Rick Owens S/S 2014 Women's - Paris

[cjbreed]

i did not know that. but do i get credit for coming up with the term "hipster-check"?



i like it. it works.

[interest1]

You get credit for "it doesn't have to be the first apple pie"
That was my personal favorite!

[interest1]

^^ . . . intimidation scowls have been part of step for a while . . .

I know, dear. That's been touched upon in nearly every article about the show, including the one written by the head dancer of Soul Steppers, Arin Lawrence. In that article (link posted by fncynths a few posts up), she talks about the faces and what they are meant to convey. She also talks about how she, and a number of other members of the respective troupes, didn't feel comfortable having to make them (but kept being told they had to, for dramatic impact), knowing those scowls would be immortalized in time all over the world wide web. And she was right; they were.

We've all seen pictures of ourselves wherein we wished we "hadn't made that face", myself included. But then, I laugh at myself more than anyone else, so I'm ok tossing a funny around when the moment hits.

With this in mind, my jest was rooted not in ignorance, but a sense of humor – something I'm guilty of every day of my life (which is how I get through it).

[lionlimb]

Your riff just brought my attention back to the facial expression, and I think the Spelman team is a great real life example of steppers that perform in a similar style to that of this show (scowls included) and have great energy.

I know there's a ton of conversation about it in the articles, linked and otherwise, but if it's been addressed super directly in the thread posts, I missed it. I do think the scowls contributed hugely to the general "Oh, ew, ugly" reaction, so it may be helpful to know that there's a reason for them, and that they weren't just there to make the show un-sexy.

While the ^^ arrows could have totally warped my intent, I meant only an addendum, not any sort of refutation or correction. If in doubt, based on what I've read of your posts, I'm inclined to assume that you know what you're talking about rather than otherwise. :)

[interest1]

lionlimb, you have such an admirable way about you; about how you come across to readers.
It's always nice to see a new post from you, because I know you'll bring wit and candor to whatever subject is at hand.

[Faust]

Seconded.



For what it's worth, this particular SZ parvenu approves of any and all jokes, even the bad ones...

(Especially the bad ones... )

A nun walks into a bar...

[lowrey]

this thread:

[Nomadic Planet]

reading this whole thread has been a real pleasure

this is why I like SZ so much intense debating with plenty of interesting points and some touches of humor, over a very interesting and unusual fashion show.

btw, I loved the music of the show, and the "rhythmical" way the models moved... great spectacle

[nqth]

a (different) view on this problematic show, but not only this show

http://iheartthreadbared.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/just-stop/

"...

What each of these categories share, and what links them as liberal multiculturalist posturing (as opposed to radically substantive change) is that each of these multicultural moments unfolds and emanates from the privileged and controlling perspective of whiteness. In these situations, the standards of beauty—as well as the standards of unconventional beauty—are established and contained by white perspectives and white needs for racial difference. Owens has said that he chose to introduce his spring 2014 line through step because he was “attracted to how gritty it was.” In the context of racial spectacles, what is important is not the cultural history or cultural present of the cultural practice on display; what is important is the display of racial difference itself. The significance of racial difference for its own sake (rather than for the sake of social and cultural political equity) is summed up in Suzy Menkes’ review for the New York Times in which she describes “the joy of seeing a sea of black faces”.

Owens’ show and the popular discussions about it are reflective of a general misunderstanding about the ways that racism and exploitation work.

As I wrote in another post, racism is not about individual intention. Well-intentioned people speak and act in ways that reinforce racism all the time. The only way to undo racism is to fundamentally alter the structures that enable whites to benefit from racism and people of color to be exploited by it.

And just as racism doesn’t require intention, exploitation doesn’t demand dominance. It is entirely possible for fun and gratifying experiences to be exploitative. (For more on this, see Mark Andrejevic’s excellent essay, “Estranged Free Labor.”) The dancers surely enjoyed the global spotlight, the free trip to Paris, and the free designer clothes that I imagine Owens allowed them to keep as a gift and because these outfits were individually tailored for each dancer’s body. Stepper Adrianna Cornish tells reporters that the experience is “something [she] never would have dreamed of”. A blogger for the Wall Street Journal notes that “some guests dabbed tears during the show” and that dancers themselves were “wiping tears” from their cheeks following the performance. To draw attention to the exploitative conditions of the performance is not to deny or diminish the fact that the show was emotionally moving for some of its participants and observers. But if racism is not necessarily a product of personal feelings and intentions then anti-racism cannot be achieved at the level of personal feelings either.

So how do we know racism or exploitation when we see it? (Hint: they are usually conjoined.) A quick and handy litmus test is one in which the following two questions are answered positively. Does one party benefit, not just more but disproportionately more, from the multicultural event than the other participating party? Does this relation of benefits mirror and repeat the prevailing social relations that already structure dominant society? If the answer to both questions is “yes” then it is a pretty good bet that the multicultural event is racially exploitative.

In the example of Owens’ show, the white American designer stands to reap immeasurable social, cultural, and financial rewards for this show. Already, the show is securing his reputation as a cultural provocateur and a fashion rule-breaker. In the professional and user-generated press, Owens is regarded as a leading force in the industry, an edgy designer, and an innovative showman. The dancers, on the other hand, are merely looked at as evidence of Owens’ creative genius, as the current hot topic in fashion (one that will, as all hot topics do, fade out), and an outré spectacle. New York magazine’s fashion blog The Cut likens them to a UFO sighting and fashion blog The Gloss describes the dancers as an Orange is the New Black celebration, referencing the new Netflix original series about women inmates. (Remember, all of these dancers are college students or college graduates.)

Thanks to the deluge of reviews, of Instagram photos and videos, and tweets, Owens’ brand is winning in the attention economy that now drives fashion in the age of social consumerism. And if others felt the way a Dazed Digital reporter did after the show—wanting “to clear [her] savings [and] buy a Rick Owens leather jacket”—then this publicity will also generate sales.

The dancers, on the other hand, the women whose bodies, energy, and time made the show will be remembered only as Owens’ dancers. The few dancers that have been interviewed and named will be forgotten but Owens’ bold statement, his powerful message, and his creative vision will be memorialized in fashion history. In academic language, Owens will be remembered as the agent of the show while the dancers will be remembered as the people who instrumentalized his agency, his vision, and his mission.

So I repeat: the global fashion industry should stop trying to be inclusive, stop trying to be diverse. Rather than count racial bodies, it should begin recalibrating its structural dynamics of race, power, and profit so that a statement like Menkes’ that “the imagination of the [white male] designer is the greatest achievement of the show”—a show brought to life by the talents and hard work of mostly Black women dancers—is simply unthinkable.
"

[Shucks]

didn't i read this once already??

in any case, it is the nature of fashion that anything placed in a show context is co-opted by / attributed to the brand 'doing' the placing. so yes, it is an ineffective tool and bad arena for combating structural racism - agreed. but it is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation for the individual designer. no black faces in show = racism, but also black faces in show = racism...

(i am pretty sure rick owens himself isn't referring to skin color when he says that step is gritty. it fucking IS gritty to see a bunch of people in rick clothes, stomping hard and grunting.)

in a way, the street-goth thing with en noir and black scale etc going on now would not have been remotely as strong without owens' work (which in turn borrows/steals heavily from black street culture) and revenues from this trend flow more ways than just to brands/retailers run by whites. so i do think sometimes you need to look a bit further than outside the specific fashion show context or the specific brand, to see how a specific activity might benefit (or exploit...) minorities.

[excelsiom]

don't think an article whose author couldn't even do her subject the respect of getting his race right is really worth discussing ... leaving alone entirely the fact that she's predicated her entire argument on same. rick is not a white designer: he's a queer man of hispanic-native american heritage.

[Faust]

I did not know queer was a race.

[nqth]

I think the article's critiques are hard on fashion industry, the way fashion press (including influential ones) speak in the style of the-designer-takes-it-all, that of course influences how we see and remember fashion events. It also shows the mechanism (who benefits what), rather than attacks personals (Rick Owens in this case).

[Patroklus]

don't think an article whose author couldn't even do her subject the respect of getting his race right is really worth discussing ... leaving alone entirely the fact that she's predicated her entire argument on same. rick is not a white designer: he's a queer man of hispanic-native american heritage.

I actually wrote to the author to point this out.
I did not ever receive a response.

[excelsiom]

Just to note, those distinctions have more meaning in some countries than others.

I don't think most Australians (including Hispanic-Australians) even put "white" and "Hispanic" in different mental categories. It's like the Caucasian/Irish distinction that existed back when that kind of racism by Anglos was a real thing - it's not that Australians aren't racists, but the categories we draw racist distinctions about are usually very different to those Americans draw distinctions about, and similar differences hold true in Europe, etc.

when the crux of the article is very much this hierarchy of power and exploitation, and the mechanisms by which same is implemented / perpetrated especially -- specifically -- by an american over a group of americans, i'd argue it's crucial detail that deserves a respectful and researched (or, you know, even just googled) approach.

wrote something else ... maybe not a discussion for this time or place. i really don't think the author of that article could care less WHO rick owens is. and it looks like the natives are getting petulant, so . . .