I am going to blame kids like my sister and her friends, upper middle class kids living in places like Ann Arbor and Portland, who have for whatever reason (white suburban guilt?) shunned showering and hair-combing, and overall think it cool to look homeless. Hippies like this are harmless if not a little annoying but it does seem a bit insulting to those who are ACTUALLY in need, the people who they vaguely claim to support (though i've never seen any action taken...)
@ketamineKitty: Eh, I was a very grateful poor 12 year old when designer labels went out and grunge came in. Suddenly there was no apparent difference between me and the rich kids. I had my one big flannel shirt from the thrift store, no difference between it and the ones they ordered form L.L. Bean.
Honestly, if the kids are consuming less and making it cool, it's a fine thing(not the same as buying homeless chic high fashion for $$$$)
Agency, schmagency, Penny. I suppose your perspective, i.e., ability to intellectualize/be an apologist for human suffering that benefits the pockets of some out-of-touch designer/corporation is a sign of our times. Jaysus.
"When I am shooting on the street older women and larger size women often say "no" to my request to shoot them. Actually, much more than any other category of people I shoot. I think they have a real suspicion about how the image will be used. I also think there continues to be a growing disconnect between the fashion community and "average" women in general
However, do you think that this economic crisis has forced the fashion community to open it's eyes a little bit to what the customers want?"
Also keep in mind that necessity is the mother of invention, and clothing can be manipulated or transformed in really unique ways when guided by utility. This is something that most of us cannot relate to, but from a aesthetic point of view, it can result in some really interesting art. It's another point of view.
I don't know. I'm not really too offended by this. Would it be better if we ignored homeless people? Saw NOTHING "inspiring" in them?
"Lets not sully fashion with something a hobo wears!" would be kind of worse.
I don't think there's an issue with being inspired by homeless people, even if it's in a shallow (and obvious) way.
Would we be offended if people started painting homeless people?
@greengrey:
I'll lose the sensitive attitude when they put their money where their mouths are: What percentage of profits will go to a homeless shelter, e.g.?
@DellaStreet: I don't see how that is relevant. Because they appropriated from that community they should be paying them? Is that what you're saying? Or do you feel that it's an objectification and they therefore "owe" them?
@TallyCola: Keep in mind, no designer has EVER coined the term "homeless chic," that is the press.
In any case, it seems to be less about profit and more about inspiration. So, the question is, where is the line drawn when it comes to art and inspiration?
@DellaStreet: When an artist is inspired by something in nature, how much of their profit goes towards environmentalist causes? None, I'm guessing. Because you don't have to "pay" to take inspiration from something. Would it be nice if they did? Yeah. Is the fashion industry a charity? Nope.
You wouldn't be offended if they "paid" to use the homeless people? Why does money ease your discomfort?
@greengrey:
When I see homeless people, I see people who need help, and in this world money can help. Being amazed that they keep their 'shit in plastic bags' is unacceptable to me. Money does not ease *my* discomfort with this, but it might ease *theirs*.
@Penny: Not exactly my point. I'm saying yes, then give credit then where it is due. If your Muse is the Homeless Guy, then why not reciprocate and share with the Muse? What bugs me: These designers are positioned as the Haves, and sue me that I get pissed that the Have-nots are suitable for inspiration, but are so untouchable.
@greengrey: I think that the idea of objectifying ANY group of disadvantaged people, to design a collection around, is insensitive.
This is not as if they have used A homeless man or woman with a specific sense of style as a muse (unlike Scott Schulman did, in a very lovely and respectful way, IMO). It is not like these designers are designing clothing that a homeless person could actually utilize (like a jacket that can also tranform into a tent for portable shelter), nor are they funding homeless shelters with the proceeds from their lines. Instead, they are sitting in their posh design studios, sketching up (I doubt Wasson can even draft or sew her own patterns) designs that they see as being ironic and 'forward' for an elite few who have likely never come close to feeling the sting of poverty.
There is nothing creative or profound in "designing" such a line. To me, it's mockery of fashion as an artform as well as the exploitation of a very unfortunate and vulnerable population of our society.
@greengrey:
When did I run over your dog? nice way to carry on dialog. If you really take an anti-homeless vibe from my comments, then let me assure you that is unintended. However, I get the direct sneer in your snide reply, and no problem for me to ignore that too.
@DellaStreet: If you think that's snide you need to grow a thicker skin. It was pretty much what you were saying though, yeah? We can use homeless people if we throw money at them first? Cool.
Should "urban" fashion be barred from runways unless those designers are donating to inner city causes? Should fashion only look really luxe? If that were to happen we'd STILL accuse the designer of being tone deaf.
Not to mention, it's pretty ridiculous to think all fashion designers are "haves". Or even most people working in fashion. The big names are the only ones with the big salaries.
@Penny: Does a model receive payment? A project consultant? Why so tight with other people's money? These designers are hardly creating new visions so why act like they DO NOT owe some one else for the end product?
@Seeräuber Jenny: When people use homeless people as models they get accused of using homeless people as props. Can you imagine the outrage if a show used all homeless models (even if they were paid)? Which BTW, how much do you think models get paid? Not a lot.
@greengrey: "When an artist is inspired by something in nature, how much of their profit goes towards environmentalist causes?" Actually, I think this is a very fair assessment. But, I would point out quickly that most of the designers that I work with that are inspired by nature, have a genuine respect for the environment and therefore try to use fabrics or materials that are environmentally friendly. When those types of materials were not as readily available as they are now, many designers chose to donate a portion of their designs to environmental organizations. These same designers, if you asked, would tell you that they felt deeply inspired by nature because they feel connected to it. Somehow, I don't believe that many of these (I will point to Wasson as an example again) designers could make that same statement about the homeless population with an ounce of sincerity.
Penny promoted this comment
Edited by theonlybirdleftintheaviary at 09/14/09 6:12 PM
theonlybirdleftintheaviary was starred
theonlybirdleftintheaviary was unstarred
@DellaStreet: I'm sorry, but....I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. To greengrey's point, where do you stop? I feel like the entire conversation about fashion changes when a hot-button issue such as this becomes involved. Now, designers should be paying every person or thing who inspires them, and they must design clothes for utility?
A person who inspires someone is not a model, or a consultant, they are simply an inspiration. I think the only reason you're talking about money is because we're talking about homeless people, which is why I asked you if you felt they were being objectified and therefore should be paid.
If you had said yes, I could respect that view, but the argument you're making is falling a bit flat.
@theonlybirdleftintheaviary: I am a designer/creative and I am inspired by nature. But not because I have a deep connection to it, but because there's infinite visual inspiration to be found. I am not saying the designers you work with do not feel the deep connection to nature, but why is this a requirement?
Now, granted, I am focusing more on the Galliano collection and W spread, not Wasson (it's clear she's not all that bright). It's quite unfair to make the assumption that designers do not care about the homeless population.
@theonlybirdleftintheaviary: I was talking more about the art industry in regard to "artists inspired by nature". I've never heard of a painter who "uses the environment" giving back to it.
Very good point re: eco friendly fashion. I haven't seem many directly inspired by nature, but I interned with a company that was hard core dedicated to ecofriendly/sustainable goods.
Maybe some designers do feel connected to homeless people, but like you I doubt it. But not all designers came from money, and many (especially when first starting out) are poor. Not homeless, but I'm sure there are some no name no money designers out there who do have homelessness as a concern.
@greengrey:
for fuck's sake - I want people who can to help homeless people - all right. There is no need for all these analogies etc. The Homeless Need Help. If Money can bring that help, fine Take the fucking money. Sorry to sully your fashion world with homeless reality. Sorry I have a cold and may not be coherent at the moment, but I stated my position: Fucking help the Homeless - I am not the one ignoring them until I need "Inspiration for me fucking lame designs" Helping those in need requires no further explanation. I stated my position,why do I have to defend it or myself to you?
@greengrey: But that begs the question: why is it a requirement that they be "concerned"? I know you don't feel this way, but the reaction I am seeing smacks of the assumption that the homeless are an entire group of sad sacks with no agency and no voice. You only need talk to a few homeless people to find this is not true. I highly doubt most would give a shit if some fancy designer were inspired by them. It just seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
@Penny: Hm, I think it's good to be concerned because homeless people need help. Not always in the form of money, money is important, but "getting your hands dirty" is better, IMO.
Of course homeless people have agency, and are individuals rather than just a "group", and I'm sure most don't care if they're used as inspiration. But concern is important, and not just from the fashion industry, but from most people.
@DellaStreet: Okay, but.....this is fashion. The intersection between art and commodity is intense, and it's not exactly an industry where giving credit "where it is due" is given much thought. And, models are often not paid. What can I say, you have an idealistic outlook.
@DellaStreet: So your point is "the homeless need help". Right. I don't think anyone was saying don't help the homeless.
Can't it be argued that "raising awareness" is helping? Oh, and throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. I hope you're not just writing checks and patting yourself on the back.
Positions need to be defended/questioned. If you can't deal with having to defend your opinion, or being questioned, keep it to yourself.
@greengrey: Most people don't get their hands dirty, and I don't understand why a designer would be expected to just because he/she was inspired by the homeless.
The issue of concern, while of course important, is moot.
@Penny: It's moot but it's a nice thought! Heh.
I just think empathy is important (and not in a "YOU POOR THINGS, LET ME HELP YOU POOR THINGS" kind of way), and from anyone no matter their inpriration. But yeah, I'm getting off topic.
@greengrey:
There is asking questions, and then there is making snide assumptions and putting your words as mine. GreenGrey: "So unless we're throwing money at them, we should ignore them. Gotcha"
Why should I care to defend/question/argue when you use such a lame tactic?
@Penny: You are right, feeling connected to the homeless population does not need to be a requirement in order to design a collection centered around said people. But, IMO it comes across as much more respectful if a designer could parlay at least some level of understanding of the people/person cast as the muse. Azzadine Alaia uses Giselle as his muse and as such, she spends a lot of time in his studio at his shows, traveling with him, etc. It would certainly *for me* ADD to a collection if a designer could genuinely point out that they designed not just a line based on homeless PEOPLE, but instead were inspired by a PERSON who has incredible style/utility and happens to be homeless. (You did this yourself:"there's infinite visual inspiration to be found")
Having worked in fashion for the last 15 years (I actually left to start a non-profit, sickedned by the shallow-nature of the industry), I can say with relative confidence that MANY of the designers at the level of Galliano, Alaia, et al do NOT extend themselves to the homeless population in such a way as to be credited as "caring" about the homeless. But, still, you are right (though it was not my intention to convey such a sentiment): it's unfair to make that assumption about ALL designers.
@greengrey: "Can't it be argued that "raising awareness" is helping? Oh, and throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. I hope you're not just writing checks and patting yourself on the back. "
Designing a fashion line based on homelessness is not "raising awareness" in any way, shape, or form. it is clearly exploitation of the disadvantaged and classism in its more disgusting and pure incarnation. its condescending and patronizing. the amount of money invested in high fashion each year is absolutely criminal compared to how underfunded homeless shelters and prevention services are. and of course writing a check isnt the solution to everything, a systemic change in the way we view and deal with homelessness is what is needed. but a shallow "oh arent they so fabulous! someone take a picture!" is not the change that is needed.
in the united states, the majority of homeless people were not born homeless. they are individuals through unfortunate circumstances found themselves in the most dire of situations and in a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break. poverty is not chic, desolation is not glamorous, and homelessness is NOT a fashion-trend.
these designers arent under any obligation to give money to homeless prevention or support, you're right. they are perfectly free to find "inspiration" in the people whose lives are crushed by the economic disparities that high-fashion celebrates and reinforces (because after all, isnt the point of owning chic and designer clothing based really just based on its exclusivity and price tag). but we, on the other hand, reserve the right to be disgusted and outraged by the arrogance and ignorance of these designers.
@BytheSea: You all are seriously hilarious if you think some random couture show or a spread in a magazine or some stupid model's fashion line is making millions of dollars "off" a homeless person.
@KATE!: I think the issue is that you'd be disgusted by the arrogance of designers period. Quite honestly, I don't see this as any different from appropriating from other marginalized groups. And again, it's not the designers who are touting "homeless chic," except Wasson, who is NOT a designer, it's the fashion press.
@Penny: "Quite honestly, I don't see this as any different from appropriating from other marginalized groups."
.....
well you could argue that its not appropriation, but rather exploitation, considering the fact that the homeless are not a self-identified cultural group but a marginalized economic underclass. but that point aside: are you implying that there is nothing wrong with cultural appropriation? because if you think that a majority group co-opting a marginalized groups cultural expression, retooling them in a way that removes meaning and context, and then selling it for a profit that will only be realized by the majority group, thereby reinforcing the majority group's dominant cultural power...well then i just wouldn't have a response to that because i would be dumbfounded.
I wrote a lengthy paper while in college on that Galliano collection because I was fascinated by the outcry. He was inspired by homeless people near his home in Paris, not by a "global recession." Personally, I find the tie-in to the recession more insulting than anything else. People are far too quick to label this as objectification. I didn't hear any complaints when Jacobs put out that tribal-influenced collection for LV last spring. Everyone manages their appearance, and there is power to adornment, this is what's so awesome about fashion and clothing. To assume homeless people lack this agency is belittling and condescending.
I'm immediately brought back to Top Model and the shoot they did in the favels. I was absolutely enraged that episode--how dare you go into slums and model clothing worth thousands and thousands of dollars. I'm considering giving up the show entirely after that little stunt, frankly. The juxtaposition of poverty and wealth would mean something in fashion if it SAID anything that added to our understanding of poverty or contributed in some way to make things better. It hasn't... yet.
Sometimes I think fashion editors out of new ideas sit in their offices pulling random nouns and adjectives out of a YSL hat, attaching "chic" to the end of their selected word and challenging themselves to style layouts around their newfound phrases.
There is simply no other explanation.
@JerseyGrrrl: I just did that with the nouns in your post. Explanation-chic! Word-chic! Random-chic! Yeah, I could totally see any one of those phrases splashed across a magazine page.
09/15/09
"Obviously, an aesthetic of poverty is quite different from looking poor because you are poor."
09/15/09
09/16/09
Honestly, if the kids are consuming less and making it cool, it's a fine thing(not the same as buying homeless chic high fashion for $$$$)
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
"When I am shooting on the street older women and larger size women often say "no" to my request to shoot them. Actually, much more than any other category of people I shoot. I think they have a real suspicion about how the image will be used. I also think there continues to be a growing disconnect between the fashion community and "average" women in general
However, do you think that this economic crisis has forced the fashion community to open it's eyes a little bit to what the customers want?"
[thesartorialist.blogspot.com]
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
"Lets not sully fashion with something a hobo wears!" would be kind of worse.
I don't think there's an issue with being inspired by homeless people, even if it's in a shallow (and obvious) way.
Would we be offended if people started painting homeless people?
09/14/09
I'll lose the sensitive attitude when they put their money where their mouths are: What percentage of profits will go to a homeless shelter, e.g.?
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
In any case, it seems to be less about profit and more about inspiration. So, the question is, where is the line drawn when it comes to art and inspiration?
09/14/09
You wouldn't be offended if they "paid" to use the homeless people? Why does money ease your discomfort?
09/14/09
When I see homeless people, I see people who need help, and in this world money can help. Being amazed that they keep their 'shit in plastic bags' is unacceptable to me. Money does not ease *my* discomfort with this, but it might ease *theirs*.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Gotcha.
09/14/09
This is not as if they have used A homeless man or woman with a specific sense of style as a muse (unlike Scott Schulman did, in a very lovely and respectful way, IMO). It is not like these designers are designing clothing that a homeless person could actually utilize (like a jacket that can also tranform into a tent for portable shelter), nor are they funding homeless shelters with the proceeds from their lines. Instead, they are sitting in their posh design studios, sketching up (I doubt Wasson can even draft or sew her own patterns) designs that they see as being ironic and 'forward' for an elite few who have likely never come close to feeling the sting of poverty.
There is nothing creative or profound in "designing" such a line. To me, it's mockery of fashion as an artform as well as the exploitation of a very unfortunate and vulnerable population of our society.
09/14/09
When did I run over your dog? nice way to carry on dialog. If you really take an anti-homeless vibe from my comments, then let me assure you that is unintended. However, I get the direct sneer in your snide reply, and no problem for me to ignore that too.
09/14/09
09/14/09
The money would be a modeling fee.
09/14/09
Should "urban" fashion be barred from runways unless those designers are donating to inner city causes? Should fashion only look really luxe? If that were to happen we'd STILL accuse the designer of being tone deaf.
Not to mention, it's pretty ridiculous to think all fashion designers are "haves". Or even most people working in fashion. The big names are the only ones with the big salaries.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
Note to self: this is a rude one. moving on.
09/14/09
A person who inspires someone is not a model, or a consultant, they are simply an inspiration. I think the only reason you're talking about money is because we're talking about homeless people, which is why I asked you if you felt they were being objectified and therefore should be paid.
If you had said yes, I could respect that view, but the argument you're making is falling a bit flat.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Now, granted, I am focusing more on the Galliano collection and W spread, not Wasson (it's clear she's not all that bright). It's quite unfair to make the assumption that designers do not care about the homeless population.
09/14/09
Very good point re: eco friendly fashion. I haven't seem many directly inspired by nature, but I interned with a company that was hard core dedicated to ecofriendly/sustainable goods.
Maybe some designers do feel connected to homeless people, but like you I doubt it. But not all designers came from money, and many (especially when first starting out) are poor. Not homeless, but I'm sure there are some no name no money designers out there who do have homelessness as a concern.
09/14/09
for fuck's sake - I want people who can to help homeless people - all right. There is no need for all these analogies etc. The Homeless Need Help. If Money can bring that help, fine Take the fucking money. Sorry to sully your fashion world with homeless reality. Sorry I have a cold and may not be coherent at the moment, but I stated my position: Fucking help the Homeless - I am not the one ignoring them until I need "Inspiration for me fucking lame designs" Helping those in need requires no further explanation. I stated my position,why do I have to defend it or myself to you?
09/14/09
09/14/09
I did say yes, to give credit where it is due.
09/14/09
Of course homeless people have agency, and are individuals rather than just a "group", and I'm sure most don't care if they're used as inspiration. But concern is important, and not just from the fashion industry, but from most people.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Can't it be argued that "raising awareness" is helping? Oh, and throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. I hope you're not just writing checks and patting yourself on the back.
Positions need to be defended/questioned. If you can't deal with having to defend your opinion, or being questioned, keep it to yourself.
09/14/09
The issue of concern, while of course important, is moot.
09/14/09
I just think empathy is important (and not in a "YOU POOR THINGS, LET ME HELP YOU POOR THINGS" kind of way), and from anyone no matter their inpriration. But yeah, I'm getting off topic.
09/14/09
There is asking questions, and then there is making snide assumptions and putting your words as mine. GreenGrey: "So unless we're throwing money at them, we should ignore them. Gotcha"
Why should I care to defend/question/argue when you use such a lame tactic?
09/14/09
Having worked in fashion for the last 15 years (I actually left to start a non-profit, sickedned by the shallow-nature of the industry), I can say with relative confidence that MANY of the designers at the level of Galliano, Alaia, et al do NOT extend themselves to the homeless population in such a way as to be credited as "caring" about the homeless. But, still, you are right (though it was not my intention to convey such a sentiment): it's unfair to make that assumption about ALL designers.
09/14/09
09/14/09
Designing a fashion line based on homelessness is not "raising awareness" in any way, shape, or form. it is clearly exploitation of the disadvantaged and classism in its more disgusting and pure incarnation. its condescending and patronizing. the amount of money invested in high fashion each year is absolutely criminal compared to how underfunded homeless shelters and prevention services are. and of course writing a check isnt the solution to everything, a systemic change in the way we view and deal with homelessness is what is needed. but a shallow "oh arent they so fabulous! someone take a picture!" is not the change that is needed.
in the united states, the majority of homeless people were not born homeless. they are individuals through unfortunate circumstances found themselves in the most dire of situations and in a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty that is very difficult to break. poverty is not chic, desolation is not glamorous, and homelessness is NOT a fashion-trend.
these designers arent under any obligation to give money to homeless prevention or support, you're right. they are perfectly free to find "inspiration" in the people whose lives are crushed by the economic disparities that high-fashion celebrates and reinforces (because after all, isnt the point of owning chic and designer clothing based really just based on its exclusivity and price tag). but we, on the other hand, reserve the right to be disgusted and outraged by the arrogance and ignorance of these designers.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
.....
well you could argue that its not appropriation, but rather exploitation, considering the fact that the homeless are not a self-identified cultural group but a marginalized economic underclass. but that point aside: are you implying that there is nothing wrong with cultural appropriation? because if you think that a majority group co-opting a marginalized groups cultural expression, retooling them in a way that removes meaning and context, and then selling it for a profit that will only be realized by the majority group, thereby reinforcing the majority group's dominant cultural power...well then i just wouldn't have a response to that because i would be dumbfounded.
09/14/09
I also liked that W spread, so sue me.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
You aren't.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
There is simply no other explanation.
08/25/09
08/25/09