Trends and the Direction of Collective Creativity

When I was a kid and discovered the answer to philosophical questions I had never discussed with anyone or read about - merely by sitting and thinking on my own and thinking myself incredibly clever when partaking in sharing said knowledge only to discover in many cases that others had thought much the same centuries and centuries ago as well as that most "grown ups" already posessed the knowledge of said answer. The difference between them and me, I always thought, was that they were taught and told what I had discovered on my own - mere knowledge of something cannot equal the discovery of the same.

Unfortunately, the reality is different, and knowledge amounts to the same level of recognition as discovery - "That's what Aristoteles said" irks me when actually, it's what I discovered myself, no matter how many centuries later. Similarly, I'm sure, as is the case with many an argument I make, including, most likely, this very one you're reading.

When at the brink of completion of a few pieces for a collection finds me discovering other designers having gone in the same direction, I must humbly step aside and deal with the "that looks like something I saw before I saw yours" even if the creation of the latter was not in the knowledge of the former. As you may have noticed in the previous post, I have hinted on the comparisons between Lira Leirner pieces and recently strutted London Fashion Week runway pieces. I'm not going above my head and pretending my pieces are the same, but when you've researched and put into details, fabric, silhouettes and storylines into pieces still in development or almost finished and then see a painfully near enough version strutting down the catwalk in a higher finish, it stabs.

However, I cannot say I'm the only one. Copying is a fickle subject in fashion, where does "trend" go over to plain copying? Does following a feature even if started by a certain brand result in "trend" or "copying" despite differentiating interpretations?

For instance, this season I've seen the thin yet sturdy material version of last season's Miu Miu power dress feature across several collections.

Miu Miu dress with "that" bow on uncountable covers

Valentino Haute Couture Paris Spring 2011

Burberry Prorsum, Autumn/ Winter 2011/ 2012

Is this a trend? I personally think, in this instance, because there are many ways to tie a bow yet it is this particular way that I had not seen around last season apart from in "that" Miu Miu dress that any other designer that uses this way of tying a bow, a few seasons later, is copying. I will forever refer to this style of bow as the "Miu Miu power dress bow".

On the other hand, there are incidents which make me feel bad for the designer whose collection came after - because surely, being within the same season, copying could not have taken place but merely a kindred direction of creativity which I prefer to identify as a trend. For instance, I could recognize an affinity between the lopsided cowl necked gown with asymetric angular skirting of Christian Dior with Maria Grachvogel's black and simpler silhouette, both of which are cringely similar. Unlike with the Miu Mu Power Dress Bows, however, I can see that is merely a direction creativity, a conciousness of seasonal features shared that are identified as trends. Similarly, along the line of these thoughts, I excuse myself for having come up with features and ideas alongside those I've witnessed on the runway this season and wish that I will escape the fate of being accused of copying merely because my creativity is hindered by the costs of production and grand public awareness.

Christian Dior Paris Spring Haute Couture 2011

Maria Grachvogel London Fashion Week Autumn/ Winter 2011/ 2012

When Branding gets out of Hand

Brands. In essence a name, a brand has almost as much character and social attachment, stands for as much content as does the name of a human being. In fashion and design, a brand name is marketed to convey quality, when it is in fact conveying fame. What is actually happening is that we accept that they are famous FOR being of a certain quality, almost implying that non famous brands are not entitled to use the word "label" or "brand", socially speaking, until they are actually known. This doesn't change with quality or craftsmanship. Many unknown creators and makers may create high quality garments but are still regarded to be of lesser value because the "label" isn't famous. Originally, the fashion label was only meant to be a signature of the maker. However, I have come to accept that I am brainwashed and actually enjoy and toil in the social as well as stylistic, immediate classification and implications that come with being the wearer of a certain brand. Yes, I admit I'm brainwashed, and I admit that because these social stigma have been taken on within the fashion world, they do, in fact, mean what they imply.

However, there is a tipping point. Being too popular excludes the exclusivity as we have seen with Louis Vuitton bags. Perception changes, even if I can still differentiate between the spoilt teenager who is using a vintage tote she inherited from her grandmother hence carries it with a flair of entitlement, to the horde of Londoners that wear their fakes with a sense of "Well, it's just a bag and I like that it's brown". Good point, but it does change one's perception of the brand.

There is also a tipping point in a different direction, which is that of pushing the brand too far from their own lines. In order to stay abreast nowadays, big fashion lines and stores need to be able to stock and provide the entire range of products. Chanel is no longer just about the perfectly tailored tweed two piece casual suits, but about sunglasses, bags, shoes, jewelery, anything you can think of. However, when do brands go too far? It is difficult to tell because in many instances, actually having ventured that far out of their original concept and interest was so welcomed by brand mad fashionistas that it has gradually become part of the brand's spectrum.

One instance, however, is that of what has been reported by styleite.com as an idea by Christian Dior to brand contact lenses. Am I alone or does this just seem utterly tasteless? Then again, we buy branded glasses and having contact lenses from one brand may find buyers interested in showing off they bought labeled, hence "better" contact lenses than the "normal, unlabeled ones". You know, those which may, in fact, have been created by experts, and not a fashion house.

Along these lines, not long ago, Chanel decided to bring out a limited edition of transferable tattoos of the brand, slightly shaking their elegant image marketing it as a "rock punk edge" (independent.com) to the label, which I personally think was PR bullshit to cover bringing out a gadget. A very popular one, sure. In fact, it looked pretty hot. That does not, however, make me think this is really acceptable.

At what point does the wearing of a label that we pay very big sums of money for actually become a simple form of advertising? Isn't it weird that we pay to carry the stigma and connotations of a brand when we should actually be paid for doing so since it is, in fact, advertising? As a result of this train of thought I think that the limit I would like to imagine marks the end of acceptable forms of branding is when the brand is either applied to our own body or used in a "gadget" that is a necessary form of support such as glasses and hearing aids, rather than worn as a stylised and chosen product. But that's just my opinion.