quote:

thanks to Adam and Eve, we all do fashion

I can't wait to get this Spring's newest batch of leaves.
I've been told maple leaves are all the rage in Japan.

I think there is some difference between people who notice the brand names of the clothes they buy and those who do not. I am in the do not category. Which doesn't mean I only own crap, but probably means I can't tell the difference reliably.

The name change thing is all the rage. All the cool kids are doing it.

I suppose the interesting thing about noticing brands is that shorthand; you recognise the name and you don't need to worry about the quality of the goods because you know they'll be consistently good. [Or at least, consistent with previous examples] That recognition factor has been detached into a freefloating 'stamp' which has no relation to the product it covers; in what way does a perfume have anything to do with driving a car or eating dinner? Or watching a play?
It's not just Cayce who feels a sucking void at the heart of our consumer culture.

quote:

Originally posted by Cap'n Sentinel Ultra-Z of the Seven Seas:
I suppose the interesting thing about noticing brands is that shorthand; you recognise the name and you don't need to worry about the quality of the goods because you know they'll be consistently good. [Or at least, consistent with previous examples] That recognition factor has been detached into a freefloating 'stamp' which has no relation to the product it covers; in what way does a perfume have anything to do with driving a car or eating dinner? Or watching a play?
It's not just Cayce who feels a sucking void at the heart of our consumer culture.

Branding works in three ways. Let's take Armani for example... first there is an Armani suit, designed by the man, made in his workshops and sold direct to a (very rich) customer then there is a range of garments overseen by the man and produced to a decent quality sold in upmarket stores finally is the manufacturer in some third world country who pays Georgio a large sum of money to put an Armani label on whatever crap he wants.
Do your duty and buy fakes!

'Do your duty and buy fakes'. Well said Stevie S. Bring on Kevin Kline!

quote:

Originally posted by Meru:

I think maybe the middle class (and this makes me want to wretch, too) wants to disassociate themselves from lower classes by proving they can buy something in a higher price range.

I think you are so right. The sad burbs here in Wales always try to stand out by pitching themselves and their kids in Gap or Next clothes - fully embalzoned across front.

They should get real, gen up on the facts and shop at Oxfam and the other charity shops, saving their moral cash for those who need it most.

Loved "PR" BTW. Just finished reading it an hour ago, before logging on to search for a forum!

Hello all.

Do you think Heinzi was taken from the Heinz brand?

Hello Bic...

I have given up on the fashion thing...Trift stores always provide better selection at a lower price.. takes alot longer though...

Cool thing is, the tags are generally ripped off or cut in most of the stuff, so you have no way of knowing...

quote:

Originally posted by Bic:
Do you think Heinzi was taken from the Heinz brand?

Hello yourself! And no, probably not. "Heinz" is a common name in Germany...

Interesting topic. I am a trade mark lawyer. I was once partially responsible for Hugo Boss' anti-counterfeiting campaign in East Asia (excluding Japan). Setting aide my love of Neuromancer and WG's writing generally, this book really hit home. Naomi Klein's No Logo text, although seriously flawed, seems to have perpetuated some sort of anti-matter branding. I see it in the graphic designers who refer me work. You could almost describe it as "rustic post modern". Its a little counterpretentious but it beats the 80s.

Of course, no big brand is going to actually ever permanently immerse their brand for the sake of style. Most countries have laws which provide for the removal of brands if they are not used, something I've personally been involved in recently...

In a small city- There is this every present fear for most around here about being behind the times- Which in their scramble to be modern and down home at the same time has thrown most in to limbo-
I see logos and brand names slashed all over the place-
You should have seen how worked up ppl got over getting Barnes and Nobel and a Starbucks--

Cayce's job became and intersting side of the book for the fact she could tell what was going to basically be the next status symbol- It made me laugh that she could tell what symbol or image owuld help make something popular- But refused to wear it herself-

It IS all about consistency of product - as in the case of Macdonalds, BK, Starbucks - and clothing brands too ...I suppose you know, that wherever you go in the world nowadays, if you visit a store such as one of the above, you'll get the same product, and therefore the same quality.

Likewise, wherever I go in Britain, if I buy a pair of jeans or trousers from H&M (Hennes) after queueing for 20 minutes and being served by a knuckle dragging,gum chewing, troglodyte,
the jeans will f***ing fall apart despite having only been worn a dozen times.

quote:

Originally posted by LeitzNoctilux:

quote:

Originally posted by Meru:
Very good point. What are your thoughts on Juicy and their track pants with the word "Juicy" all over the rear? Those are pretty popular.

In Japan (and in Italy) there is widespread use of English on Tshirts and other garments, often making no sense at all. Sometimes the combination of words is just serendipitous but at other times it is quite unsettling; such as the time I saw a 4 or 5 year old girl walking through Narita airport, her left hand clutching her tiny rolling suitcase whilst her other hand was being held by her mother (I assume). What I found disturbing was that across the butt of her tiny velour tracksuit was the phrase "Pick the fresh".


LN

I think Gibson may have touched on this in one of the Laney/Rydell/Iduro books... I seem to remember a scene with Laney in a busy place (market or airport, perhaps), seeing a Japanese girl with a mixed up saying on her sweatshirt.
"Free Vagina"? Maybe?
I also remember reading somewhere else about this phenomenon... something about a shirt that looked like it said "the real McCoy" but actually said something else?
Anyway... thats my add-in.
Off to read PR!

Cayce's aversion to brand tags, but need for style is vital and something I agree with. If I have to throw a 'brand' out there, it's Banana Republic. No visible crest or logo (horrid) and the clothing fits into pods, that can be recycled, mixed and matched. Also, the fabrics used are soft and generally wear very well. I use ebay for inexpensive items usually brand new and I stick to about five colors.

Sure, my wardrobe looks like Ikea created it, but it's easy and I always feel stylish and comfortable. . .both of which are unfortunately important to me.

ts

Sorry, but what are 'pods'?

This is a pod.




Invasion of the body snatchers

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hasa,

quote:
Originally posted by Meru:

I think maybe the middle class (and this makes me want to wretch, too) wants to disassociate themselves from lower classes by proving they can buy something in a higher price range.

_______________________________________

Just finished PR and loved it!

I think if there is any "class" that has adopted label display culture then it is the lower class. The UK chav culture is an excellent example of this. Urban music has been glorifying material gains by now successful artists who have risen by merit of their work into the "Ghetto Chique" world of Cristal and "Bling".

Louis Vuitton handbags, Jimmy Choo shoes, anything Burberry, and enough gold to put the Federal Reserve to shame are now standard Friday night uniform for those who want to display the fact that they have risen above their social background, not realising that they are in fact reinforcing their position within it.

In reaction to this there has to be a certain abandoning of labels by the middle classes.

This sets up an interesting dilemma for the designer brands. Continue to price products at a level where they can tap into all this new buying power and risk loosing the exclusivity of their name, or up their prices to a level where they can maintain exclusivity?

Wow, fantastic first post, limitingfactor!
(Okay, I better get crackalackin.)

"This sets up an interesting dilemma for the designer brands. Continue to price products at a level where they can tap into all this new buying power and risk loosing the exclusivity of their name, or up their prices to a level where they can maintain exclusivity?"

I think the answer is neither. I feel that the trend for designers has been to create an alternate, less expensive line in addition to their exclusive in order to reap the profits. Such is the case with Anne Klein and Anne Klein II, Armani and A/X, and others I can't think of right now, but I know more exist. You can always set up an alternate label with the designer name in tiny print underneath. Like "Isaac" for Target by Isaac Mizrahi.

So, for the label-whores, the high-priced line still exists and for the middle class, a more accessible, affordable line is made for them so they can kind of get the name brand. Sure, the materials are cheaper, the design is not nearly as complicated or fancy, and the brand name sometimes shouts loudly on the front, but most middle class people seem to accept this and want this.

Plus, if the cheaper, alternate line fails, at least there will always be knockoffs of the good stuff, which conoisseurs will avoid like the plague and middle class people will snatch up, not realizing that thick stitching, thin liner, and a lack of label inside the handbag are a dead giveaway of knockoff-ness (shoot me for using this word).

quote:
Originally posted by Meru:

Wow, fantastic first post, limitingfactor!
_______________________________________

Shucks, thanks.


In regards to your point about splitting into two brands, I think that you're bang on there, however the distinction is not always made by the consumer and some negative impact is often taken by the original brand/label.

If you want to avoid this negative impact you must differ your two brands enough to stop confusion, but this often leads to the original brand maintaining all the custom and the new brand flopping.

Never an easy way out of popularity.

In regards to a rebellion against labels, I wonder if there has already been some sort of a move away from obvious logos?

When I head back to the UK from Paris I notice the plastering of logos on every piece of clothing a lot more as it is not nearly as prevalent here. Does that mean that the label boom is yet to come? Has it been rebelled against already? Or is it just never going to happen the same way in France?

The "lower" line brands I would suggest always have a logo somewhere visible on them. I forget the book, but it suggested that the prevelance and size of the logo indicates the line i.e. if you can see it down the block it's lower end, if it's just a tiny label on an inside pocket, upper.

As far as the "Ghetto Chic" mentioned above. Jay-Z is now boycotting Cristal because they said they did not go looking to become a memeber of that crowd, and Jay-Z took that as racist.

Gibson, once again, seems to have anticipated this discussion: I remember vividly the description of Volkov's suit when Cayce first meets him, which Gibson describes as demonstrating its expense primarily through its invisibility.

There is indeed a level of pattern recognition (there are so many puns there I don't know where to start) in fashion: people do wear certain things in an attempt to appeal to others in the know. Cayce's Rickson is at least partially a nod to that, in the same way that uber-elite music snobs spout off the names of nebulous, non-extant indie bands that were of questionable talent to begin with and now serve only to provide a vocabulary for collectors of the musically arcane (see: Greenwich Village; fans of Pabst Blue Ribbon). Cayce is obviously nothing like this unfortunate type of character, but a call for recognition from (or, perhaps, connection to) like minds seems present nonetheless.

There certainly is a set of sartorial aristocrats who do things like check for working cuff buttons and wear only bespoke Gieves and Hawkes attire, and the primary characteristic of such persons' attire seems to be that it is extremely expensive, extremely well-made, and mostly unremarkable except to those with a knowing eye.

What has always seemed to be the common theme of the clothing worn by Mr. Gibson's characters and the man himself is that, more than being esoterically cool, it has meaning in some way. Much of it, Cayce's jacket, the fishtail parkas Gibson is so fond of, the unlabeled jeans, the Catholic sweaters and Stasi envelopes and everything else evoke nothing so much as purpose and utility. This is clothing that was created only with utility in mind and perhaps uniquely devoid of fashionistic intent: the Buzz Rickson jacket was a flight jacket, designed out of (then) relatively cheap material to serve a specific purpose, unrelated to how it might work as a piece of couture. Likewise the fishtail parka and jeans (which date back to the Gold Rush and men who wore them for their durability). The Catholic school sweaters were manufactured to serve the utilitarian purpose of providing a conservative and warm garment for school girls who were dressed exactly alike so as to be kept in line. The Stasi envelope is yet another image of military standard issue.

My point is that these items were created without fashion in mind, but most if not all of them uniquely influenced fashion unintentionally. Therefore they are fashionable in a very true way: stylish but not fake. Leather bomber jackets were originally just a smart way to keep warm in a fighter plane, but they have since become a staple of the American male wardrobe; they have become timeless. As Cayce's wardrobe is timeless, in a very specific way.

The meaning inherent in that jacket she wears, both in its origins and the reproductionists' obsessive dedication to authenticity (not to mention the latent punk connotations), is closely related to Cayce's general philosophy - an allergy to all things fake, contrived, vacuous. Obsession with old things imbued with necessity, meaning, and purpose. Cayce's clothes could almost be said to be saturated with the purposeful meaning that she herself cannot seem to find throughout most of the novel.

For Cayce, what she wears may not represent who she is so much as who she needs to be or what she needs to gain: self-knowledge, purpose, meaning.

Then again, maybe this latte is just getting to me and I should stop babbling.

8-)