>>9364219 Looks like this and his previous ss collection have indicated that raf is sorta losing steam on his collections. Nothing in this is that exciting, the writing on coats has been done by raf already and besides those it's a pretty standard menswear collection.
Just had a quick glance. It is all very reminiscent of his earlier work. Namely around the 98-99 mark.
Now i look at it, the slightly flared trousers, narrow shoulders, a sort of youthful, rebellious take on ensembles like on would find in within a classical school uniform paradigm, the low cut collars, classic overcoats, cutting the sleeves leaving raw seams, the turtlenecks and even a solitary female like in S/S 1997. Every bit looks like to be part of another (early)collection with minor bits from his Jil work thrown in.
I adore Raf, that's hardly a secret. But I can't help but think that the self-referencing gets a bit boring. Couldn't help but think that he even used that herringbone Prada coat he once wore as inspiration.
>>9364328 You try to push things forward as a designer and change your style, people give you shit and say you've lost your essence, you try and capture the essence of your older work, people call it a rehash and say you're a hack. There's no winning.
>>9364398 The problem with raf now isn't that he's rehashing himself, it's that it feels like he's lost an indentity in his work. He used to be known for his storytelling and cultural significance, but now since he's lost the plot on that he moved toward more standard pieces. The issue now is that his more traditional tailoring is fairly boring and since he's become so self referential his work also says nothing new in terms of meaning, a perfect storm to make everyone sorta stop caring. He's by no means a bad designer now, just clearly lacking in ideas compared to the past which honestly is understandable since he's been going for so long now.
>>9364435 I think it was apparent that Raf went off the rails from 2009 onwards, and has struggled to solidify his identity since that point, but I feel like he has recently made huge strides in pushing in a particular direction and become far more focused. 2012 onwards has seen a major use of heavy use of graphics/patterns/motifs, androgyny, pop art and collaborative aspects and general modernity. The problem with this collection is that I think it breaks his current direction and pulls the biggest turn we have seen in years towards referencing his previous work. Don't you think it's nearly impossible for Raf to make meaning connections to cultural significance because of the globalisation of culture now? I feel the internet is destroying the idea of scenes and tribes, something that was the backbone of his work, and a large part of Raf's significance came from his ability to connect emotionally to a particular group. These days though, what group is Raf really apart of? He can't subvert the fashion system the way he did in the past because so much of the industry is now doing what Raf was doing years ago. In my opinion his 2004-2008 era was his best era of work, largely because he moved away from his personal and cultural reference and moved into being an actual innovative designer. The clothes themselves during this era were amazing, and he had never experimented more with textures and fabrics than the collections he did in this space. So yeah, the main problem with this collection is I don't really know how it fits in with his recent work, which I do believe has had an identity and a through line, and what is he exactly trying to say by taking a direct inspiration from his earliest work and putting on his invite "To the archives, no longer relevant".
>>9364550 >2012 onwards has seen a major use of heavy use of graphics/patterns/motifs, androgyny, pop art and collaborative aspects and general modernity. so basically everything every other fashion designer alive has also done
>>9364651 I think it is important to define a designer's style within the context of their own work, and these descriptions are largely distinctive of Raf's later work, and less so of his earlier work. But yes, you are right, in the context of the larger fashion system (that he helped create), these descriptions are hardly exclusive. I would quite like to see a collection from Raf that forgo the imagery entirely and focus on the clothes. I think it's why Craig Green is one of my favorite designers, because he is subverting that entire trend.
>>9364328 >>9364338 >>9364491 agreed. im immediately reminded of black palms. sleeveless outerwear is killer. overall nice look, yeah he's done it like 8 times already but this season he fleshed out a little bit more of the punk--maybe more accurately grunge--aspect, rather than the glossy prep of late (sterling collab aside). melton wool, pvc (vinyl?), houndstooth, this kind of stuff hasn't seen the kind of treatment raf is giving it in this collection in a long time. lots of classic fabrics in weird new cuts. dipping again into the 90s, with an especial eye towards how motifs from 70s found an echo in the 90s (similar to 80s revival in 2000s).
especially striking contemporary touch is the fabrics some of the pants seem to be made of. some kind of knit. wool jersey?
>>9365813 nod to teenage rebellion and angst vis a vis 80s and 90s punk. its been a theme reprised since his earliest collections. not as obvious as spikes and mohawks, but the rebel teenage boy that has been his subject for so long went to prep school
WTF is with hobocore these days? Is it actually becoming a thing? So much of this collection is way oversized, boxy, and has holes and artificial 'wear' and 'tear' on them. If you dressed a hobo in these clothes I wouldn't even think to roll him.
>>9365877 >hasn't caught on of the air of superiority fashion critics circle jerk on, 'reminiscent of' is pretty much, oh don't you remember? oh you were born after me? started liking fashion after me?
>You weren't following raf when you were 11? fucking pleb.
>>9365878 so many beginner questions in this thread. jesus. often designers will send a particular hair style down the runway as part of the whole look, style, or character they are evoking. take for example the hairdryer blowout style rick did for women f/w 14. most of the models had the style, because he saw it as part of the style or look he was creating.
if you consider all the cues, the hairstyle evokes angsty teenage boy who hasnt washed his hair in days.
>>9365877 equally terrible reply to a terrible OP. one guy claims this collection isn't raf. several people, including yourself somehow even though youre claiming to disagree, point out that this collection is quintessential raf.
theres a lot of raf to choose from, just because you or someone else thinks its bad doesnt mean it isnt raf. if he said "i miss when raf was good" that would have been fine to say. better if he named a collection, since raf has been all over the map.
there is more than replication here. the fabrics are levels above whatever he did in the 90s and early 2000s. the cuts in the pants range from loose to a contemporary slim cut with the slightly dropped crotch. those earlier collections rarely, if ever included the technicolor yellows and reds that appear here.
i could go on, but i already realize im talking with a contrarian edgemaster who would draw out this argument to everyone's exhaustion even when you have nothing of substance to say. suffice to say you just glanced at the pics and have little grasp on his forgoing collections as well.
>>9365948 >suffice to say you just glanced at the pics and have little grasp on his forgoing collections as well.
The fact that everyone has to have a story to things looking good is part of where the divide for an interest in fashion comes, some people are more interested in stuff just looking good and being interesting then the story of creation.
Like for me, when things look good enough to make me wonder what inspired them, its successful, when I have to use the inspiration to decide why it is interesting, it feels more contrived.
>>9365959 just to continue i'm not the anon you referenced.
The collections rebellion, doesn't feel you know, um authentic. is my issue. like take a look at >>9364219 and tell me you can imagine an angsty 90's kid drawing all over is white trench, that looks a lot more like a lab coat due to it's length and proportions.
The best part is I can see a prep school kid who follows the rules while being artistic, it doesn't read rebellion or the uniform like under layer would be more, wild, or a little customized.
>>9365959 i think it looks good and interesting even absent any narrative or character. when i said "glanced" i meant it in a visual sense. i mentioned the fabrics, patterns, colors, and some silhouette play that seemed to escape his attention, if he really thought it just looked like some intern picked stuff out from 1999/2000.
i think that's part of the genius! the collection notes that deep purple was played. many of us went through the classic rock phase at that kind of age and attitude. of course the teenager is going to botch rebellion, he is an adolescent after all. and yes, perhaps it is a lab coat. like the trench, what came to mind was again, classic rebellion scenario, son against father. father is a doctor, perhaps? so he takes his fathers clothes, or perhaps hand-me-downs from an older brother, and defaces them by ripping the sleeves off, cutting the hem, drawing on them, sewing patches, etc.
>under layer would be more wild or a little customized
the sweaters are also customized, you see, with rips and stitches here and there, seem to be turned inside out, also sleeveless. what else do you imagine there should be?
we have actual patterns and fabrics like >>9365843 and >>9365847, the houndstooth and i think what may be herringbone or tweed, full body photos can obscure those for lack of detail.
know what there was in 1999-2000? generic suiting wool the kind you find at any department store. no patterns. cotton jersey. polyester. while some of these i think were used to their effect (the nod to devo for example), most of the time its raf not having the resources he has now.
>>9365877 You're equating being raf with being good. That it's a shit collection doesn't detract from how recognizably raf it is. It can be concurrently shit and 'still raf'. If another designer put this out they'd be labeled a plagiarist. Its unmistakably raf
>>9365948 >he fabrics are levels above whatever he did in the 90s and early 2000
dont write things on the internet like you know what you're talking about.
i know more about and have handled more raf than you probably ever will.
rafs tailoring took a a slight nosedive after his return from the brief 2000 hiatus, prior to that his tailoring, textiles and patternmaking of the suits were all done in belgium to a very high standard, and although his production was still done in belgium the suits in particular saw a decline in quality after his return. hes never returned to the overall quality seen in his pre 00 work.
from 09+ his manufacturing, textiles and tailors have had a variety of different sources, some of it is done in belgium, the suiting is done in italy by a reputable but not fantastic Italian tailor, the basics are all done in portugal and are total shit. all of it however, is done with two things in mind streamlined production and cost efficiency, the worst thing that ever happened to raf was mainstream populairty on the back of the jil and dior gigs his old 'inhouse' belgium production could no longer satisfy the increase in demand.
overall, from a purely textile and production standpoint, quality is a lot worse than it was before.
>the fabrics are levels above whatever he did in the 90s and early 2000s
nothing in this show is comparable to any of his greatest works from a purely technical standpoint, aw03 had designs and fabrics so expensive that many were never produced for retail consumption. pic related.
>>9366222 wrong. "if" indicates subjunctive mood which will always take the plural.
why do people who don't understand english think they can correct people? it's kind of like people critiquing this collection while not knowing the first thing about fashion. this board really is shit.
>>9366299 confirmed high schooler or dumb fuck who's never been to university, even if we were talking about something that isn't practical like maths, university provides structure and actually I'm not even gonna spend some time on this response, while a fucking fashion degree you'd also be handling the materials getting into it (sorry for the prospectus language) etc.
This is suiting wool used in Raf 98. Flash overly accentuates the colour difference. But anyway, it's rather heavy weight and very inconsistent through out with black spots and clusters of blue/purple.
i learned this stuff from the internet. it also helps having handled raf, i bought and sold a lot of it, i try and keep a photographic archive of individual pieces as well. it just takes time to build up a knowledge base.
owning pieces > reading about them every time though.
>>9366319 Oh damn okay, I know this is a spoonfeed request so feel free to ignore (going to exam soon anyway) but in what way did you learn it through the internet?
I've started watching and looking at the shows, and reading about them in the main magazines (but these never really seem to have any true critique, just well written descriptions with the occassional comment), browse forums, and I'm gonna buy a book. None of these things seem to help in disclosing shit. I can't tell what's so good about this >>9366254, I can only tell that it is good, and why I like it in a similar way to when someone says they like "this painting by monet because of the dots"
"What Raf Simons is doing with fashion is something unprecedented. Yes, the act of creating anything is always going to be autobiographical at its root, but the way Simons has been exploring his past is on a higher plane. It is so arcane and so specific, and yet at the same time it touches on a consciousness that comes to everyone with time. Age gives you the perspective to understand what it was you were actually doing when you were young.
"Youth on a pedestal." That was Simons' off-the-cuff explanation of the staging of his show tonight, with its catwalk raised high above the crowd. The models wore almost-floor-length looks—coats, gilets—which elongated them still further for the audience that was gathered at their feet. We stood anywhere we cared to for the duration of the presentation. So did the photographers.
Simons instantly regretted the glibness of his words, but he was only cutting to the quick of his aesthetic. He has always been driven by the beauty and passion of youth, alongside an acceptance of its passing, which has loaned his work its air of melancholy. Simons has always loved the community of youth. "I'm an only child," he reminded us tonight. It's why music was so important to him. Your allegiance to musicians was how you defined yourself, first in your bedroom and then in your school, your bar, your club, long before you knew anything about fashion.
"I wish there could be 10,000 people here tonight," Simons said of the warehouse on the outskirts of Paris where he staged his show. "A gathering of people, the way it was in the beginning." That would have been an amazing sight: thousands moving to Deep Purple's "Child in Time," a 45-year-old track that is as majestic now as it was to baby acidheads in 1970. Which was surely the point that Simons and sound designer Michel Gaubert wanted to make. "Child in Time" made the notion of "relevance" irrelevant. The collection set out to do the same."
>>9366403 "Its key item was a long white cotton coat, thoroughly graffitied with slogans and cartoons. Utterly mystifying, until you heard Simons' explanation. In Belgium, there is a "celebration" of your first 100 days at college, when boys from the second and third years test your physical and mental limits—hazing, in other words. (For Simons' "celebration," he and four others had their feet buried in buckets of plaster that set rock-hard, forcing the five to stand upright for an entire day till their persecutors handed them hammers to crack their way out. Other newbies are less fortunate. Lives have been lost.) The persecutors wear long white coats scrawled with slogans.
Stylist Olivier Rizzo, who with photographer Willy Vanderperre forms a trinity of decades-long shared experience with Simons, misted up as the coats came down the catwalk. "This is one part of his past that Raf hasn't touched on," he noted. The part that memory plays in Simons' collections has become more pointed with the passage of time. There was much here that offered oblique amplification. For the first time, there were women on a Raf Simons catwalk. That was him thinking back to Helmut Lang, one of the people who most influenced him. Martin Margiela, another significant influence, made his presence felt in gilets that eroded from precise tailoring to a mess of ragged hems. Order and chaos: Simons is riveted by the dichotomy."
>>9366405 "Quite how it all related to Simons' place in the fashion world—ultimate indie here, kingpin of Dior there—was a moot point. You wouldn't want to say the designer hankers for the days when restrictions (or "non-opportunities," as he calls them) spurred his creativity, but there is that picture he paints of kids like himself back then going down to the market to cobble together their own versions of the designer looks they couldn't afford to buy. They're still doing it now, because it's the eternal romance of hard-done-by, misunderstood, plucky kid stuff. And no one sells it like Simons."
>>9366254 this^^ listen to pig he knows his shit, I did however kind of like this collection. I mean it's a far cry from his older stuff and it does kind of feel like a fans attempt of a recreation but it felt kind of nice. I think it was an important stage of his career and I appreciated but didn't really enjoy some of the newer stuff he's been putting out (S/S14 for ex) but I really do not know if this collection is a step in the right direction or if he's taking two steps back. Someone more into raf could answer that question better than I could.
>>9366448 there is none really, contemporary fashion really sucks. material quality is down, production quality is down, design quality is down it all pretty well sucks. globalization and monopolization have killed fashion like they've killed everything else.
its said that fashion is a reflection of the world it inhabits, and thats pretty well true, the world is shit and so is fashion.
nice sidestepping. everything you posted are items from 03 and 04. earlier in the thread you talked about, and i wrote specifically 1999 and 2000. the only ambiguity where you might save face is you saying EARLY 2000s. 04 is mid 2000s. 03 is what you have at best.
you then talk a lot about tailoring and production, not textile sources. the closest thing you have to a claim of substance relevant to the point we are discussing is
>prior to  his... textiles... of the suits were all done in belgium
so what about the textiles of other pieces in that period, where are they from? do you have any source to support this claim or are you just assuming "made in belgium" means the fabric is sourced in belgium as well?
>>9366993 what is all this FUCKING semantics, everything he did prior to his shift in production circa 09-10 was in belgium. the only exception being some of the cotton basics in the early to mid 00s were made in romania, and not very many of those were.
raf was a NOBODY, a SMALL TIME, INDIE boy until the jil gig.
your argument, whether you draw an invisible line at 'early 2000' was that his 90s and 00 fabrics were simple, which is false.
in terms of sheer textile and production quality, little compares with his 90's work, the suiting and tailoring - which was the foundation of his 90's collections - was of a very high standard, his patterns were cut inhouse, the suiting was mostly canvas.
there wasnt a lot of retail pieces in his 90's work other than suitwear and tailoring - that doesnt mean the pieces that werent suitwear were low quality, its the total opposite in fact. the knits that were wool were high quality, shetland or virgin 100% wool. this sweater from 98 is a wool/cotton/mohair blend with SILK blend detailing and is beyond anything hes done in 7+ years.
the basics that were cotton were all cotton jersey, better than any of his contemporary cotton made in portugal shit.
after his 00 hiatus his tailoring quality declined, he started using fused lining and other shortcuts in his suitwear, the pattern were still the raf style but the production wasnt as good as the 90's era suiting.
HOWEVER his conceptual scope expanded, unlike before knits, jeans, sweats, jackets, leathers were designed and produced for retail - these were of a much higher standard than today as well.
so it goes like this you know nothing RETARD:
rafs 90's era collection focused predominantly on suitwear and tailoring, with SOME exceptions, and although there werent a lot of knits or sweaters, the ones that made were of high quality like the suiting.
after his hiatus his suiting declined, everything else increased in quality until 09 when it all went shit.
>your argument, whether you draw an invisible line at 'early 2000' was that his 90s and 00 fabrics were simple, which is false
no, that's not my argument. again, you have reading comprehension problems. i said this 2015 show is "levels above" what he offered in 1999 and 2000.
>patterns cut inhouse >canvas suiting
irrelevant to the question of fabric/textile, which is my main point. youre again talking about tailoring, cutting, and sewing, which are what happens to the textile after it is made.
>wool/cotton/mohair blend with silk with detailing beyond anything he's done in 7+ years
you mean he hasn't taken a knit and cut it up with scissors in that long? that's all im seeing here. sure its a little labor intensive but so were the coats with ruby sterling. just because you like the sweater from that time more doesnt make the ruby sterling pieces any less labor intensive or detailed.
aside from this particular example, he still has shetland and virgin wool, he still has blends. i also mentioned color and patterns, while you stick to the wool itself.
>he started using fused lining
again, youre digressing from my point, which was about the fabric or textile itself. ive made no claims about suiting, but for some reason you keep bringing it up
>90s era collection focused predominantly on suitwear and tailoring
i never claimed otherwise. you also conflate several points. just because his suiting and tailoring decline in your view doesn't mean the fabrics and textiles he uses also decline in quality.
last, innocent question: you mention knits and sweaters, but are you including outerwear in your mention of 'suitwear and tailoring,' or not? because if so this coat, to give just one example, would be a counterpoint to your claim that 'tailoring and suiting,' which in your mind seems to include fabric source, declined since after his haitus
>>9367207 probably shearling wool + cashmere blend. its the sheer amount of materials required to mass produce something of that size that is so thick/substantial, the ones that were sold were about 5000USD
>>9367220 >i said this 2015 show is "levels above" what he offered in 1999 and 2000.
so your argument is now that 2015 show was levels above 1999 and 2000 only, which shows would that be? aw98/99 ss99? aw00? ss00? all of those? so aw15 fabrics are levels above those 4 shows? thats your argument? based on what? for all your backpedaling all you've managed to reduce the conversation to some semantic driven obsession with textile source, as if you know that the source of the textiles from aw15 is superior to 99 and 00(apparently the only two years you were referencing) which you dont.
>>9367220 >you mean he hasn't taken a knit and cut it up with scissors in that long?
>everything you posted are items from 03 and 04
just one example of something from a year you claimed was inferior to aw15, nothing in this shit comes close to that knit at all. it is dual layered, the knit itself which is silk/mohair/wool and the webbing which is leather and felt, mfw you think any of this comes close.
>but are you including outerwear in your mention of 'suitwear and tailoring,' or not? because if so this coat, to give just one example, would be a counterpoint to your claim that 'tailoring and suiting,' which in your mind seems to include fabric source, declined since after his haitus
there are 3 distinct eras 90's 00-08(aw01 is the first show after his hiatus) and 09-present.
nothing from 09 present comes close to the best of either 90s or 00-08.
one coat with a pretty pattern means nothing. every season, no matter how shit, has hero pieces with extensive production and material cost, with the price raf charges now he has to justify it with one or two showpieces, doesnt mean shit.
overall, across the board, everything 09 onwards is a decline in quality to its previous counterpart, whether that be knits, outerwear or basics. the most expensive piece from aw14 was a cotton canvas coat with some sterling ruby doodlings on it, msrp 20k.
>>9367557 yeah he said that but obviously goes against it completely, someone mentioned raf being the jay-z of the fashion industry like how jay-z always says hes going to retire but keeps coming out with new albums, same way raf keeps saying hes finished with teen/youth culture yet he keeps coming back to it, just take a look at this collection, it screams youth. fashion is obsessed with youth and that is why raf keeps coming back with it
good lord you have reading comprehension issues. youve lost the plot multiple times in this thread. remember that this whole shitstorm started because
a) some guy said this collection wasn't really 'Raf'. then b) lots of people said that it in fact was characteristic of raf, even the points you raised support the argument that its recognizable raf. b2) you said that it looked like an intern copied "last 90's/early 00 shows" c) i replied that this show was more than simple copying of those shows, since there are fabrics, patterns, and colors that are not comparable to his shows 1999-2000.
i'll begin by quoting my OP for you, since you can't seem to find it: >>9365948 >there is more than replication here. the fabrics are levels above whatever he did in the 90s and early 2000s...
the central argument and point i am made is against your claim that F/W 15 is simply an intern copying designs from 1999-early 2000s. the issue of fabric was one among other points
>one coat with a pretty pattern means nothing
ok, if you want to play that game, i can just as easily respond: "one sweater with a double-layer means nothing."
i also said before that all your remarks amount to about the sweater is that it is labor-intensive. there are lots of raf pieces in recent years that are also labor intensive. including details, 'hand-made' and so on. just because you happen to dislike the new designs doesnt mean they aren't as labor intensive and detailed as the old ones.
>after his hiatus his suiting declined and now you post >everything 09 onwards is a decline in quality
which is why i asked if you include outerwear in your assessment of 'suiting.' you also didn't answer this question. so, do you think his outerwear declined as well after his hiatus, or only after 09?
>>9367772 i think it would be best if you just concede you have no knowledge of the subject, you're talking in circles and have moved the goal posts each time your flimsy point is rebuked. and because you're a pissant first year uni student who thinks hes a lot more intelligent than he is you're incapable of stepping back and acknowledging you really know nothing about mr raf simons or his history. heres a quick summation:
you: this is much higher quality and levels above X me: no it isnt, heres why you: oh well i wasnt even talking about that particular X i was umm heres a sleeve pattern from aw08!! me: heres why again
you're blown away by herringbone and dogtooth patterns, claiming they're 'levels above 99 and early 00'
you somehow believe textile quality is superior now even though it is now outsourced to manufacturers who do their own sourcing and is beyond rafs control
you dont even know what you argument was, or rather you do, but you recognise you're wrong and now you're babbling about semantics.
log off kid, you're arguing with someone smarter than you, who knows more about the subject and owns clothing by the man that you never will, i was prepared to go along with you as you failed to address point after point but this latest drivel proves you're a cowardly pseudo intellectual pig without integrity.
and finally you equate looking like raf aka having raf staple designs as 'being' or embodying raf - which is wrong.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.