It's happening

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

nice try Ned Beauman

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

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

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

>muh alt-right
>muh nazis

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

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

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

JUST

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

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

what the fuck are you talking about

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

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

That college girl talk-laugh is infuriating.

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

fucking annoying people

"high fashion" is really retarded hobby

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

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

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

I love you too user :)

nice try, ned.

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

Everyone in this video should kill themselves.

holy shit

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

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

give me a quick rundown i dont feel like watching

its only a 20 second segment bro

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

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

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

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

That sounds like the worst thing ever

lol.

>looks 40
>joined twiiter just in 2016

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

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

these people are parodies of cliches.

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

'faaahh'

>Sieg talking down another male
that's rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not balding nor am I 30

>sieg heil
name is just sieg care to explain

>being this insecure

Why is this thread popular
Why do you care holy shit

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

Not in 30s either

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

>alt-right
>nazis

what a fag

GUYS WE MUST REBEL AGAINST THE NORMIES

EVERYONE DISLIKE THE VIDEO ON MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

GET THE FUCKING DISLIKES IN THE THOUSANDS

GO GO GOOOOOOOO!!!

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

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

Jesus...

what collection is this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SS18 do you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The inspiration were not handbags or backpacks.

Men have suitcases and backpacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe that's the diagnosis.

I pick litter up and trash it.

They call me:
Skull fucker.

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

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

You didn't need me for your dystopia

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

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

You're using the word deconstruction wrong

Technically when something is deconstructed the structure is reduced

It was specifically structured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusion: shape=/=gender

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

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

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

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

Sure, people can note on whatever they want

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the whole message lump sum.

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

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

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

>not a single human being in that entire pic lifts

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

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