Designer Greatness and Generational Debate

[Faust]

Let's kick it! What makes one a great designer? Who are the greats? Can we have greatness today, or will fashion mimic contemporary art world (is this even a fair question, or should we keep the two separate)? If not, how has the fashion world changed?

-------------------

Show me a great designer of this generation. Maybe it's no longer possible to be great and you could be just good. But the above "fashion" is bandwagoneering tripe.

[ultimaratio]

Show me a great designer of this generation. Maybe it's no longer possible to be great and you could be just good. But the above "fashion" is bandwagoneering tripe.

I think the industry has changed - consumers don't buy into a designer's 'vision', but rather cultivate a wardrobe for themselves out of individual pieces. That being said, it's a bit unfair to make a claim like that against an entire generation of designers. This so called 'greatness' took years for the previous generation of designers to achieve, and it will take just as long for young designers to find their footing. Besides, there are plenty of designers doing some interesting work as we speak. The industry moves so quickly, there's no telling what lies ahead.

As for the above "fashion" being the 'bandwagoneering tripe'... you may have a point. Headbands make me very uneasy, aha.

[zamb]

Show me a great designer of this generation. Maybe it's no longer possible to be great and you could be just good. But the above "fashion" is bandwagoneering tripe.

still think that there can be great designers, but less now than there once was,
It is also important to define what being "great' is.
to me greatness is in ones accomplishments, and that can only come with time, and establishing a body of work that one can measure the real magnitude of.
Lang has done that, if he never ever comes back to fashion, there is enough to measure......................

the problem is today's society, culture and fashion setup, makes it difficult for the designers. One cannot be outstanding without having a vast level of knowledge to draw on, and the uniqueness of mind to paralay that knowledge into something tremendous. today's designers seem to lack that, and the speed at which they are exoected to develop, makesi it difficult for proper research that would yeild good work.
this is the reason why I think fashion schools are a double edged sword, you need them for the connections and the credibility that you are serious about your career, but they dont really offer anything in terms of real development of ones technique..............

[zamb]

I've had a lot of conversations with people about the state of contemporary art - how there isn't as much good art being created as it seems there once was. What I always say in these conversations is that we just haven't had enough time to forget the bad and the mediocre. We have great established artists and designers who seem so untouchable not only because they've had the time to establish themselves, but because we've had the time to forget where they came from and who they left behind.

Well, that because of this nonsensical idea that anyone can make, or anything can be art, so you end up with a whole bunch of people doing crap and calling it art, and the problem of people being promoted and lauded for reasons other than genuine talent.
Marketing and commerce has destroyed the whole game............. where people believe if the thing (regardless of how bad it is) is marketed and endorsed by the right people it will succeed

call me what you will, but i believe only those who have transcendental artistic talents should be considered artist.
I believe that some people are naturally better at some things than others............ and those who are better at art, (or fashion design0 should be the ones who are artists and designers, as the apostle Paul once said "let every man abide in his own calling"

[theetruscan]

Marketing and commerce has destroyed the whole game............. where people believe if the thing (regardless of how bad it is) is marketed and endorsed by the right people it will succeed

call me what you will, but i believe only those who have transcendental artistic talents should be considered artist.

In my opinion, marketing and commerce has always been the game, but time erases the horror of the bad.

I'd call you a romantic and an idealist, but I'm a cynic.

[Faust]

I think the industry has changed - consumers don't buy into a designer's 'vision', but rather cultivate a wardrobe for themselves out of individual pieces. That being said, it's a bit unfair to make a claim like that against an entire generation of designers. This so called 'greatness' took years for the previous generation of designers to achieve, and it will take just as long for young designers to find their footing. Besides, there are plenty of designers doing some interesting work as we speak. The industry moves so quickly, there's no telling what lies ahead.

As for the above "fashion" being the 'bandwagoneering tripe'... you may have a point. Headbands make me very uneasy, aha.

You misunderstood - my question was not rhetorical. So, list them. Actually, maybe we should make a thread of it!

Name one common thing between Ann Demeulemeester and Proenza Schouler.

[Faust]

I've had a lot of conversations with people about the state of contemporary art - how there isn't as much good art being created as it seems there once was. What I always say in these conversations is that we just haven't had enough time to forget the bad and the mediocre. We have great established artists and designers who seem so untouchable not only because they've had the time to establish themselves, but because we've had the time to forget where they came from and who they left behind.

I don't believe that statement for a second. Sounds apologist.

[theetruscan]

My post in the other thread seems to have triggered/contributed to a bit of this. Definitely belongs in this thread not that one:

His collections are disjointed because he is a young designer. Realizing a vision takes time and skill, not mere aspiration. Everything is referential to an extent - Helmut himself wasn't always 'One of the Greats', so to speak.

I've been wondering if the reason we see such derivative collections much of the time isn't that we're seeing collections earlier in a designer's career. The last major round of greats had their early collections before the internet was widespread. I don't know if their very early pieces weren't derivative as well. I'm not claiming anything, just wondering.

[philip nod]

Can we have greatness today, or will fashion mimic contemporary art world (is this even a fair question, or should we keep the two separate)?

what does this mean? there is no greatness in the art world? what is fashion in danger of mimicking?

[Faust]

well, there is an idea circulating that the art world had become over-saturated and commerce-driven and therefore by and large full of mediocrity and devoid of greatness.

the way fashion can mimic that is, provided we think of it as a creative discipline, by producing the same oversaturated mediocre market. London churns out 4000 fashion designers a year. New York probably the same.

[reborn]

I've had a lot of conversations with people about the state of contemporary art - how there isn't as much good art being created as it seems there once was. What I always say in these conversations is that we just haven't had enough time to forget the bad and the mediocre. We have great established artists and designers who seem so untouchable not only because they've had the time to establish themselves, but because we've had the time to forget where they came from and who they left behind.

... I think you're right. I believe John Waters said we are waiting for someone to makes us say "that's disgusting." Someone or something that will challenge our sense of deceny and renew an interest is seeing the experiencing things differently...until then, I think we will be in a perpetual state of boredom or worst still, complacency.

And to Faust's questions, I think a great artist/designer emerges from the tension created between production (of art, fashion, music, etc) and consumption (by a subject, audience, etc.).

Great designers (contemporary):
MMM (before Diesel took over)
CdG
YY
Others: JPG, Westwood,

Great designers (more recent):
It's hard to say...as their impact is uncertain at this time. however, leading the pack: CCP, Alteri, Ghesquire, Marc Jacobs (more for his work at LV than his own label), Elbaz,...

Just thoughts...have been lurking for months and trying to make a comeback

[zamb]

In my opinion, marketing and commerce has always been the game, but time erases the horror of the bad.

I'd call you a romantic and an idealist, but I'm a cynic.

Yes marketing and commerce has always existed, but people identified real talent and invested money behind them, now its not that way, peoople are investing money behind Zero talents.....
a perfect case of this was when the Heatherette label was bought by Sony for five million Dollars..............
instantly after that Heatherette was sued by Mao PR, accusing them of refusing to pay PR fees based on a longstanding agreement of giving them PR for free on condition that when they struck it big, they would begin to pay!!!!!!!!!
I dont think i am an idealist, i know some sort of cryptic motions have always existed, i am just saying it has become too much, to the stifling out of many genuine talents......

[zamb]

Let's kick it! What makes one a great designer? Who are the greats? Can we have greatness today, or will fashion mimic contemporary art world (is this even a fair question, or should we keep the two separate)? If not, how has the fashion world changed?

-------------------

Show me a great designer of this generation. Maybe it's no longer possible to be great and you could be just good. But the above "fashion" is bandwagoneering tripe.

A great designer is someone with the extraordinary Talent and have greated a body of work that is superior to many of ones contaporaries and other designers from other eras.
one of the last greats was Diors Slimane, who radically changed menswear, he didnt need to angrily shock the world into accompishing such a feat, but crerated clothes that were beatiful, polished, elegant, albeit androgynous........ he did this consistently from beginning to end and when his work is compared to others it is par exxxxxelannnccce!!!!

Theyskens could have been, and still can be a great designer, his mistake was not taking the Job at Givenchy on bad advice, now he has become some kind of creative laughingstock in many fashion circles.........
if he can get himself settled he can reestablish himself as one of the greats of todays era.

[philip nod]

well this is an epic question for sure. and i think you would need a number of historians etc to answer it best.

the "time heals all wounds" approach by mona largely negates the resurgence of largely ignored, unfashionable mediocre (seen that way at the time) artists plucked out of obscurity by some famous curator or talked up by artists (and / or forums) and then spun into gold. someone like bas jan ader is a good example. a minor minor mythic figure resurrected 25-30 years later, bas is now seen as the go to guy of late sixities/early 70's dry with an emotional twist conceptualism.

martin kippenberger (ever heard of him?) is another great example. considered a buffoon during his lifetime, and adored by artists and drunks alike, he was dismissed as being most likely irrelevant in the future canon in his roberta smith obit because of his enormous body of work and his refusal to work in one medium. now, of course, with artists mythologizing him left and right, and so much work that makes his "bad" painting look great and ahead of its time, he is a mega figure. his work was painfully cheap for many years (up to 10 after he died, i know bc i bought many pieces for less than the cost of ccp pants, and was at the auction where is painting est for 60-80k went for 800k) and now the market (with so much work out there) has its hands full.

like kippenberger, paul mccarthy was not a product of market success either. supported largely by european collectors and instutions, mccarthy was not collected by a single american instution for over 30 years. eventually though, through teaching and artists citing him as an inspiration, and the audience catching up to his work, mccarthy is one of the most beloved american artists. now angry for being overlooked for so long, he slays.


my point is is that on SZ we largely discuss these types of overlooked fringe artists, which is why im celebrating my two year anniversary here.

the market has been correcting itself this year, obviously. these types of conversations are really commentting on a pre crash state. a lot of artists have seen their stock plummet bc their prices are too high. many galleries i know have gone under. strangely this doesn't seem to have happened in the fashion world, although there is a difference btw a 100k painting and a 5k leather jacket.

you cant stop or fault the world for producing creative people. and with more money comes more galleries more stockists, etc. and those 300+ galleries in chelsea have to have 7-8 shows a year, so that 2500 artists just in one year just in chelsea. so of course, mediocrity is prevelant to fill the voids, but there are filters. 30 years ago, the art world was tiny. art was slower. people smoked everywhere. i dunno, need coffee, to continue, jurassic park said it best: life finds a way.

[Faust]

/\ right, completely agree with the above and that's another parallel with the fashion world. it used to be MUCH smaller. i think it did not enter the consciousness of the masses until this decade. besides physical outlets, there has also been an explosion in the fashion media - there are too many magazines and they have pages to fill.