[Faust]

[quote user="djrajio"]

The reason labels create diffusion lines and items that are heavily branded is because it hugely profitable. Most subcontract the production to mass-production companies where they can be made for a fraction of the cost they are sold. It's no secret that the first luxury/fashion items consumers buy are these cheaper brandeditems, so it helps bottom line revenue for a label.

Frankly, I have no problem with companies doing this. Business is business. And to assert that I'm not guilty of having purchased an item because of its "label" would be a lie. I think a lot of fashion concious people want to believe that they are above this,but even the ideas/silhouettes/signature cuts/stitching of a designer fall within this scope IMO. For example, people on the Yes or No thread questioning whether they should buy a Helmut Lang/Ann D./etc item. IMO they areonlyconsidering the itembecuse it is fromsaid designer, but had thelabelbeen someone else, they wouldn't evenconsider it.

I know its a grossgeneralization, but I thinkin this day and age,itsimpossible to completely disassociate from branding, since now even our lifestyle choices/way of dress/beliefs and convictions are becoming increasingly shaped and modified by corporations/branding (i.e. Apple and i-pods). How many of us are on this board are completely in love with C.Diem because of its anti-Brand / deconstructive approach? Isn't this in and of its itself inherently the same force that compels one to purchase an A | X t-shirt; to adopt and consume an item that we wish to identify with/appreciate/communicate to others a certain level of status/association? For those mis-informed about the nature of C.Diem, wouldn't they consider your C.Diem boots to be a complete waste of money for a pair of boots that look like they were left an a dumpster?

Basically,its a choice between thewearer and audience whether to accept theovert/subversive branding or react to it. When I see a person wearing an A | X t-shirt, I typically don't get irritated or mad; since I understand the set of processes that induced that person to buy it; frankly I've been there / done that (bought a lot of A | X in my day). More over, like Faust referred above, the fact that he/she wants to associate with said brand/label gives me a pretty good idea of what type of individual he/she is; it's up to you as the audience to determine how you'll react to it.

[/quote]

There is some truth to what you say, Rajiv. However, let's not discard the value of the garment itself and the philosophy that goes into making the garment. Yes, you can say that philosophy could be just another marketing tool, and I definitely agree - but that all depends on the designer. I think my MA thesis will have to do a bit with how we make value judgments; that if we take away the marketing industry and think about how one picks a garment (or a work of art, or a lover, or anything else, really) - we will see that there is something innate in human nature that points us to make a quality choice (and I will offer a theory on what it is).

Anyway, I agree that to get away from marketing/branding is nearly impossible. Here is how the scenario you offer with the example in the "Yes or No" thread works for me - indeed, I often look at who made the garment. However, the reason I look at it is that it significantly narrows down my scope of buying/looking. I don't care for the sea of brands out there - I would go insane if I had to walk into every single store in New York (and I can only imagine how it is in Tokyo!) and look for something that I would love. It is enough for me to look for brands that have proven themselves to me as being well made and sharing my aesthetic. After them - le deluge! It helps me keep my corner of the universe neat, tidy, peaceful, harmonious. Otherwise I'd probably go insane. It is a bit of a paradox, because at the same time I do look at what's new out there, but I rarely purposefully seek it out - they kind of float up from the sea of labels. I am sure I am missing on some cool brands, but I'm content with what I see. So, yea, in a way branding can help!

I remember how I started liking whom I like now, with a notable exception of Poell. I saw the garments first, and I was smitten. After I bought a few things, I started paying attention to the designers behind them (these designers never advertise (could be another anti-marketing marketing gimmick, but who knows? at some point man becomes the measure of all things - it's how you think about it). I wanted to know not only how they do what they do, but why. Baudelaire once said that fashion will inevitably reflect the Zeitgeist, and I think it's true to an extent. I did not think in these terms back then, but I knew (felt?) there had to be something behind the clothes. That's how I found out about the Antwerp Six, and about how they came to do what they do. The rest is history.

As far as Poell, I did not like his earlier work. I just don't like polyester, and most synthetic materials that feel polyestery, and he used to use a lot of those. Some of you must remember those gaudy neon-blue and neon-orange polyester tshirts with "Carol Christian Poell" all over them - yuck! I did not turn back to him until Atelier re-introduced him to New York (before Atelier only Barneys carried him for men, and IF for women - and they both dropped him). I must say Runner from tFS had some influence on me, because he explained what goes into production of these garments. But, is it marketing or is it information? At some point one has to decide. This is THE debate about marketing - whether its purpose to skew consumer's decision making by offering images and lies or is it a conduit of information?