2010-2020 worst decade in fashion history

get out

probably tricky ricky's fan did this

internet before 2020:
>the 00s were the worst, so cringe
internet after 2020
>00s revival thread part 18

- There's nothing original nowadays
- Here's a list of designers who makes something original
- They're all talentless hacks!

>mfw

>shirts that are really long and go below the waist
>Floral Prints
>Jean shots but for dudes
>Zipperless hoodies being cool

>here's a list of designers who makes something original
I could throw shit on a wall and call it art. I could commit suicide and film it and have my friends call it art for me. That doesn't make it art. Standing out like a sore thumb isn't fashion. There's a balance to be drawn between innovation and normalcy. Charging $80 for a tshirt means you're audience is retarded, not enlightened.

>Not a single original thing happened

nah

>I could throw shit on a wall and call it art. I could commit suicide and film it and have my friends call it art for me.

No you can't, you mongoloid. I always hear this sentiment from retards but it makes precisely zero sense for countless reasons.

I will never understand why the kings of french house are affiliated with this fucking prick.

oldfag here, this picture was made to generate responses and rustle jimmys. it's just a joke. save your (you)s

imagine being this stupid... whoa
I would kill myself

Why wouldn't that be art?

>tatsuro

...

>alexander wang
>prathan poopat
>flavio girolami
>hedi slimane
wtf are these names made up or something? kek

this

>kings of french house
>implying it's not justice who are kings of french house

I honestly like this look but those shoes look dumb as hell to me.

Lmfao this thread is the best proof you could get that this board is shit and not worth even trying to save.

Get into fashion, you'll eventually run into original designers.

>I could throw shit on a wall and call it art. I could commit suicide and film it and have my friends call it art for me. That doesn't make it art
Yes it would. Learn the fucking definition of the words you try to use before spreading your ignorance.

>Charging $80 for a tshirt means YOUR audience is retarded
You should seriously consider leaving fashion boards and never come back.

Also kys in general.

State arguments or gtfo with your bullshit list.

Justice is not even house you fucking mongoloid

Because you're not an artist and have nothing to prove an artistic merit of your action/product.

That requires at the very least a combination of things such as:
- established reputation of you as an artist and/or respectable artistic degree
- text/manifesto regarding your's position/work in relation with an artistic tradition
-reputable institions/curators who are willing to present your work as an art
-collectors/museums willing to pay for your work as an art

The list goes on, and the same things with minor changes in terms applies to fashion too.

>prove an artistic merit
lmao

are non white and non asian are even trying ?

Whether you like it or not, this is how it works
No one ever just shat on the canvas and successfully passed it as art just like that.

People actually did

You should really kill yourself just right now

You sound like an insufferable pretentious fuck

>no james jebbia
nice

>People actually did
Well, name them. And if you're actually bother to read about them and reasons behind such works, you'll find out why you are wrong and why you'll never successfully pull off something like that

Well, yes, but that's beside the point

>Literally the decade of revival. Not a single original thing happened
>
>Just revival after revival after revival

>who are ziggy chen,angel chen, feng cheng wang, reo ma, craig green, wales bonner, iris van herpen, kei ninomiya,kanghyuk, etc

You are stupid and haven't been paying attention

Fashion isnt art your premise is wrong

The last generation of fashion designers like Gosha Rubchinsky could very well be considered contemporary artists, he got art cred before fashion cred

And rei could and yohji could and mcqueen could and miyake and lang and raf simons and wvb before him all could be argued to be artists

But none of them consider themselves artists and
I highly doubt gosha considers his clothing art either

They have like two good albums

>I highly doubt gosha considers his clothing art either
I'm not talking out of my ass, I attended an artist talk with him. He says so himself, it's just that not much people ask this question

Then hes fucking clueless and even more of a hack than i previously thought

>12557368
Because he has the voice of the angel and one of the best mixtapes of all time?

>fashion isn't art
>art requires monetary value

>these are the people who inhabit this board
Burn it down, folks. Burn it all.

These arguments make no sense because no designer or artist, when asked "why is your work art / worthy of attention", would ever respond with "because it's monetarily valuable" or "other people like it so you should too". It's always entertaining when the fan base surrounding something starts to co-create with the thing it was initially spectating. Reminds me of that South Park episode when the American catholic league guy jails Jesus because he "isn't Christian enough".

Please name a single fashion designer who isnt a total fucking hack who considers themselves a artist for their work in fashion

Better yet go read up on why helmut lang went into fashion instead of art

You fucking braindead mongoloid cunt go fuck yourself you insufferable retard

You yourself even make a distinction between art and design as professions and roles within culture and i dont think you even realized it.

Fucking cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug

>using south park as a cultural reference

Lmao

>art requires monetary value
it's not "required" but art market is a huge fucking deal. Most artists hate it, but you cannot ignore it.
Also, it's not necessaraly "buying a piece/documantation" for a lot of money, but most of the time artist presenting his idea and asking for money for it to be made, which he doesn't have. And here's an example where we have a place for extreme critique of this way of things, such is artist doing shit with his body in protest, because it's the only thing that is free for him. But this also needs to be articulated by an artists to be considered art

Why don't you link it?

I make no such distinction

>no designer or artist

If designers are artists why bother with a distinction

You fucking retard you're literally too stupid to breath

Also if you make no distiction can you please explain why no fashion designer worth anything does not consider themselves an artist nor considers their creations art ?

Oh right because fashion is not art

>all designers are artists but not all artists are designers
>discuss all of art with emphasis on fashion

metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3258881.pdf.bannered.pdf
And why are so many museums currently having fashion exhibits if it's not art?

Because fashion does have artistic elements and its culturally relevant/important

But you're too much of a fucking mouth breather to understand the role of a curator at a insitute like the met

>unironically linking vice

Kill yourself you fucking faggot

You have no idea what you're talking about
God i wish reddit immigrants would just fuck off and die already

Where do you see Vice?

I'm tired of doing all the research for you lazy piece of shit '2 smart 4 u' purveyors of expensive clothing. Why don't you find me a link where someone correctly explains why fashion is not art, or explain it yourself.

Fashion is first and foremost an industry of commerce. literally no one cares how ebin and avant garde your clothes are if you cant sell them and no one wears them

yes it is very creative and includes tons of artistic elements but what are your clothes worth if they arent worn? Theyre worthless objects. their primary function is utiltarian and sure that function is streched to the absolute limit again and again and there are designers who blur the lines of art and fashion and challenge our perception of what is and isnt clothing but fundamentally at its most base level fashion is not art.

Helmut lang went into fashion design because he so totally revered art and it took him over 20 years to feel worthy enough to become an artist and only after he retired from fashion, yohji calls himself a dressmaker and refuses to call himself an artist, rei kawukabo a buisness women, when you have the most influential and creative members of a field telling you they are not something it would be prudent to listen to them

See this is one of the problems with the democrazation of fashion we suddenly have anons like you with your subhuman reasoning skills who somehow think their opinions are as valid as the masters of a field miuccia prada and raf simons touched on this recently in a purple magazine interview iirc (might have been a different publication but i digress)

You understand the met is curating culture not just strictly high art right?

1/2

Well I can just replace "fashion" with "art" in your first paragraph. No one cares about your art if no one wants to view it/buy it. You're saying absolutely nothing: no one cares if no one cares. The only difference is that with fashion the creator is (usually) selling copies of something rather than a single piece. Even then, some artists do make multiple copies of a single form/item/idea.

>Runway designs are a form of wearable artwork; the emphasis is on beauty and innovation, not functionality. 'It's fun to do these really extravagant, exciting runway pieces,' says George Simonton, a fashion designer and professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, 'but very few of the truly wacko designs are meant to be worn.' In other words, missing armholes aren't an oversight; they're a statement.

And even if George Simonton would say mass produced pieces are not art, I don't give a shit. Just because the focus shifts more to utilitarianism doesn't make it not artistic; there is still clearly artistic choice going on there in something as simple as choosing a purple collar instead of a red one.

>Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening. - Coco Chanel

Artists shitting on each other is nothing new. They're all to trying to create fame and money for themselves through their work. Holding monetary success and popularity over each other is the only clear way to do that once their work has departed from simply aiming to be the most technically sound. Picasso famously held a dinner party for Rousseau just to shit on him. If fashion is just about selling, then why do we not consider Hanes and fruit of the loom the pinnacles of fashion?

2/2

Anheuser Busch and Trillium are both trying to sell beer to make money. Surely one wouldn't say Busch makes better beer because they make more money. I think you need to stop following these icons blindly and realize they're just people like the rest of us, and like the rest of us they are striving for self-actualization.

I'm not sure why you're introducing the term "high art" here. I believe the metropolitan museum of ART only curates ART, which obviously is a subset of culture.

Your first part is patently untrue
Art is not concerned with monetary sucess, van gogh became wildly famous post humously this cannot happen with fashion design because of how temporary fashion is and the fundamental differences between fashion and art

And yes i addressed your lengthy greentext already designers push boundaries thats the job of the avant garde thats why you get "unwearable" pieces, which is an complete misnoner because people wear those pieces.

When did mass production come into it ccp doesnt make art he makes clothing and objects, geoffry b small isnt an artist either.
The scale of production isnt an issue here
A red vs purple collar is a creative choice

And again i already addressed that fashion has artistic qualities but it is not art, architecture is not art, product design is not art, furniture designers are not artists

Also when did i say fashion is "only" about selling. Learn to read you illiterate faggot

You misintepret what chanel meant and what i said, at no point did i claim that fashion is "lol just clothes dude" and anyways fashion is a reflection of the times we are living in, and good designers are able to capture the zeitgeist and reflect through their clothes

No one claimed more sales = better designer

No one even mentioned artists shitting on each other until you did either

Beer analogy is just you repeating yourself, already addressed

I think someone who has worked and presented in fashion for decades has a much better grasp on what fashion is and isnt than some fucking illiterate retard spouting nonsense on a Veeky Forums board

The costume instutitue was a seperate entity before being amalganated into the met and yes again fashion has artistic qualities but is not art, they also have examples of architecture are we going to call frank lloyd wright an artist now as well?

Of course not, does the work of designers hold relevance culturally and is it related to art? Of course it is but fundamentally theyre different and not the same

Techwear in fashion is an original thing and we finally reached some vintage tech stuff as tnf jackets, adidas eqt, asics and other so
2000-2010 was the worst, all those emo kids with skinny jeans and checked vans slip ons were revival of 70s-80s

none of those are recent things

how old are you honestly

that literally had nothing to do with the 70s or 80s

and techwear was just an extension of early 2000s athleisure

Try to learn more about art, maybe go to a museum. You may see things you hate, but you'll probably see things you like as well
If you can't engage with anything in a modern art museum, then stick to video game fanart or something. Or try to bring a new argument to the table beyond "It's just big squares on a canvas, anyone can do it!!"

The only things that define art are effort and talent used in a creative manner.

I've seen "art" in a museum that fits your description but still consists of a wad of pubes in a filing drawer.

>The only things that define art are effort and talent used in a creative manner.
Not really, see your description fits everything from architecture to futa-porn and that's not how it works

>I've seen "art" in a museum that fits your description but still consists of a wad of pubes in a filing drawer.
Nobody said that there's no bad art. In fact most of art is bad, just like in every other aspect of human practice

>your description fits everything from architecture to futa-porn and that's not how it works

No, he's right. Architecture and futa porn are both artistic endeavors.

Isn't the new style looking homeless though? Or was that a 90s thing?

Then this argument seems like one of semantics, and I see no reason for it to continue. Just because drawers of porn and architects are trying to get people off and consider how people will move through the spaces they create, respectively, does not, to me, remove them from the group that is artists.

I only wonder what you would term the group of people whose professions include artistic elements to some, any, extent. I call that group artists, and I guess you have a different word you would use to describe it.

Techwear has been present on runways and in fashion editorials since at least the 70s youre a fucking moron

No one considers fashion designers artists they don't the industry doesn't fashion writers don't, conversely no one thinks architects are artists either its the same fucking idea you mongoloid its not semantics they are 2 different things why don't you understand that you couldnt even provide one fashion designer who thinks themselves an artist, there is no point continuing this because youre literally too stupid to put together an arguement more than "oh i would call then artists and thats like my opinion dude hah!"

>whose professions include creative elements

Oh jeez its almost like we have words for every profession that includes creative ability but arent artists

>t. faggot trying to save face

Already linked it:
metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3258881.pdf.bannered.pdf
Norell thinks it's art, and so do a couple of the other interviewees.

>american designers
>matterering

Two of them disagree
Two of them of give wishy washy bullshit answers
And leave it to an american hack to be arrogant enough to think its art

Daily reminder americans can't into fashion

Sufu is all over Rick though.

jesus christ this picture is still an unending (you) factory, how has no one put a tax on this image yet???

also to stay relevant
>ss11

>Sufu is all over Rick though.
...
>Sufu is all over
FTFY

Norell didnt call himself an artist he called other artists

Its misplaced flattery

>hes not an artist if he doesn't consider himself one but if he does then he's a talentless hack

Norell is not an artist
He does not consider him one
He is a hack regardless of whether he fancies himself one or not

fashion is subjective like all art and I'm only pointing out the flaws in that logic

This whole thread is a bunch of people who are arguing about a matter of opinion

Fashion is not art and its not subjective holy fucking shit how are you so stupid

Do you even know what fucking signifiers are? What semiotics are? You have to be a literal subhuman to think that jesus fucking christ kill yourself your absolute waste of a human

And again no one said he isnt an artist because he doesnt view himself as one thats not the reason hes not an artist

How do you function day to day with a pre elementary reading comprehension level

K keep spergin buddy go ahead and tell me what art is and isn't when art itself is subjective

>keeps repeating le art is subjective meme

Heres a thought for you. If all art is subjective can you call any art good? Can you call any art bad?

Also again fashion isnt an art so its not even relevant here but whatever

LOL DUDE ITS JUST LIKE YOUR OPINION

thats your entire arguement

Yeah dude i guess fucking insects are art fucking road workers are art man lets call subway employees artists man its all like your opinion

Youre a moron and you know it but are too stubborn to admit it

>stilts

Yes because it's A MATTER OF OPINION. Something being a matter of opinion isn't a fucking meme you dumbass, go outside
Also see pic

You don't have an argument. insects and subway employees can be the subject of an art piece? Tell me why they can't

>can't be the subject of art

That is literally not what i said, not in the slightest i can only assume you are trolling at this point no one can be this stupid

Its not an opinions and opinions can be wrong

Underage b& detected

Leave this board and read any entry level text on semiotics

Otto Von Schirrach

>it's art if you're a reputable artist