah_Lorrae
February 18, 2005 - 02:03 PM
I agree. Most of the designers have established themselves and will have many, many opportunities with or without the win.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 02:13 PM
Quote:
The designers did have the chance to mess with each others' heads quite a lot (witness the Nora "where did that pattern piece go" drama, not to mention the saboteur who drew on Wendy's daughter's picture, and the "advice" that they sometimes gave each other, sometimes didn't). And then there were the sideways digs they had the opportunity to make on the runway when talking to the judges. Did the other designers "control" her fate? No, but they did have plenty of opportunities to discuss how they would - as a group - deal with her. She was smart enough to know that she was facing pack mentality - and to appreciate how dangerous it can be, professionally and personally.
Sure, they had those opportunities, just like she did. What bothers me is that for her (from the impression I got from what she said on the show vs. what she wrote on her website) it was acceptable for her to play those mind games, make remarks, play the "strategy" of the competition because it didn't effect the outcome of who was in and who was out...but for everyone else they're participating in mind games/strategy was wrong because it messed with her personal fate on the show. It doesn't work both ways.
Either what they did to each other (all of them, Wendy included) effected what happened on the runway and therefore who was in and who was out, or it didn't. It couldn't have effected *only* Wendy.
As far as the pack mentality goes...Wendy put herself outside the pack, as it were, so I don't feel bad for her when she feels isolated. They all came into that situation not knowing anyone else and had to find their own bonds.
Given the pictures she printed of all of them chumming around, she had not only the opportunity, but the ability to befriend those people. She chose to use that friendship, that bond, as part of her strategy. It bit her in the butt, and that's her fault, not the "packs" fault.
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 02:20 PM
Quote
lol I know I'm playing with fire here, but what about Wendy? Could you see her designing for any partciular celebrities or finding a niche?
Hi Chinchilla3
Just to add to what I said earlier. Though Wendy was not my favorite, I do think she could find at least moderate success in the business (But many factors, beyond her talent level, would have to be worked out before that could happen, she's got a lot of bad press, and it will be harder to gain financial backing for the long run with that type of negative press. And if anyone'has read any of my earlier posts, then you know that Austin was my favorite. But just because it is my honest opinion, and because it might make a few beleagered Wendy fans feel better, I will admit I loved the Bondage dress Wendy showed at Fashion Week. Overall I loved Austin's show (It was all about his gowns. Devine!!!!!!!!!!!! Kara and Jay both did themselves proud as well.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 02:21 PM
Quote:
It's been enjoyable to read. A nice respite from reading posts about Wendy.
One last post before heading out for the day (yay three day weekend). I wanted to thank everyone who joined in on the discussions today, I quite enjoyed it and am just so happy to have posts where people can disagree without it disolving into snarkiness, and I totally second ericats statement about it being a nice respite from reading posts about Wendy (though I participate in those, too...I just can't help myself).
I hope we can have more discussions about this, about what is art and what is fashion, and especially what makes something "good" art/fashion. Not only are these interesting conversations to have, I think that this is a good place to have them because Bravo (and others) are clearly monitoring this board. If they see the general public showing an interest in these discussion points, and others that are related to the actual production of fashion, maybe they'll respond with showing us more productino of the garments in a possible second season.
Look how much time they devoted to Wendy on the reunion show...a big reason they did was because of how much was written about her here. They are paying attention and maybe (just maybe) we can focus their efforts on something just as great for ratings and a whole lot more positive.
Have a great weekend everyone!
ericats
February 18, 2005 - 02:32 PM
Quote:
And I would have loved to see more of Daniel. He seems very talented and didn't get the opportunity to show much of it.
I didn't see the first episode until Monday of this week. I really liked Daniel and I loved his positive attitude. On his website he mentions that he is designing a collection for LA Fashion Week so I'm going to try to go.
Was Daniel's mantra "follow your bliss" too positive for the producers? I think that the show still would have been interesting without the Wendy drama. Would there still have been drama if the five designers left were really the five best? If Vanessa had stayed on would this side of her had come out? I guess since W came out shootin from the hip the producers decided to keep her.
GuensMom
February 18, 2005 - 03:06 PM
Sure, they had those opportunities, just like she did. What bothers me is that for her (from the impression I got from what she said on the show vs. what she wrote on her website) it was acceptable for her to play those mind games, make remarks, play the "strategy" of the competition because it didn't effect the outcome of who was in and who was out...but for everyone else they're participating in mind games/strategy was wrong because it messed with her personal fate on the show. It doesn't work both ways.
Either what they did to each other (all of them, Wendy included) effected what happened on the runway and therefore who was in and who was out, or it didn't. It couldn't have effected *only* Wendy.
As far as the pack mentality goes...Wendy put herself outside the pack, as it were, so I don't feel bad for her when she feels isolated. They all came into that situation not knowing anyone else and had to find their own bonds.
Given the pictures she printed of all of them chumming around, she had not only the opportunity, but the ability to befriend those people. She chose to use that friendship, that bond, as part of her strategy. It bit her in the butt, and that's her fault, not the "packs" fault.
Ahhh. I think I see where we part ways.
My guess is that Wendy sees that gamesmanship in the professional arena is one thing, but that private lives are essentially sacrosanct - not to be touched or, especially, slimed by competition in the professional arena. It's a code of conduct that used to be assumed in this country and, unfortunately, is becoming more rare. On that basis, if someone said something about another's design, professional conduct (including leadership) or ability to execute - under the set of "rules" that I described, that would all be fair game. What *isn't* is anything dishonest, e.g., stealing necessary parts, pieces, and/or anything that hits "below the belt" like the attack on the picture.
Since they had to live in tight quarters with each other as well, and weren't allowed a respite, the dividing line between professional and personal became very blurred. Ideally, the sniping would have been left for the design studio and the runway. But it wasn't. And the standard I described assumes that people are all on the same page as to fair/unfair and right/wrong.
As for her being a loner, she is different enough from all the rest that that would have been almost a natural occurrence, anyway.
But I believe you're bundling two very different things, group bonding and pack mentality, as if they are equivalent. Those are very, very different. It's the difference between a single cop losing his/her temper in an isolated incident, and the Rodney King debacle. Groups may elect to include or exclude, but they are not inherently brutal. Packs are attack-entities with no conscience and very little in the way of moderating influences.
Wendy had to know that, especially after her comments about Kevin, she was going to be on the outs with everyone. But I don't believe that she was ready to be the sole target of a pack - which clearly became the case. When it's many against many, the result is a certain amount of havoc, but there's a randomness in it that precludes any of it from having much impact. But when it is many against one, it is no longer random. At that point, only wit, skill and luck (or divine intervention) ensure one's survival.
Cindy1
February 18, 2005 - 03:21 PM
Right now, we don't know what, if any "strings" may be attached to the "mentorship" with BR and the $100,000. Is BR shopping for a designer to do a related line financed by BR? The possible idea comes to my mind of "Hey, let's find a designer and do a reality show for Bravo with a lot a product placement"(does anyone here know if Elle mag, Michael Kors, Miramax, BR and L'Oreal are all part of the same parent corporation?)"We'll get lots of advance publicity for cheap for the winning designer, maybe get decent ratings which will sell more product.
As far as who is a designer and who is a dressmaker--it is a very fine line these days. I personally(please don't flame me on this)think that now days a designer does whatever he or she wants and doesn't really care about the bottom line. They design to keep themselves happy and whomever admires what they do. I admire Austin for sticking to his aesthetic and that he has decided at so young an age what his purpose here in life is and that it is something positive. Unfortunately, the reality is is that one has to eat, put some kind of roof overhead, and pay taxes.
Today, I think a dressmaker is anyone who does have ideas of their own, but has to subsum them, or blend them into the preferences of their clients or financial backers that want profit, big profit.
I was comparing some of the pictures from NYC and London Fashion Week I found on the web, and under my defination, there are a lot more "dressmakers" on this side on the pond than easterly. Color palates(okay so the gods who choose what colors in fabrics and whatever about 3-5 years ahead have a lot to say what designers will have for fabric colors), materials and design shapes and themes all seem to have had a lot more in common with each other as shown in NYC than in London.
As far as we seeing all the contestants in PR as being naughty or nice, the fashion industry, as in any industry that produces a product to sell, is darn cutthroat and not nice. Nice guys and girls can often finish last. Coco Chanel, for instance, once commented on Elsa Schiaparelli being "that Italian dressmaker that makes hats." Look at surviving examples of both Chanel's and Schiaparelli work and decide which one was the more creative designer, if the meaning of designer is one that takes chances and makes the bigger visual impact, while creating aesthetically attractive fashion. And it isn't just the females in the fashion world who are not always nice to each other. Male designers have done it too. The younger Worth judged the young Poiret's work as creating "dishrags" while Poiret voiced his opinion that the House of Worth was creating fashions fit only for moneyed dowagers.
birdaileen
February 18, 2005 - 03:23 PM
quote: This is a complete tanget, but since I can't send you a private message...did you get your name from "Lafcadio, the Lion Who Shot Back"?
omg, i love the lafcadio lion book. it was a favorite when i was younger! too bad that isn't the reference, but lafcadio is still a cool poster =)
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 03:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
It's been enjoyable to read. A nice respite from reading posts about Wendy.
One last post before heading out for the day (yay three day weekend). I wanted to thank everyone who joined in on the discussions today, I quite enjoyed it and am just so happy to have posts where people can disagree without it disolving into snarkiness, and I totally second ericats statement about it being a nice respite from reading posts about Wendy (though I participate in those, too...I just can't help myself).
I hope we can have more discussions about this, about what is art and what is fashion, and especially what makes something "good" art/fashion. Not only are these interesting conversations to have, I think that this is a good place to have them because Bravo (and others) are clearly monitoring this board. If they see the general public showing an interest in these discussion points, and others that are related to the actual production of fashion, maybe they'll respond with showing us more productino of the garments in a possible second season.
Look how much time they devoted to Wendy on the reunion show...a big reason they did was because of how much was written about her here. They are paying attention and maybe (just maybe) we can focus their efforts on something just as great for ratings and a whole lot more positive.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Ooooooh, wouldn't that be great! And I've enjoyed talking to you all ... and avoiding the bash threads lol. I mean, controversy does hold appeal for some people apparently, like watching a car wreck. But in the end you kind of just have to move on to your own life relatively unchanged. It's nice to be able to actually get something from a television show above rubbernecking imho.
And Bravo people, if you're listening...and you do a second season? Please oh please do something about these message boards in terms of its programming. The workability is horrid and the pages are the slowest to load anywhere I've ever found, painfully so...and I'm on cable. I imagine a lot of folks with dial-up have gone elsewhere a long time ago.
birdaileen
February 18, 2005 - 03:30 PM
Quote:
And Bravo people, if you're listening...and you do a second season? Please oh please do something about these message boards in terms of its programming. The workability is horrid and the pages are the slowest to load anywhere I've ever found, painfully so...and I'm on cable. I imagine a lot of folks with dial-up have gone elsewhere a long time ago.
i agree! you should post your specific greivences to the 'Website' thread-- the Bravo Board Boss answers questions and takes suggestions there. i requested bonus videos...
they should look at the american idol chat boards. they are so much easier to use, and so much more well-oprganized into topics and subtopics. that way, for people who want to avoid bashing, they could simply not talk on those specific threads.
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 03:47 PM
I felt it was wrong to bring up just MOrgan and not mention the other models. It was a disservice to the final 4
wildewit
February 18, 2005 - 03:50 PM
Quote:
As far as who is a designer and who is a dressmaker--it is a very fine line these days. I personally(please don't flame me on this)think that now days a designer does whatever he or she wants and doesn't really care about the bottom line. They design to keep themselves happy and whomever admires what they do. I admire Austin for sticking to his aesthetic and that he has decided at so young an age what his purpose here in life is and that it is something positive.
Ok so I just discovered these message boards but I have been glued to the show (much to my husband's chagrin) since the 3rd episode. I would like to commend Austin for his use of historically inspired pieces. I saw the pictures of his NY fashion week show and the short jacket with the big hat was so 18th century, not to mention what he wore to the "special episode" where they all confronted each other. I have studied many of these time periods and am involved in several groups that recreate them for educational purposes and this is what I most wanted to see as one of the challenges for the show. Wouldn't it be great if they gave each designer a time period and had them see what they could make of it? Austin would have sailed above everyone else in this challenge. I know that the fashion industry likes to think of itself as new and innovative but so many styles are just the fashions of old reinvented again and again. If they do a second season I would love to see a challenge that acknowledges this, just so we could see what people do with it. Let me know what you all think.
GrannyM
February 18, 2005 - 03:52 PM
Wendy may be the target of the editors of the show, but she is such a mean person!!! And her manipulations remind me of her deep insecurity. She is absolutely cut-throat, someone you love to hate, especially with her own dreadful hairstyle and demeanor. Is it all really just a hype, a slant. Because she does obviously have some talent and Lord knows she wants to win!
I have worked with some "Wendy's" in my life and always found it a relief to NOT have to work with them any more.
runwayboi
February 18, 2005 - 03:55 PM
Absolutely! I just posted in the show forum on how the producers need ratings so the drama queen of the show not only gets tons of airtime but somehow manages to stay in no matter what. That is precisely why Austin still showed at fashion week despite being eliminated. He is WAY more talented Michael Kors if you ask me.
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 03:57 PM
Quote:
Oh, I thought the story was that he had actually painted the painting and buried it. So it could be performance art too. Actually, pretty much either way. And lol @ the fake chin stroking. Naughty, naughty!
that's really interesting, the person who posed the "desert painting" question to me was trying to get me to understand conceptual art, so i guess that's what it is in lieu of performance art. i suppose if the painting didn't really exist, it would be performance art. and come to think of it, fashion would be closer to performance art than any other kind wouldn't it?...the act of wearing and incorporating a fashoin artist's vision onto an alive and animated body?
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 03:58 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
{Well written thoughts, but I kind of think some of what you are saying is crap. I don't like Wendy because she is a big bad survivor who tricked all these people, called people out when she saw their weaknesses, or kicked someone in the head when she was flying around on her broomstick. I like Wendy because I like her designs! Almost every outfit on the show she has done I have liked, most of the designs on her web site I like, and I have liked almost all of her FW collection. Even the pieces I didn't like I could see them being easily altered to be more appealing.
I think the writer of this article, as a creative person, somehow feels threatened by Wendy or by "non-creative" people as I think I and others have been called, and why? For no reason at all. There isn't a need to try to split people into two groups: its just a waste of time. Most of the Wendy-supporters on this site (the ones that have been here for a while) have stated repeatedly why we like her and the Wendy-haters always spin out some crap like that this article was so whole-heartedly slinging. Like I have said a million times before (and I am seriously contemplating not saying it again and not defending my thoughts again because I, like many others on the various sides, am beginning to feel like I am a broken record) think she is talented. It may not be a talent that you can appreciate, but she is talented!
Also, as for her being on the show, you cannot say she is there because the producers wanted drama (and don't dare quote that article because it said the producers were HOPING for that kind of drama, not altering the sequence of events to get it). Wendy is there because she has always designed things that were above some others, though the judges did not feel they were the best in most cases. Also, rewatching a show this evening, (it was either the post office one or the 2055 one), Tim said that from that point on, it wasn't about who was the best (in the judges opinions) anymore, it was about who was the worst, and the people that left from that point on were clearly the worst in one way or another. Tim also said from then on everything was mostly going to be taken on a challenge-to-challenge basis. I'm sorry to take away Wendy's broomstick and sweep some of you guys misplaced bitterness out of the door, but Wendy is there because she deserves to be. Period.
Well we all now know who started mullet craze
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 04:02 PM
How could they know what she was like? The judges only saw Wendy on the runway.
DeViL44
February 18, 2005 - 04:05 PM
Quote:
Hi Iowahousewife and Chinchilla3
Thought Id try and reply to both of you at once, cuz Im not used to typing so much. 1st off, Chinchilla3, though Wendy was not my favorite, and Im sure there are more than a few that will love to post a nasty repudiation of this, I have to say, judging at least from her line at fashion week, that she could find at least nomimal to even marginal success in mass market. (and Im really not being mean, but I just honestly felt Jay, Austin, and Kara are better suited for success). But I would never count any designer with desire out. 2nd, Iowahousewife, I would love to say I became a Fashion Stylist because I was, and am, just too fashion fantastic to be anything else. But the truth is that when I was very young, I had the incredible fortune to fall in love with my life partner, who at the time was an Editor at Town & County Magazine and later worked for W Magazine, I started by just going on shoots with him, and being the "Hey grab that, and bring it over here" guy, and slowly learned the business, and through my boyfriend was fortunate enough to be introduced to several Photograhers and designers, who I ended up working for. I also worked for several years in Fashion Display for Bloomingdales. I still continue to do stylist work, but I now work my in Event Display (Media parties, Charity Events, etc. and I help to style the decor or theme of the events. Hope that wasn't too long winded. And now I have to take a typing break, Ill check in on the posts later tonight, till then, have a good one.
Ciao for now
Ok...I have a question. It's up to you if you wanna do this or not, lol.
I wanted to know if you think my designs are fashionable...
I'll give you my website below. But I design REALLY high fashion...huate couture fashion. I know you may not like it because they DO a bit odd, and over the top, but iv always been inspired by Cruella De ViL. A woman who has been sewing for 40 years and has worked with models, and in the music industy told me that my designs are pure "elegance" and they are beautiful in there own aspect. I was wondering what you would say about them. Yes, they are all fur, but hopefully...when there made, they will be fake. They are all...in my opinion, unique in there own way and I can fully visualize a VERY wealthy, wealthy woman wearing my designs on the streets of Paris. The designs are also just designs...in reality, I know what fabrics to choose to make them look more realistic and wearable even though they don't seem so on the design. Just tell me what you think of them. Also...they are just a FEW of my designs. I have over 40, but I only got to scan in about 10 or so.
Here's my site:
www.aadoredesigns.com.au/zebra/
Go to the site, and then click "House Of Zebra" and then you will see my designs.
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 04:05 PM
Hey maybe Wendy went on Queer Eye for the straight girl! New image and one show I wont be watching.
GrannyM
February 18, 2005 - 04:10 PM
Yes, indeedy! Wendy would make a good Banana Republic desinger. So, I think you have figured it all out!!!
ericats
February 18, 2005 - 04:13 PM
Quote:
Absolutely! I just posted in the show forum on how the producers need ratings so the drama queen of the show not only gets tons of airtime but somehow manages to stay in no matter what. That is precisely why Austin still showed at fashion week despite being eliminated. He is WAY more talented Michael Kors if you ask me.
Well, unfortunately, Austin was at FW because they needed a decoy finalist since the show announcing the 3 finalists was set to air the week after the runway show. At the runway Heidi told the crowd this (of course she didn't say it was Austin but everyone found out because the camera crew stopped filming when his collection was being shown.)