Archives discussion and feedback

[zamb]

no idea why there aren't more female members, certainly far more civilized here than the purse forum, etc.

I don't mind that there aren't more female members.
There are things for men and things for women, and its nice sometimes to have a distinction, even if it want originally intended to be so.

that doesn't necessarily mean i wouldn't want to see more, its just and interesting difference to have a predominantly male fashion forum.

that being said, one of the ways to increase the Womens membership is to contribute more post/ threads about the more mainstream brands that women are interested in..............
NY Fashion week is coming up, lets see how many of the womens collections will be posted and how much discussion they will receive.......

[kunk75]

dunno if donna karan posts would be worth it, forget I ever said anything

[zamb]

dunno if donna karan posts would be worth it, forget I ever said anything

why wouldn't posts about her mean anything?

she is an important designer in the history of American fashion and fashion in general.
I personally don't like her work but I don't have to like it to understand her importance in a broader sense...........
We don't have to like things/ people on a personal level to appreciate their significance in the bigger scheme of things.............

[kunk75]

i just meant i wouldn't want a bunch of dkny crap posted, just as I wouldn't want a bunch of guys to post tommy hilfiger polos

[trentk]

I want photos not to be on a human body, but garments in themselves. This is about the garment, it's not another WAYWT. If you have a mannequin and think the garment will benefit from being on a dress form, you can use it. We want only clear/high quality photos please.

I understand the desire to avoid creating another WAYWT, however, garments are not standalone objects. They are designed to be worn. They are not designed to be presented flat, or on a hanger, but on a human body.

In one sense, disassociating the garment from the person allows for a more objective representation of it - we're not distracted by skin, hair, individual physique, other garments the person happens to be wearing etc... An ideal solution may be to present each garment on a standardized mannequin. However, I presume very few members own mannequins.

Given that we cannot present each garment on a mannequin, we're faced with a choice between garments on hangers and garments on people. Can we not more accurately see the shape and cut of a garment when it is presented as the designer intended it, on a human form?

(Sure, there may be exceptions to this rule, like CCP, "designer for ghosts", whose garments retain their form in absence of a human body. But, thats a special case and not applicable to every designer or every garment.)

[MetroBulotDodo]

i just meant i wouldn't want a bunch of dkny crap posted, just as I wouldn't want a bunch of guys to post tommy hilfiger polos

Um, wherefore the suggestion that women don't have much to contribute here? I suggested, for example, Balenciaga because I own several pieces that are, in my opinion, historically important and technically mind-boggling. I doubt, at least for one of the pieces, that few will have ever had a chance to see it up close.

So, chill. Chill and enjoy. I think we women "get" it..the "geist." As do the men. There will be no Fendi baguettes posted.

MBD

[lowrey]

ok so far I've had to correct over half of the posts to have the required information. is it really this hard?

I won't correct every entry from now on, so those with notably inadequate info will be removed.

same goes for hosted pictures, the point is to use the image attachment function.

[DRRRK]

If it's an archive members should put a little more effort into taking pics or into the descriptions. This should not end up in the usual "just kopped and i want to let you know" blurry phone pics.

The Dior archive looks great btw. Makes me regret not to have bought more Dior back in the days.

Can we have a Viridi-Anne archive as well?

[kunk75]

^ i concur, mine are placeholders as my camera has gone missing

[kuugaia]

edit: ^ I wrote this up before you posted...[lol]

I think a standard needs to be set now so that this part of the forum grows into a good resource that people would love to browse. I might be a little bit OCD but I find kunk's photos in the Rick Owens thread 'not up to standard'. I mean the garments are not even laid out nicely, let alone flat. I think people should at least try and take a good picture of the garment as well as labeling the post accordingly. This is meant to be an archive of garments afterall, not just a photo gallery of items owned. I'm not trying to pick on you kunk, no offence intended, because photos are better than no photos. But I think it's just important to point this out now.

I am also all for a Balenciaga thread. I have a piece I would like to archive, may not be an awesome 'SZ piece', but it's something I like.

[kunk75]

^yeah, will add high res shots over the weekend. just wanted to start cataloguing.

[Chinorlz]

I'm working through my image archives from oldest to newest... so a lotta DH first :)

I'm going to try to do a few each day.

[Faust]

Wire, I think it's Ok to add photos that are not yours, if they are REALLY good.

Trentk - I understand what you are trying to say, but the rule stands.

Also, everyone, please listen to lowrey - it's not hard to follow the posting guidelines. Make an effort, please.

[Faust]

^ i concur, mine are placeholders as my camera has gone missing

Yes, we need better images than those. :-)

[michael_kard]

What if we don't know all the details of a piece? I, for one, have a few Ann pieces that I think are worth archiving, but I've no clue what season they're from. Should I just leave it blank and let the experts edit my posts?